Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 1 Oct 87 06:33:30 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01416; Thu, 1 Oct 87 03:17:22 PDT id AA01416; Thu, 1 Oct 87 03:17:22 PDT Date: Thu, 1 Oct 87 03:17:22 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710011017.AA01416@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #0 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 0 Today's Topics: Administrivia: Happy Fiscal New Year Moon position program StarChart software (+ Re: Moon position program) Meeting announcement space news from Aug 17 AW&ST Re: World satellite launch sites Re: Offshore corporate launch facilities Re: World satellite launch sites Japanese POW camp cemetary in Australia ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 87 18:35:20 PDT From: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: Administrivia: Happy Fiscal New Year I'd like to welcome you all to a new fiscal year and to Volume 8 of the Space Digest. Although not everyone calculates new years from October 1st the US Government does. Since money and politics control the pace of space development the Space Digest honors the Free World's largest source of both by revolving in phase with the US Government. I hope your next year is proserous and sucessful. Ad Astra, Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 87 13:17:07 GMT From: eagle!has@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (H.A.Shaw) Subject: Moon position program Does anybody have a program for producing the RA and DEC of the moon? I have the starchart porgram from the net of some time ago, so the Kepler parameters should be enough for me to generate a program. I wish to add this to the starchart software and would like to hear from the original author ( Alan Paeth, awpaeth@watcgl are you out there ??) since I have made modifications to the programs that he might like to hear about. I am, at the moment trying to modify a satilite prediction program to work with starchart. Finally are any of the catalogues (Messier or NGC for example) available in machine readable form?, because, as useful as the starchart programs are, they only show the positions of the planets, while I am interested in photography of nebulae and galaxies. I have access to the 12" Newtonian Reflector in th Physics Dept. here, and take, develop and print my own colour photographs. I am just starting in this field, but already have promising pictures of the Moon, Jupiter, Saturn, and the Ring Nebula M57. When the Orion nebula system turns up as the year moves around I hope to get pitcures of that. Anybody interested?? Howard Shaw, Physics Dept. University of Kent, Canterbury, England. has@ukc.ac.uk -or- has@uk.ac.ukc -or even, if you are very old- ...!ukc!has ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 87 02:59:04 GMT From: decvax!watmath!watcgl!awpaeth@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Alan W. Paeth) Subject: StarChart software (+ Re: Moon position program) In article <3320@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> has@eagle.ukc.ac.uk (H.A.Shaw) writes: >Does anybody have a program for producing the RA and DEC of the moon? >I wish to add this to the starchart software and would like to hear >from the original author ( Alan Paeth, awpaeth@watcgl are you out there >??) ...catalogues (Messier or NGC for example) available in machine >readable form? Watch this space! I plan to repost StarChart by 1 Oct to the moderator of net.sources. Changes include a list of Messier objects, new symbols for non-stellar objects, Greek Bayer letters for bright stars, totally reworked (but back-compatable) command interface, and mnemonic constellation finder. I've also included software to change epochs (all StarChart data will be released in E2000.0), and have code in the works to perform plotting of asteroids and lunar profiles. If anyone else wishes to add any last-minute features, please e-mail me in the next few days, as I'm completing the integration of features and bug fixes sent in by many of you. /Alan Paeth ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 87 10:39:11 PDT From: Eugene Miya Subject: Meeting announcement Next CPSR/Palo Alto meeting Video Tape: Company Loyality and Whistle Blowing: Ethical Decisions and the Space Shuttle Disaster Roger Boisjoly Morton Thiokol Wednesday, Oct. 14, 1987 7:30 PM 1140 Cowper Street Palo Alto, CA Roger Boisjoly headed a group at Morton Thiokol in charge of investigating space shuttle joints, including O-rings that failed catastrophically on the Challenger. He was one of the engineers who argued against launch. In this videotape of a talk he gave at MIT in January, he describes the events leading up to the Challenger disaster, including the last evening of the decision making, and the Congressional and other investigations afterward. He also discusses the effects of these events on him and other Morton Thiokol engineers. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 87 00:05:17 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Aug 17 AW&ST [Let's see. After Spaceflight and Space World, there is no clear third place in space periodicals to my mind. There are several that address different needs. So this week's plug goes to JBIS, known more fully as the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. This is a formal technical journal more than a magazine, and sometimes it does get rather mathematical, but much (not all) of the content is intelligible to the informed laycreature. And it publishes the most marvellous papers. A special issue on antimatter propulsion. Frequent contributions on SETI and the Fermi paradox. History of spaceflight. A special issue on the future of solar-system exploration, with papers on things like a probe that would get down within a few million km of the Sun. A paper by the Voyager mission planners on how long the Voyagers will last and where they will be thousands of years from now. All manner of fascinating stuff (with some dreck mixed in, of course), often written by the people who are actually *doing* it, not some babytalking reporter. Address is the same as that for Spaceflight; JBIS is an extra-cost add-on to BIS membership, costing another US$30 or so (don't remember exactly). Well worthwhile.] [Oh yes, an add-on to the Space World recommendation: despite the damn stupid name, the National Space Society is open to non-USAnians. This sort of misunderstanding (I mention it because I've gotten a bit of mail about this) is one reason why the name needs changing.] [If you're wondering about "USAnian", "American" properly refers to a pair of continents rather than the second-largest nation on one of them.] Rockwell is working on a payload-deployment gadget for payloads that nearly fill the shuttle cargo bay or push the weight limit. It will rotate big payloads out of the cargo bay, while weighing only 170 lb against the shuttle arm's 1300 lb. There are currently too few technical experts on NASA's space station HQ staff to handle the thousands of pages of paperwork that need doing between now and the major program review in March. NASA assessment finds NASA manpower generally inadequate for rebuilding the space program, perhaps another 2000 needed soon. Fletcher to meet with CEOs of 25 top NASA contractors to brief them on plans and get their views. [Prediction: their views will be "spend lots more money".] Intelsat signs with Martin Marietta for commercial Titan 3 launches of two Intelsat 6s, in 1989 and 1990. Redundancy in launchers is explicit Intelsat policy; they already have several Ariane contracts. The two Intelsat 6s were originally meant to go on the shuttle. Proton was considered but "unresolved technical issues and other uncertainties" [translation: the US State Dept.'s objections] ruled it out. Japan stacks H-1 booster for ETS-5 engineering test satellite launch on Aug 20. [Successful.] Army approves hurry-up neutral-particle-beam program at Los Alamos. A shuttle-borne experiment will fly in the early 1990s. Picture of McDonnell- Douglas mockup of the experiment package: three satellites, two of them small (target and monitoring unit), the third filling most of the shuttle cargo bay (accelerator). SDIO faces major delays and possible termination of ongoing projects due to budget cuts. Of particular note is that the SP-100 space-qualified nuclear-reactor project will probably be delayed or cancelled. NASA prepares to issue $30M RFP for space-station crew-escape studies. Formal new-start funding request will follow in FY1990. The vehicle will carry six or more crew; the station will have two, to permit a partial return for medical emergencies. Reentry testing by mid-1995 would be needed if space station manned operations are to start late in 1995. The test would be done from the shuttle, and might be manned. Three types of vehicle are under consideration: - Winged. Low G-loads on reentry, possibly important for medical evacuation, and more choice of landing site, but high cost and complexity. Langley has studied an 8-man lifting body resembling the Soviet mini-spaceplane. - Lifting capsule, resembling Apollo. G-loads would be higher but still could be modest. Landing by parachute in water; KSC is looking at recovery issues. Rockwell has studied existing Apollo hardware to determine whether it could be refurbished. NASA thinks that is unlikely (for one thing, Apollo hardware is built for a low-pressure pure-oxygen atmosphere, unlike the station's), but agrees it is worth looking at. - Ballistic capsule. Cheapest, but G-loads would be high. Study contractors will get NASA's conclusions on the G-load issue early in the 15-month contract term, since it will have a major effect. Aft exit cone on SRB nozzle being assembled for full-scale test flunks leak check. This area has never had a leak-check capability before. The problem is thought to be a side effect of horizontal assembly, and to be unimportant. [The test was successful.] Alexander Laveikin, the cosmonaut who was brought down from Mir early due to a heart irregularity, appears to be in good health (allowing for the usual side effects of 174 days in space). The Soviets say that treatment with drugs was rejected due to possible side effects, often seen even on Earth. USSR announces that an Afghan cosmonaut will fly on a Soyuz within the next few years. [There is also talk that an Austrian might fly on Soyuz.] NASA awards five nine-month study contracts for improved SRB designs. NASA studies say that Mach 2-5 is viable for supersonic commercial transports and higher speeds are not. High costs, logistics, and environmental issues make trouble, and above Mach 6 or so the productivity gain falls off as the technological challenge rises. Boeing says that about Mach 4 is the cutoff; beyond that, one needs cryogenic fuels and new airport facilities. NASA and other companies disagree about the exact cutoff but agree there is one. None of the parties involved -- airports, airlines, fuel companies -- wants to spend the money for the facilities and training needed for new fuels. Boeing's studies go up to Mach 25 [orbital speed], and reject it: "The Earth is not big enough for a Mach 25 airplane in terms of trying to take advantage of those speeds and have a commercial operation..." Letter from Bruce Murray (Caltech planetary scientist of note) blames White House, not Fletcher, for current woes. "The buck stops at the White House. That is where our response should be targeted." Letter from John Keil, Tacoma: "You state that the US must respond aggressively to Soviet space efforts or `forfeit its international leadership role in space'. ...the US already has lost its position as the world leader in space development, and comments like that only tend to disguise the problem. "The Soviets have launched more spacecraft per year than the US every year since 1962. They launched more satellites in the first three weeks of July than we have managed to launch all year. "...our space vehicles are more sophisticated than their Soviet counterparts. However, such a large disparity in the number of launches is difficult to counter with technological advantages. And, of course, all our technical expertise does little good sitting in a warehouse." Letter from Name Withheld By Request, pointing out that DoD is upset about military uses of Mir while loudly insisting that it has no military use for the US space station: "The only explanation for this contradictory behavior is the Defense Dept's fear that it could lose a billion or so from its gigantic $300 billion yearly budget if it appears in the least supportive..." "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Sep 87 17:19:05 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: World satellite launch sites > How many launch sites are there in the world from which satellites > have been sent up? ... I was hoping that somebody with references handy would answer this. Just off the top of my head: US - Cape Canaveral (east central Florida): main site - Vandenberg (California coast north of LA): polar orbit - Wallops Island (Virginia coast): small stuff, e.g. Scout USSR - Baikonur (aka Tyuratam): manned and big launches in particular - at least one more, primarily military (memory fails me here) China - the main one in NW China - a new polar-orbit site, near Beijing I think Britain - used Woomera, Australia once ESA - Kourou in French Guiana (NE coast of South America) India - one site somewhere Japan - Tanegashima for big stuff - Tsushima for small scientific work (I may have spellings wrong and/or names reversed) US+Italy(!) - San Marco platform, off coast of Kenya: small stuff on Scout I have probably missed some. "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 87 03:34:07 GMT From: tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Offshore corporate launch facilities In article <2444@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: , henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) says: > USSR - Baikonur (aka Tyuratam): manned and big launches in particular > - at least one more, primarily military (memory fails me here) Plesetsk primarily for polar orbits (Eye in the sky etc. :-) ) Somewhere in Texas, the Conestoga I was launched :-) (give 'em hell Deke) and there a few thousand launch sites for really big ones in the midwestern U.S. and in Siberia :-( [Matagordo Island. -Ed] Bob ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 1987 17:33-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Japanese POW camp cemetary in Australia D Gary Grady: Maybe there is some hope for this mudball after all. Thank you for sharing that historical footnote. Dale Amon ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #0 ******************* Received: from GALILEO.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Oct 87 19:04:22 EDT Received: by galileo.s1.gov id AA01493; Wed, 14 Oct 87 14:03:02 PDT id AA01493; Wed, 14 Oct 87 14:03:02 PDT Date: Wed, 14 Oct 87 14:03:02 PDT From: ota%galileo.s1.gov@mordor.s1.gov Message-Id: <8710142103.AA01493@galileo.s1.gov> To: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: [ota: SPACE Digest V8 #1] Date: Fri, 2 Oct 87 03:03:38 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #1 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 1 Today's Topics: Re: The Rocket Team #8 - In Orbit Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies FOBS (was BMD & Announcing Launches) SR71 sighting Re: Mir Elements, 3 Sep 1987 Re: PC's East, was Space Digest more international Re: Space Digest more international Re: Space Digest more international Re: Things aint so bad Re: Translation of Mir News item about Mir Re: Things aint so bad (soviet shuttle) Re: Translation of Mir ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Sep 87 00:07:40 GMT From: ihnp4!edsel!dxa@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (DR Anolick) Subject: Re: The Rocket Team #8 - In Orbit (History of Explorer 1 Launch deleted) > At the communications center, von Braun and Pickering waited > impatiently. The tracking station on Antigua Island had reported the > fourth stage had fired and the satellite had passed over it. But von > Braun wanted confir- (Other stuff deleted) > [from The Rocket Team, by Frederick Ordway and Mitchell Sharpe, MIT Press, > 1979, ISBN 0-262-65013-4, $9.95 (paper) ] > Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn Does anyone know what became of the tracking station on Antigua? Is it still in use? If not, was it torn down, or does it still exist? I may be in Antigua this March, and am always interested in visiting space history sites. Even if there is nothing really exciting to see. Please Email any information you might have. -- droyan David ROY ANolick ihnp4!edsel!droyan ^ ^^^ ^^ ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 22:07:00 GMT From: spdcc!m2c!ulowell!apollo!arnold@husc6.harvard.edu (Ken Arnold) Subject: Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies In article <2007@kitty.UUCP> Larry Lippman writes: >In article <630@its63b.ed.ac.uk>, Bob Gray writes: >> If I buy these high resolution images from the French or Russian >> agencies selling them, then publish a book with these images in it, >> how can this possibly be a Federal crime? I don't even live in the >> country. >Well, it's not a crime unless (1) you publish or otherwise disseminate >the photographs _in_ the United States; and (2) the photographs depict >defense installations which are designated "vital" (many of them). Oh, this is great. What this means is that it is illegal for me to possess data which people outside the US are legally allowed to have. In other words, a Frenchman can get those pictures, or even a Russian, but me, a red-blooded American-type, can't. Doesn't this seem silly? I understand that Israel has a overriding rule for its censorship -- that it can only be suppressed if it *hasn't* been published elsewhere. In other words, the Israeli people are not allowed to be *less* well informed about their own affairs than people in other countries. Even if this *isn't* true, it makes a lot of sense (please only mail corrections if I'm wrong -- this is the wrong newsgroup to get into a debate about what Israel's policy is in detail). Sometimes the illogic of that National Security paranoids is downright bizarre... Ken Arnold ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 87 22:31:25 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies Newsgroups: sci.space >In article <2007@kitty.UUCP> Larry Lippman writes: >> Well, it's not a crime unless (1) you publish or otherwise >>disseminate the photographs _in_ the United States; and (2) the photographs >>depict defense installations which are designated "vital" (many of them). > >Sometimes the illogic of that National Security paranoids is downright >bizarre... > Ken Arnold Oh, I see that Ken wrote this, so I will send it to the net. I was in a security meeting the other month. I won't mention names, but we had this guy from Washington DC who also worked in another agency, not the NSA, or CIA, but close. He asked if when remote sensing missions like the TR-2, U-2, TR-1, Q-3, Lear, DC-8 (used to be CV-990) overflew "sensitive" installations, whether anyone would check about photography or imaging of the area. The man was particular concern about certain areas in the Deep South. The answer was "Typically NO." This did not sit well. I had problems with this fellow's opinions, needless to say. --eugene Santa Barbara, CA: where else do you know where Jane Fonda and Ronald Reagan can have homes in the same county? ;-) ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 87 16:19:45 GMT From: miq%psuvm.bitnet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Jim Maloy) Subject: FOBS (was BMD & Announcing Launches) In article <495@esunix.UUCP>, bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) says: >>> If our trackers can't tell the diff between an ICBM on a ballistic >>> trajectory and a launch vehicle & payload headed for orbit, we're >>> in bad trouble. >> Unless the Soviets are using ICBMs that take off at orbital speeds >> and then retrothrust to suborbital, this mixup should never occur. >FOBS Fractional Orbit Bombing System. One of the things that gives me >nightmares is an FOBS MIRV. The idea is to do exactly what you said. >Put a number of bombs in low earth orbit and deorbit them just a short >distance from their targets. Cringe. And I thought I had a decent hyperbole there. Looks like I'd better read AW & ST more often. (I wonder... would our air-launched ASAT be quick enough to stop these? My engineering sense tells me "probably not", but I don't like that answer.) This brings up another question that's been on my mind awhile now. What exactly is the restriction on nuclear power/weapons in space? I know that natural radiation can be used as a power source, but is fission/fusion permitted? How far are orbital and suborbital nuclear weapons restricted? James D. Maloy Bitnet: MIQ@PSUECL, MIQ@PSUVM ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 87 02:34:25 GMT From: nysernic!weltyc@rutgers.edu (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: SR71 sighting Just a little anectdote to share.... I was on my way to Oregon last Thursday on an American Airlines 707, gazing out into space as I often do (there is this voice that keeps caliing me...), when I notices this black spec in the distance with a rather long white trail behind it. The thing was cooking (NY for moving fast). Then the intercom came on and the captain (in a rather calm voice I thought) said, "Here's something you don't see every day. On the left side of our aircraft passing over head at about 50,000 ft is the Blackbird super-spy jet, one of the fastest in the world." I was just plain (obvious pun potential resisted) impressed, that's probably as close as I'll ever get.... All I could say was: "Sheesh". The guy behind me made some comment about how fast it was going, and I turned around in my seat, practically bursting with all the knowledge I had cleverly gained from this very newsgroup, desperately wanting to show off the fact that I knew more about this plane than was declassified [what's wrong??? everyone else says that!]. Just as I was about to spew out juicy tidbits of information he said, "That looked like the same plane they used in `Top Gun'". It was like a gag had been shoved into my mouth, and I just sank into my seat in utter desperation. Well, at least *I* appreciated the sighting... Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 87 04:23:39 GMT From: pbox!romed!svo!cseg!davids@rutgers.edu (David W. Summers) Subject: Re: Mir Elements, 3 Sep 1987 In article <163400029@uiucdcsb>, kenny@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > Satellite: Mir > Catalog ID: 16609 > Epoch day: 87245.82572306 > Inclination: 51.6299 degrees > Right ascension of node: 117.4562 degrees > Eccentricity: 0.0036501 > Argument of periapsis: 92.1879 degrees > Mean anomaly at epoch: 268.3426 degrees > Mean motion at epoch: 15.79658282 revs / day > Acceleration of mean motion: 0.00020303 revs / day**2 > > Source: NASA Goddard via Henry Vanderbilt of NSS Would someone please tell me how to read this or if there is a program that does something with this data? Also please tell me what "MIR" is. If I were guessing, I would say that it is probably the name of the Russian Space Station. Is this correct? Please forgive me if this is information is repetitive, but I'm new on the net and this is my very first posting. Thanks alot! - David Summers ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 87 02:38:32 GMT From: sonia!khayo@locus.ucla.edu (Erazm J. Behr) Subject: Re: PC's East, was Space Digest more international In article <1344@unc.cs.unc.edu> symon@unc.cs.unc.edu (James Symon) writes: >A Polish national who recently visited here had gone back to Poland a >year ago after getting his Phd in comp. sci. He took a Macintosh with >him. His was the 13th in all of Poland. He said there are about 50 - 60 >now. Macs, you mean - not PC's in general. IBM PC clones abound there (& are perfectly legal), but the price of a PC XT/HD system amounts to 20 months worth of above-average salary. I have no idea what the story is in SU, but I expect you need a permit of some kind there (as you do for even a lowest-power walkie-talkie in Poland, as well as for a satellite TV system - they've recently begun issuing those.) Private copiers are not permitted (as of 3 yrs ago, I don't think *this* has changed since then), and the ones used by institutions etc. are very strictly controlled. I strongly suspect that it's the same (or worse) in the SU. khayo@math.ucla.edu ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 87 17:22:20 GMT From: adelie!infinet!rhorn@xn.ll.mit.edu (Rob Horn) Subject: Re: Space Digest more international The following is directly from a person who worked in the Soviet Union as a news-writer: All requests to use the copier must first be approved in writing by the news editor. The editor needs to know what will be copied and why. The copier staff then makes the copies and logs what was copied. This does not mean that a little ``na levo'' does not take place. With the right bribes/cajoling/persuasion a few unauthorized copies do get made. This must be kept to a small amount so that the copy count and paper usage do not disagree too much from the official logs. In practice these copies are logged as paper jams, bad copies, etc. The conjecture concerning personal ownership: Legal if you have the proper third-party authorization and logging procedures in place. Catch-22 unless you have the money to bribe the inspectors into approving your authorization and logging procedures. Rob Horn ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 87 00:28:05 GMT From: rosevax!kksys!bird@uunet.uu.net (Mike Bird) Subject: Re: Space Digest more international In article <74700023@uiucdcsp> jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >I've been corrected by E-mail ... >possession of a >PC, Xerox, or mimeograph is not ILLEGAL in USSR, ... > -- Ken Jenks Well, I remember a Channel 3, Moscow segment last year in which a new, Russian-built PC was being advertised on Russian TV. I also read a book on High-Tech smuggling in which they mention that the Russians are finally manufacturing their own PC, based upon the Intel 8086, and the original IBM PC, which they have copied. Mike Bird ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 01:09:20 GMT From: rocky!andy@labrea.stanford.edu (Andy Freeman) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad Mir means many things. The Russian-English dictionaries I looked in mentioned peace, land, treaty, and others. Funny, peace has a lot of meanings too. Andy Freeman ARPA: andy@sushi.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 05:19:51 GMT From: sonia!khayo@locus.ucla.edu (Erazm J. Behr) Subject: Re: Translation of Mir "Mir" has two by far most popular meanings: "peace" & "world". This ambiguity has been employed in many word-play slogans, like "Mir for the mir" etc. I doubt if the intention was to name the craft either "village" or "land". khayo@math.ucla.edu ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 87 19:42:00 GMT From: spdcc!m2c!frog!john@husc6.harvard.edu (John Woods, Software) Subject: News item about Mir >From the 23 September 1987 Boston Globe: Cargo spacecraft supplies cosmonauts Reuters MOSCOW - An unmanned cargo spacecraft separated from the Mir space station yesterday after bringing supplies of fuel, food, water, equipment and mail, the official agency Tass said. Progress-31 docked with mir August 7 with supplies for cosmonauts Yuri Romanenko and Alexander Alexandrov. Romanenko, 43, who blasted into space February 6, is set to match the world space endurance record at the end of the month. The record, 237 days, was set September 6, 1984, by three Soviet cosmonauts aboard Mir's predecessor, the Salyut 7 space station. Alexandrov, 44, has been aboard Mir since July. John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 87 16:58:18 GMT From: ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!sfmin!lmg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (L.M.Geary) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad (soviet shuttle) > On the contrary, the next launch of Energia will probably be carrying > "Shuttleski". Satellite photos of Tyuratam have shown shuttle > vehicles for years. Looks like they're ready to launch. . . . > Anyway, Energia is a Saturn V-class launcher (ignoring the minor > detail that the only Saturn Vs left are being used as lawn ornaments) > and can put a hell of a lot more payload up than can Shuttle. Or, it > can put the Russian Shuttle and payload up. Just how much is known about the Soviet shuttle? Is it an all purpose human/cargo vehicle like the US shuttle, or a smaller human carrier with little cargo capacity like the European projects? The Energia launch configuration - payload hanging on the side - leads me to an interesting speculation: Perhaps Energia will carry a small, reusable shuttle on one side and an expendable cargo module on the other side in one launch. This would give them the same capabilities as a large, US style shuttle, but without the engineering compromises required to cram crew and cargo into one reusable vehicle. Larry Geary ihnp4!attunix!lmg ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 17:40:50 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Translation of Mir In article <8299@shemp.UCLA.EDU>, khayo@sonia.cs.ucla.edu (Erazm J. Behr) writes: > "Mir" has two by far most popular meanings: "peace" & "world". This > ambiguity has been employed in many word-play slogans, like "Mir for > the mir" etc. I doubt if the intention was to name the craft either > "village" or "land". If "Mir" doesn't refer to a frontier outpost, what are you gonna call a space station? The station is in a very real way the first permanent outpost in a new frontier. (And Russians, as well as Americans, have strong feelings about frontiers and pioneers.) seh ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #1 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 3 Oct 87 06:19:21 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05234; Sat, 3 Oct 87 03:16:18 PDT id AA05234; Sat, 3 Oct 87 03:16:18 PDT Date: Sat, 3 Oct 87 03:16:18 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710031016.AA05234@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #2 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 2 Today's Topics: Re: Things aint so bad Re: Things aint so bad Re: PC's East, was Space Digest more in Re: Space Digest more international Re: Mir Elements, 3 Sep 1987 Does Salyut 7 spin? Re: Energia payload Re: Space Digest more international Mir Elements, 24 September 1987 Read it and weep Re: Mir Elements, 24 September 1987 Re: Does Salyut 7 spin? FTL travel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 87 08:15 EDT From: Chris Jones Subject: Re: Things aint so bad Date: 17 Sep 87 15:38:03 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@rutgers.edu (Alastair Mayer) In article <474@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes: >The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into >space and returing with other payloads. They do not have the ^ Certainly they do. The Progress vehicles (essentially unmanned Soyuzs) used to resupply Salyut and Mir have been bringing back down film packages, expermental data, zero-G processed materials (not just experimental results, the Sovs are using zero-G processed crystals for sensors in military hardware) etc for years. Actually, I believe the Progress vehicles are burned up in the atmosphere. I think they are loaded with garbage before they are sent back. The other items you mention are probably returned by the Soyuzes that come back with the visiting crews. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Sep 87 03:02:18 GMT From: nuchat!splut!stu@uunet.uu.net (Stewart Cobb) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad In article <402@nysernic>, weltyc@nic.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) writes: > > >> I don't know where you're getting your information... > >> but the Soviets have NOTHING that can compare to the shuttle... > >> There is nothing on the pad anywhere in the Soviet Union that even > >> remotely resembles the shuttle... James Oberg [Red Star in Orbit, etc.] thinks that the Russians have no real plans for a shuttle. What we're seeing (in Soviet Military Power and such) is a product of 1) American arrogance (of _course_ they're trying to copy us!) 2) Soviet disinformation 3) intell people misinterpreting very limited data. I don't necessarily agree, but I thought I'd pass it along. He goes through it all in an article in Aerospace America (the AIAA member magazine) June 1987, pages 24-28. The Energia booster is clearly useful with or without a shuttle attached. Stewart Cobb ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 03:58:00 GMT From: cca!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu Subject: Re: PC's East, was Space Digest more in [khayo@sonia.UUCP ] >Private copiers are not permitted (as of 3 yrs ago, I don't think >*this* has changed since then), and the ones used by institutions etc. >are very strictly controlled. I strongly suspect that it's the same (or >worse) in the SU. So people who have left SU a year or so ago tell me. Private copiers are illegal under severe penalties; office copiers are few and authorisation is hard to get. A usual way of producing intra-office copies is still typewriter. Samizdat is all typewritten or (sometimes) photographed with a camera. Private PC's are legal but few and largely unusable for lack of this and that. Jan W. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Sep 87 05:56:42 GMT From: hobbes!root@unix.macc.wisc.edu (John Plocher) Subject: Re: Space Digest more international In a FidoNews about 3 weeks ago there was an anouncement welcoming the first FidoNet BBS behind the Iron Curtain. This BBS is located in Poland, and is connected to FidoNet (and thus Usenet) thru the European FidoNet backbone. (FidoNet is a network of PCs running BBS software. There are many Fido operators on Usenet, and there are several Fidonet <-> Usenet gateways.) John Plocher uwvax!geowhiz!uwspan!plocher plocher%uwspan.UUCP@uwvax.CS.WISC.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 21:11:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Mir Elements, 3 Sep 1987 > Would someone please tell me how to read this or if there is a program > that does something with this data? The data given were the orbital parameters of the Mir Space Station. It only really means anything if one knows something about what the parameters are. I encourage you to find a text on orbital mechanics. This will explain what an "inclination" is, etc. There are computer programs which deal with this kind of data. What do you want the program to do? > Also please tell me what "MIR" is. If I were guessing, I would say > that it is probably the name of the Russian Space Station. Correct! My Russian TA told us that MIR means "peace". It also means "world". When Russians say, "we want peace", they're using the same phrase that means "we want the world". > Is this correct? Please forgive me if this is information is > repetitive, but I'm new on the net and this is my very first posting. Welcome! Don't be shy -- we don't byte here. > - David Summers -- Ken Jenks, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 18:01:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Does Salyut 7 spin? While watching a Salyut 7 overflight last night, I noticed an odd phenomenon. In addition to the usual variation in brightness (spacecraft brightens as it approaches, dims as it recedes), there seemed to be a periodic variation on the order of a minute or so. It was enough that at one point I lost the object in the twilight, yet a few seconds later was saying, ``how could I have lost anything THAT bright?'' Does anyone know whether the Soviets maintain attitude control when the station is powered down? If the station is tumbling, that would explain it. If the station isn't tumbling, has anyone an alternate explanation? (Don't tell me clouds -- the night was clear enough that half an hour later I was seeing Uranus with the naked eye [yes, Virginia, it is possible] in roughly the same part of the heavens). Kevin kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 87 15:46:50 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Energia payload In article <8625@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >system, which failed. It was also rather thin. Given that Energia is >the launcher for the Soviet shuttle, which does not have its own large >engines, it must be capable of taking a hefty payload into orbit >without an upper stage. What would be the role of an upper stage? It >might be for putting heavy payloads into Clarke orbit, but that is >stretching things a bit -- the Soviets don't seem to have any pressing >need for such large payloads in that orbit, except possibly for >power-satellite experiments. What it *might* be is a heavy upper stage >for planetary missions. My own suspicion is that it is the Russian's lunar landing vehicle. Given the long testing times they have for new hardware and the numerous test launches (Failures?) to get the bugs out before any manned launches, I would not expect a manned mission before mid 1988 or '89. Unless as a publicity stunt for the 70th. anniversary of the Russian revolution. But not unless they are VERY ready. Publicity stunts are one thing. Publicity stunts that go wrong are annother. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 87 11:01:29 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Space Digest more international This is getting a little away from space, But the following article appeared on the Channel 4 science teletext pages. I reproduce it here for the readers of this news group. --------------------------------------------------------- COMMUNIST COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS. By Simon Hardeman Computer users in Europe, the US, and Japan take the existance of communications networks for granted. They speed up the exchange of scientific and technical ideas and expertise both within and between countries. But the USSR and the other communist countries within their sphere of influence have little or no such facilities. Both the computers and organisation neccesary for them are sadly lacking. Mikhail Gorbachev plans to have developed science and technology information systems by the year 2000, and the first stirrings of computers mushrooming behind the iron curtain are now being detected. Pravda - the Czechoslovak version - has revealed plans for a computer network taking in nine capitals. Called ADONIS (automatic dialogue orginisational scientific information system - and I know that spells ADOSIS in English!), the project has been under development for two years already. Mr Gorbachev has been in place for two and a half years. The computer network in Czech Pravda mentions the existing computer communications between Moscow, other Eastern European capitals, and Cuba and Mongolia. Problems have prevented at least one far eastern link, and even delayed communications between Prague and Warsaw - relativley near to each other. In the future, five large technilogical institutes in Moscow are expected to oversee research and development. Perhaps they'll help iron out the snags. ---------------------------------------------------------------- It seems that the Russians are between ten and twenty years behind the west in developing computer networks for scientific institutions. They still don't allow any public networks. It would be nice to have a Russian on the net, in spite of the inevitable flame wars, but I don't see it happening in the near future. Unless we hear from kremvax again, of course :-) Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 87 19:20:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir Elements, 24 September 1987 Note: There are fairly substantial changes presumably resulting from the resupply mission conducted on 22 September. Predictions calculated from earlier element sets should be recalculated. Epoch day: 87266.94590211 Inclination: 51.6269 degrees RA of node: 7.9551 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0046058 Argument of periapsis: 188.7210 degrees Mean anomaly: 171.3265 degrees Mean motion: 15.81832075 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00035669 revs/day/day Source: NASA Goddard via Henry Vanderbilt of NSS ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 1987 18:48-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Read it and weep Space Calendar, 9/23 p 4: ENERGIYA HEAVY-LIFT LAUNCH VEHICLE, TYURATAM KAZAKHSTAN USSR: Opening a new era in the exploration and exploitation of space. The 200-foot Energiya rocket will be able to lift payloads into orbit nine times as large as those lifted by the US Space Shuttle. It could cut launch costs by a factor of ten, and all its elements are reusable. Energiya consists of a central core surrounded by four to eight rocket boosters. The four-booster Energiya will be used to launch the Soviet version of the Space Shuttle. The six-to-eight-booster Energiya will be used to launch large items such as a laboratory or factory modules weighing more than 250 Tons. The Energiya has opened up vast possibilities for the Soviet space program. The rocket will be capable of launching the following: 1) a Mir space station to a 22,500-mile geostationary orbit or into lunar orbit; 2) a series of Apollo-style Moon landings at any time; 3) a manned fly-by misssion to Mars or its moons, Phobos and Deimos; 4) a Mir space station placed in Mars orbit; and eventually 5) manned missions to the asteroids or the moons of Jupiter or Saturn. (sketches with the following caption) Energiya Family: The four-booster version of Energiya will be used for launching payloads up to 60-90 tons in weight. The six-booster version will be used for payloads up to 230 tons, and the eight booster version will be used for payloads up to 270 tons. PS: I highly recommend subscribing to this publication, particularly for those who haven't time to pore over each issue of AW&ST. Also, although stories are just short news briefs, there are more of them because it covers ONLY space science, business, movement, conferences, etc. It is primarily a 'what is supposed to happen this week' newsletter, rather than a 'what happened last month' magazine. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 87 20:56:13 GMT From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Mir Elements, 24 September 1987 For those of you who haven't tried it yet, hearing MIR on its 143.625 Mhz downlink frequency is easy! It's probably the strongest signal I've ever heard from space. A pass the other night that reached a maximum elevation of only 20 deg or so had them S9+10db on my IC271A (no preamp) and KLM 14C satellite array. They should be audible on a 2m HT too. Remember that they operate on Moscow time, so the best time to listen is after midnight Eastern time. I understand they communicate through a tracking ship near Sable Island (Canada) so stations outside the northeast may be out of luck unless there's another tracking ship within range of MIR when they are above your horizon. That frequency seems to be in use by an FM repeater (US Govt? MARS?) in the New York area. I wonder what went through their minds the first time they heard strong Russian voices on their frequency... :-) Phil ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 87 21:36:26 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: Re: Does Salyut 7 spin? In article <163400031@uiucdcsb>, kenny@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > Does anyone know whether the Soviets maintain attitude control When the last crew left Salyut 7 it was powered` down and left to drift as a sort of 'long duration facility' for the study of spacecraft systems degradation over long periods. I haven't noticed the periodic variation that you describe, but I have noticed that since it is in a higher orbit than when it was it is +3 magnitude when before it could get to +1. Also the specular surfaces may have corroded. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 87 00:45:21 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: FTL travel There are several ways around the relativistic paradoxes for FTL: 1) There may be an absolute frame of reference. Speeds up to infinite would be possible only in that frame of reference. In other frames of references, the speed limit might vary from, say -2c (!) to 2c, depending on direction. No trajectory would ever get you back to your starting point before you left. 2) It may be that the speed of light can be increased in a region of space, somehow. 3) It may be that causality CAN be violated. Doing so simply causes a new universe to branch off. This would allow time travel as well as space travel, though time travelers might have a hard time returning home. See, for instance, F.M. Busby's _All These Earths_ and Paul Preuss' _Re-Entry_. 4) Same as 3, except that causality violations would cause history to start over from that point, wiping out the "previous" future. Like restoring a file system to a previous state. See, for instance, James Hogan's _Thrice Upon a Time_. Of course none of these gives us any hint as to how to go about building an FTL drive. But it isn't obvious that it is impossible. And, of course, we can get to the stars just fine even without FTL. Just be patient while traveling to a nearby star. Or use generation ships, suspended animation, life extention, or relativistic time contraction, to name just a few possibilities. ...Keith ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #2 ******************* Received: from GALILEO.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Oct 87 20:02:32 EDT Received: by galileo.s1.gov id AA01497; Wed, 14 Oct 87 14:03:36 PDT id AA01497; Wed, 14 Oct 87 14:03:36 PDT Date: Wed, 14 Oct 87 14:03:36 PDT From: ota%galileo.s1.gov@mordor.s1.gov Message-Id: <8710142103.AA01497@galileo.s1.gov> To: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: [ota: SPACE Digest V8 #3] Date: Sun, 4 Oct 87 03:02:46 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #3 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 3 Today's Topics: Re: Life in Space, continued... Re: Life in Space, continued... how to determine whether FTL is at all possible, research proposal Re: Life in Space, continued... Re: Life in Space, continued... Shuttleparts/Flyback Booster Re: Shuttleparts/Flyback Booster ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Sep 87 23:49:11 GMT From: ganelon.usc.edu!robiner@oberon.usc.edu (Steve) Subject: Re: Life in Space, continued... In article <19951@cca.CCA.COM> g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes: >In article <256496.870917.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: >> > >"Ladies and Gentlemen. You are given a magic black box space drive. It >is the size of a bread basket. It applies a unidirectional force to >everything in a sphere 100 meters in radius about it. The strength of ^^^^^^^^^^ >the force is controlled by a simple knob. At full strength the gismo >will accelerate 1000000 tonnes with a force of 1G. Simple, 'everything' solves your problem for you. All you need is the black box, some compressed air ( that's easy to make now that you have this magic box ) and lots-o-food. Just get yourself 100 meters off the ground, by say jumping off a cliff, then activate your box and away you go. Anything that enters your sphere of infleuence will be accelerated with you so you don't have to worry about oxygen or meterites. =Steve= Nice Box, eh... ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 16:41:57 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Life in Space, continued... > Assume that this gismo was available on Earth in the year 1800. > Design a space ship using this gismo and the technology available at > that time. The ship must be capable of sustained interplanetary > flight. Include specifications for navigation, take off and landing > procedure, and a life support system capable of supporting life for > one year in space. Actually, I suspect this is doable. For one thing, if you stipulate 1800 technology but allow today's design smarts, the limitations are not as severe as you think: the V-2 could probably have been built in 1800 if people had known what to do and been willing to try hard. For another thing, several of these problems are not so hard with the postulated "gismo". Navigation can practically be done by the seat of the pants if you have unlimited propulsion and you are heading for something you can see, e.g. a planet. It may take some backing and filling to end up in the right place with roughly zero relative velocity, but if your propulsion system is up to it, why not? Takeoffs and landings, again, are no problem if you have unlimited maneuvering and can afford to proceed slowly and cautiously. Life support too is not that bad. Food and water can be solved by the brute-force approach: take plenty along. Remember, the "gismo" gives essentially unlimited payload. Air is the only tricky part, and green plants and sunlight will handle a lot of that. Make the ship big, with lots of air space, and you can ride out substantial periods of darkness without even bothering with things like compressed air. > Part II: Given the ship, design a space station, using only pre 1800's > technology. No big deal if you are willing to employ brute force in place of subtlety. A harder question, actually, might be finding uses for a space station with pre-1800s technology. Astronomy and earth observation are the only really obvious things, and even earth observation might be of rather limited use. > Part III: Assume that the gismo also has a 'jump' button. When the > button is pressed everything in the sphere will 'jump' in the > direction of the force. The length of the jump is is proportional to > the force. The maximum jump is one parsec. Describe a viable scheme > for interstellar navigation using pre 1800's technology. Once again, I see no grave problem (risks, yes, but not insuperable problems) if you can see where you're going. Jump, look around for your destination, estimate its distance, aim a little to the side just in case, jump again, and proceed by successive approximation. When close enough to the star, dig out your telescope and start looking for planets. If this isn't the first visit to that solar system, astronomical data and a chronometer will give you a fair idea of where to look. Once you find a planet, go there. > Extra Credit: Replace 1800 by 1650." Hmmm... Various things get harder, but it might still be possible. Risks would be higher, though; I hope you have a good supply of gismos, not just one! (In fact that comment applies to 1800 as well.) > I don't think I could pass the course, but I sure would like one of > the gismos! I think I could pass, and I'll take a dozen, please! Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 87 13:24:55 From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: how to determine whether FTL is at all possible, research proposal Date: Thu, 17 Sep 87 22:24:33 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" How would one go about researching FTL? My suggestion would be first to determine whether "tachyons", faster-than-light particles, actually exist and can be generated within our current technology. The two likely terrestrial sources would be thermonuclear detonations (Nevada) and particle accelerators (Stanford et al). Set up a particle detector near the detonation or accelerator, but sufficiently far that you can determine whether the detection occurred before a slower-than-light particle could possibly reach the detector. Then carefully and patiently accumulate statistics to determine whether there is undue coincidence of particles simultaneously with detonations of warheads or with zaps of targets in accelerator. If such undue coincidence is found, further study is warranted. If not, then probably studying tachyons if they exist is beyond our current technology. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 87 03:51:00 GMT From: PT!unh.cs.cmu.edu!agn@cs.rochester.edu (Andreas Nowatzyk) Subject: Re: Life in Space, continued... I think Henry Spencer gets an "F" for this assignment: > ... the V-2 could probably have been built in 1800 if people had known > what to do and been willing to try hard This is not so because the technological infrastructure is missing: where do you get the materials (aluminum, highly heat resistant alloys), vacuum tubes (or a good vacuum for that matter), other electronic parts, precision tools, gyros, batteries. If you postulate the knowledge to build all the tools, the tools for the tools, etc. - then it is 1940's technology and not the one of 1800. If you just assume knowledge about a few fundamental inventions, you will find that this is not helping much because you are lacking the resources to make use of that knowledge. In any event, this is cheating given the context of this assignment. > Navigation can practically be done by the seat of the pants ... No way. The drive acts on all objects, so you are in 0-G once you leave earth behind. Even near a planet, orbital mechanics is vital to fast moving objects. Judging orbital velocities by eyesight is plain hopless. Say you think that you are stationary 300Km above earth, but you have no way of telling if you are falling (other than watching the apparent size of the earth). By the time you notice anything, it is too late: 1G acceleration doesn't help you if you are approaching the atmosphere with 5Km/sec. Try flying a plane without instruments over unknown terrain. Even with a reasonable map, you get lost in no time and this is trivial compared to maintaining orientation in 3D space with no gravity, no feel for acceleration, vast dimensions and speeds measured in tens of Km/s. Estimating large distances and speeds is virtually impossible and inertia/gravity are still with you. Trying to reenter atmosphere in these conditions is plain fatal: Once the wall gets hot, it's too late to break. Due to lack of communication, subsequent crews can't learn from previous mistakes. Navigation at larger range is even less feasable: without an stabilized platform (which would require gyros and electronics), astronomical measurements become, hmm... interesting, but not too precise. Now add your paper and pencil computer and try to figure out how many light years are between you and civilization after you pressed the jump button. > Life support: Air is the only tricky part, and green plants ... This is not the only tricky part and plants don't help for an inter-stellar journey. Building a big ship that does not leak or burst in vacuum is not trivial (think iron-plates and rivets). Some 10000 m**3 volume seems necessary for a 10 man crew and 2 weeks in space. I don't think that 1800 technology could build a vacuum tight sphere of 27 m diameter that could withstand the pressure (the gizmo accelerates all air, but the does nothing to prevent the air from blowing out of the gismo operation range). Tons of minor problems like doors, optical quality windows, thermal stress, ... Next problem: heat. For most of the trip, the ship will cool via radiation (3K background...). Things become interesting when the air is turning liquid on the wall. Thermal management is also not trivial when there is a sun around. Then there is the fun of human waste in 0G. -- Andreas Nowatzyk (DC5ZV) Arpa-net: agn@unh.cs.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 87 05:01:52 GMT From: clash.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) Subject: Re: Life in Space, continued... In article <4515@oberon.USC.EDU> robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve) writes: > >"Ladies and Gentlemen. You are given a magic black box space drive. It > >is the size of a bread basket. It applies a unidirectional force to > >everything in a sphere 100 meters in radius about it. > ^^^^^^^^^^ > Simple, 'everything' solves your problem for you. All you need is the > black box, some compressed air ( that's easy to make now that you have > this magic box ) and lots-o-food. That's a _lot_ of compressed air (not less than a million CF per person for a one-year flight, at 25 cf/person/hr [others are entitled to correct this.] Assuming 1800 technology, you can't recycle the air - you don't even know what oxygen is. This also doesn't say anything about generating heat inside the spacecraft. You could take plenty of firewood (and pay a much greater oxygen penalty for burning it), or insulate the thing well enough to let body heat do the trick. But you don't know about black-body radiation, so you likely wouldn't get that right. Chilly times ahead... OK, assuming that you had 1800 technology *plus* knowledge of 1987 science might make things somewhat easier. But you'd still end up importing or developing some new things - likely candidates include biospheres, electrical power (reasonably easy to generate, assuming you have _two_ of these thruster gadgets - use one to spin the rotor), inertial guidance systems, etc, etc, and a whole lot of etc. You'd end up with a 1987 technology. Doing the problem the pure way (assuming no technical knowledge later than 1800) is tough enough to be a real annoyance. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 87 17:16:31 GMT From: tikal!sigma!uw-nsr!brett@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Brett Van Steenwyk) Subject: Shuttleparts/Flyback Booster Okay, so I am reasonably convinced that, aside from the solid fuel boosters, little to nothing from the shuttle can be salvaged into a more useful design. In general, I would like to see some sort of standard evolve in terms of a rocket design so that it would not take so much new tooling and other development to get it into the air. It would seem that if one could build an assembly-line rocket engine that could be used in numerous vehicles, this would bring down costs. This idea could be generalized to other components. Does the idea of standardized parts work for rockets, or does each component have to be so optimized for the particular mission that they must be particular to the vehicle? It seems that for the shuttle, we optimized so much that engineering tolerances were forgotten. How far can we go the other way? One other comment: by "big dumb booster", I mean that it is basically a rocket without the frills--yet can be safe for human payloads (i.e., not too "dumb"). So much for that. The main purpose for this outburst is the flyback booster, and here I need to clairify a few underlying principles of its use (at least from my point of view). This can best be considered as a mission to get a large payload (make it several tons of whatever vehicle) up to 70,000 feet or more, and take whatever velocity we can get. A balloon would not be too bad if it didn't have to be so big and that you didn't get any velocity out of it. It would certainly be one of the cheapest ways. There are lots of planes that can fly that high but this will cost more-- but perhaps extra of some translational velocity parallel to the surface of the Earth would be worth it. A rocket would be by far the most EXPENSIVE way of getting there. This is reflected by the fact that when people want to look at the upper atmosphere, they generally use balloons and planes. A rocket is good only when: 1.You want it to go up there and come back FAST; 2.You want to go so high only a rocket will go there; 3.You've already spent your research money on rockets. A rocket is best when you are using it to directly convert the thrust into the velocity of your craft--changing from one orbit to another in the vacuum of space. At the opposite extreme, it works poorly in trying to directly oppose the pull of gravity: it would be much more expensive suspending something 5 feet in the air by a rocket than it would be to simply use a high countertop! Since the thrust is expensive, you won't want to be wasting much in opposing air friction (or "dynamic pressure"). In a ground launch, one wants to go straight up to get out of the thick atmosphere, yet for this stage there is no buildup toward an orbital velocity--the rocket moves over toward this attitude as it goes higher. One is sort of caught between two damnations. What can a flyback booster do for all of this? Well, first of all I am not proposing a rocket-propelled hoser with wings taped on it. This critter need not stand on its tail on the way up to be useful. We can carry large payloads up to 70,000 feet on jet engines that aren't especially optimum in terms of a thrust to weight ratio--let the wings, not the engines, lift the plane. If we're going to have to live with getting through ~67 miles of atmosphere to get to space (and I do hope it stays this way :-), we might as well adjust to the fact and use the atmosphere as far as we can in getting our payloads up there--air-breathing engines and wings. (I know it isn't very romantic.) Anyway, consider the launching of the "true" rocket stage from a flyback booster at 70,000 feet (and whatever velocity we can get) vs a traditional staging operation at that altitude--is there some quality of a flyback to rocket staging that makes it exceptionally difficult? I would think that one could avoid the wake of the rocket without too much difficulty. At this altitude, the rate of atmospheric drag decrease with altitude is dramatic, and the rocket could be spending most of its time putting its thrust "in the bank" (converting it to orbital velocity) rather than getting off the ground or fighting friction. The original parameters I had mentioned: Mach 3 at 70,000 feet, represented only about 10-15% of the energy needed to attain orbit, yet a rocket expends a much greater proportion of its energy to get to this point. A jet could get you to this point much more easily and cheaply, and you wouldn't have to throw it away after each use. --Brett Van Steenwyk U.W. BioEngineering uw-beaver!uw-nsr!brett brett@nsr.acs.washington.edu Usual disclaimers, and comments welcome. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 87 10:45:07 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Shuttleparts/Flyback Booster Newsgroups: sci.space Brett asks about standardizing boosters. It's a nice goal, but designing engines, boosters, and spacecraft is largely an art and craft, and marginally engineering. Read this to mean "We don't really know how to do it." I had this as a private discussion with Henry Spencer and Robert Maas in the past. Let me summarize. There is (was) a concept of the "common spacecraft `bus'" floating around and other ideas. Conventional engineering problems: material science, etc. form one series of problems, tell an aerospace engineer you would be using ceramics 40 years ago for high speeds and they would have laughed (although testing was in use in some areas). "Ceramics for superconductivity?" ;-) Anyway, like computers which are more than that the sum of their chips, launch vehicles had a diverse set of requirements placed on them: different orbital characteristics, etc. You want things to fly back, how, well safely, etc. Well you can put a microprocessor on board now, but it has to survive lots of things: the engineering problem, but technology changes and lags far behind. You have to think about building things mean to last (in design) 20 years. Imagine freezing your technology for 20 years, society could assimiliate ;-). We could still be programming..... 6502s, no PDP-8s, ..... Anyways, technology is expanding exponentially, and this is why while we want Big Dumb Booster, we also want to the latest gizmos. Think about designing something to last 20 years and you can't touch after that. We couldn't build a Voyager craft from scratch because lots of it isn't made anymore. Right now the general feeling is to incorporate bells and whistles, they are useful. A good story to read is the President's letter in CACM on the `Princess's new clothes' (pure allegory). Freeze technology, can you can do it. This part is not a pure engineering problem, but an engineering management problem. --eugene ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #3 ******************* Received: from GALILEO.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Oct 87 19:14:16 EDT Received: by galileo.s1.gov id AA01500; Wed, 14 Oct 87 14:03:54 PDT id AA01500; Wed, 14 Oct 87 14:03:54 PDT Date: Wed, 14 Oct 87 14:03:54 PDT From: ota%galileo.s1.gov@mordor.s1.gov Message-Id: <8710142103.AA01500@galileo.s1.gov> To: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: [ota: SPACE Digest V8 #4] Date: Mon, 5 Oct 87 03:04:09 PDT From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #4 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 4 Today's Topics: Re: Can someone confirm seemingly brilliant Phoenix design? Ablative nozzle cooling Re: Shuttleparts/Flyback Booster Re: [gaserre%ATHENA.MIT:EDU:Xerox: Re: Can someone confirm Re: Shuttleparts/Flyback Booster Re: Can someone confirm seemingly brilliant Phoenix design? Space resources Asteroids Re: Asteroids Re: Space Station Design Pluto Re: Pluto G, how measured ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Sep 87 15:04:01 PDT (Wednesday) Subject: Re: Can someone confirm seemingly brilliant Phoenix design? From: "Ron_Fischer.AISNorth"@xerox.com >oxygen rich flame will literally burn the walls off your combustion >chamber You could take the approach give by ablative re-entry technology, put something on the walls that you don't care about burning off, but this would probably not work because the chamber would change shape. One of the plasma coating processes might be able to produce a resistant material. Diamond comes to my mind, but I understand this crystal structure isn't distinguished by oxidation resistance under high heat and pressure. How about a porous chamber surface that maintained a layer of gas or fluid as a barrier? Problem here is the pressure in the combustion chamber is quite high and likely to back up almost any such system. The one idea that seems more likely would be carefully contolled flow, such that a hot core of burning oxygen rich fuel could be surrounded by a layer of gas that remained (due to flow constraints) against the walls, protecting them. (ron) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Sep 87 16:50 PDT forwarded-by: Fischer.pa@xerox.com Subject: Ablative nozzle cooling From: I don't know anything about the Phoenix, but I do know that that ablative cooling can be used in solid rocket engines. The material is a porous silica-based ceramic in polymeric matrix. During operation, the polymer evaporates and boils out of the material, thus providing cooling and also creating a boundary layer on the surface. The ceramic remains behind to retain the shape of the surface. For a better explanation, see _Elements of Rocket Propulsion_ by Sutton. Thought you might like to know. --Glenn Serre gaserre.athena.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 22:55:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Shuttleparts/Flyback Booster [...deleted...] > Does the idea of standardized parts work for rockets, or does each > component have to be so optimized for the particular mission that they > must be particular to the vehicle? [...] There is a method of determining the thrust of each stage of a rocket called "optimal staging". The theory is that each stage should supply the same delta vee (change in velocity). "Optimal" is a relative concept. In this case, it means "most efficient in terms of thrust for a multi-stage rocket to get a given payload to a given orbit". A standardized rocket engine would never be "optimal" in this manner, but it would be a good idea. (I realize from your article that you know more about rocketry and propulsion than I do -- this is aimed at the large audience.) -- Ken Jenks jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 87 05:52:37 GMT From: super.upenn.edu!eecae!crlt!russ@rutgers.edu (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: [gaserre%ATHENA.MIT:EDU:Xerox: Re: Can someone confirm In article <870925-165109-17284@Xerox>, Fischer.pa@XEROX.COM writes: >From: >Subject: Re: Can someone confirm seemingly brilliant Phoenix design? >I don't know anything about the Phoenix, but I do know that that ablative >cooling can be used in solid rocket engines. . . . That offers two choices for combustion chamber protection for Phoenix during the oxygen-rich combustion phase: 1.) Use a refractory oxide as a facing material (can't burn), and/or 2.) Protect the chamber wall with a layer of gas which keeps the oxygen-rich mixture away from the wall. This gas layer could just as well be fuel (hydrogen), thus solving the problem of how the gas layer is produced (wouldn't want an expendable chamber wall for a vehicle which has to turn around quickly). Does anyone know what the spec *actually* calls for, or is it decided? Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ihnp4!itivax![m-net!rsi,crlt!russ] ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 87 20:56:51 GMT From: telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: Re: Shuttleparts/Flyback Booster A quick comment on the referenced posting by Brett Van Steenwyk: winged boosters that use a horizontal launch mode are not necessarily cheaper or more efficient than those that use a verticle launch mode. A fully fueled booster with upper stage will be a good ten times heavier than the same booster returning empty. That means that it needs wings that are much larger and heavier than those needed for a booster that uses verticle launch. Wings are actually not a mass-efficient means to provide lift--especially for large vehicles--and they represent very expensive structure to develop and build. HTO can make sense if you look at relatively small vehicles, and couple HTO with airbreathing propulsion to hypersonic velocities (the German Saenger Project or the British Hotol), or if you're talking about taking advantage of an existing aircraft that's large enough to serve as a booster for a small spaceplane (Teledyne Brown proposal). But if the 747 did not already exist, it wouldn't make sense to try to develop it just for use as a spaceplane launcher. - Roger Arnold ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 87 20:07:57 GMT From: ucsdhub!jack!man!crash!telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: Re: Can someone confirm seemingly brilliant Phoenix design? > You could take the approach give by ablative re-entry technology, put > something on the walls that you don't care about burning off, but this > would probably not work because the chamber would change shape. ... > [description of other possibilities deleted] For anyone out there who is convinced that it is would be impossible to invent an oxy-hydrogen engine capable of operating operating oxygen rich, I've got news for you: it's already been done. The engine in question is none other than the faithful RL-10. I am told that during development, it was regularly tested in oxygen-rich mode, around 10:1. Combustion at 10:1 isn't very much hotter than combustion at 6:1, and the rate of thermal transfer is comparable, due to the higher average molecular weight. I don't have any data on the duration of test firings at 10:1, and I don't know if they resulted in erosion of the combustion chamber walls at a rate that would be a problem for reusability. But considering that the RL-10 was designed for use at a 5:1 ratio, the fact that it could be operated successfully at 10:1 suggestes to me that it's not a difficult problem. - Roger Arnold ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 87 01:04:22 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Space resources To: eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: Eugene Miya N. > Hum, I don't think we will get much O2 from asteroids. Not from the iron-nickel ones. But most stones are largely oxygen. This is true even on the moon - so an oxidizing environment is not a necessity. But we knew this already from meteorites. Hydrogen and nitrogen are bigger problems. They can be gotten from carbonaceous chondrites - which are rare among meteorites probably because they disintegrate more easily, not because they are rare in space - or from cometary or outer-moon material. >> Then nobody on this list could discuss space. :-) > Well, maybe I so go for the Corps. I don't think anyone on this list has actually been to space. >>> I would debate this statement as well. > You do need insulation. Apollo 13 was kept at 35 deg. F during the > return (very uncomfortable). Are you sure this wasn't deliberate, to keep leakage down? Keeping cool will almost certainly be a bigger problem than keeping warm, even in interstellar space, given that thermal radiation is the only way one can lose heat in space without throwing away mass. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 87 01:07:26 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Asteroids To: eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: Eugene Miya N. > We have photographed the moons of Mars. You are right, we need more > data, but I don't think they are quite loose. P and D are fairly > intact things. It is hard to tell with such large objects. What was the resolution of those photogaphs? They might be made of boulders just smaller than the resolution. If they are not captured asteroids, their composition has no bearing on the asteroid question. If they ARE captured asteroids - whatever process captured them would probably fragment any loose conglomerations so only non-loose ones survive as moons. We really have to look at the asteroids themselves to be sure one way or the other. I will volunteer for the one-way mission, if I can bring twenty tons of equipment and supplies of my own choosing along with me. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 22:33:38 GMT From: unc!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Asteroids In article <259359.870924.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: >It is hard to tell with such large objects. What was the resolution of >those photogaphs? They might be made of boulders just smaller than the >resolution. Looking at pictures of crater Stickney, which is 1/4 the diameter of Phobos or thereabouts, seems to provide ample evidence that the body is NOT an aggregate - how could such craters exist if that were the case? I believe that observations of asteroid magnitude as a smoothly varying function of phase angle (the angle formed by the vectors Asteroid->Sun, Asteroid->Observer) may also support this interpretation, but I wouldn't bet on it - I haven't thought out the geometry yet. [This is an interesting research topic with some applications to computer graphics lighting models, incidentally.] In any case, the Soviet mission should resolve the issue with respect to Phobos & Deimos. Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu || ...mcnc!unc!leech) __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 87 20:22:12 GMT From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Space Station Design In article <1340@unc.cs.unc.edu>, leech@unc.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes: > How will they move it? Does the Station include manuevering thrusters? > Figuring out how much thrust a large structure like that can > withstand, and where to apply it as the structure changes > configuration, sounds like one of the harder problems involved. > Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu || ...mcnc!unc!leech) > __@/ From a presentation entitled "Findings of the Critical Evaluation Task Force" dated 30 September 1986: [note: since the preliminary design review for the Space Station is 18 months away, changes are expected.] A tank farm is brought to orbit pressurized to 3000 psi with gaseous hydrogen and oxygen, on delivery flights 1,3 and 4. It takes 8 flights with the Space Shuttle to reach 'permanent manned capability'. 1300 lb of water are transferred each flight from the shuttle to a water electrolyzer system. The water is generated onboard the orbiter in a fuel cell from liquid oxygen and hydrogen. Why not just transfer the liquids directly? Because water is easier to store than cryogens. The thrusters are fed from the gaseous storage tanks, which are replenished (kept at 3000 psi) by the electrolyzer. All of this is powered by the solar array. The first flight consists of 1/2 of the horizontal truss, 18.75 kW of solar array, and a pressurized node with the smarts to control the semi-built station. For reboost or altitude changes, you thrust through the station center of gravity with a combined 200-300 lb of thrust. Thus it may take on the order of an hour of thrusting to go from 190 miles to 220 miles. Figuring out the structural loads is one of those things us engineers get paid for. Since the station structure is a truss, and most of the masses and forces act through point-like connections, the structural analysis is actually fairly straightforward. Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1987 08:22 EDT From: Ray Lauff Subject: Pluto The question once again has come up here during lunchtime discussion as to whether or not Pluto is indeed a planet or a moon of Neptune. Can anyone inform me of the latest thinking about this distant rockey world? ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 17:30:14 GMT From: cfa!mink@husc6.harvard.edu (Doug Mink) Subject: Re: Pluto I heard Clyde Tombaugh (Pluto's discoverer) at a lunch seminar yesterday, and Brian Marsden, who several years ago made an off-the-cuff remark about Pluto being an asteroid, profusely apologized for belittling Clyde's planet. As I understand it, the current thinking is that Pluto and Charon make up what is ALMOST a double planet system. Pluto MAY be just big enough to have some sort of atmosphere; there is a debate going on in the literature (Science and Nature) about the interpretation of some IRAS infrared data which point in that direction. Kelly Beatty reviewed the current state of Plutology in the September Sky and Telescope. Mutual eclipses of Pluto and Charon over the past two years have greatly increased our knowledge of these two most interesting bodies. My only complaint is that we still don't know where they are accurately enough to predict occultations of stars by them. Doug Mink, aging hippy astronomer and amateur Plutologist mink@cfa.harvard.edu {ihnp4|seismo}!harvard!cfa!mink ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Sep 87 02:57:23 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: G, how measured To: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov, Physics@unix.sri.com > From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu > Does anybody know where the data for G come from experimentally? The > only things I can think of to measure have to do with Gm, where m is > the mass of a large body. Is there a way to measure G seperate from > m, or, failing that, is there a way to measure m seperate from G then > work backwards? Yes, but HOW large a body? In Newton's day, G was known VERY roughly, based on an estimate of the mass of the Earth based on a very rough guess for its density. The way it was finally MEASURED was as follows: Start with a long wire dangling from a tall ceiling, and see how much torque it takes to rotate it through a given angle. For small angles, the angle is proportional to the torque, so now you know, given any angle, what the torque is. Next, making sure there are no stray air currents, etc, hang a long horizontal bar from the thread, and mount two large weights on the ends of the rod, like a barbell. Mount a mirror on the rod where it intersects the wire. Shine a ray of light on the mirror, and see where the reflection lands on the wall a great distance away. Now, being careful not to touch the rod, mirror, weights, or wire, put two large weights close to the two dangling weights, at a known distance, and in the directions from the dangling weights that would cause any attraction to rotate the rod. Wait for any air currents to settle down, and then see how far the spot of light on the wall has moved. From measuring the displacement of the light, you can easily tell how many seconds of arc the rod has rotated. And since you know the ratio between rotation and torque, you know the torque the attraction between weights exerted. And since you know the length of the moment arm, you know the actual force exerted. And since you now know the force, the distance, and the mass, G falls right out. This ingenious experiment was first conducted about 200 years ago. (!) It was done by Cavendish, the same person who discovered hydrogen. As far as I know, it's done the same way today. I can't see any better way to measure G except in outer space. I wonder if there are any proposals to measure G in space, preferably in the outer solar system billions of miles from any planet or the Sun. Measuring G on Earth is like doing infrared astronomy in the middle of a raging fire. Perhaps two heavy masses could be set side by side in the outer solar system, and one could track the other with a low power laser? ...Keith ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #4 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 6 Oct 87 06:20:41 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09834; Tue, 6 Oct 87 03:18:09 PDT id AA09834; Tue, 6 Oct 87 03:18:09 PDT Date: Tue, 6 Oct 87 03:18:09 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710061018.AA09834@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #5 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 5 Today's Topics: Re: G, how measured Questions Satellite Plotting Programs Re: Things aint so bad Space Station via Proton? Launch Price Supports Let Japan give us below-cost launch until they go broke Oxygen Supply Several things Re: Reply to a government employee Re: Space resources Re: Space resources Britain in space Re: Space resources Re: space news from Aug 10 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Sep 87 22:35:07 GMT From: newton.physics.purdue.edu!clt@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Carrick Talmadge) Subject: Re: G, how measured In article <260499.870926.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: >Now, being careful not to touch the rod, mirror, weights, or wire, put >two large weights close to the two dangling weights, at a known >distance, and in the directions from the dangling weights that would >cause any attraction to rotate the rod. [rest of good discussion >edited out] This is essentially the modern experiment. The principle differences involve chosing a better mass configuration so that the signature due to gravity is distinct from expected systematics. This usually involves getting the net gravitational torque as close to zero as possible at the equilibrium position of the torsion fiber, and then measuring the frequency shift in the oscillation period of the torsion bar [this frequency shift is approximately maximized when the net torque is zero]. This methodology was first employed by Eotvos back in 1896 and is essentially the same method used in the modern experiments. The other big difference is putting the torsion bar and torsion fiber in a vacuum -- not doing so turns out to be far too noisy. >As far as I know, it's done the same way today. I can't see any better >way to measure G except in outer space. ... > ...Keith The anwser is yes, there are a who bunch of them. The recent review of gravity literature by George Gillies at the University of Virginia [Metrologia 24 (suppl), 1 (1987)], which is without a doubt the most complete review of its type in this century, gives a [nearly] complete listing of such proposed experiments. Also, there are measurements of G at the geophysical scale which show promise in obtaining high accuracy, of which I know of at least two which are being performed separately by Frank Stacey and by Keith Runcorn. Carrick Talmadge ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 87 16:27 EST From: <11SSTEIN%GALLUA.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu> Subject: Questions Hello, I wonder if you have any idea whom I can subscribe about astronomy events? I am looking for a computer mailing system that will keep me informed about the stars and planets. Rise and set times and mags and stuff are also desired. Do you think that the Hubble Space Telescope will FINALLY go in the air on December 89??? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 87 9:59:47 MDT From: John Shaver Modernization Office Subject: Satellite Plotting Programs I would like to find a program for the IBM PC which would plot orbits in both a Mercator projection and a 3-d version showing the earth etc. Does anyone have an idea where I might get such a program? Thanks John ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 13:17:34 GMT From: miq%psuvm.bitnet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Jim Maloy) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad In article <7405@sri-unix.ARPA>, larson@sri-unix.ARPA (Alan Larson) says: >Am I the only one who is having trouble with this first claim? There >were a large number of items (I think they called them criticality-1 >items) which, if any one of the failed, would lead to catastrophe. The question is not the number of these items, but the likelihood of them going bad. Even if there are thousands of such items, if the odds of any one going bad were less than a million to one, the risk would still be acceptable. Further, there's little being done about them because there's little that *can* be done. There will always be some systems for which failure means disaster. This is true of any vehicle or device, not just the Shuttle. The human body has *loads* of criticality-1 items (ask a nursing or a med student), but it averages over 70 years before catastrophic failure (assuming proper maintenance). :-) James D. Maloy Bitnet: MIQ@PSUECL, MIQ@PSUVM ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 1987 18:39-EDT From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Space Station via Proton? Henry: No WONDER I've been having so much trouble getting Art Dula to call back!!! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 87 13:20:32 GMT From: "Michael J. Hammel" Subject: Launch Price Supports Robert Elton Maas writes: >...Should we, for the next launch vehicle, simply guarentee launch >business? Thats a tough question. Wouldn't the idea of letting private industry develop a new launch vehicle (or upgraded old versions) fall into the category of the F-20 (or whatever fighter it was that was designed and built without government funding, and gov't turned it down, despite its apparent advantages)? I would think that many companies would be afraid of the loss they would incur for such development. Of course, if they could be guaranteed that if the U.S. govt. doesn't buy it, the company could sell it to some other buyer, then maybe the possibility of such losses would be reduced. This, of course, is just an opinion. Please, no flames. I'm just a hacker with a hobby. Michael Bitnet: SNHAM@TTUVM1 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 87 17:14:09 From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Let Japan give us below-cost launch until they go broke Some people have complained that it's difficult for private launch services to compete with government-subsidized services here and elsewhere. We can stop our own subsidy, but we can't stop Japan or ESA, so what do we do about the problem? I suggest draining them dry. If they are offering services below cost, then they are operating at a loss. I suggest we take full advantage of their services, putting lots and lots of DOD satellites on foreign rockets. If the subsidy continues, if they continue to operate at a loss, it should help our balance of payments, raid their pockets and feed ours. If they stop the subsidy, then the original problem goes away, our private launch services can be competitive. Either way we win something. Rebuttal anyone? ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 87 21:24:26 GMT From: amdahl!oliveb!intelca!mipos3!sundar@ames.arpa (abcd) Subject: Oxygen Supply Yesterday (Sep 22) there was a broadcast from KQED (PBS) in the bay area on the national space program and the Galileo Mission. Probably some of you have seen it before. The program presented a view of the current status that put the blame on the Congress armed with budget trimmers and the poor choice of a space policy that chose to rely on one space vehicle for the future of the US space program. It also pointed out the current administration's preoccupation with non-space activities that stand in the way of renewed space exploration. I hope more people would watch this show to increase their understanding of the current Space problems. At one instance, there was a remark by someone (I couldn't read the name: my TV blanks out the bottom 1/5 of the screen) about the availability of oxygen for extended stay in space. This problem must have been solved years ago, but I don't have any knowledge of the solution: do astronauts carry all their oxygen supply or is the oxygen chemically generated? --sri sundar@mipos3.intel.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 87 09:32:01 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Several things There's been a lot postings lately, and I've really got to bone down on research. I'm thinking about getting a Public Information Officier to read SPACE. I'll still read, but he or she will have to answer questions. I'll still post the yearly next-summer jobs thing in December, but this time I'm going to take it out of the hands of friends and put people in direct touch with Recruiting and Personnel people. (Several readers were hired last year). Last evening, I finally got around to seeing the Nova on Galileo, Gawd! Shades of old Project Reviews. Saw several JPL friends, saw R. Eddy who is an Ames Dep. Director who didn't get is name mentioned, saw the Cafeteria Meeting room where I used to sit in Reviews, etc. In large part that episode did capture what those meetings are like Andy Ingersoll trying to get "atmosphere" time (he's like that most of the time). Hope viewers get an appreciation of the tradeoffs which are inherent in projects. Negatives--Nova's overview of the Space Station was over-simplified. Mark et al wanted a Shuttle AND a Station as Mars stepping stones ($20G 1970$$) and other minor things. Back to the salt mines. P.S. If you guys decide to abolish NASA and take us all outside to shoot us, I won't need a blindfold. --eugene ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 15:47:13 GMT From: shafto@AMES-AURORA.ARPA (Michael Shafto) Subject: Re: Reply to a government employee In article <259364.870924.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: >> From: Eugene Miya N. > >> Interesting points. Sometimes I wonder if it would not be better (for >> the sake of a better space program) to have a totalitarian society, at >> least it would make the launches run on time. > >Smile when you say that. Let's see, now. IF we had a totalitarian society, THEN the launches would run on time. IF the launches ran on time, THEN we would have a better space program. THEREFORE, IF we had a totalitarian society, THEN we would have a better space program. This is the kind of logic that will put/keep AI out of business. (By the way, you have to know Eugene Miya to realize that the :-) is always there by default. Mike > ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 17:32:32 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Space resources In article <259357.870924.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>, KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: > > You do need insulation. Apollo 13 was kept at 35 deg. F during the > > return (very uncomfortable). > > Are you sure this wasn't deliberate, to keep leakage down? Since the fuel cell had gone south (sort of) Apollo 13 had severe limits to usable power, and to avoid running down the batteries, all non-essential equipment was shut down as long as possible. Since the craft had been designed to reflect as much heat as possible, expecting significant heating from on-board equipment, it got pretty cold. I seem to remember some concern about the crew's drinking water supply freezing... > Keeping cool will almost certainly be a bigger problem than keeping > warm, even in interstellar space, given that thermal radiation is the > only way one can lose heat in space without throwing away mass. Make your vessel shiny, spin it, use lots of CMOS and superconductors, and don't forget to turn off the lights in your bedroom, and you should not have too much trouble staying cool. :] seh ------------------------------ Date: 25 Sep 87 15:21:47 GMT From: ihnp4!mmm!allen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Kurt Allen) Subject: Re: Space resources In article <259357.870924.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: >> You do need insulation. Apollo 13 was kept at 35 deg. F during the >> return (very uncomfortable). > >Are you sure this wasn't deliberate, to keep leakage down? Apollo 13, according to my sources, was so cool on the return from the moon because the electrical systems were turned off whenever possible to save electricity. (electricity was generated in the fuel cells, and used oxygen). The main control panel for Apollo 13 was shut down. This had never been done on any previous mission. There was some concern about problems powering it back up. As we all know, however, all turned out well. -- Kurt W. Allen 3M Center ihnp4!mmm!allen ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 87 12:19:01 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Britain in space I am re-posting the following items which appeared on the Channel Four teletext service's weekly space news pages "In Orbit" (page 618 for those who can get C4). They are posted as a followup to my earlier postings on the same subject. Both items were written by and should only be credited to the ITV space correspondant, Dr David Whitehead. Bob. ------------------------------------------- BRITAIN IN SPACE This week several UK companies set up a firm called Space Ventures plc. as part of a rearguard action to try to persuade the Goverment that space is worth funding. This follows the summer fiasco between the Goverment and the British National Space Centre which led to the Director of the BNSC resigning. -------------------------------------------- BRITISH SPACE FUNDING. A newspaper report that the UK may be asked to leave the European Space Agency because of lack of commitment to space has been hotly denied. But there's no doubt that with big talk and little action the rest of Europe feels pretty fed up with us. As "In Orbit" has said before, compromise upon wooly compromise is worse than doing nothing. We either decide to be part of the space game pull out and do something else. But then that means deciding something... ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 87 21:17:25 GMT From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Space resources > Apollo 13, according to my sources, was so cool on the return > from the moon because the electrical systems were turned off > whenever possible to save electricity. (electricity was > generated in the fuel cells, and used oxygen). The limiting factor during the return was the amount of water available for cooling the LM systems. Oxygen was no problem at all; they finished with half the original amount on the LM. 20% of the LM's original battery capacity was left because they cut power consumption down to a fifth of normal levels. Only 9% of the water remained, and this only because of the drastic cut in power consumption (and heat dissipation). Source: James A. Lovell in NASA SP-350. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 16:14:47 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: space news from Aug 10 AW&ST In article <8644@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > [...] I also applaud the idea that backups >which aren't needed as backups should be *flown*, perhaps on a different >mission, rather than being donated to the Smithsonian. If you think the >Viking and the Voyager in the Smithsonian look realistic, it's because >they *are* real.] Yeah! If the Smithsonian really wants them for museum pieces, let them finance an expedition to go out and retrieve them *after* the vehicles have flown their intended (or backup) missions. Heh heh. -- Alastair JW Mayer BIX: al UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair "What we really need is a good 5-cent/gram launch vehicle." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #5 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 7 Oct 87 13:52:44 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00701; Wed, 7 Oct 87 10:45:11 PDT id AA00701; Wed, 7 Oct 87 10:45:11 PDT Date: Wed, 7 Oct 87 10:45:11 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710071745.AA00701@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #6 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 6 Today's Topics: Re: space news from Aug 10 AW&ST Re: Alternate information from NASA on shuttle activities Re: space news from Aug 10 AW&ST putting backup spacecraft in museums Objects for the Smithsonian (was: Space News...) Re: Space resources Re: space news from Aug 10 AW&ST Re: Space resources Early Apollo capsules and Soviet ICBM launches. Humorous quote from Air&Space/Smithsonian magazine Response to Comments on Newspeak Article ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Sep 87 19:11:29 GMT From: cbmvax!grr@rutgers.edu (George Robbins) Subject: Re: space news from Aug 10 AW&ST Come on - the Smithsonian takes what they are given - they don't exactly wander around NASA looking mission capable hardware to carry off. Now if NASA was to go off and to recover some nice historic space or even lunar debris, I'm sure the Smithsonian would love to put it on display. Unfortunatly, I suspect all the well known "historic" satellites have long since reentered. Anyone want to start a pool on the first manned mission to geo-synchronous orbit? BTW, has anyone ever seen a fairly complete list of the disposition of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo capsules, leaving what constitutes a "real" capsule and open issue? -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: out to lunch... Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite) ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 01:49:19 GMT From: rosevax!kksys!bird@uunet.uu.net (Mike Bird) Subject: Re: Alternate information from NASA on shuttle activities Well, near then end of the Challenger disaster, my local cable company was using one of it's "local programming" channels to carry the NASA feed direct and uncut. We actually had the entire feed that the networks did, straight from the NASA editors in Houston! I used to tape the stuff all day (most of it was dreadfully boring) and fast-forward through it at a speed ratio of 6 to 1 (the rate of the "scan" feature on my VCR. If something caught my eye (payload deployment, talks on the mission by the ground-based specialists, etc) I'd stop the tape, rewind and watch on 1:1 speed. Check with your cable company. They've got lots of free bandwidth, they should be able to accomodate the "space-nuts". Mike Bird ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 87 08:28:39 GMT From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: space news from Aug 10 AW&ST > Now if NASA was to go off and to recover some nice historic space or > even lunar debris, I'm sure the Smithsonian would love to put it on > display. Among the items on display at the Air & Space Museum: The Apollo 11 command module the faulty electronics box removed from Solar Max the TV camera from Surveyor III, removed during the Apollo 12 mission moon rocks Phil ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 87 14:47:54 GMT From: faline!thumper!mike@bellcore.bellcore.com (Michael Caplinger) Subject: putting backup spacecraft in museums The cost of building a spacecraft is only a fraction of the total mission cost, especially for very long term, unmanned missions like Voyager. A look at how much Galileo is costing just sitting at JPL is instructive in this regard. So to claim that a backup spacecraft now sitting in a museum could as easily have been launched is an emotionally appealing but fiscally untrue claim. Besides, there is an instance already of a spacecraft being taken *out* of a museum to be flown (Polar BEAR satellite). Mike Caplinger mike@bellcore.com {decvax,ihnp4}!thumper!mike ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 87 14:19:13 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!homxc!maw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (M.WEINSTEIN) Subject: Objects for the Smithsonian (was: Space News...) In article <2395@cbmvax.UUCP>, grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes: > if NASA was to go off and to recover some nice historic space or even > lunar debris, I'm sure the Smithsonian would love to put it on > display. Unfortunatly, I suspect all the well known "historic" > satellites have long since reentered. Anyone want to start a pool on > the first manned mission to geo-synchronous orbit? There is a document available from the government (published by NASA, I think) called "Satellite Situation Report" which is a list of all the objects being tracked in space. There are still some golden-oldies on the list. Michael A. Weinstein ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 87 22:15:48 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Space resources In article <1433@faline.bellcore.com>, karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > The limiting factor during the return was the amount of water > available for cooling the LM systems. Oxygen was no problem at all; > they finished with half the original amount on the LM. 20% of the LM's > original battery capacity was left because they cut power consumption > down to a fifth of normal levels. Only 9% of the water remained, and > this only because of the drastic cut in power consumption (and heat > dissipation). > > Source: James A. Lovell in NASA SP-350. Didn't the fuel cells used by Apollo also produce water as a waste byproduct of generating power? seh ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 87 23:20:00 GMT From: cybvax0!frog!john@eddie.mit.edu (John Woods, Software) Subject: Re: space news from Aug 10 AW&ST In article <5260@milano.UUCP>, wex@milano.UUCP writes: > In article <8644@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > ... backups which aren't needed as backups should be *flown*, > I don't disagree with Henry, just thought some readers might not know > these facts (courtesy of NPR's All Things Considered):... > All exhibits in the A&S museum are in *working order*. It's one > of their conditions for accepting an exhibit. I think this statement must be a tad strong: I don't think I'd want to fly in the Apollo capsule that they had on display, and I think it would be *real hard* to put it back in working order. On the other hand, it WAS in working order when it went up :-). John Woods ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 87 04:32:51 GMT From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Space resources > Didn't the fuel cells used by Apollo also produce water as > a waste byproduct of generating power? Yes, but only the service module used fuel cells. The LM used batteries, so water had to be carried for cooling and drinking. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Sep 87 13:05:26 CDT From: Mark D Hiatt Subject: Early Apollo capsules and Soviet ICBM launches. A couple of things related to recent discussion of Apollo and USSR ICBM/ Sat launches. First, from todays Daily Nebraskan, the daily newspaper of the University of Nebraska at Lincoln: Morrill Hall space capsule to be refurbished by Victoria Ayotte - Staff Reporter Renovation grounded the Apollo space capsule outside Morrill Hall early this week. The space capsule was taken off its base Monday so a new base could be built. The new base is the first step in refurbishing the capsule, said Hugh Genoways, director of Morrill Hall. The capsule was the first Apollo module launched by NASA. On February 26th, 1966, Apollo 009 was a suborbital test to determine the reliability of the capsule and the heat shield in relation to further manned flight. The capsule was donated by NASA after a letter-writing campaign by UNL fraternities and soroities, Genoways said Behlen Manufacturing Company paid to have the capsule brought to the campus. In February 1973, Apollo XVII astronauts Eugene Cernan, Ronald Evans and Harrison Schmitt came to UNL to dedicate the spacecraft. Building a glass or plexiglass done over the capsule to protect it from the weather is the final step in the restoration process, Genoways said. The capsule needs protection that won't block the view of it. We want to have it free to the space and keep the open appearance, Genoways said. The estimated cost of the total project is $50,000.00. The Kansas Cosmosphere space museum in Emporia, Kansas, will do the refurbishing. Genoways said the original capsule had an instrument panel that was removed by NASA because it was made of gold. A different instrument panel, similar to the original, will be installed. University maintenence workers are rebuilding the base this week at a cost of about $1,000.00, maintenence manager Jerry Delhay said. Delhay said the old base was meant to be temporary, but has supported the capsule ever since it was installed in the early 1970s. An article in the February 14th, 1973, Lincoln Star newspaper said, "A permanent instalation will be constructed in the near future." Genoways said the base looked like it was made of plywood. "I was afraid it would crumble and dump the space capsule," he said. The new capsule base will be filled with concrete, and will be "more permanent," Genoways said. Maintenence also is constructing new lights to be put underneath the capsule. Genoways said the old base was "an eyesore" and he thinks it's important to keep the capsule from deteriorating because of the weather. In the age of reusable spacraft, NASA isn't generating artifacts like these anymore, Genoways said. And the market for items like the space capsule has gone up since the Challenger accident, he said. "The space capsule is an important artifact of our space program which we have here at our museum," he said. So, that's what happened to 009 - and btw, does it look sad! Also, I used to work for a guy who sold Control Data CYBERs to the Air Force, and he told me that we know the difference between ICBMs and all the other Soviet launches by the radar signitures picked up in the South Pacific. It seems that before any Soyuz, etc. launch -- at least forty-five minutes to an hour before, in his words -- they fire up their radar stations downrange of the launch. Presumably this gives them time to find and correct any errors in calibration or any malfunctions. I would also presume that this would be unnecessary in the event of an ICBM launch. Mark D Hiatt UCPL130 @ UNLVM (BitNet) ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 87 19:01:00 GMT From: spdcc!m2c!frog!john@husc6.harvard.edu (John Woods, Software) Subject: Humorous quote from Air&Space/Smithsonian magazine From the October/November 1987 Air&Space magazine, in an article on Project Vanguard entitled "The Day the Rocket Died": ...[after the announcement of Vanguard]... Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson (the same "Engine Charlie" who once told the Senate, "[F]or years I've thought that what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa," probably an accurate analysis) was asked whether the Russians might beat the Americans into orbit. "I wouldn't care if they did," he responded. (It was later claimed that Wilson favored the development of the automatic transmission so that he could drive with one foot in his mouth.) John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu "Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart ------------------------------ Date: 25 Sep 87 03:36:21 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (d.l.skran) Subject: Response to Comments on Newspeak Article Response to "Newspeak in Orbit" Comments by Dale L. Skran Jr. Rather than take various persons to task on a line by line basis, I intend to respond to the general line of comment used by various people. This seems especially appropriate since most tacks were echoed by several voices. I discerned the following general sorts of comments: 1) I was being unfair to the media, over-generalizing, etc. 2) I was supportive of the space shuttle, which is perceived by some as the major problem with NASA's space program. 3) The article may not have been the best, but it got people thinking about space, which is a good thing. Unfairness to the Media I wrote this in a frenzy as I was leaving for a vacation, and yes, it does sound a bit over-blown upon my return. I don't adequately support the points I make, and I do over-generalize. I also may have been taken as saying more (and worse) than I intended. First off, "the media" is too simple a construct. You will note that I added the qualifier, "especially the NY Times" but that still leaves me open. There is a lot of material out there on space, including many well-informed articles by expert reporters. These stories typically appear in magazines like Aviation Week and Space Technology, Discover, Spaceflight, etc. In addition, there appear to be several other rough categries: "Gee Whiz" science reporting -- esp. Popular Science and US News and World Report, but on occasion many others. Did any of you see the cover of Time on room-temperature super-conductors? "Pro-science" organs -- Scientific American, Science, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Planetary Report, etc. These magazines feature well written articles that echo a well-defined "left-of-center-scientist party line" that is extremely predictable. For example: Scientific American is pro-nuclear power, anti-SDI, pro-arms-control, and anti-space-station. Their articles are of the highest quality -- except on these subjects. Never do articles taking the opposite side of these issues appear, and frequently the "Science and the Citizen" column reflects these biases as well. The general print and TV media -- the Networks, the big city newspapers, Time & Newsweek, etc. -- With certain exceptions (USA Today) as near as I can tell except for brief reports of "breakthroughs" or "scandals" the quantity of their space reporting is low. It is here that the Soviet achievements have been ignored. When an editorial policy exists, it is usually that we should get together with the Soviets and press on to Mars. The major example is the NY Times (until very recently). Some seemed to think that I am unqualified to make any statement about media bias. In the sense that I haven't read every paper published, this is true. But, I do attempt to follow all sorts of media, and to read a wide range of space-related articles. Based on that experience, I contend that the "general media" has to a large extent ignored or misreported space in recent times. I would further characterize what does appear as over-stating our achievements and under-stating the Soviet's. Space reporting also suffers from the frequently anti-military bias of many reporters, who apparently believe that NASA is little more than an adjunct to the air force. These same reporters are also frequently anti-large-corporation, and since most space money goes to large corporations, they look at it cross-eyed. Finally, reporters are generally not technically educated. Some respond to this by uncriticlly accepting technological claims while others are fanatically paranoid about them. Both attitudes work against quality unbiased reporting. I was once interviewed by a reporter who did not know what an "integrated circuit" was. So yes, I think there is bias in the media, and that it works against the space program. However, it is not the strongest force working against the space program, nor is it only biased on this issue. Further, the uncritical acceptance and glorification of certain aspects of the space program has been just as harmful as the "it's all a waste of money" attitude. Both approaches leave the fundamental agruements and ideas of space advocates such as Gerard O'Neill unpresented to the general public. I further think that the media is extremely powerful in our society. My reference to it as the "5th Branch of Governement," the other four being Congress, the Executive, the Courts, and the bureaucracy is completely serious. Talk of the "agonizing decisions" made in the media ignores the reality that a fairly small number of people decide what we are going to see on the Network news every night. I'm sure they agonize, but I'm also sure that the results have any number of biases. For example, any news related to America is much over-reported in proporation to its global significances. 10,000 can die in the Iran-Iraq war with hardly a ripple in the American media. As to whether "the Martzs" have hurt space more than "the Proxmires," who knows? This is not an objective statement, nor is it easy to quantify. In any case, the Martzs and the Proxmires are just different breeds of the same animal -- "homo-lookus-backus." In the short run they'll always be right. In the long run they come off looking silly. It is not my intention to criticize the many dedicated hard working reporters in this country. It is my intention to criticze bias presented as fact, or even as educated opionion. Martz's article was so strongly anti-space and so empty of an alternative program to the one he attacks that I doubt his offered pro-space statements. His failure to present or even discuss the case for a space station reveals his true colors. It is one thing to oppose NASA's space station. It is quite another to oppose the whole idea. The article got people thinking about space: To some extent Dale Amon has converted me over to this view. Both articles taken together are probably on the whole positive. However, the second article is much more constructive and better informed than Martz's article. This covers my comments on (1) and (2) above. I will produce another posting to respond to the "Shuttle Bashers" and the advocates of the Big Dumb Booster." Thanks for all comments. I would like to acknowledge a number of postive comments that were emailed to me; I will consider your suggestions. As a postscript, I acknowledge that the NYTimes is apparently changing its previous policies and has started to more fully report Soviet achievements. I was astounded when they printed the "Soviet SPS" article. Dale L. Skran Jr. mtgzz!dls PS: Please, before flaming me further about my generlizations on media categories, go out and read some space articles from each example I cite, and then we can talk about it. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #6 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 8 Oct 87 06:18:47 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02094; Thu, 8 Oct 87 03:16:32 PDT id AA02094; Thu, 8 Oct 87 03:16:32 PDT Date: Thu, 8 Oct 87 03:16:32 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710081016.AA02094@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #7 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 7 Today's Topics: Re: Humorous quote from Air&Space/Smithsonian magazine Ride Commission Report TIME: Moscow Takes the Lead Re: TIME: Moscow Takes the Lead Re: Here is how to get the Ride Report New Summary of Ride Report ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Sep 87 02:33:11 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!lsuc!sq!msb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Humorous quote from Air&Space/Smithsonian magazine > ...[after the announcement of Vanguard]... Secretary of Defense > Charles Wilson ... was asked whether the Russians might beat the > Americans into orbit. "I wouldn't care if they did," he responded. Why is this funny? Is it supposed to make a difference who was first? Mark Brader ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 87 21:26:59 GMT From: unc!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Ride Commission Report My request to the NASA Office of Exploration last month did not produce a copy of the Ride Commission's report (titled "Leadership & America's Future in Space"), but I saw an ad in the current AW&ST and plan to order it that way. The report can by obtained by sending $14.95 to: The Ride Report (A128) Aviation Week & Space Technology PO Box 5505 Peoria, Il. 61601 It is probably a wise idea to include a note specifying what you're asking for if you can't get a copy of the order coupon from AW&ST. Disclaimer: I haven't yet ordered the report, but AW&ST can probably be considered a reputable source :-) Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu || ...mcnc!unc!leech) __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 87 14:25:56 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (d.l.skran) Subject: TIME: Moscow Takes the Lead I strongly urge that you all read the cover article of the October 5, 1987 issue of TIME, titled "Moscow Takes the Lead." It is the first large article I've read in a major national media organ that dares to look honestly at Soviet successes and the decline of the American space program. Unlike Martz's unconstructive and anti-space article in NEWSWEAK(sic), here we have some commentary that while not rabidly pro-space at least asks most of the correct questions. I am now hopeful that elements of the major mass media are starting to wake up to the reality that we have fumbled the ball in a big way due to our weak and vacillating support of the space program. To those who doubt the existance of media bias, I can point out specific articles in TIME that down-played MIR and pooh-poohed the then L5 Society's contention that the launch of MIR meant the Soviets were ahead. Nothing much has changed over the last year except the attitude of the editorial staff of TIME. Dale L. Skran Jr. PS: this article contains facts and interviews available nowhere else. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 87 18:12:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: TIME: Moscow Takes the Lead The only major item I disagreed with in the Time article was the title. It should have read in the past tense. -- Ken Jenks jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 87 15:55:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Here is how to get the Ride Report Regarding another subject, I got this bit of E-mail from willner%cfa@harvard.harvard.edu (Steve Willner): > You definitely need to get a copy of the Ride report, and you will > probably want to get some of the references in it. (She gives a > fairly extensive list.) I've had no luck getting a copy from OE, but > SSI sent me a Xerox copy. (Box 82, Princeton, NJ 08540. Send a few > dollars with your request; they're a non-profit org. with a limited > budget. Better yet, send a big contribution. :-) ) I'll be posting a > summary of the report "soon", but you need to get a copy of the whole > thing. Thanks, Steve! I hope you don't mind my posting this; it might help somebody else seeking Dr. Ride's report. "A few dollars" is a heck of a lot cheaper than $14.95! -- Ken Jenks jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 87 16:24:59 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: New Summary of Ride Report Thanks to the Space Studies Institute, I've finally received a copy of "Leadership and America's Future in Space" (the Ride report). Since some earlier summaries seemed to me inaccurate, incomplete, or to have misplaced emphases, here is some additional information. Indented material is quoted from the report. [If you disagree with the accuracy of this summary or its choice of topics, by all means complain to - or about - me. But if you disagree with the conclusions reported, complain to Ride, Fletcher, or your elected leaders.] First of all, what is the nature of the report? On page 1, in big type, are the words "A Report to the Administrator by Dr. Sally K. Ride." At the end of the report, in tiny type, are the names of 3 staff members, 4 "initiative advocates" (See below.), and 39 "workshop participants, reviewers, and consultants." I conclude that the report is meant to be one individual's opinions and recommendations. Since the individual is well-known, well-informed, and (at the time of the report's release) high-ranking, these opinions will carry great weight and will be impossible to ignore, but they are NOT official policy. Moreover, the report itself says: The goals of the civilian space program must be carefully chosen to be consistent with the national interest and also to be consistent with NASA's capabilities. ... It is not NASA's role to determine the strategy for the civilian space program. But it is NASA's role to lead the debate, to propose technically feasible options, and to make thoughtful recommendations. Thus, as always, space policy will be made by elected officials. Second, what did the report try to do? Most attention has been focussed on four "major initiatives". Contrary to most public statements, however, these initiatives were not intended to be the only possibilities for NASA, nor was the Ride report intended only to set priorities among them. Instead, the initiatives were intended to represent a range of possible programs for NASA. ...there is no one "correct" strategy; rather, there are many distinct strategic options. Clearly, each nation should choose and pursue a strategy which is consistent with its own national objectives. ...it was important to choose a set of initiatives which spanned a broad spectrum of content and complexity. In preparing the report, an advocate studied each initiative in enough detail to be able to determine likely schedules, missions, and costs. (Some initiatives could draw on a wealth of previous studies, and the report contains an excellent bibliography.) Some requirements were that 1) each initiative reach "major milestones" within 20 years; 2) all the initiatives be _in addition_ to current NASA programs; 3) each initiative be considered independently; and 4) no international cooperation be assumed. The advocates presented the best case for each initiative, and Ride and her advisors then compared costs, benefits, and resources likely to be available. On this basis, Ride made her recommendations. Another contribution of the Ride report - perhaps even the most important - has received no publicity whatsoever. This part consists of recommendations that are separate from the major initiatives and that should be carried out in any case. What are NASA's goals? The report adopts a statement by "NASA Senior Management's Strategic Planning Council", containing: 1) Advance scientific knowledge of the planet Earth, the solar system, and the universe beyond. 2) Expand human presence beyond the Earth into the solar system. 3) Strengthen aeronautics research and develop technology toward promoting US leadership in civil and military aviation. So what are Ride's recommendations? There are several that are independent of the major initiatives. One, surprisingly, is for better education. An informed public is essential to both the near- and long-term interests of the nation's civilian space program. "While up to 90 percent of high school graduates in other countries enjoy a proficiency in math and science, a mere 6 percent of US graduates attain the same aptitudes...This challenge exists at every level from elementary through graduate education." [quoted from "Pioneering the Space Frontier"] A second recommendation is in the area of transportation requirements. ...we must regain regular and assured access to space and expand launch capability based on expendable and reusable vehicles. A third is for increased effort in developing advanced technology. Rebuilding the nation's technology base is essential for the successful achievement of any long-term space goal. ... Project Pathfinder...would provide... technology for autonomous systems and robotics, for ...advanced propulsion systems, and for extraction of useful materials from Lunar or planetary sources.... [and for] human ability to live and work in space. Other recommendations are for increased life sciences research (i.e. space medicine), planning for evolution of the Space Station based on the missions it is to support, and "adequate support" for the Office of Exploration (of which she was director when the report was written.) What of the major initiatives? Perhaps the most important recommendation is in the conclusion section: It would not be good strategy, good science, or good policy for the US to select a single initiative, then pursue it single-mindedly. The pursuit of a single initiative to the exclusion of all others results in leadership in only a limited range of space endeavor. Within that context, Ride does make some recommendations. To review, the four initiatives are "Exploration of the Solar System", "Mission to Planet Earth", "Outpost on the Moon", and "Humans to Mars". [They are listed here in order of estimated cost, although the first two are nearly the same.] Ride states that all four initiatives represent very desirable things to do in space, and all are fully consistent with NASA's stated goals. The questions about the initiatives are costs, schedules, and priorities. However, her recommendations are not quite as have been reported: The first two initiatives are unequivocally recommended. NASA should embrace the core program [of the Solar System Exploration Committee. As regards additional activities:] Although not necessarily at the pace suggested in this initiative, planetary exploration must be solidly supported through the 1990's. NASA should embrace Mission to Planet Earth. This initiative is responsive, time-critical, and shows a recognition of our responsibility to our home planet. The last initiative is unequivocally recommended to be deferred. ...we should avoid a "race to Mars". [danger of turning into] another one shot spectacular. Such a dead-end venture does _not_ have the support of most NASA personnel. [But:] Settling Mars should be our eventual goal... We should adopt a strategy of natural progression which leads, step by step, in an orderly, unhurried way, inexorably toward Mars. I can find no recommendation at all on the Lunar outpost; it is presented as a feasible and desirable program, but Ride recognizes that any such program will be a major effort and will require full commitment from citizens and political authorities. [Undoubtedly presidential leadership --SW] The Lunar initiative is a logical part of a long-range strategy for human exploration... it requires a national commitment that spans decades... this initiative is quite flexible. Its pace can be controlled... designed to be evolutionary, not revolutionary ...the Moon has not been fully explored ...fits beautifully into a natural progression.... We should explore the Moon.... [And write your Congressman and favorite presidential candidate. --SW] Finally, what are the implications for Space Station? Although the report takes Phase 1 as given, it does examine the likely uses and requirements. The Mission to Planet Earth makes little use of Space Station as such, although it makes extensive use of unstaffed co-orbiting and polar orbiting platforms. The Planetary Exploration initiative uses Space Station only to house an isolation lab for returned Mars samples. [Seems like grasping at straws to me; the equivalent Lunar Receiving Lab was in Houston. --SW] On the other hand, the Lunar outpost initiative makes extensive use of Space Station for vehicle assembly, and usage will increase dramatically if Lunar oxygen is used to fuel vehicles in orbit. Furthermore, Space Station would be essential for testing long-term life support systems. Therefore, if a Lunar outpost program is adopted, the Space Station will have to be designed for vehicle assembly and fueling as well as material processing. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #7 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 9 Oct 87 06:21:01 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04259; Fri, 9 Oct 87 03:19:00 PDT id AA04259; Fri, 9 Oct 87 03:19:00 PDT Date: Fri, 9 Oct 87 03:19:00 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710091019.AA04259@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #8 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 8 Today's Topics: 1987 CSAW AMateur radio SATellite group AIAA October Event: UFO seminar space news from Aug 24 AW&ST Planetary Society ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 87 07:19:52 PDT From: Craig Milo Rogers Reply-To: Rogers@venera.isi.edu Subject: 1987 CSAW Date: Thu, 08 Oct 87 07:19:52 PDT Sender: rogers@venera.isi.edu CSAW is the 1987 California Space Activists Workshop. It will be held October 9 through 11 at All Seasons Resort in Incline Village, Nevada (Lake Tahoe). This is a change from the originally announced location. CSAW is the annual conference of the California Space Development Council (CSDC), an organization of some (but not all) of the NSS chapters in California. This year's focus will be the development of activist and leadership skills and their application to space advocacy. It is not a "come meet the big names" event, nor is there a technical program planned. Friday will feature the CSDC business meeting and the pep talk "It's Up to You". Saturday's sessions are titled "Space Entrepreneurship" and "Cultivating Your Local Politician"; attendees will practice tactical skills (listening, questioning, presentation, and judgement) through role-playing exercises. Sunday is titled "Pinning Ourselves Down to Action", in which we try to establish: where we are, where we're going, how we plan to get their, and what we're going to do about it. Workshop leaders are Loyd Case, jr., Terry C. Savage, and Tim Kyger. My apologies for not getting this to the net sooner. If anyone reads this message (in time) and wants to participate, leave a message for us at the resort, (702) 831-2311. There will not be published proceedings of the conference per se, although there will be minutes of the CSDC business meeting. The goal of the Sunday session is to produce a "white paper" suitable for distribution. Craig Milo Rogers ------------------------------ Subject: AMateur radio SATellite group Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1987 14:27:10.26 CDT From: Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Being new on the "net", I don't know if the readers are aware of a group known as AMSAT. It is an organization, worldwide, of amateur radio operators who build honest to goodness communication satellites, including satellites which are scientific and include voice telemetry, slow scan tv television pictures of the earth, etc. The group has numerous tracking programs for the various satellites, amateur and other, which run on various pcs- from the Timex-sinclair (remember them) to the IBM etc style. Currently in operation are UO-9, UO-11, AO-10, RS-8, RS-6, (I think), and the new RS-11,12. (UO is British designed and build- from U of Surrey, AO is American and West German joint venture, and RS series are Russian). While the satellites are used by hams in "transponder" type communication cross band with each other (say 2meters up, 435 mhz down), the satellites spit out wonderful telemetry on temperatures, radiation, etc etc. The UO series are scientific, but yet simple enough that on Wednesday the satellites broadcast their telemetry in "voice" via a digispeaker. Amsat is short for Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation (not to be confused with COMSAT), 850 Sligo Avenue, Suite 601 Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone: 301-589-6062 They publish semiweekly newsletters, technical journals which are fantastic deal ing with the satellites, telemetry, tracking, communications, etc. I will be pleased to answer any question I can about the organization. Just to l et you know, the satellites are launched (or have been launched) on space availa ble (ballast) type positions in the US launchers and ESA series, Kuru. Most are 110 minute orbit periods (or there about) in a generally polar orbit. The AO-10 is in eliptical orbit, once every 12 hours. I am going on and on, but I forgot to mention that Japan is also part of this series, with JA-1; a transponder and digital satellite. That's right, you can access this bird with your computer. Its rather incredible. Taylor ------------------------------ Subject: AIAA October Event: UFO seminar Date: 6 Oct 87 14:51:00 PDT From: "DSS::BOLD" Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov S P A C E D I V I S I O N I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M Date: 6-Oct-1987 14:36 PST From: Kevin W. Bold Tel No: (213)643-1540/AV833- Subject: AIAA October Event AIAA is sponsoring a seminar on UFOs featuring William L. Moore, Saturday, 24 Oct 1987, at the TRW Forum in Redondo Beach. Registration begins at 0830 and the seminar runs from 0900 to 1200. Admission fee, which includes coffee and rolls, is $6.00. Compton Blvd ____________________________________________ | | A | | F v | | r N i | | e W E a | R1 R3 Pkng | e S t | | m i | R2 E1 S (Seminar | a o | location) | n n |_______________________________________| Space Park Drive For more information or to make reservations call (213) 429-3713. (They may even have more complete maps!) ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 87 21:59:32 GMT From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Aug 24 AW&ST [Next in the multi-way tie for third place in space-related periodicals is a pair: Planetary Encounter and World Spaceflight News. These are for people who want the nitty-gritty details. No glossy color photos or quotations from Chairman Carl to be found here, just page after page of real hard solid information. PE covers planetary missions, WSN covers near-Earth spaceflight. Aviation Leak spent one paragraph discussing Joe Kerwin's medical report on the deaths of the Challenger crew; WSN printed the whole thing. The NRC report on shuttle flight frequencies etc. got about one column in AW&ST; WSN printed the whole thing. The so-called International Comet Explorer got some polite coverage in various journals (no exciting photos to be had, since it had no camera); PE spent an entire issue on it, with diagrams, lists of experiments, an interview with the mission director, etc. When the shuttle was flying regularly, WSN printed things like payload manifests, activity schedules, and post-mission assessment reports for EVERY mission. The same crew also puts out a succession of extra-cost "special reports", containing things like NASA technical documents on related topics. (Example: although I think they may have had second thoughts due to poor sales on this, at one point they were going to put out a multi-volume special report reprinting the entire Critical Items List from the shuttle.) Highly recommended if you are tired of the babytalk in newsstand magazines and want to know the gory details. PE and WSN are at Box 98, Sewell NJ 08080. Each is nominally monthly, although in fact they've been coming out less frequently for the last year or so due to lack of news. Each is $30 for 12 issues sent First Class to the US or Canada, elsewhere $45 for 12 issues sent Air Mail.] Editorial commending the Ride report, and urging that it not get buried in the White House bureaucracy. The National Commission on Space is re-submitting its report in hopes that it will get attention this time. Intelsat prepares for RFP for Intelsat 7 series. They will be smaller than the enormous Intelsat 6s. The first 2-3 will be for the Pacific, for launch in 1992-3, with possibly more for the Atlantic 3-4 years later. Predictions of shortage of engineering talent in the Washington DC area as NASA's space station contracts start hiring hundreds. [*Just* what the space program needs, more bureaucrats.....] Oops: the Shuttle-C shuttle-derived heavylift launcher may end up in competition for funds with the advanced-SRB project. Official release of the Ride report, calling for aggressive action and [gasp] planning. "Without an eye toward the future, we flounder in the present." NASA is giving it a lukewarm reception at best. NASA people have been ordered to downplay it, and there was debate over whether it should be released at all. (NASA is afraid of the reaction from the Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting.) Ride report endorses shuttle and station, but as tools rather than goals. Shuttle-derived cargo vehicle should be developed immediately. Strong consideration of a new *manned* expendable urged, for station logistics. Strong emphasis on technology development, notably the Pathfinder program. Ride report says US could return to Moon by 2000, base by 2005-2010. Mars would take longer. Mars is clearly the ultimate near-future goal, but "...we should avoid a `race to Mars'. There is a very real danger that if the US announces a human Mars initiative at this time, it could escalate into another space race. This could turn an initiative that envisions the ultimate deployment of a habitable outpost into another one-shot spectacular... Settling Mars should be our eventual goal, but it should not be our next goal... We should adopt a strategy of natural progression which leads step-by-step, in an orderly unhurried way... towards Mars. Exploring and prospecting the Moon... would provide the experience and expertise necessary for further human exploration of the solar system. [We found] considerable sentiment that Apollo was a dead-end venture, and that we have little to show for it. Although this task force found some who dismissed [the lunar] initiative because `we've been to the Moon', it found more people who feel that this generation should continue the work begun by Apollo." Meanwhile, the Soviet Union plans to launch by the mid-1990s one or more dedicated asteroid missions with surface probes. SDI's Innovative Science and Technology group to launch first space experiment on sounding rocket in November, looking at problems of using high-power electrical equipment in space. IST is looking at the "small satellites" ideas and lightweight launchers, although it isn't funding them yet. Advanced propulsion work includes a proposal to replace the inert binder in solid rockets with a combustible fuel, and another to make solid fuels with continuous rather than batch processes. Materials work is looking at thin-film diamond as a semiconductor (it might be better than gallium arsenide) and as a tough coating for optical surfaces. Arianespace delays Ariane launch four days to give the launch teams some rest. [Launch successful.] Launch of Japanese H-1 booster carrying engineering test satellite slips four days due to valve problem in second stage. [Launch successful.] Chinese reentry capsule, carrying French experiment package, recovered after five days in orbit. [Also, I made a mistake in reporting this one: the capsule was of the type used for film-recovery spysats, but this particular mission was all scientific.] Inmarsat planning R&D program on navigation satellites. AW&ST is running a multi-part series on South American aerospace, including: Chilean space activity is modest but significant. Prominent in it is the shuttle emergency-landing runway on Easter Island; this involved extending the airport's runway and adding approach lights and landing aids. Chile hopes to fly an astronaut on the shuttle eventually. Also of note are an ozone-depletion experiment done jointly with the US and UK, and the first South American ground station for the Sarsat (search and rescue) program. Brazil's larger space program continues progress on building its own launcher (roughly Scout-class), environmental and Earth-resources satellites to go up on it, and a near-equatorial launch site for it. First launch tentatively 1989. ESA awards contract to British Aerospace for feasibility study of mobile communications satellite system, possibly using Molniya orbits for good coverage at high latitudes. "Mir" means "peace", as in | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "the war is over; we've won". | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 87 15:47:22 GMT From: uop!robert@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (Robert McCaul--The Equalizer) Subject: Planetary Society the following is the questionaire i was mailed by the Planetary Society of course, i am not a member....but i thought maybe the net could answer the PS on this... --- NATIONAL PRIORITIES SURVEY, UNITED STATES SPACE PROGRAM Please answer the following questions and return this form within 10 days to the Research and Policy committee of the Planetary Society. 1. Since the United States established the goal of a manned landing on the Moon in the 1960's under the presidency of John F. Kennedy, space research and planetary exploration have been significant componants of our nation's collective dreams and scientific advance- ment. Would you like to see the President take a similar leadership role in establishing a specific new goal for America's civilian space program?? ___Yes ___No ___No opinion 2. The tragic loss of the space shuttle Challenger has led to cancel- ation of subsequent space shuttle flights, leaving U.S. planetary missions without a launch vehicle. Either missions will have to be scrubbed or compromised, or funds will have to be spent for a new expendable launch vehicle. Would you like to see the U.S. space program develop and maintain new launch vehicles adequate for planetary missions?? ___Yes ___No ___No opinion 3. Proposals for a U.S.-launched and maintained space station have been made. Even if it required a change in the previously announced plan, would you be in favor of the United States re-orienting its space station to study long stays by humans in the space environment, and as a launching platform for future manned or unmanned planetary exploration?? ___Yes ___No ___No opinion (Whatever its goals, the space station may cost one to two billion dollars a year over the next 30 years--20% of NASA's budget, .5% of the Defense budget.) 4. Should human exploration of Mars be a goal of U.S. space policy in the next two decades, either alone or in conjunction with other spacefaring nations?? ___Yes ___No ___No opinion 5. In 1988, the Soviet Union is planning to send two ambitious research spacecraft to Mars and its inner moon Phobos. Should the United States seek to actively participate in this project, and cooperate with the Soviet Union on future Mars exploration?? ___Participate ___Not participate ___No opinion 6. Would you want to see increased U.S. government spending for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence? ___Yes ___No ___No opinion 7. The Moon may be a place for an eventual scientific base, and even for engineering resources. Setting up a base or mining experiment will cost tens of billions of dollars in the next century. Should the United States pursue further manned and unmanned scientific research projects on the surface of the Moon? ___Yes ___No ___No opinion 8. Planetary scientists have long been attracted to Saturn's moon, Titan, with an atmosphere filled with complex organic molecules and with a possible surface ocean. A U.S.-European mission has been proposed to explore Titan in the 1990's, but to do it requires developement of a new U.S. spacecraft--the Mariner Mark II. Would you like to see the United States establish an unmanned Titan-probe mission as a space research priority in this century? ___Yes ___No ___No opinion 9. Please check and prioritize (1=highest priority) those items which you think should become U.S. planetary goals in the near future: ___Exploration of Titan ___Human exploration of Mars ___Human base on the moon ___A mission to return cometary matter to Earth ___Unmanned exploration of Venus ___Other (Please name) ___________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 10. Would you be willing to spend as little as six cents a day to help see that these priorities become part of the U.S. civilian space program?? ___Yes ___No If your answer is "Yes", Carl Sagan, Bruce Murray and I invite you to become a member of the Planetary Society, the largest space interest group in the world. Simply check the appropriate box below, and return this form with your annual membership dues today. Enroll me as the newest member of the Planetary Society and use my dues to help carry on your important work. I understand my member- ship dues entitle me to recieve The Planetary Report, the Society's colorful and informative bimonthly publication, as well as discounts on books, prints, posters, maps and charts of interest to Society members. Plus my personal membership card and invitations to conferences, lectures, slide and film shows, seminars and other Society-sponsored events. ___My $20 annual dues payment is enclosed ___Please bill me THE PLANETARY SOCIETY RESEARCH AND POLICY COMMITTEE P.O. BOX 40185 SANTA BARBARA, CA. 93140-0185 ----------------------------------------end of questionaire it is interesting to note the above address is on the envelope that came with the questionaire (complete with another drivel-filled letter i won't bother to nauseate you with)...but the envelope says "membership department" while the questionaire is labelled as the "research and policy committee" what are they really interested in?? :-) this ought to provide some net-wars for awhile... at least those who want to join now have it within thier means... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #8 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Oct 87 06:14:37 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05666; Sat, 10 Oct 87 03:12:44 PDT id AA05666; Sat, 10 Oct 87 03:12:44 PDT Date: Sat, 10 Oct 87 03:12:44 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710101012.AA05666@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #9 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 9 Today's Topics: Re: New Summary of Ride Report Re: Planetary Society What is the Moon Treaty ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Oct 87 21:47:14 GMT From: beta!ryg@NYU.ARPA (Richard S Grandy) Subject: Re: New Summary of Ride Report Having just finished the Ride Report, two points really struck me: 1) A major emphasis of the report was on developing a national strategy for the space program rather than just advocating one or more specific programs. "Without a coherent formulation of the United States' intentions and priorities, there is no context in which to evaluate the relevance or the improtance of any proposed initiatives." [pg 15] "The intent is not to choose one initiative and discard the other three, but to rather to use the four candidate initiatives as a basis for discussion." [pg 21] 2) The (first two paragraphs of the) conclusion: "Over the last 25 years, as a result of the success of programs like Apollo, Skylab, Viking, Voyager, and the Space Shuttle, the American public has come to expect this country to lead the world in space science, space exploration, and space enterprise. But during the 1980s, membership in the once-exclusive club of spacefaring nations has grown, and our leadership is being challenged in many areas. In today's world, America clearly cannot be the leader in all space endeavors. But we will be the leader in very few unless we move promptly to develop a strategy to regain and retain leadership in those areas we deem important." [pg 57] Now if the general public just understood that...... Rick Grandy ryg@lanl.gov Boeing Computer Service (509)943-3295 ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 87 22:58:07 GMT From: unc!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Planetary Society In article <579@uop.UUCP> robert@uop.UUCP (Robert McCaul--The Equalizer) writes: >NATIONAL PRIORITIES SURVEY, UNITED STATES SPACE PROGRAM This survey has some interesting attitudes about money... here's my two cents worth: > (Whatever its goals, the space station may cost one to two billion > dollars a year over the next 30 years--20% of NASA's budget, .5% > of the Defense budget.) I read this in conjunction with the question as "Spending this amount on projects we like is fine, but otherwise unjustified". >4. Should human exploration of Mars be a goal of U.S. space policy in > the next two decades, either alone or in conjunction with other > spacefaring nations?? > >7. The Moon may be a place for an eventual scientific base, and even > for engineering resources. Setting up a base or mining experiment > will cost tens of billions of dollars in the next century. Should > the United States pursue further manned and unmanned scientific > research projects on the surface of the Moon? Reasonable questions, but a tad loaded. I suspect the answers would be different if we make the following slight change: 4. The Moon may eventually be used as a center for scientific research and commercial mining and manufacturing. Should the establishment of a permanently occupied human settlement on the Moon be a goal of U.S. space policy? 7. Sending men to Mars in the next two decades will cost tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars. Should the United States pursue the goal of a manned landing on Mars (similar to the Apollo Project), either alone or in conjunction with other spacefaring nations? People as smart as Sagan & Murray are certainly capable of designing a survey with very little bias, and given the fundamental importance of the Mars/Moon controversy in forming American space policy (if any), they should feel obligated to do so. Their choice to load the survey so badly reflects poorly on the Planetary Society and its goals, in my opinion (actually my opinion is a good deal more vehement, but I don't want to start more flame wars). Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu || ...mcnc!unc!leech) __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 87 12:25:37 GMT From: mcvax!enea!ttds!draken!sics!pd@uunet.uu.net (Per Danielsson) Subject: What is the Moon Treaty In article <8470@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> For that matter, how did we escape the Moon Treaty? I'm truly >The credit for this one goes 100% to the L5 Society. For this its name What is the significance of the Moon Treaty? I have a vague memory of it banning commercial development of the moon, but I really don't know. Could someone fill me in? Also, which countries have signed the treaty? Per Danielsson UUCP: {mcvax,decvax,seismo}!enea!sics!pd Swedish Institute of Computer Science ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #9 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Oct 87 06:38:33 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06891; Sun, 11 Oct 87 03:19:33 PDT id AA06891; Sun, 11 Oct 87 03:19:33 PDT Date: Sun, 11 Oct 87 03:19:33 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710111019.AA06891@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #10 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 10 Today's Topics: new space BBS list ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Sep 87 21:29:27 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!rwb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Robert Brumley) Subject: new space BBS list Here is the latest update of my space-oriented BBS list. There are quite a few new boards, as well as some number changes. Special thanks is owed to Kelly Beatty and _Sky and Telescope_ for this update to the space BBS list. Almost all of the new information was provided either directly or indirectly by him. Kelly's efforts are greatly appreciated. ========================== cut here =================================== Permission is given for the unlimited reproduction and distribution of this list provided that credit is given to Robert Brumley and The Space Network. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -*> Directory of Space BBSes <*- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Last update: 9/23/87 From: The Space Network, Alpha, and The Comm-post Compiled by: Robert Brumley +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Alpha PHONE: (303) 367-1935 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200/2400 (Hit @ for 2400 baud, or for 300 baud.) SYSOP: Cyro Lord, Robert Galyen, Bill McGuire, Mark Felton, Robert Brumley SPONSOR: Alpha SCINET SYSTEM: Tandy 68000 under Xenix 3.01.02 w/ UNaXcess Conferencing ver. 1.00.02 COMMENTS: allows read access to space and ham related sections of the UNIX network (which has over 11,000 sites worldwide, incl. USA, Canada, Europe, Great Britain and Australia). Type 'alpha' at login. Only serious users accepted, no fake id's. Also space and ham radio discussions within site. LOCATION: Colorado VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Amsat BBS PHONE: (515) 961-3325 HOURS: 24 hours/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200/2400 SYSOP: Ralph (W0RPK) SPONSOR: Radio Amateur Satellite Corp SYSTEM: ?? COMMENTS: Use 'amsat' for password. Amsat news service bulletins, orbital elements, UOSAT news, NASA's 1986 -- The Year in Review, and proceedings from PHASE-4 meetings. LOCATION: Indianola, Iowa VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Apple Astronomy PHONE: (713) 526-5671 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: ? SPONSOR: The Houston Museum of Natural History SYSTEM: ? COMMENTS: Sections include: space novel, physics/scientific, visual guide to the sky, what's new in space, experimental/cosmology, online astro news. Many informative files in each section. LOCATION: Houston, Texas VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Astro BBS PHONE: (202) 547-4418 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: Kurt Riegel SPONSOR: ?? SYSTEM: ?? w/ RBBS-PC ver CPC14.1D COMMENTS: Astronomy-oriented board with message base and many files and programs (all in ARC format). Very friendly board. LOCATION: Arlington, Virginia VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Black Hole BBS PHONE: (305) 260-6397 (2nd node available by subscription) HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200/2400 SYSOP: Clint Labarthe SPONSOR: ?? SYSTEM: ?? w/ PCBoard ver 11.8A/E3 and 65 megs online COMMENTS: Supports all computers but MS-DOS stressed. Astronomy, adult, music, sci-fi, games, AT&T PC's, sports, and sysop conferences. Program downloads of all types, many of which are astronomy oriented. Lots of great functions. Super ANSI color graphics are supported. Menus are difficult to read if your term is not 100% ASCII compatible. LOCATION: Florida VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Celestial RCP/M PHONE: (512) 892-4180 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 (8 Data/1 Stop/No Parity) SYSOP: TS Kelso SPONSOR: None SYSTEM: TRS-80 Model 12 COMMENTS: Caters to all areas of the Space Sciences including Astronomy, Astrodynamics, Celestial Mechanics, and Satellite Tracking. Carries the MOST current NASA Prediction Bulletins (orbital elements) for 40+ satellites along with AMSAT Newsletters and message system. Over two megabytes of space-related software and databases available for downloading. While intended primarily for CP/M and MSDOS systems, source code is available for most programs. LOCATION: Austin, Texas VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: The Comm-post PHONE: (303) 534-4646 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200/2400 SYSOP: Brian Bartee SPONSOR: Boulevard Insurance Services SYSTEM: IMS 10Hz 286 w/ TBBS ver 2.0s w/ 110 mB online COMMENTS: SIG's include Astronomy, Tandy 1000, Tandy 2000, TI-Pro. Message sections include: Critic's Corner, Eats, Jokes, and Open-forum discussion. Astronomy and PC/MS-DOS programs available for download. International Astronomical Union circulars are available online for download. LOCATION: Denver, Colorado VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Datalink RBBS PHONE: (214) 340-5850 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: Jeff Wallach SPONSOR: The L-5 Society SYSTEM: ? w/ Fido version 14.1 COMMENTS: specializes in topics relating to amateur radio, satellite tracking, decoding of telemetry of N.O.A.A. weather satellites. Also dedicated to furthering the public's understanding and interest in the space program. Supports color/graphics, doors, conferences. LOCATION: Dallas, TX VERIFIED: Down? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Day's End PHONE: (303) 650-5636 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200/2400 SYSOP: Chris Day SPONSOR: ? SYSTEM: Epson Equity I PC w/ 20 meg and Fido version 11W COMMENTS: Astronomy SIG with many astronomy programs and files. Also many other programs and MS-DOS utilities. LOCATION: Westminster, CO VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Digital Newsletter PHONE: (612) 291-0567 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: ? SPONSOR: ? SYSTEM: ? w/ Information Retrieval System (I.R.S.) v 10.00.05 COMMENTS: Supports space and amateur radio news. Space: Soviet space news, NASA/USA space news, space shuttle audio information. Radio: GEARVAKF news, W5YI report, ARLL newsletter, packet radio newsletter. During space shuttle missions up-to-the-day schedules and general info. LOCATION: St. Paul, Minnesota VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: EPOCH 2000.0 Astronomy BB PHONE: (303) 531-6172 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200/2400 SYSOP: Phil Somers SPONSOR: Weston Comp Observatory (??) SYSTEM: IBM PC and 30 megs w/ OPUS COMMENTS: Fido node 128/21. This board is 100% devoted to astronomy. Many astronomy files and programs, with Turbo Pascal stressed as the programming language. Allows read access to selected portions of the USENET computer network (see Alpha listing). Information on local clubs and activities. LOCATION: Colorado Springs, CO VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Howard's Notebook PHONE: (816) 331-5868 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200/2400 SYSOP: Jim Howard SPONSOR: ?? SYSTEM: ?? w/ SEAdog 4.00 COMMENTS: Astro SIG (Tom Martinez section sysop) w/ messages and astronomy text files. Frequented by members of the Kansas City Astronomical Society. Also Bicycle, Beyond Peace, Freethought, IBM, Peace Alert, Shortwave, Tandy 1000, and UFO SIGs. LOCATION: Raymore, Missouri VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: GAS-NET/ NASA PHONE: (301) 344-9156 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: ? SYSOP: ? SPONSOR: Goddard Space Flight Center SYSTEM: ? COMMENTS: Primarily for Get Away Special (GAS) projects. Non-GAS participants may browse. LOCATION: Maryland VERIFIED: Down until the shuttle is back up. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Kalamazoo Astronomical Society RCP/M PHONE: (616) 342-4062 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 (?) SYSOP: ?? SPONSOR: Kalamazoo Astronomy Society SYSTEM: Ampro Little Board Plus under CP/M w/ 20 megs of storage (or it soon will be operating under this system.) COMMENTS: Dedicated to the exchange of programs and information relating to astronomy, meteorology, geology, and oceanography. Many text files, incl. a weekly sky report, a feature article, local museum information, planetary information and more. Also several on-line astronomy-related programs. LOCATION: Kalamazoo, Michigan VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Killer BBS PHONE: (214) 827-4670, 827-1994, 821-0390, 824-7881 BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: Charles F. Boykin SPONSOR: The Unix (tm) Connection Public Bulletin Board SYSTEM: AT&T 3B2/400 w/ UNIX SVR2.0.5 Rls 2 COMMENTS: This is a free system. Allows access to the USENET community (see Alpha listing) and the Unix shell w/ the capability to program online in many different languages. LOCATION: Bedford, TX VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: L-5 Galesburg, Il (Magie) PHONE: (309) 343-3799 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: ? SPONSOR: Prairieland Computer Club of Knox County and the Midwest Information Systems of Galesburg, Illinois SYSTEM: ? COMMENTS: several different SIGs. Network access to Telenet, Tymnet, C-serve, Genie, many others. Various computer SIGs and L-5 info. LOCATION: Galesburg, Illinois VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: L-5 Gateway (MYCROFTXXX Fido) PHONE: (412) 667-3984 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200/2400 SYSOP: Jim McHale SPONSOR: The L5 Society SYSTEM: PC clone w/ Fido version 11W and 10 MB hard disk. COMMENTS: supports western PA space activist organizations. Information from the Space Studies Institute, the National Space Society and the L-5 Society. LOCATION: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania VERIFIED: Down? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: L-5 Minnesota PHONE: (612) 920-5566, (612) 927-9743 (voice) HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200/2400 SYSOP: Scott Shjeffte/ others SPONSOR: L-5 Society SYSTEM: ? Leading Edge w/ RBBS-PC COMMENTS: color/graphics supported. Conferences. Many space bulletins. Sub directories: L-5 Minnesota, NASA press releases, AP news, ESA & Ariane space press releases, satellite info, shuttle status reports and more. Files intended from Genie Spaceport can be sent from here. LOCATION: Minneapolis, Minnesota VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: L-5 SpaceNET PHONE: (408) 262-7177 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: Bill Dale SPONSOR: California Space Development Council and the L-5 Society. SYSTEM: RBBS/ Molecular Kulge/ ZCMD COMMENTS: Supports desktop publishing for all space and astronomy organizations with source text in the public domain. Many online files with the latest developments on space-enthusiast organizations. Also several BBS lists. LOCATION: Milpitas, California VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: M-net PHONE: (313) 994-6333 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: Mike Myers SPONSOR: Public Access Unix SYSTEM: ?? w/ Unix COMMENTS: Allows public access to the USENET community (see Alpha listing). If you have more info, please let us know. LOCATION: Ann Arbor, MI VERIFIED: Busy +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Naval Observatory BBS PHONE: (202) 653-1079 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: ?? SPONSOR: Naval Observatory (?) SYSTEM: ?? COMMENTS: Requires even parity (Format: 7/E/2). All commands must have a '@' as the first character in the line. Many files and functions. Strange format but very interesting. LOCATION: near Washington D.C. VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: NOAA BBS PHONE: (303) 497-5000 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 (??) SYSOP: ?? SPONSOR: NOAA Space Environment Laboratory SYSTEM: ?? w/ SEL PBBS ver 2.4 COMMENTS: This is an experimental BBS. It offers daily information on geophysical and solar activity. Information on high-frequency radio propagation is updated every 6 hours. LOCATION: Boulder, CO VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: PERMANENT BBS PHONE: (703) 450-2732 (PC Pursuit users use area code 202) HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200/2400 SYSOP: Mark Prado SPONSOR: PERMANENT, Ltd. SYSTEM: IBM PC clone w/ 30 megs and TCOMM ver. 2.1a COMMENTS: PERMANENT is an acronym for Program to Employ Resources of the Moon and Asteroids Near Earth in the Near Term. Much info on utilizing materials of the moon and asteroids for large products in orbit and for settlements. The BBS provides the following services and products on the PERMANENT program: an executive summary and specific briefs; a database on current research and organizations; bibliographies; mail conferences; and products you can order such as viewgraph briefings, videocassettes, slides, prints, drawings, and flowcharts. This BBS is only for action-oriented people, and is free. LOCATION: Arlington, Virginia VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Pittsburgh L5 BBS PHONE: (412) 464-1397 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200/2400 SYSOP: Steve Shulik SPONSOR: Pittsburgh L5 Society SYSTEM: Apple Lisa 2 w/ Profile 5 meg hard disk and Red Ryder software. COMMENTS: Soon to be reorganized. The first L5 BBS. Monthly sky events; planetary, comet, asteroid, lunar, and stellar data; recent developments; natural and artificial satellite data; extraterrestrial biology. Info on local science centers and the Pittsburgh L5 society. Also info on the Sixth Space Development Conference, and much more. LOCATION: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Scooter's Scientific Exchange PHONE: (215) 922-2541 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: ? SPONSOR: ? SYSTEM: Tandy 1000 PC w/ 384 K ram, 2 360K disk drives and 20 meg. hard drive. Running COLLIE Bulletin Board Software ver. 1.20. COMMENTS: Collie Net Node 804/9. Designed to serve as a forum for the scientific community, incl. General, Biology, Chemistry, Medicine, Mathematics, and Physics. Offers a science conference which is networked to other boards. Many computer programs that are helpful to scientists and researchers. LOCATION: ? VERIFIED: Down? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Silent Side PHONE: (602) 962-7698 HOURS: 24 hours/day BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: Chris Mitchell SPONSOR: ?? SYSTEM: IBM PC w/ RBBS-PC COMMENTS: Astronomy information posted by the Saguaro Astronomical Club. Info includes monthly astronomy events and info on the Saguaro Astronomical Club. Also several interesting and different text files. LOCATION: Arizona VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Space Development Information Clearinghouse BBS (formerly NorthCal L-5 BBS) PHONE: (408) 778-3531 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: Chris Winter SPONSOR: ? SYSTEM: Morrow MD-3 (CP/M w/ Z80-A) w/ Winterware BBS ver. 6.10 COMMENTS: The purpose of SDI Clearinghouse is "to distribute information pertaining to the human exploration and development of space -- humanity's next frontier." Many space news bulletins. L5 society information, Mars Underground newsletter, list of space interest groups, list of periodical publications on space, shuttle manifest, aerospace database, and much more. LOCATION: Morgan Hill, California VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: The Space Network PHONE: (303) 494-8446 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200/2400 SYSOP: Tom Meyer SPONSOR: The Mars Institute of the Planetary Society, organized by The Boulder Center for Science and Policy SYSTEM: PC clone w/ TBBS ver. 2.0 and 10 mB (soon to be 40 mB) COMMENTS: Space exploration and development. Mars missions, science, research, education, and contest. Information from the Space Studies Institute, National Space Society, Mars Underground, World Space Foundation, NASA Ames Research Center, Jet Propulsion Lab International Planetarium Society, CALTECH, Mars Institute of the Planetary Society. Also the publication list from the American Astronautical Society, information on the third Case for Mars conference (July 18-22), this BBS list, and more. LOCATION: Colorado VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Star Board PHONE: (303) 455-3113 HOURS: 24 hours/day BAUD: 300/1200 SYSOP: Mark Johnson SPONSOR: Mark Johnson SYSTEM: TRS Model III w/ TBBS COMMENTS: Several astronomy related boards and publications. Astronomy-related computer programs. Additional information is posted by the Denver Astronomical Society. LOCATION: Denver, Colorado VERIFIED: Temporarily down +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Star-net PHONE: (612) 681-9520 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200/2400 SYSOP: Chuck Cole SPONSOR: ?? SYSTEM: ?? w/ RBBS-PC 15.1A COMMENTS: Star-Net is a not-for-profit scientific information exchange society. Includes: astro, technology, management, and general interest sigs, many professionals in the interest area, a massive library of public domain astronomy software, major astronomy databases, observational alerts of comets, novae, etc., on-line prediction programs and astrophoto aids, and instruments (telescopes, etc.) under develoment for on-line access. Many, many more features and capabilities. Users are required to pay $30/yr, but a new user may look around before he is required to pay. More info on star-net is available on The Space Network, path: I-8. LOCATION: Minneapolis, MN VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: StarPort PHONE: (203) 698-0588 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300-9600 (USR HST modem) SYSOP: Jim Bolster SPONSOR: none SYSTEM: IBM PC XT -- 60 megabytes WILDCAT! BBS software COMMENTS: All computers welcome. Astronomy, Space, Science Fiction, ParaNet: UFO's, Ham Radio/Satellite, Future World, S.E.T.I., The Ocean, Dinosaurs. LOCATION: Old Greenwich, CT VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Well BBS PHONE: (415) 332-6106 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200/2400 SYSOP: E.M. Richards and A.S. Beals SPONSOR: Whole Earth Lectronic Link SYSTEM: DEC VAX-11/750; 4.2 BSD UNIX COMMENTS: Allows full access to the USENET community (see Alpha listing). Cost is $8/month. LOCATION: Sausalito, CA VERIFIED: Ok +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ BBS: Yokohama Science Center BBS PHONE: (045) 832-1177 (in Japan) DTE ADDRESS: 440881406100 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys BAUD: 300/1200 (8/1/0) SYSOP: Yoshiro Yamada (?) SPONSOR: Yokohama Science Center SYSTEM: ?? COMMENTS: Satellite orbital elements list (some 50 satellites) and other space/astronomy news. LOCATION: Yokohama, Japan VERIFIED: ?? ===================================== I would like to thank all those who have contributed information to this list. If you know of any additional boards, or have any additional information, please let me know. Address messages to: Robert Brumley POST: 4661 S. Vivian St. Morrison, CO 80465 (303) 978-1838 UUCP: (isis,hao)!scicom!rwb Thanks. ===================================== ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #10 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Oct 87 23:44:38 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01083; Mon, 12 Oct 87 20:17:16 PDT id AA01083; Mon, 12 Oct 87 20:17:16 PDT Date: Mon, 12 Oct 87 20:17:16 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710130317.AA01083@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #11 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 11 Today's Topics: NASTRAN Biginners Workshop Shuttle Jumpsuits MIR Elements 1 October 1987 space calendar info Re: World satellite launch sites Planetary Society Address The Rocket Team #9 - The End Reusable hydrocarbon rocket engines Re: FOBS (was BMD & Announcing Launches) Re: BMD and Announcing Launches Re: FOBS (was BMD & Announcing Launches) Re: TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons Re: Orbits, Phobos, Venus, . . . TV reports 48-states only, why expect special space treatment? Re: FOBS (was BMD & Announcing Launches) Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage on U.S. Launches ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 09 Oct 87 09:12:00 EDT From: Al Lester Subject: NASTRAN Biginners Workshop COSMIC announces the one-week NASTRAN Beginners Workshop, taught by Myles Hurwitz, lecturer and consultant. He has been involved with NASTRAN since 1970 and has taught more than 30 introductory and advanced classes. The workshop is scheduled for November 2-6, 1987 on the University of Georgia campus in Athens. The course is designed to allow participants as much hands-on experence with NASTRAN as possible; one-third of the sessions are devoted to workshops with participants setting up and solving problems. For additional information please contact Nan Hull at COSMIC, the NASA Software Management and Information Center. Phone: 404-542-3265. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 87 14:58:48 GMT From: pyrdc!netxcom!rkolker@uunet.uu.net (rich kolker) Subject: Shuttle Jumpsuits For those of you who ordered the shuttle jumpsuits, they and I are in the same place (this was not as easy as it might seem) and will be in the mail this weekend (well, by Monday). ++rich +--------------------------------------------------------------------^-------+ | Rich Kolker The work goes on... A|W|A | | 8519 White Pine Drive The cause endures... H|T|H | | Manassas Park, VA 22111 The hope still lives... /|||\ | | (703)361-1290 (h) And the dream shall never die. /_|T|_\ | | (703)749-2315 (w) (..uunet!netxcom!rkolker) " W " | +------------------------------------------------------------------V---V-----+ ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 87 17:35:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: MIR Elements 1 October 1987 Satellite: MIR Catalog number: 16609 Epoch: 87273.83205260 Inclination: 51.6291 degrees RA of node: 332.1715 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0044397 Argument of periapsis: 214.7379 degrees Mean anomaly: 145.0563 degrees Mean motion: 15.81893528 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00030999 * 2 revs / day / day Source NASA Goddard via Henry Vanderbilt of the National Space Society. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 1987 13:30-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: space calendar info This is a reply to Kurt Reisler. His return address bounced (hadron!klr@Sun.COM) back to me, and the info might be useful to others anyway: $59/yr. If you are a member of NSS or some other space society, first year is $49. 408-988-0592 Space Age Publishing Company 3210 Scott Blvd Santa Clara, CA 95054-0975 Approximately 8 page newsletter, arrives once per week. Lists all upcoming launches, most space related conferences, NASA RFP's, major events in commerce, space movement, etc. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 87 18:09:46 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: World satellite launch sites >India - one site somewhere I'm told that the Indian site is at Sriharikota, in southern India near the Bay of Bengal. -- PS/2: Yesterday's hardware today. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology OS/2: Yesterday's software tomorrow. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 87 00:30:51 GMT From: ihnp4!dhp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Price) Subject: Planetary Society Address Due to mailer troubles, and since it is of general interest, the address of the Planetary Society is: The Planetary Society P.O. Box 3599 Pasadena, CA 91103 Douglas H. Price ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 87 14:32:05 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Subject: The Rocket Team #9 - The End Werner von Braun left Huntsville in February 1970, enthusiastically looking forward to the challenge of his new position at NASA Headquarters as Deputy Associate Administrator of Planning. ... Prior to his arrival on the Washington scene, the White House had indicated to Paine that President Nixon wanted a bold, new space project with which his name could be associated, much as President Kennedy's had been with Apollo. The only feasible space exploit that could top Apollo appeared to be the landing of man on Mars. ... First from his Huntsville base and later from Washington, von Braun argued for a program that would include a Mars landing before the end of the 1980 decade. Leading to that event would be the development of bases on the Moon and of a permanent manned space station supported by an Earth-to-orbit shuttle system. Other than the reusable shuttle, a nuclear Earth orbit-lunar orbit transfer stage and a highly maneuv- erable space `tug' for interorbital tasks were recommended, along with a lunar orbital station to support base activities below. As the months went by, von Braun discovered that his arguments for an aggressive and well-conceived post-Apollo space program were being met with polite interest but no real enthusiasm or indication of support. Despite his unique combination of imagination, drive, practicality and loquacious wit, so effective in the past, he and his NASA associates could not affect a changing tide. Nixon was losing interest, and even some of NASA's top administrators were beginning to show a general lack of enthusiasm. The reasons why the United States failed to undertake an energetic space program based on the splendid Saturn-Apollo-Skylab foundation established in the 1960s and early 1970s are varied and complex. But one factor was dominant: the post Apollo climate was not propitious for another great surge into space. America's priorities were shifting. ... To some within the NASA hierarchy, von Braun was on the road to becoming a non-person at the agency, whose only alternative was to retire or resign. ... In post-Apollo NASA, von Braun was like the fleet admiral back from the glories of victory at sea who suddenly finds himself walking dazedly along the Pentagon corridors with nothing important to do. The trials and triumphs of Raketenflugplatz, Kummersdorf, Peenemunde, Fort Bliss, Huntsville, and Cape Canaveral were over. The space horizon had suddenly clouded. Thus, when Wernher von Braun announced his retirement from NASA on June 10, 1972, no one was surprised. He simply could not work within what had become an essentially holding operation. [This is the last posting from The Rocket Team, by Frederick Ordway and Mitchell Sharpe, MIT Press, 1979, ISBN 0-262-65013-4, $9.95 (paper) ] Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 87 20:50:32 GMT From: gaserre@athena.mit.edu (Glenn A. Serre) Subject: Reusable hydrocarbon rocket engines I've read postings which implied that reusable hydrocarbon rocket engines do not yet exist, and that there are engineering problems that need to be overcome before any such engines can be built. Just what are these problems? The only problems over and above those encountered in designing LOX - liquid hydrogen engines that I can think of (with my limited knowledge) would be problems caused by the heating of the fuel in the cooling jackets of the nozzle and combustion chamber (carbon deposits, corrosion, maybe? ). Thanks in advance. --Glenn Serre gaserre@athena.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 87 01:27:17 GMT From: super.upenn.edu!eecae!crlt!russ@rutgers.edu (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: FOBS (was BMD & Announcing Launches) Reactors aren't weapons of mass destruction, and thus aren't covered by treaties. (Indeed, it's hard to think of a reactor being any more dangerous than the Skylab film vault; the best way to kill something with one is to de-orbit it onto its head...) We've flown several reactors under the SNAC program, and the Soviets have used reactors to power quite a few satellites (including the Cosmos that came down in Canada a few years back, scattering radioisotopes over quite a few acres of tundra). Dirty, but not a weapon. Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ihnp4!itivax![m-net!rsi,crlt!russ] ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 87 16:25:47 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: BMD and Announcing Launches > > ... _Red Storm Rising_ by Clancy. > > If anyone is interested in the technology of warfare, as currently > deployed this is the best place to start. Clancy not only writes a > VERY good story, but also does his homework - the technology > descriptions are right on target. Well, no, he does make occasional mistakes that I spotted, and people with access to classified information would probably spot more... but I agree that he generally does fairly well. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 87 19:20:45 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: FOBS (was BMD & Announcing Launches) There is no restriction on power systems. Mass-destruction weapons in orbit are banned by treaty. There is no restriction on suborbital weapons (more's the pity). Last I heard, FOBS is legitimate because it does not make a complete orbit. -- PS/2: Yesterday's hardware today. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology OS/2: Yesterday's software tomorrow. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 87 20:13:41 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons > Give it a break Henry. You're working so hard at contradicting positive > statements made in this net that you are starting to contradict yourself. Who, me? Never. Well, hardly ever. :-) > What you see as a vicious circle I see as the disorderly, but natural, > progress of a new technology. My point was: *what* progress? LGAS is a great idea precisely because it breaks the vicious circle of unproven-technology-can't-fly-and-thus- never-gets-proven. LGAS will do this by an end run around the system, not through "natural progress". I think it's got a good chance. -- PS/2: Yesterday's hardware today. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology OS/2: Yesterday's software tomorrow. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 87 13:06:53 GMT From: steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@uunet.uu.net (Mike Trout) Subject: Re: Orbits, Phobos, Venus, . . . In article <175@pembina.UUCP>, andrew@alberta.UUCP (Andrew Folkins) writes: > As I recently heard, only three great nations in the world still > use the English system of measurement : Burma, Brunei and the > United States. :-) I believe Brunei has recently switched as well. So whatinhell's the matter with Burma? Is Burma run by some bizarre totalitarian/Marxist cabal that's so obsessed with impossibly idealistic governmental theories that they can't see reality? Of course, we KNOW what the problem is with the other country... "Burbank, California ... where toy guns are illegal but real guns are OK." Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 87 01:29:24 From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: TV reports 48-states only, why expect special space treatment? Date: 25 Sep 87 03:36:21 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (d.l.skran) Subject: Response to Comments on Newspeak Article ... For example, any news related to America is much over-reported in proporation to its global significances. 10,000 can die in the Iran-Iraq war with hardly a ripple in the American media. (I assume by "America" you mean "The United States of America", as contrasted with all of North&South America.) But it's even more serious, our two non-contiguous states (Hawaii & Alaska) and our territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.) are generally excluded from TV news too. Look at the satellite weather reports for a graphic example. You see an overlay showing the boundaries of the 48 contiguous states, but everything else is just the amorphous outside and hardly mentionned except for tropical storms. Given this inclusion of contiguous 48 states to exclusion of even our neighbors of Canada and Mexico, it's rather arrogant of us to expect the media to make an exception in the case of our favorite topic, space. If they hardly mention an earthquake that kills 100 people in China, but extensively cover an earthquake that kills 6 in Los Angeles, why are we surprized when they hardly mention a permanent manned space station put up by the USSR, choosing instead to have live coverage of a test of the SRB for STS? Perhaps we should admit that to get uniform worldwide coverage of any particular special interest we have, we must read the technical literature, and accept the fact that the TV and other mass media specialize in the USA (48 states thereof) to the exclusion of the rest of the world? (Note, coverage of Persian Gulf etc. is no exception. We hear minutae only about what affects the USA via its military force, virtually nothing about what the Soviet ships are encountering in the gulf, and just tidbits of the really big war that is going on.) ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 87 00:25:49 GMT From: nuchat!sugar!peter@uunet.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: FOBS (was BMD & Announcing Launches) Didn't the soviets deorbit a nuclear device into Canada? (joke: they lost a nuc-powered satellite and it crashed in Canada) (maybe not a joke. cringe yourself) -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 87 22:58:22 GMT From: mike@AMES.ARPA (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage on U.S. Launches In article <1872@brspyr1.BRS.Com> bob@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Bob Armao) writes: >For those interested in the life of Tesla, Smithsonian Magazine had >an article on him in the June 1986 issue. I'm going to dig it out >and re-read it myself if I can locate it in my "pile". I just finished reading a Tesla biography. It should be required reading for anyone with the slightest interest in technological history. The book is called "Tesla: Man Out of Time", by Margaret Chaney. I usually heard of Tesla mentioned only in obscure references to early particle-beam weapons work, but never new that he was the one who gave us 60hz ac in our wall sockets, or that he demonstrated a radio-controlled boat in 1896, or that the Supreme Court decreed that he is the real Father of Radio, and not Marconi. *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick *** ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #11 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Oct 87 06:19:09 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01939; Tue, 13 Oct 87 03:17:11 PDT id AA01939; Tue, 13 Oct 87 03:17:11 PDT Date: Tue, 13 Oct 87 03:17:11 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710131017.AA01939@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #12 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 12 Today's Topics: Re: Read it and weep Re: Translation of Mir Re: Translation of Mir Re: Does Salyut 7 spin? Re: TIME: Moscow Takes the Lead Re: Read it and weep Duration in Orbit More about Mir Re: Translation of Mir Re: Translation of Mir Re: Things aint so bad Re: Things aint so bad Superconductors Re: Universe As Hologram Re: Universe As Hologram ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Oct 87 12:28:40 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!homxc!brt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (B.REYTBLAT) Subject: Re: Read it and weep In article <559954088.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: > Space Calendar, 9/23 p 4: > > ENERGIYA HEAVY-LIFT LAUNCH VEHICLE, TYURATAM KAZAKHSTAN USSR: Opening > a new era in the exploration and exploitation of space. The 200-foot > Energiya rocket will be able to lift payloads into orbit nine times as > large as those lifted by the US Space Shuttle. It could cut launch > costs by a factor of ten, Compared to what other system? Where did Space Calendar get the numbers? What costs are being accounted for? > and all its elements are reusable. Including the core module (STS ET-equivalent) ? AW&ST did think that part was reusable. They throw away 4 STS SSME-equivalents every launch. > Energiya consists of a central core surrounded by four to eight rocket > boosters. 4 I've seen, 6 I'll believe, but 8 would be hard to fit around the central core. Is the last configuration a guess, or has it been announced by Glavcosmos? > The four-booster Energiya will be used to launch the Soviet version of > the Space Shuttle. > > The six-to-eight-booster Energiya will be used to launch large items > such as . . . Sounds great. I hope they get to do all of those missions. Maybe then the congress will wake up. Ben Reytblat ihnp4!homxc!brt ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 87 05:28:00 GMT From: cca!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Translation of Mir Quite right. "Mir" does not mean "land" at all - somebody made a mistake. It doesn't mean "village" either, but it used to mean the village commune - a sort of peasant self-government - in far-gone times. The meaning is completely out of use. The two meanings "world" and "peace" exist (and the word used to be spelled differently in these two senses). It seems obvious to me that the meaning intended for the space station name is "peace", not "world". E.g. "Progress docked with Mir." Got it? Peace, Progress, motherhood, applepie. "World" doesn't belong here. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 87 19:02:00 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Translation of Mir > "Mir" has two by far most popular meanings: "peace" & "world"... I have been told -- perhaps some of the scholarly types can confirm this, my Russian is minimal -- that the "peace" meaning of "mir" is not quite what modern English-speakers associate with "peace". The English meaning might be expressed more specifically as "peace through harmony", while the Russian one apparently would translate better as "peace through absence of opposition", or more colloquially "we beat the bastards". Alexei Leonov, who is now high up in the Soviet space program [head of manned spaceflight? don't remember for sure] is reported to have laughed and laughed and laughed when he heard the name. -- PS/2: Yesterday's hardware today. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology OS/2: Yesterday's software tomorrow. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 87 12:35:44 GMT From: miq%psuvm.bitnet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Jim Maloy) Subject: Re: Does Salyut 7 spin? In article <298@idacrd.UUCP>, mac@idacrd.UUCP (Bob McGwier) says: >> Also the specular surfaces may have corroded. >What would the mechanism for corrosion be? Not much water and the >metal would not change its reflective properties much even under the >bombardment of the sun in this short a time. Most likely it was ionized oxygen from the upper atmosphere. Far more reactive than water or solar radiation. James D. Maloy The Pennsylvania State University Bitnet: MIQ@PSUECL, MIQ@PSUVM Aerospace Engineering, '87 UUCP : {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!psuvax1!psuvma.bitnet!miq ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 87 15:11:04 GMT From: uop!robert@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (Robert McCaul--The Equalizer) Subject: Re: TIME: Moscow Takes the Lead is there any way to watch soviet and european or japanese launches? it must be propagated across a bird somewhere!! ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 87 14:14:33 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Read it and weep In article <559954088.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >Space Calendar, 9/23 p 4: > >The Energiya has opened up vast possibilities for the Soviet space >program. The rocket will be capable of launching the following: 1) a >Mir space station to a 22,500-mile geostationary orbit or into lunar >orbit; 2) a series of Apollo-style Moon landings at any time; ...... It is nice to see that I am not the only one who thinks that this is comming. The moon is the soviet's next target. My suspicion is that a Mir or salyut space station will be put in lunar orbit first as a staging post and fuel dump for later manned lunar landings. The lunar landings will be for periods up to a couple of weeks and may eventually involve setting up some sort of living quarters on the lunar surface. All good practice for a later trip to mars, using the same vehicles and techniques to get there, and a derivitave of the lunar lander and base for surface exploration. Comments? Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 87 19:49:54 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Duration in Orbit Maybe I've missed it on the net, but hasn't Yuri Romanenko (I think) passed the old record for continuous time in orbit? Do you think he'd mind three cheers? seh p.s. How long before another astronaut (from wherever) breaks his record... ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 87 19:05:35 GMT From: ritcv!moscom!de@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Esan) Subject: More about Mir In article <2404@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: >> Mir ("Land", NOT "Peace") > >My dictionary also gives the alternative translation of Mir as Village. Sorry this posting is relatively late to the article, it has taken me a while to catch up on news. Perhaps this will help lay the question of the translation of Mir to rest? Before the October Revolution (which took place in November 1917) the Russian language had two vowels that had the sound "ee". One looked like an i, the other like a u. In some far off time these two sounds were pronounced differently, but over time they both became "ee". The Soviet government decided that it was a good time to update the Russian orthography (they were right, the population was basically illiterate, there were not too many books printed in Russian at the time) and eliminated the duplicate vowels, replacing them with the single vowel that looks like the letter u. (They also eliminated several other characters at the time.) Mir before the revolution was written "mir" or "mur". One meant the world the other meant peace. Furthermore, just to confuse the issue, "mir" (the world) had taken on an additional meaning. Russian peasantry were in serfdom until the mid-1860's, and even their emancipation, did not really free them from the land. They were confined to their particular farms and villages, which to them became their world, or their "mir". While this meaning is not rooted in the Slavonic root languages like world and peace, it had a profound effect on the Russian language, and added a third meaning. Any other meanings found in a dictionary are attempts to add shades of meaning, a difficult undertaking to say the least. The space station Mir could actually mean any of the three variations. It could be a propaganda ploy meaning Peace, a propaganda ploy meaning world, or used in the third sense, it could be the area that the cosmonauts are confined. Whew! I knew that degree in Russian studies would come in handy someday. rochester \ David Esan | moscom ! de ritcv/ ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 87 07:02:00 GMT From: cca!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Translation of Mir [henry@utzoo.UUCP ] >>"Mir" has two by far most popular meanings: "peace" & "world"... >I have been told -- perhaps some of the scholarly types can con- >firm this, my Russian is minimal -- that the "peace" meaning of >"mir" is not quite what modern English-speakers associate with >"peace". The English meaning might be expressed more specifically >as "peace through harmony", while the Russian one apparently >would translate better as "peace through absence of opposition", >or more colloquially "we beat the bastards". Alexei Leonov, who >is now high up in the Soviet space program [head of manned space- >flight? don't remember for sure] is reported to have laughed and >laughed and laughed when he heard the name. Well, yes and no (I don't claim to be scholarly but my Russian is good). The usage of *mir*, before the word was pre-empted by pro- paganda, was much the same as the usage of *peace* in English. E.g., the proverb: "khudoy mir luchshe dobroy ssory" - a bad peace is better than a good quarrel. However, the word is now a propaganda staple, inextricably con- nected with such words as "Party", *People* (e.g., "the Party and the People are One"); "Communism". The word is usually coupled with "Struggle": "Struggle for Peace." In that struggle, "the forces of peace and socialism" are continuously overcoming "the warmongers", "the Zionists", the "American imperialists" and sometimes the "West German revanchists." A typical joke: Q: Will there be war? A: No, but the struggle for peace will be so inten- sive that probably no one will survive." Jan Wasilewsky ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 87 13:07:04 GMT From: mcvax!enea!liuida!yngla@uunet.uu.net (Yngve Larsson) Subject: Re: Translation of Mir In article <8688@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >Alexei Leonov, who is now high up in the Soviet space program [head of >manned spaceflight? don't remember for sure] I belive he is commander of the USSR "Space City" where all the kosmonauts live and train. If this is the right man, he is the one who made the first EVA (did he have a problem getting back inside?). Yngve Larsson Internet: yla@ida.liu.se Linkoping University, Sweden ------------------------------ Date: 12 Oct 87 05:38:11 GMT From: ssvs!cray@mimsy.umd.edu (Robert Cray) Subject: Re: Things aint so bad In article <163@splut.UUCP> stu@splut.UUCP (Stewart Cobb) writes: >James Oberg [Red Star in Orbit, etc.] thinks that the Russians have no >real plans for a shuttle. What we're seeing (in Soviet Military Power >and such) I was looking through Soviet Life (I realize its all propoganda, but I am taking Russian, and was looking in the library for *anything* in Russian), anyway, there was an article in the October issue about a Soviet "shuttle", I didn't pay very much attention, but I think there was a picture...should be in any university library. --robert ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 87 17:23:22 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Alastair Mayer) Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: Re: Things aint so bad In article <163@splut.UUCP> stu@splut.UUCP (Stewart Cobb) writes: >James Oberg [Red Star in Orbit, etc.] thinks that the Russians have no >real plans for a shuttle. What we're seeing (in Soviet Military Power >and such) James Oberg, for all his good work, has been known to be wrong before. In cases like this I trust the opinions of people like Charlie Vick and Art Bozlee. The big one is definitely a shuttle. The small one photo'd when it splashed down in the Indian Ocean may have been a scale test model. It may also have been a full size test of a highly manoeverable reentry vehicle for weapons. But Shuttleski almost certainly exists. Alastair JW Mayer ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Oct 87 11:03:22 EDT From: Jeffrey R Kell Subject: Superconductors Quick question... some weeks ago we saw several postings regarding new superconductor research, and I *thought* I had tracked the *real* stuff down to near 0C. Then I see two further articles (one I don't recall, another in 10/5/87 "ComputerWorld") that don't mention anything near it; and the SPACE 8.6 mention of Time cover regarding 'room-temperature' (I didn't see that one). Just where *are* we, and *where* is it documented, and has it been reliably reproduced or just transient luck? The best confirmed record I have is the 2/87 finding by Paul Chu at the University of Houston, yttrium/barium/copper oxide at 98K. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 87 20:04:54 GMT From: amdahl!chuck@ames.arpa (Charles Simmons) Subject: Re: Universe As Hologram In article <7402@ism780c.UUCP> jimh@ism780c.UUCP (Jim Hori) writes: >Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances >subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously >communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating >them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion >miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the >other is doing. Actually, this stuff has been popularized in a few books that are quite accessible to those of us who aren't physicists. I recommend "Quantum Realities", "In Search of Shroedinger's Cat", "In Search of the Big Bang", and "The Tao of Physics". I don't remember the authors of these books, but you should be able to find them in the Science or Nature section of a good bookstore (no, not Crown). -- Chuck ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 87 19:57:31 GMT From: clash.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) Subject: Re: Universe As Hologram In article <7402@ism780c.UUCP> jimh@ism780c.UUCP (Jim Hori) writes: [ Verbiage deleted ] > Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances > subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously > communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating > them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles > apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is > doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's > long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed > of light. I'd like to hear about a reference to this, and would especially like to know whether anyone has confirmed Aspect's results. Also whether Talbot interpreted them correctly. (The _Village Voice_ doesn't usually make it to the top of the journal pile in most physicists' libraries, but since I'm not an expert, I'm willing to listen to those who do know.) There are certain phenomena that propogate faster than light - travelling waves in a waveguide are one of them, I believe. But you can't transmit information over them. My guess is that Aspect might really have been reporting something along these lines. Or his results might be screwy. In any case, Michael Talbot has leapt to some really grandiose conclusions, which might go over big with the harmonic convergence crowd, but not with a properly skeptical researcher. Such conclusions (as is proper in French justice) stand suspect until proven true. And I don't see any proof. If anyone out in sci.research has heard of Aspect's result, and interprets it as giving someone the ability to instantaneously transmit energy or information, please let us know. - Steve ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #12 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Oct 87 23:18:21 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03459; Tue, 13 Oct 87 20:16:20 PDT id AA03459; Tue, 13 Oct 87 20:16:20 PDT Date: Tue, 13 Oct 87 20:16:20 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710140316.AA03459@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #13 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 13 Today's Topics: Mailing list announcement Re: MIR Elements 1 October 1987 Re: Universe As Hologram Re: Universe As Hologram SPACE DRIVE Re: SPACE DRIVE High Isp Fission Rocket Re: SPACE DRIVE Re: SPACE DRIVE Re: SPACE DRIVE Re: SPACE DRIVE Re: SPACE DRIVE Re: SPACE DRIVE Re: SPACE DRIVE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Oct 87 16:07:46 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!mupsy!mucs!arnold@uunet.uu.net (Toby Howard) Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: Mailing list announcement A mailing list has been set up for those interested in a skeptical approach to the investigation of claims of paranormal phenomena, pseudoscience, fringe medicine etc. If you're interested email thoward%cgu.cs.man.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk (Toby Howard, Europe) or lippard%multics.mit.edu (James Lippard, USA/Canada) [This is a shared account. Please ignore the From: field, and reply to the following address. Thanks] Toby Howard Computer Graphics Unit, Manchester University, UK. janet: thoward@uk.ac.man.cs.cgu internet: thoward%cgu.cs.man.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk ------------------------------ Date: 12 Oct 87 14:10:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: MIR Elements 1 October 1987 My wife read a story in the local paper about a particularly bright Mir sighting. The Soviet Station is to be visible on Tuesday, Oct 13 (tomorrow!) at 7:55 to 8:00 PM CST from here in the now-harvested corn fields of Illinois. It is supposed to be very bright (magnitude -1 or so) in the western sky. I'll be at a meeting for General Dynamics interviews from 7 - 9, but I intend to duck out for a few minutes to see *the* space station. Too bad we don't have one up there. -- Ken Jenks jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 87 12:43:36 GMT From: phoenix!aalanm@princeton.edu (A Alan Middleton) Subject: Re: Universe As Hologram I don't have time to give a complete answer (mine and, I believe, that of most physicists) to this, so I'll give a super quick incomplete contribution that will add to the immense piles of verbiage on all of this - 1) Aspect's results are believed. The experiment was the culmination of a whole bunch of similar experiments to test QM. 2) The results CONFIRM quantum mechanics and rule out most any hidden variable theory that is local (i.e., no faster than light). As most people other than Bohm expected. 3) You MAY NOT send signals faster than light using this method. No way. I repeat, no information is sent faster than the speed of light (as far as anyone knows, of course, as always; maybe wrong someday -the point is as it is understood consistently: no way). If you like the Copenhagen interpretation (I don't), the wave function "collapses" instantaneously over all space, but it doesn't mean anything (like waveguides, or swinging flashlights at Andromeda). 4) The Village Voice is fun to read (my opinion only) and this article was a blast to read. Great laughs. (One example: holograms are in the whole plate, sure, but they get fuzzier images if you chop them up.) Aspect's results are in some boring journal; I forget which one. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 87 18:14:46 GMT From: iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi@rutgers.edu (Rahul Dhesi) Subject: Re: Universe As Hologram In article <1441@clash.rutgers.edu> masticol@clash.rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) writes: >If anyone out in sci.research has heard of Aspect's result, and interprets >it as giving someone the ability to instantaneously transmit energy or >information, please let us know. The Aspect experiment was discussed at length in sci.physics some time ago. Two particles can align themselves as if they were connected by a faster-than-light communications path, but the end result is that there is no actual FTL transfer of information from one end to the other. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: !{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 87 12:01:17 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!stc!peter@uunet.uu.net (The Dark Lord) Subject: SPACE DRIVE I read an article in a Sunday newspaper the other week about a British inventor, now resident in Australia, who has invented a very viable form of space drive. So much so that an Australian research organisation is providing virtually unlimited finance and experienced research assistants to aid him with his work. Unfortunately, I have lost the article and cannot remember the man's name. Only the practical methods used were given - nothing resembling a formula. Maybe somebody out there can throw some light on the physics involved. The device that the inventor managed to produce overcomes the basic problem associated with any form of space drive - that of having to expel matter from the craft in order to accelerate it. His drive works by converting rotational energy into linear energy. -This is done by placing two gyroscopes, one at each end of a solid rod. The rod is in turn rotated about its own central axis (like a fan) I am not sure about the attitudes of the gyroscopes, but it was said that the combined rotational motion of the complete device produces a linear pull - again in an unspecified direction. Such a drive could be powered by electricity generated by a nuclear power source and would in theory make inter-planetary travel much more economical; and inter-stellar travel more practical. Has anybody heard any more of this story? Is it feasable? -I hear the Australian researchers are now able to fit formulas to the phenomenon which do not 'defy the laws of physics', what are they? ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 87 21:02:26 GMT From: brun@husc4.harvard.edu (todd brun) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE In article <1368@byte.tcom.stc.co.uk>, peter@tcom.stc.co.uk writes: > I read an article in a Sunday newspaper the other week about a > British inventor, now resident in Australia, who has invented a > very viable form of space drive... Well, I haven't read that article, but I can assure you that unless the basic laws of physics have been repealed overnight the Australians are doing no such thing. What you are describing is essentially turning angular momentum into linear momentum, which any physicist (or physics student, for that matter) will tell you is "No Can Do." To do that you'd have to toss out both Newton and Einstein, violate TWO major conservation laws (conservation of momentum and conservation of Angular Momentum), and toss out common sense, as well. This is essentially a variant of the "pull on your bootstraps and away you go" system, made slightly more complicated so as to make it less obvious that it won't work. What those two gyroscopes would do depends on which way they point and which way they spin, but they'd either rotate normally, flip around and THEN rotate normally (if possible), or precess in a complicated (but very stationary) way. Inventions that violate conservation laws (.e.g. Perpetual Motion machines) aren't worth a second glance. I'm afraid that, in the space department, rockets are still the only way to go. --Todd Todd Brun, Physics Department, Harvard University "Eureka!" -- Archimedes "Did I say around the SUN?" -- Galileo Disclaimer: "Employer? What employer?" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Oct 87 21:25 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: High Isp Fission Rocket Science News (9/26/87, page 205) mentioned a fission rocket concept by George Chapline of LLNL. The idea is to arrange the fuel so that fission fragments can escape without losing too much energy. The ionized fragments are then caught in a magnetic mirror and ejected out the back of the rocket. Isp is up to 1 million seconds. Chapline proposes to use 200 tons of americium (which isotope, the article didn't say; americium is said to be more efficient than plutonium) arranged in layers of thin wires. The americium wires are placed on wheels and rotated through a 10 by 10 by 1 meter volume where fission occurs. The wheels are necessary to prevent the wires from melting. This rocket could accelerate an interstellar probe to one eighth the speed of light in 25 years, reaching Alpha Centauri in 50 years. The four paragraph article also said Chapline doesn't think fusion rockets are possible. I assume this means fusion rockets for interstellar flight as in Project Daedalus, not lower Isp rockets for interplanetary flight as designed at LLNL. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 87 01:45:25 GMT From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn ) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE Sounds like the Dean drive all over again. Since the inventor seems to claim to be exploiting properties of classical mechanics, it is appropriate to note that application of classical mechanics to his overall system shows that it cannot continuously translate itself. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 87 13:20:47 GMT From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE This sounds like the famous 'Dean Drive', popularised in the '60s by John W Campbell's magazine Astounding Science Fiction. Yes, a device that converted energy into linear thrust would indeed be a viable space drive; technically it's called a "reactionless drive". It is easy to work out the advantages. For example, if you could convert electricity directly into gravitational potential energy, the cost of getting stuff up to low earth orbit is a few cents a pound. Similarly, if you can convert electricity directly into kinetic energy, acceleration is very cheap. The only problem with the reactionless drive is that it doesn't exist. Such a drive would violate Newton's Third Law. Very few people believe that Dean had such a machine, and this is not a case of "scoff, scoff! we scoffed at Galileo and we scoff at you!" A lot of scientists and engineers tried to duplicate the Drive and failed; many people tried to investigate Dean's machine and had trouble with its rather paranoid inventor. The patent on the device, by Dean's own admission, does not accurately describe the machine. Dead end. I still have the copies of Astounding; I'll try to dig up some references. Perhaps someone could post more about this anonymous Briton? ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 87 17:06:43 GMT From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu (Richard Harter) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE Stine did a followup on the Dean Drive. In essence nobody ever really established that it worked or that it did not work. Dean may have had something -- but what exactly is not known (and apparently will never be known.) It is likely that the British inventor is simply a crank and that the newspaper report is full of it. On the other hand ... While the laws of physics do indeed forbid converting angular momentum into linear momentum in a closed system (i.e. a standalone device) there is nothing that says that we can't transfer momentum. We are not, as one poster suggested, restricted to using rockets. Thus the various linear accelerator schemes. The transfer of momentum from a ship to a large body is a familiar trick. There may be technologies that do this in a more useful and general way -- offhand I haven't the slightest idea what they are. In any case, I rather suspect the Sunday newspaper article is ... a Sunday newspaper article. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 87 19:11:28 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE This sounds like a variant of the Dean Drive that John Campbell was so fond of plugging a few years ago in Astounding/Analog. Which Sunday Newpaper was it? One of Mr Murdoch's? seh ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 87 17:35:14 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE Claims like this surface regularly. Great caution must be used in evaluating them. They appear to violate the laws of physics as said laws are currently understood; this does not mean the claims are false, but it does mean that the burden of proof is on the claimant and the rest of us are justified in being skeptical in the absence of ironclad evidence. It is all too easy to build a widget that looks like an antigravity machine when measured on a bathroom scale. The trouble is that such scales, and most others based on complex mechanical linkages, are not built to give accurate readings of fluctuating loads. It's not hard to set up resonances in the scale mechanism that will produce false readings. The real test for such a "space drive" is to put it on the end of a simple pendulum (e.g. hang it on a piece of string) and see whether it manages to consistently deflect the pendulum to one side. There is no doubt that one can get complex phenomena from rapidly- rotating machinery. Vibration, gyroscopic effects, etc. can combine to do odd things. There are moderately-credible reports of behavior that is not easy to explain. The most plausible explanation is complex combinations of well-known effects; it remains to be seen whether this is in fact the correct explanation, or whether something new is needed. To date, as far as I know, nobody has built anything that can pass the pendulum test. (What do I think personally? I think it would be worth spending a *small* amount of money investigating known anomalies. I doubt very much that anything would come out of it except a better understanding of complex mechanical phenomena. That in itself might be useful, and the potential payoff if there's something deeper going on is high enough to make a small speculative investment worthwhile. Not a large one, though.) PS/2: Yesterday's hardware today. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology OS/2: Yesterday's software tomorrow. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 87 20:00:19 GMT From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu (Keith P. Mancus) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE I think you meant "Converting rotational momentum into linear momentum". Energy is not the problem. Devices of this sort...excuse me, devices that CLAIM to be of this sort have been around for years, but nobody's gotten one to work yet. A guy named Davis worked out something called "Davis Mechanics" which allows reactionless drives to exist, but there's no evidence to support his theories. I'll believe this latest guy when I see his device lift itself off the ground under controlled conditions. Still, we shouldn't rule out the idea of a drive that doesn't use reaction mass. It has always seemed to me that the ideal space drive is purely gravitic. It doesn't dump anything overboard, and it violates no conservation laws. What's needed is a way to generate gravitational fields without the prescence of matter; ideally, we should be able to generate fields that don't obey the inverse square law. There's no evidence that this is possible, but neither does it violate any fundamental laws. We really need a unified field theory ASAP; perhaps that will show us how. There's no guarantee, but research in that direction would be far more useful than messing around with Dean drives. -Keith Mancus Be careful how you apply Clarke's First Law. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 87 02:39:49 GMT From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn ) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE In article <8710@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >... The real test for such a "space drive" is to put it on the end of >a simple pendulum (e.g. hang it on a piece of string) and see whether >it manages to consistently deflect the pendulum to one side. At least one realization of the Dean drive passed this test. It actually pumped air across the faces of its container by its unusual vibration duty cycle. It wouldn't do this in a vacuum, obviously. Conservation of linear momentum is a direct consequence of the invariance of physical "law" under translation. If someone claims to be able to violate this conservation principle, then he is in effect claiming a much bigger breakthrough than a measly space drive. A Nobel prize was awarded to the people who (supposedly) showed a violation of the corresponding conservation principle related to spatial reflection. It showed up only when the "weak force" was involved, not under normal mechanical/chemical circumstances. The invariance under question is backed by "billions and billions" of experiments and experience. While it MAY happen that someone has found an exception to it, it would be MOST surprising. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #13 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Oct 87 06:18:42 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04150; Wed, 14 Oct 87 03:17:01 PDT id AA04150; Wed, 14 Oct 87 03:17:01 PDT Date: Wed, 14 Oct 87 03:17:01 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710141017.AA04150@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #14 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 14 Today's Topics: Re: Universe As Hologram Re: SPACE DRIVE Re: SPACE DRIVE Re: SPACE DRIVE SPACE DRIVE Re: SPACE DRIVE Re: SPACE DRIVE SPACE DRIVE Starwisp - .25c in 4 days Re: SPACE DRIVE Re: SPACE DRIVE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Oct 87 15:16:22 GMT From: trex.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) Subject: Re: Universe As Hologram I'm posting the following on behalf of Michael Paddon in Australia, who doesn't have post access to sci.space. Thanks for the contribution (and hopefully the clarification), Michael! - Steve Masticola. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Aspect experiment consisted of measuring the polarization of photons that had previously interacted. He found that the polarization of the quanta were linked no matter what the distance was between them. The interesting aspect (:-)) was that this interaction manifested itself in a instantaneous fashion (or as closely as could be measured). The interaction was definitely faster than a signal could travel between the particles at light speed. The thing to note is that no information transfer is implied in these results. If you could measure the polarization on one of the photons (without affecting it -- Heisenberg's theory raises its ugly head here) while the other photon was having its polarization manipulated, all you would see is a different RANDOM pattern of polarization than what would have happened otherwise! If you could predict what the polarization would be on the photon, then you could transfer information by this means. Unfortunately the word RANDOM is the cornerstone of quantum interactions and unless this element can be removed from the theory then faster than light communication/travel is still an open question. The Aspect experiment used light polarization as a convenient measure. If I remember rightly, this result has been confirmed by a few other researchers though I'd have to look up references to find the details. Theoretically, this effect should manifest itself on other measurable quanitities of various quanta. The important conclusions to be drawn relate to the nature of reality particularily in the light of these FTL interactions between quanta with no obvious means to interact. Some of the opinions which have been aired on the net seem a bit light on justification, however. It seems it takes more than the "Village Voice" to sucessfully challenge Einstein's relativity :-). If you are interested I can post to you some references and more details which I don't have at hand just now. Caveat Netperson: ================= Please take my ramblings as those of a computer scientist with a casual interest in physics. Michael Paddon ============== ================= UUCP: {seismo,mcvax,ukc,ubc-vision}!munnari!mwp ARPA: mwp%munnari.oz@seismo.css.gov CSNET: mwp%munnari.oz@australia ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 87 21:31:32 GMT From: mcvax!lambert@uunet.uu.net (Lambert Meertens) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE (Concerning a device allegedly converting angular momentum into linear momentum:) ) Bill Ferrier was working on a mathemetical formulation of the device ) and was close to success when he died in early 1986. My theory is that the underlying physical principle is obvious once you see it, except that the very act of understanding it causes instantaneous death, reason why it remains unpublished. So don't think about it. Just an advice. Lambert Meertens, CWI, Amsterdam; lambert@cwi.nl ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 87 15:03:37 GMT From: uop!robert@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (Robert McCaul--The Equalizer) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE well, if you take some high energy plasma and rotate it, then get it to...nah, you would'nt beleive me without the sources... i'll post later, can you say, "Pine Gap Austrailia"?? ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 87 11:06:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE This man was the subject of a 1/2 hour documentary film made by Grampian television. (Independant TV company broadcasting to the part of scotland north of the river tay). The programme is called "The man who wants to change the world" It was made in the middle of last year before he moved to Australia, so some of the technical details had not been fully worked out. I watched my copy of the programme and made the following notes. The man's name is Sandy Kidd. At the time the programme was made he was living in Dundee. He is an ex-RAF engineer with an interest in space travel and science fiction. He used to work with gyroscopes of the type used in aircraft, became imprerssed with the amount of power they could store, and decided that they could be used to build a "space drive" to power a space vehicle. (Those of you thinking "Not annother von neuman" please keep reading). He started building the machine in his garage in 1982. He knew the design of machine he wanted, and built a number of unsuccesful prototypes. Eventually, on the 21st November 1984, he produced a machine which produced the effect he wanted. The machine weighing seven pounds, could produce a vertical thrust of twelve ounces. (No metric units here :-)) The device was powered by a 6 1/2 cc water cooled model aircraft engine running at 16,000 rpm. The device was tested by balancing it with a counterweight and measuring the lift the running device could produce. The programme shows this testing, and the running machine in lengthy detail. The next step was to contact Professor Eric Laithwaite at Imperial college, London (Whose series of Christmas lecture 10 years ago gave Sandy the original idea), and arrange a demonstration. The professor concluded that the machine worked. Some professional advice on what to do next led him to a university consultancy post at Dundee University, where the engineering and physics departments took the machine apart to try and find out how it worked. Dr. Ian Davidson headed the investigation team and concluded that it was "an interesting phenomenon" but that he had no clear idea of what the machine was doing. Senior physicist Bill Ferrier was not so hesitant. He examined tha machine and produced a written endorsement saying "There is no doubt that the machine does produce vertical lift.... I am fully satisfied that this devide needs further research and development. I have expressed myself willing to help Mr Kidd whose engineering ability is beyond question and for whom I have the greatest respect. ..... I do not as yet understand why this device works, But it does work! The technological posibilities of such a device are enormous its commercial exploitation must be worth millions" (More than a slight under-estimate) Bill ferrier was working on a mathemetical formulation of the device and was close to success when he died in early 1986. The device is supposed to be able to directly convert angular momentum into linear momentum. Funding for the research ran out in 1986, and Sandy Kidd took up an offer to continue the research in Australia. The programme ends before this last event, It was presumably made as a last effort to get funding for further research. And the big question. Does the device really work? I don't know. The programme certainly shows a device which is apparently able to lift itself when balanced by a counterweight. The professors and lecturers can't all have been fooled all the time they were taking tha machine to bits. But Mars in 34 hours? seems too good to be true. But then again, we Scots have invented practically everything, why not a space drive :-) Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 87 14:45:35 GMT From: necntc!culdev1!drw@eddie.mit.edu (Dale Worley) Subject: SPACE DRIVE Well, he's got a way to violate conservation of momentum. Given that the conservation of momentum is one of the best-tested laws of physics, it seems more than a bit unlikely. Not knowing the details, I can't debunk it solidly, but I'll bet it is a form of "putting a fan on your boat to improve the wind". I'd start by looking at the question "Who's going to rotate the rod, when you're in deep space and don't have anything solid to stand on?" However, if he can produce a convincing demonstration, I'm willing to throw 300 years of physics out the window. Hang his device at one end of a long string, and see if it can keep the string at a non-vertical angle. If the device does what is claimed, it can do so, and if present physical theories are right, it can't. QED. Dale -- Dale Worley Cullinet Software ARPA: culdev1!drw@eddie.mit.edu UUCP: ...!seismo!harvard!mit-eddie!culdev1!drw Give me money or kill me! ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 87 17:20:16 GMT From: mit-caf!jtkung@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Joseph Kung) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE In article <671@its63b.ed.ac.uk> bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) writes: >But Mars in 34 hours? seems too good to be true. > >But then again, we Scots have invented practically everything, >why not a space drive :-) > Bob. Mr. Scott "The Miracle Worker" would certainly agree with this last statement. "Warp 8 Captain? She can't take it anymore....." - Joe ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 87 18:42:31 GMT From: brun@husc4.harvard.edu (todd brun) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE All this about the space-drive is very interesting, but as I pointed out in my last posting, it just doesn't work! Unless centuries of observations and predictions are completely wrong, this device couldn't produce enough force to raise a feather. It is simply impossible to convert angular momentum to linear momentum. Despite the unfortunate coincidence of their similar names, angular momentum and linear momentum have almost nothing in common; they are different things; they have different units; they obey separate and independent conservation laws. Before I toss out all the physics since Newton, I want to see this machine fly in through my window and bring me coffee. :-) Thanks to the people who posted more information. Todd ----------------------------- Todd Brun, Physics Department, Harvard University Disclaimer: "Employer? What employer?" ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 87 15:23:23 GMT From: necntc!culdev1!drw@husc6.harvard.edu (Dale Worley) Subject: SPACE DRIVE bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) writes: > The device was powered by a 6 1/2 cc water cooled model aircraft > engine running at 16,000 rpm. Yow! Think of the volume and velocity of the exhaust that mother produced! 6.5 cc times 266 strokes a second is... 1729 cc (almost two liters) of exhaust per second. Personally, I'd be much more pleased if it used an electric motor. That exhaust stream could produce a *lot* of force. Dale Worley Cullinet Software ARPA: culdev1!drw@eddie.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 87 20:58:39 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (T.EBERSOLE) Subject: Starwisp - .25c in 4 days A recent lecture at RCA-Astro near Princeton, NJ, proposed the use of the backup Mars Observer, in the event of a successful launch of the original, for lunar geochemical surveying. An interesting remark was made about a "design study" by Robert Forward and Freeman Dyson. They have concluded that one 50 MW solar-power satellite could use microwaves aimed at a sail to accelerate a probe to .25c in 4 days. The sail would be much smaller than a solar sail. Deceleration would be accomplished by shedding concentric outer rings of the sail, which would speed on ahead and reflect the microwaves backward to brake the probe. No details were known on probe mass, or how extensive the study was. I would tend to believe even back-of-the-envelope approximations from Forward and Dyson to have some validity, though. Does anyone have any information on this proposal, which they called Starwisp? Tim Ebersole ...!ihnp4!mtuxo!tee ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 87 18:21:05 GMT From: hp-pcd!uoregon!omepd!mipos3!cpocd2!howard@hplabs.hp.com (Howard A. Landman) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE In article <1368@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk> peter@tcom.stc.co.uk (The Dark Lord) writes: >The device that the inventor managed to produce overcomes the basic >problem associated with any form of space drive - that of having to >expel matter from the craft in order to accelerate it. His drive works >by converting rotational energy into linear energy. Without having seen the article, I can't really comment, but here is a related idea. Suppose you have particles traveling clockwise around a path with semicircular ends connected by straight segments: ____ (____) Along the upper part of the path, the particles are traveling to the right, and are accelerated to the right. Thus they are traveling (relatively) fast when they are deflected around the half circle at the right end. Then, they are decelerated during their trip back through the lower straight segment, so that they take the left curve at a relatively lower speed. Now, we can break up the forces acting on the path into two components: that due to the curved parts, and that due to the straight parts. The curved parts will tend to drive the path to the right, since the momentum change is greater when the particles move faster. The straight parts will push the path to the left, since they are always pushing the particles to the right (both during acceleration and deceleration). At non-relativistic speeds, these forces will exactly cancel. Now, I haven't done the calculations, but I once heard someone claim that at relativistic speeds, the forces no longer cancel exactly, and it is possible to get some net acceleration of the path. If you embed such an accelerator (or several) in a spacecraft, voila! Would anyone care to confirm or deny the claim? If confirming, be sure to explain how conservation of energy is satisfied, and what direction the acceleration takes. Howard A. Landman ...!{oliveb,...}!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard <- works howard%cpocd2%sc.intel.com@RELAY.CS.NET <- recently flaky ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 87 05:27:52 GMT From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn ) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE In article <1625@culdev1.UUCP> drw@culdev1.UUCP (Dale Worley) writes: -bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) writes: -> The device was powered by a 6 1/2 cc water cooled model aircraft -> engine running at 16,000 rpm. -Think of the volume and velocity of the exhaust that mother produced! Hmm, I wonder if the machine that "converts rotational energy to linear energy" looks anything like a propellor? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #14 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Oct 87 23:46:43 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05676; Wed, 14 Oct 87 20:17:59 PDT id AA05676; Wed, 14 Oct 87 20:17:59 PDT Date: Wed, 14 Oct 87 20:17:59 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710150317.AA05676@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #15 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 15 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE DRIVE Re: SPACE DRIVE Re: SPACE DRIVE Re: Universe as Hologram SPACE DRIVE SPACE DRIVE in SPACE Digest V8 #13 Re: Can someone confirm seemingly brilliant Phoenix design? Re: Shuttleparts/Flyback Booster Re: Shuttleparts/Flyback Booster Re: Shuttleparts/Flyback Booster Re: Can someone confirm seemingly brilliant Phoenix design? Re: Shuttleparts/Flyback Booster Re: Shuttleparts/Flyback Booster Re: Can someone confirm seemingly brilliant Phoenix design? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Oct 87 20:06:30 GMT From: cbmvax!snark!eric@rutgers.edu (Eric S. Raymond) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE In article <1368@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk>, peter@tcom.stc.co.uk writes: > -This is done by placing two gyroscopes, one at each end of a solid > rod. The rod is in turn rotated about its own central axis (like a > fan) I am not sure about the attitudes of the gyroscopes, but it was > said that the combined rotational motion of the complete device > produces a linear pull - again in an unspecified direction. Uh oh, looks like somebody reinvented the Dean Drive. John Campbell, the editor of _Analog_ magazine, hyped this one big in the mid-sixties. There were some promising experimental results, and a guy named Davis came up with a consistent physical theory to explain them (it introduced a 'reactance' term into the Newtonian equations of motion that expressed the idea that you can't get a system's velocity to change in zero time). But the project was defunded and no one ever picked up the work. Hoax? Crackpot idea? Genuine breakthrough? I don't think anyone really knows. I wish I did. Eric S. Raymond UUCP: {{seismo,ihnp4,rutgers}!cbmvax,sdcrdcf!burdvax,vu-vlsi}!snark!eric Post: 22 South Warren Avenue, Malvern, PA 19355 Phone: (215)-296-5718 ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 87 05:55:45 GMT From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu (Richard Harter) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE >Uh oh, looks like somebody reinvented the Dean Drive. John Campbell, >the editor of _Analog_ magazine, hyped this one big in the mid-sixties. >There were some promising experimental results, and a guy named Davis >came up with a consistent physical theory to explain them (it >introduced a 'reactance' term into the Newtonian equations of motion >that expressed the idea that you can't get a system's velocity to >change in zero time). But the project was defunded and no one ever >picked up the work. Sorry, this isn't quite right. Davis independently developted a system of mechanics with a third order term. His development was not motivated by the 'Dean drive' and had nothing to do with it. Indeed, the purported results of the Dean device were not consistent with Davis mechanics. Davis was doing some straightforward theoretical work which was, in principle, an extension of Newtonian mechanics. The theory made testable predictions which were not confirmed in practice. Dean was a crank inventor who a gismo that appeared to create linear thrust. He had a patent, but the patent did not match his gismo, and no one was ever able to duplicate the gismo. The claimed results were not consistent with either classical mechanics or Davis mechanics. At this point in time no one knows for sure what the gismo actually did or whether the experimental results were valid. [Davis died and the gismo was never reconstructed.] The only connection between them was that Campbell hyped both of them, along with a lot of other interesting odds and ends. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 87 17:19:03 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!codas!usfvax2!pdn!alan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Alan Lovejoy) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE In article <6552@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) writes: >Hmm, I wonder if the machine that "converts rotational energy >to linear energy" looks anything like a propellor? Naw, it looks like one of man's most important inventions: the wheel. Seriously, though, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that someday someone will find a way to break some local symmetry and convert rotational energy into linear energy in a way that could be used in a spaceship drive. Perhaps we'll eventually learn how to change physical laws locally/temporarily? --alan@pdn ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Universe as Hologram Date: Tue, 13 Oct 87 12:20:21 -0400 From: Fred Baube The Village Voice article was fascinating but seemed to accept the thesis that quantum mechanics contradicts relativity. Am.J.Phys. 55(8) Aug 87 has an article, "Bell's Theorem: Does Quantum Mechanics Contradict Relativity ?". I wish someone who knows QM would read it and explain it to me. It speaks in terms of "relativistic locality", "predictive completeness", etc. etc. Here is their conclusion, to whet the appetite :-) :-) "We have shown that strong locality, which is the form of locality used to derive Bell's Theorem and its generalizations, is logically equivalent to the conjunction of simple locality and predictive completeness of the state description. Simple locality is the condition that a spin correlation measurement must obey in order to satisfy the relativistic prohibition of superluminal communication. Quantum mechanics obeys simple locality, so there is no contradiction between quantum mechanics and special relativity. The violation of Bell-type inequalities by quantum mechanics is due to the failure of predictive completeness... [T]his `incompleteness' is, in some sense, a property of nature." And y'all thought that the Voice was just some pinko com-symp agitprop :-) ;-) ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 87 17:15:58 GMT From: decvax!linus!necntc!culdev1!drw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dale Worley) Subject: SPACE DRIVE g-rh@cca.CCA.COM (Richard Harter) writes: > Sorry, this isn't quite right. Davis independently developted a > system of mechanics with a third order term. His development was not > motivated by the 'Dean drive' and had nothing to do with it. Indeed, > the purported results of the Dean device were not consistent with > Davis mechanics. Davis mechanics is based on the law: F = ma + D da/dt Where D is a constant with the units of time. If you play around with this for a while, you discover that any object in orbital motion gains energy (as measured by the usual formula). The rate (actually, logarithmic derivative) at which it gains energy is proportional to D and to the accelleration the object undergoes. The best place to apply this in the nucleus of atoms -- D must be less than something like 10^-30 sec in order that atoms don't explode today. This, of course, renders the Davis term unmeasurable in macroscopic physics, which is where Davis claimed to discover the phenomenon in the first place. Dale Worley Cullinet Software ARPA: culdev1!drw@eddie.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1987 01:33 EDT From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: SPACE DRIVE in SPACE Digest V8 #13 Henry Spencer hit the nail on the head, about the bathroom scale. In fact, when the article on the Dean Drive was published in Astounding Science Fiction, the article included a photograph of the thing on a bathroom scale. I managed to blow up the picture well enough to identify it as a Sears Roebuck model and rushed out to buy that very scale. It contained a mechanical diode between the platform and mechanisms and, sure enough, if you stood on it and moved your arm up and down at about 4 Hz the scale would nicely lose quite a few pounds. I sent a good natured letter to John Campbell (I got Shannon to sign it, too). He wrote back about how establishment scientists were always trying to suppress discoveries that upset the old beliefs. I wrote back pointing out that every real scientist would sacrifice an arm, leg, or gonad cheerfully to be able to PROVE that all the others were wrong. It went on and one, with Ron Hubbard's Dianetics, too, and a silly machine that work just as well when you replaced the hardware by a circuit diagram of it. This was, I think, in the early 1950's. The quarrel with Campbell went on for years and I was always sort of mad at him. But looking back, ah, those were great times. The crackpots just don't seem as inventive now! ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 87 16:20:57 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Can someone confirm seemingly brilliant Phoenix design? > You could take the approach give by ablative re-entry technology, put > something on the walls that you don't care about burning off, but this > would probably not work because the chamber would change shape... Ablative cooling for rocket engines is routine practice, especially for small engines and for the throats and nozzles of solid rockets. I imagine there are some tricky fine points, but it does work. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 87 18:55:20 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Shuttleparts/Flyback Booster > ... It would seem that if one could build an assembly-line rocket > engine that could be used in numerous vehicles, this would bring down > costs... True. Note, though, that "numerous vehicles" doesn't necessarily have to mean "numerous *kinds* of vehicles". The classic example is the Soviet "A" booster. It launched Sputnik 1, it launched Vostok 1, and it is still the backbone of the Soviet space program today -- for example, both Soyuz and Progress launches use it. Over 1000 of them have been launched. If you look at the first stage, it has a total of 20 identical engines, four in the core and four in each of four strap-ons. That is over 20,000 engines, which is volume production by anyone's standards. Surprise surprise, it is pretty cheap. -- PS/2: Yesterday's hardware today. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology OS/2: Yesterday's software tomorrow. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 87 19:42:35 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: Re: Shuttleparts/Flyback Booster In article <8687@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > ... It would seem that if one could build an assembly-line rocket > > engine that could be used in numerous vehicles, this would bring > > down costs... > > and Progress launches use it. Over 1000 of them have been launched. > If you look at the first stage, it has a total of 20 identical > engines, four in the core and four in each of four strap-ons. That is > over 20,000 engines, And since they land on the Russian Steppe some parts may be reusable. Certainly the expensive raw materials are. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 87 15:31:53 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: Shuttleparts/Flyback Booster In article <8687@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >[...] The classic example is the Soviet "A" booster. > ... >you look at the first stage, it has a total of 20 identical engines, >four in the core and four in each of four strap-ons. That is over >20,000 engines, I hesitate to contradict Henry's usually expert opinion, but what *looks* like four engines in each of the strap-ons and the core is actually a *single* engine that happens to have four combustion chambers and nozzles. Each set of four combustors is fed fuel from a single set of pumps, plumbing, etc, and each set of four gimbals (where so mounted) as a single unit. The economics of scale still apply - that's still 20,000 combustion chambers and nozzles, if only 5000 sets of turbopumps. (Since the turbopumps are more complex, that actually makes a lot of sense). Alastair JW Mayer BIX: al UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair "What we really need is a good 5-cent/gram launch vehicle." ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 87 15:21:52 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: Can someone confirm seemingly brilliant Phoenix design? In article <8684@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> You could take the approach give by ablative re-entry technology, >> put something on the walls that you don't care about burning off, >> but this would probably not work because the chamber would change >> shape... >Ablative cooling for rocket engines is routine practice, especially >for small engines and for the throats and nozzles of solid rockets. I >imagine there are some tricky fine points, but it does work. You can also use transpiration cooling - the surface you want to cool is finely perforated and you pump a fluid through it which boils off - essentially a self-renewing ablative. I believe the Space Shuttle Main Engine uses this method to cool the injector and/or combustion chamber. Since the SSME runs fuel-rich, they just use LH2 as the coolant. In the Phoenix, which varies from oxidizer-rich to fuel-rich, you'd want something inert (much easier than changing the coolant in mid burn), maybe liquid argon or neon. (Liquid helium is expensive and requires more complex storage, liquid nitrogen is not inert where high temperature oxygen and hydrogen are concerned.) Alastair JW Mayer BIX: al UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair "What we really need is a good 5-cent/gram launch vehicle." ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 87 02:47:32 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Shuttleparts/Flyback Booster > [discussion of the A booster] > And since they land on the Russian Steppe some parts may be reusable. There has been speculation, in fact, that the Soviets may be recovering the strap-on boosters these days. -- "Mir" means "peace", as in | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "the war is over; we've won". | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 87 03:13:42 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Shuttleparts/Flyback Booster > I hesitate to contradict Henry's usually expert opinion, but what *looks* > like four engines in each of the strap-ons and the core is actually > a *single* engine that happens to have four combustion chambers ... I knew about this, actually, but it's a question of terminology "on which reasonable men may differ". There was speculation that this peculiar arrangement was the result of the Soviets having trouble building big engines, but Energia would appear to have refuted *that* fairly decisively... -- "Mir" means "peace", as in | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "the war is over; we've won". | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 87 03:09:21 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Can someone confirm seemingly brilliant Phoenix design? > You can also use transpiration cooling - the surface you want to cool > is finely perforated and you pump a fluid through it which boils off - > essentially a self-renewing ablative. I believe the Space Shuttle > Main Engine uses this method to cool the injector... This technique too is fairly old; the V-2 used film cooling (as it is also called -- if there is a significant distinction I've missed it) for its engine throat. > ... In the Phoenix, which varies from oxidizer-rich to fuel-rich, > you'd want something inert (much easier than changing the coolant in > mid burn), maybe liquid argon or neon... I suspect chemical inertness is not a big need, given that the coolant film on the surface is being renewed constantly. Bear in mind, for that matter, that argon and neon are not completely inert. At least one of the proposals for a new big hydrocarbon engine uses liquid hydrogen for cooling. (It does get injected and burned, but the performance boost from this is relatively modest.) Cooling with hydrocarbon fuel at high pressures and temperatures does not work too well -- the stuff tends to react chemically and form solid goop in the plumbing. The F-1 engine largely avoided this problem by not pushing performance too hard, but of course most everybody is convinced that the next big engine has to have the ultimate maximum performance possible. [When will they learn...?] Liquid hydrogen is a *great* coolant, and the amounts needed for that don't require the enormous tankage needed to use it as the primary fuel. -- "Mir" means "peace", as in | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "the war is over; we've won". | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #15 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Oct 87 06:18:46 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06475; Thu, 15 Oct 87 03:17:02 PDT id AA06475; Thu, 15 Oct 87 03:17:02 PDT Date: Thu, 15 Oct 87 03:17:02 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710151017.AA06475@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #16 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 16 Today's Topics: Re: Shuttleparts/Flyback Booster Re: Oxygen Supply Orbits, Phobos, Venus, . . . Deflecting asteroids Re: Prospecting for Lunar Oxygen Re: Oxygen Supply Do we need a Space Station? Free angular momentum? Re: Free angular momentum? Space Station orbital inclination ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Oct 87 18:09:10 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. Starr) Subject: Re: Shuttleparts/Flyback Booster In article <197@geovision.UUCP>, alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) writes: > In article <8687@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > >[...] The classic example is the Soviet "A" booster. > > ... > >you look at the first stage, it has a total of 20 identical engines, > >four in the core and four in each of four strap-ons. That is over > >20,000 engines, > > I hesitate to contradict Henry's usually expert opinion, but what > *looks* like four engines in each of the strap-ons and the core is > actually a *single* engine that happens to have four combustion > chambers and nozzles. Each set of four combustors is fed fuel from a > single set of pumps, plumbing, etc, and each set of four gimbals > (where so mounted) as a single unit. Almost...the four main thrust chambers aren't gimballed; there are twelve smaller steering "engines" (fed, I assume, by the one turbopump) for guidance (two each on the boosters, four in the core). As I understand it, the Soviet designers chose a "four-cylinder" engine rather than a big single thrust chamber or four smaller pump/thrust chamber assemblies because they did not know how to scale up the combustion chamber and nozzle (they were afraid of turbulence problems), but they did know how to build a big pump, which had certain efficiencies. When you think about it, the assumption of a 1:1 relationship between pumps/thrust chambers/gimbals is a rather limiting concept... It will be interesting to see what combination of components Energia uses... ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 87 16:29:46 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Oxygen Supply > ... do astronauts carry all their oxygen supply or is the oxygen > chemically generated? At the moment, it is all carried along as liquid oxygen. There is no point in chemically generating it from some other compound, because that just means hauling along whatever else is in the compound too. (If you can get said compound -- e.g. asteroidal rock -- without hauling it along from Earth, that's another story.) As far as I know, there has been no real attempt at oxygen recycling in space yet. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 87 06:21:24 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!andrew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Andrew Folkins) Subject: Orbits, Phobos, Venus, . . . Many things : 1) I don't read sci.space for almost three weeks, and this silly English vs. metric discussion is still going on. As I recently heard, only three great nations in the world still use the English system of measurement : Burma, Brunei and the United States. :-) 2) I was recently at a lecture at the local Edmonton Space Sciences Centre, and was playing with an exhibit modelling a spacecraft in orbit. The object was to try to get the thing into geosynchonous orbit. "Hey", I thought, "this would be a neat thing to program". The question : anyone out there have any references for determining an orbit given an object's location and velocity vector? I've done this dynamically, but I want to be able to determine such things as apogee and perigee altitude & speed, eccentricity, etc. 3) The above mentioned lecture was by Brian O'Leary pushing his book "Mars 1999". He's a former astronaut, so I guess he knows a bit about this. His talk basically described a joint US-USSR mission to Mars, consisting of two ships, a "base" on Phobos, teleoperated robots to do most of the exploring on the Martian surface along with a one-day two-man trip to plant various flags and say that men had actually landed. From this scenario, I get a real impression of a one-shot Apollo-type mission, except that Mr. O'Leary stated that a water-processing plant would be set up on Phobos, to create hydrogen & oxygen for use in the Earth-Moon system. His justification for this was that from a fuel perspective, Phobos is the easiest place to get to in the Solar System, and the (probably) abundant volatiles there would make it a very valuable place. I have a couple of questions about this : Is Phobos really easier to reach than, say near-Earth asteroids? How well would it stand up against a lunar mass driver (as an oxygen source, anyway)? What effects would the nine-month transit time have? That's by big concern - the travel time to get the stuff here may more than offset any fuel savings. 4) Oh, in case no one noticed : last September 29 was the 25th anniversay of the launch of Canada's first satellie, Alouette 1. Many people don't believe it, but Canada was the third nation to join in space exploration. Now, if could have kept that American flag out the shuttle bay, everyone would have though *it* was Canadian, too! :-) 5) A late-night thought : What kind of space programs would we have if Venus was an Earth-type planet? Andrew Folkins ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada "There's an Earth out tonight, Shining big and bright" -- The John Hall Band ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Oct 87 13:55:54 From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Deflecting asteroids Date: Fri, 18 Sep 87 22:41:48 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" It is generally believed that most asteroids are loose aggregates - like piles of rocks rather than like individual rocks. Of course nobody knows for sure, yet. We need to find out. Can you say "CRAF"? If they indeed are fragile, it'll be easy to break them up and then individually move the pieces to Earth vicinity. Maybe we can just detonate a bomb in such a way that the center of mass would be in Earth-crossing orbit, then if it breaks up the centermost parts will be Earth-crossing and can be harvested immediately while the rest can get transponders attached to them so we can find them years later (they'll be too small to track by direct telescopy). ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 87 18:13:32 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: Prospecting for Lunar Oxygen About a month ago, I posted a summary of the Ride report from CANOPUS. The CANOPUS reporter said that an early phase of the "Outpost on the Moon" initiative would be "an unmanned search for ideal landing sites rich in oxygen-bearing ores." Robert Elton Maas questioned the need for such a search, pointing out that all Moon rocks are abundant in oxygen. In fact, the relevant section of the Ride report talks about prospecting for _volatiles_, saying that their presence would be extremely important in deciding where to site a base. Later on, the report says that one of the first products of the Lunar base will be oxygen extracted from lunar rock and/or soil. My guess is that the CANOPUS reporter, in too much haste, concatenated the two sections and came up with prospecting for oxygen. The Ride report itself has no such idea. I guess the lesson is the value of what historians call "primary sources". -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 87 20:07:35 GMT From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!crash!gryphon!mhnadel@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Miriam Nadel) Subject: Re: Oxygen Supply In article <8686@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> ... do astronauts carry all their oxygen supply or is the oxygen >> chemically generated? > >At the moment, it is all carried along as liquid oxygen. There is no >point in chemically generating it from some other compound, because >that just means hauling along whatever else is in the compound too. >(If you can get said compound -- e.g. asteroidal rock -- without >hauling it along from Earth, that's another story.) As far as I know, >there has been no real attempt at oxygen recycling in space yet. True, though there has been talk of biologically generating oxygen. This is an essential part of the CELSS concept (Closed Ecological Life Support Systems, though some say Controlled and some say Environmental). The break even point has been estimated at 5 years. That is, for missions of more than 5 years it would become more economical to grow plants to supply food and oxygen and recycle human wastes to supply plant nutrients, than to carry all the food, water and oxygen you'd need (water would be produced in the recycling process.) The 5 year figure was computed by Boeing, but has also been confirmed by Soviet estimates (about as independent as we can get!). To date, there have obviously been no CELSS experiments in space. NASA has planned a ground based demonstration for the mid-1990's but what with funding cuts and some general administrative boondoggles, I wouldn't hold my breath. The only Soviet experiment I know of with this was unsuccessful - they were unable to keep the carbon dioxide concentration in the air down low enough for the air to be breathable (this is as of 2 years ago. Since I'm still on the CELSS mailing list for papers and workshops and such I think I would have heard of any successful experiments.) Miriam Nadel mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 87 22:42:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Do we need a Space Station? Here's a question that's sure to generate some discussion: Do we really need a space station? Now, before you jump all over me, I didn't think this one up. I'm trying to sign up for a graduate-level special problems course, and the professor and I are mulling over possible topics related to manned space travel. (The course is independent study.) I'd like to do something (I don't know what) with life support. [Any suggestions on topics would be appreciated. I'm taking 0.5 Units, or 2 semester hours, of credit in this course. Please E-mail.] Since Dr. Conway has no knowledge of life support, he'd rather I do a project on something nearer and dearer to his heart. He mentioned that there was quite a lot of debate in the scientific community on the actual, scientific (NOT POLITICAL) need for a space station. He said that some scientists think that space exploration could be done better and more efficiently by unmanned vehicles and platforms. I'm an advocate of manned space travel in general and the space station in particular, myself, but for mostly emotional reasons. I'd be interested in some discussion on the true, objective need for a manned space station as opposed to unmanned, free-flying experiments launched by expendible boosters. -- Ken Jenks jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 87 15:27:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Free angular momentum? I just read an old David Brin short story in which an External Tank Farm-style space station with a tether/gravity gradient system providing artificial "gravity" puts a current through their tether to provide an angular momentum change by electomagnetic interaction with Earth's magnetic field. That's kinda confusing. A diagram follows. (======) an External Tank collection || || __-- || a strong, conducting tether <--- || < orbital motion || (======) another External Tank collection EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Everybody's favorite planet (NOT TO SCALE) The space station was stabilized by the gravity gradient torque, which tries to align the axis with the largest moment of inertia with the orbital radius vector. This would keep such a station always perpendicular to the flight path. (This always makes me chuckle when I see "artist's renditions" of the Space Station. Gravity gradient is a serious force.) Brin said that by putting a current through the tether, the VxB (Lorentz's?) force would cause an increase in angular momentum for the space station, hence a higher orbit. According to Dr. Lee Sentman, Aero/Astro Engr Professor speciallizing in environmental effects on satellites here at the Univ. of Illinois, the use of an electrical field interacting with the Earth's magnetic field could *not* produce a force on the space station because the Earth's field is not a dipolar field. Who is right, Brin or Sentman? -- Ken Jenks jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 87 01:44:57 GMT From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: Re: Free angular momentum? In article <74700035@uiucdcsp>, jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > I just read an old David Brin short story in which an External Tank > . . . > Who is right, Brin or Sentman? They both are right, because Brin is not using an electrical field, but a current. The current loop is completed with an electron gun at one end and an ion gun at the other (I forget which, but it DOES matter!). A vertical current crossed with the Earth's horizontal B (magnetic) field generates a forwards force, increasing orbital speed and raising the orbit. Newton's laws are satisfied, because the added charges shot off the top charge the region around the top, and these added charges, plus the much larger number already there, drift slowly downwards to complete the circuit. All the charged particles are gently forced backwards as they drift down through the B field (as are the oppositely charged particles drifting up). The net effect is that all the charged particles in a large area around the station are pushed backwards. It's more like a jet engine than a rocket. Energetically, it's much better to push many particles slowly than a few particles fast in order to get momentum, as long as you don't have to carry the particles with you. ----- My question would be, how long would the tether have to be such that there would be significant interaction between the charged particles from the particle guns and the charged particles in the ionosphere? Without such interaction, you might as well just use an ion engine. My wild guess would be that the tether would have to be many times the mean free path at that altitude; at 200 km altitude, the mean free path is only a few hundred meters, so a 2 km tether should do the job. At 1000 km altitude, the mean free path is about 2000 km (it gets mighty thin up there), requiring perhaps a 10000 km tether, which would probably break from the gravity gradient. Would anyone who understands charged gasses care to elucidate? Keith Lofstrom ...!tektronix!vice!keithl keithl@vice.TEK.COM MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 87 19:50:40 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: Space Station orbital inclination My earlier two postings concerning the space station inclination of 28.5 degrees (not 32, sorry) and the world launch sites' latitudes and longitudes had to do with the truly international aspect of the space station. Knowing that nations whose launch sites are at latitudes closer to the poles than the Cape cannot launch, economically, to the station, then they must transport their equipment to other launch sites. This is a disincentive towards contribution to the station. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #16 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Oct 87 06:33:48 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01537; Fri, 16 Oct 87 03:17:50 PDT id AA01537; Fri, 16 Oct 87 03:17:50 PDT Date: Fri, 16 Oct 87 03:17:50 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710161017.AA01537@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #17 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 17 Today's Topics: space news from Aug 31 AW&ST Thanks for your support Re: propulsion method Re: Free angular momentum? Re: Do we need a Space Station? Re: Space Station orbital inclination Re: Free angular momentum? Space Fitness ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Oct 87 23:10:48 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Aug 31 AW&ST [I'm running out of periodicals to recommend. Next time I will start on books, I think, but here's one last periodical. "Astronomy" is worth getting. It is not highly technical; "Sky and Telescope" is where the real telescope hackers hang out. "Astronomy" is aimed a bit more at a general audience and at those who are more interested in the results than the process. It runs frequent reports on planetary science and other space news. This is the place to go for lots of glossy photos of everything from planets to star clusters. Visually appealing and the words are (by and large) well done too. Astronomy, 1027 North Seventh St., Milwaukee, WI 53233 USA. New-subscriber rate $21 for 12 issues; outside US add $5.] China has reservations or preliminary orders from over 10 customers in the US and elsewhere for scientific piggyback payloads on Long March; many of these were meant to fly as secondary payloads on the shuttle. JPL is modifying the wide-field camera from the Hubble telescope to head off trouble from water outgassing from a composite frame. USAF will ask for $5-6G for 27 more Titan 4s and competitive development of a new Atlas-Centaur-class expendable. Official reason is need for more expendable capacity as a result of shuttle delays, weight limits, and the constraints imposed by planetary-mission launch windows. Of course, there is also the small matter that the expendables would be run entirely by the USAF. [Aha. The USAF has given Delta a nice new subsidy by buying it for Navstar (despite it being too small, thus requiring developing a new version for this "off-the-shelf" buy!). And the Titan is busy as the heavy launcher for DoD. Which booster hasn't got a pork-barrel subsidy yet? Why, the Atlas- Centaur! So, of course, we need a new Atlas-Centaur-class booster! Anyone want to bet that an Atlas-Centaur derivative *won't* win this "competitive" development?] NASA formally apologizes to Congress for illegal lobbying activity. Some NASA underlings asked contractors for lobbying help on the space station, and were stupid enough to do so in writing. (This sort of thing happens all the time, but it's usually done over the phone to avoid leaving a formal record.) NASA is not supposed to use public funding for lobbying. NASA finishes dismantling the last Atlas-Centaur, the one with the crumpled hydrogen tank. There are no other usable tanks, and NASA doesn't want the expense of keeping the facilities and crews operational for two years for the sake of one last (USAF) payload. NASA will probably try to sell the hardware back to General Dynamics and lease the facilities to them as well. Space station facing uphill funding battle in Senate. Proxmire wants to kill it. Some other former supporters are no longer considered reliable, since the alternative may be killing things with larger constituencies. Jake Garn will lead the pro-station forces, although his influence on space matters has declined because of his shuttle junket. [Last I heard, Proxmire appears to have lost this battle.] Morton-Thiokol Castor 4A, the souped-up strap-on for the new Delta variant, fails during test at Marshall. Case ruptured. First launch is supposed to be about a year away, and there is hope that it may stay on schedule. DoD says the Soviet Union may have flown its small spaceplane again last week. Full-scale SRB test postponed two days due to minor equipment problems. [Successful after delays.] Hercules tests a filament-wound SRB casing to destruction, successfully, as part of its filament-wound-SRB contract. [The future of the f-w SRB is most uncertain, as it is considered riskier than the steel-cased ones and it no longer has a USAF mission requirement pushing it.] British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce, and the British government reach agreement on interim funding of space projects to keep them alive until a major government program review is complete. Japan launches second H-1 booster from Tanegashima, carrying engineering test satellite ETS-5 into transfer orbit. First use of new Nissan solid third stage. Rocketdyne and Pratt&Whitney win contracts to investigate air-breathing engines for the spaceplane. (GE loses.) The current Mir crew will stay up until the end of the year, giving Yuri Romanenko a new duration record; he passes the current Salyut 7 record on Oct 1. [And that's it. A light news week -- staff on vacation?] "Mir" means "peace", as in | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "the war is over; we've won". | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 87 19:57:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Thanks for your support Thanks to all of you who contributed comments on my note about whether or not we have a scientific need for the space station. When I have enough responses (E-mail or otherwise) and enough data from the library, I'll post two notes: Pro and Con. If anybody else has anything to contribute to the question, please send me whatever you feel is appropriate and I'll summarize. (There's a distinct lack of "Con" messages. Maybe Prof. Conway is wrong and we really do need a space station. I hope so!) -- Ken Jenks jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 87 01:19:09 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: propulsion method In article <74700035@uiucdcsp>, jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > I just read an old David Brin short story in which an External Tank > Farm-style space station with a tether/gravity gradient system > providing artificial "gravity" puts a current through their tether to > provide an angular momentum change by electomagnetic interaction with > Earth's magnetic field. > . . . This propulsion concept is referred to as 'electrodynamic'. The key to making this concept work is to have a uni-directional current flowing through an insulated conductor. The current loop is closed through the ionosphere. Now, a current carrying wire in a magnetic field (circa 0.35x10E-4 Tesla for the Earth) experiences a force F = IL cross B, where I is the current in amperes, L is the length in meters, and B is the field in Tesla. Then F is in Newtons. I and B are vectors. The resultant force has a magnitude I times L times B, and a direction perpendicular to I and B. Now, when you design such a system, you have to have devices at each end to make electrical contact with the ionosphere, and a power source, such as a photovoltaic array, to push the current through the wire. The primary loss in the system is the I squared R resistance loss in the wire. When you optimize for the most thrust per mass, you actually get a rather short, fat cable, rather than a long thin one. Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 87 17:09:21 GMT From: ihnp4!upba!eecae!crlt!russ@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: Free angular momentum? In article <74700035@uiucdcsp>, jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >I just read an old David Brin short story in which an External Tank > . . . >Who is right, Brin or Sentman? [_Tank Farm Dynamo_, is the name of the story] [The force is actually IxB; the induced voltage is l*VxB] Both of them are. Brin states that a *current flow* through the tether (with the circuit closed via the plasma around the earth) would cause a force to be exerted on the tether and thus the space station. This is second-semester physics. Sentman is equally correct when he states that *the electrical field* does not, in itself, create a propulsive force. However, Sentman is ignoring the current carried by the tether. The net effect of that current is to provide a forward thrust to the tether and a backward thrust to the near-earth plasma which carries the return current. Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ihnp4!itivax![m-net!rsi,crlt!russ] ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 87 22:44:51 GMT From: pitstop!sundc!hqda-ai!cos!smith@sun.com (Steve Smith) Subject: Re: Do we need a Space Station? In article <74700031@uiucdcsp> jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > > Do we really need a space station? Hmm. The usual justifications for the space station are things like scientific and industrial research. There is another use that might be even more important. Consider an unmanned launch. First, during the launch, you've got heavy g-forces (burn your fuel low in the gravity well so you don't have to lift it) and some of the all time nasty vibration. Anything that is more delicate than an I-beam has to be protected. When you get to your basic orbit, you have to separate out the packages on the launch unless they are all going to the same orbit. When your package is in its final orbit, you have to switch from "launch" mode to "deployed" mode. The shipping restraints come off the instruments, the solar panels fold out, whatever. You run checks from the ground, and, if everything works, you are off and running. If not ... Now consider a heavy-launch vehicle. It can launch a LOT of small to medium packages at once, making for a relatively low price per package. Now, how do you get all those satellites into their proper orbits without having them running into each other. It's going to take a lot of fancy gadgets to keep everything sorted out. Enter the Space Station. The heavy-launch vehicle unloads into the station. The techs (they will, of course, have appropriately polysyllabic titles :-) take the circuit boards out of the Styrofoam shipping containers and plug them into the backplane. Similarly, they unpack the solar panels and hang them on the mounting brackets. They push the "test" button. If something doesn't check out, they put it aside until a replacement gets sent up. If it is OK (or if spares are on hand) it gets put on the "bus" that takes it to its proper orbit. Since it doesn't have to worry about an atmosphere, the "bus" can use low-acceleration, high efficiency drives, so the satellite doesn't have to have the "doomsday" protection needed for a direct launch. Also, bulk isn't a problem. The result: Not only are the launch costs lowered by the heavy-launch vehicle, but the satellites themselves become much cheaper. Reliability increases, both because of the lack of deployment gizmos and because of the in-orbit checkout. The "bus" can also bring satellites back to the station for repair, refills, upgrades, etc. Eventually, the station could simply stock standard solar panels, computers, telemetry gear, etc, and build stellites in orbit, with only specialized instruments needing to be launched specifically for a special - purpose satellite. So the main "manufactured in space" items might turn out to be satellites. How to reduce costs even further? Hint: There's lots of silicon, iron, and oxygen on the Moon ... -- Steve smith@cos.com ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 87 02:58:47 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Station orbital inclination > ... Knowing that nations whose launch sites are at latitudes closer to > the poles than the Cape cannot launch, economically, to the station, > then they must transport their equipment to other launch sites... In practice this matters little at the moment, because the only likely contributors with boosters powerful enough to launch useful payloads to the station are the US and ESA. The US uses the Cape, and ESA's site at Kourou is nearly on the equator and can reach any orbit. In practice the US is lukewarm (at best) about anybody but the US launching payloads to the immediate vicinity of the station, so the point is moot. The current plan (subject to change, especially if NASA gets a heavylift booster) calls for the shuttle to do all the work anyway. "Mir" means "peace", as in | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "the war is over; we've won". | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 12 Oct 87 23:23:32 GMT From: telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: Re: Free angular momentum? > Who is right, Brin or Sentman? Both, sort of. There's a lot of confusion on this point, and it shows up even in some of the technical literature that I've seen. Brin (and others) analyze the system in terms of the I x B force (not V x B; that's the induced electric field) integrated over the length of the current-carrying tether, ignoring the inevitable current return path. That makes it look as if the tether is reacting against the earth directly, through the earth's magnetic field. That's an illusion. When you include the return current in the analysis, the net torque applied to the earth's magnetic field is zero. So professor Sentman is right. But Brin is also right, because the return path is through a medium that is detached from the space station/tether system--viz. the low density ion soup that permeates near-orbit space. The I x B force of the return current in that medium results in a net force applied to the medium that is equal but opposite to the net force on the tether. So what the current-carrying tether is actually reacting against is the ion medium of near-orbit space. There are plenty of professionals--including some who have written articles about current-carrying tethers--who don't appreciate that last point. As a result, their analyses of the system are deficient. They don't include anything dealing with the acceleration of the ion medium, and the resulting space-charge effects. I presume that competent analysis has, in fact, been done. I know that NASA takes the concept of current-carrying tethers seriously. I haven't seen any analyses that impressed me as competent, but then, I haven't really looked. - Roger Arnold ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger ------------------------------ Date: 14 OCT 87 14:52-JAN From: clopez%UCIVMSA.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Space Fitness Date: Wed, 14 Oct 87 14:14:22 -0700 From: Carlos A. Lopez Astronaut William Thornton, M.D. recently gave a lecture here on campus about the "Development of Fitness Equipment for the Space Shuttle." Dr. Thornton was selected as an scientist-astronaut in August 1967 and has flown on both Skylab and Spacelab. He developed the Shuttle treadmill for inflight exercises and several other on-board devices. His lecture started with a short film showing life in space to demonstrate how little exertion is needed for movement, and the almost impractical need for legs. He contrasted this with the almost continuous use of the legs and lower back on Earth. For example, every time we stand or sit, we are applying a load of 1g to our legs. Walking actually applies a load of up to 3g's. And running can develop loads of up to 10g's on the legs and lower back. (It has to do with the body under acceleration hitting the ground. He showed a diagram of the leg as set of levers and how these forces are generated. Sorry I don't remember more.) He went on to a slide presentation showing results of fitness tests from the three Skylab missions. The primary source of exercise at this time was the cycle. First test results showed that there was little loss of efficiency of the cardiovascular system, some loss of strength in the upper body, and severe loss of strength in the legs and lower back. Dr. Thronton then devised a kind of treadmill that is really a sheet of teflon that an astronaut in socks walks on. Of course the astronaut is held in place by a harness. This is where the "space treadmill" was used for the first time. Later test results showed significant improvement in lack of muscle atrophy in the legs. But the treadmill was awkward and uncomfortable and only developed loads of 1g (body weight), so he redesigned one for the space shuttle. Dr. Thornton explained that his research suggests the key to space fitness in not the amount of exercise, but the amount of loads applied during exercise. He said the cosmonauts do about 2 hours of a variety of exercises a day, but are still carried off the return craft because they aren't using sufficient loads during exercise. He gave a short description of the space station "gym" currently under study. He showed four main pieces of equipment in a "stick" drawing. First was what looked like a water ski handle coming down from the ceiling. Since it was intended for upper body exercise, I assume it was a resistance pully with footstops on the floor. Second was basically the same device on a wall above two footstops to simulate a rowing type muscular exercise mainly for variety from the first device. Third was the cycle for cardiovascular exercise. Fourth was a newly designed treadmill for legs and cardiovascular exercise. This new treadmill was slimmer than the shuttle one and supposed to provide more of a load on the user. Dr. Thorton finished by saying he believed than man will be able to go anywhere that his (man) machines can take him. He does not believe the problems of space fitness will limit man's ability to explore space. If you get a chance to hear Dr. Thorton speak, I highly recommend going. His lecture was well prepared and touched upon some real science research, but he did not tax his audience. And I could here a distinct tone of "Boy, I love doing this" in his voice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos A. Lopez (clopez@ucivmsa) | Project: Cutting a record to show the Computer Science Student Extraordinare | world I can't sing. University of California at Irvine | Plan: To be the "Don Johnson" of CS. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #17 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Oct 87 06:19:20 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03212; Sat, 17 Oct 87 03:16:31 PDT id AA03212; Sat, 17 Oct 87 03:16:31 PDT Date: Sat, 17 Oct 87 03:16:31 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710171016.AA03212@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #18 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 18 Today's Topics: Re: Tethered Tanks CELSS and oxygen regeneration Re: Pluto Star Program Re: Pluto Re: Mir Elements, 24 September 1987 Astronomy software Re: Orbits, Phobos, Venus, . . . NASA Prediction Bulletins Planetary motion Aircraft and lightning Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches? Re: SR71 sighting Re: SR71 sighting Aircraft and lightning Re: SR71 sighting ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Oct 1987 12:42-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Tethered Tanks Don't remember it being mentioned, but another useful feature of having two ET's tethered, as in the Brin story, is a bit of gravity. Only the center of mass is in free fall. An outward force is felt in each tank ('outwards' in the upper, 'inwards' in the lower) that is proportional to the distance from the C.O.M. So the beauty of the system is that you get a free low gravity, a stable orientation and reboost capability using 'dumb' systems that require no volatiles resupply. There are no critical high tech systems involved other than the 'guns' and in this day and age these are nearly stone age technology, at least at the quality required for reboost capabilities. The Brin story, as I remember hearing from a physicist, is about a group that homesteads the tanks and lives essentially self-sufficiently: a modern version of the pioneer farm that uses very little that can't be fixed, rebuilt or manufactured at the local quilting bee... The way things SHOULD be done. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 87 8:41 -0600 From: bradley thompson Subject: CELSS and oxygen regeneration In reference to the general comments regarding conrolled ecolocical life support systems: 1- the American program has sputtered along for almost 30 years now. Early 60's work, done mainly under Air Force sponsership, concentrated on algal regeneration of oxygen and the use of organisms like Alcaligenes [Hydrogenomonas] sp. for food production and concurrent carbon dioxide regeneration. The following NASA programs have been sparten but it appears as if a major gear up is in the works. For more information talk to Bob MacElroy at NASA-Ames. 2- our Soviet friends have conducted successful ground based tests of non-optimized systems using CELSS technology. The longest test that I am aware of that was sucessful was 6 months. No problems of any great nature. Their goals appear to be a minimum 2 year system. Mars? 3- the Japanese are gearing up to establish their own program, as are the Europians. 4- Canadian participation is at this point limited to my group. We are concentrating on microgravity fermentor design. In general CELSS technology development is limited in the west by our common problem of lack of routine access to space. I am limited at the moment to KC135 flights, or worse, drop tower experiments to test hardware out. Biological system testing obviously is out of the question using these systems. Hardware testing is bad enough in a KC135. Try getting good data in 20s of milligravity at a shot while all you can think about is emptying your guts out Brad Thompson, Biotechnology Department, Alberta Research Council ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 87 20:09:58 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Pluto > The question once again has come up here during lunchtime discussion > as to whether or not Pluto is indeed a planet or a moon of Neptune. > Can anyone inform me of the latest thinking about this distant rockey > world? Pluto's small size and weird orbit have persistently led people to speculate that it might be an escaped moon of Neptune. One particularly interesting idea was that it and Triton had a very near miss, leaving Triton in its circular retrograde orbit (VERY hard to explain otherwise) and expelling Pluto completely. There are some serious difficulties with the idea, though, notably the fact that Pluto's orbit does not intersect Neptune's nowadays. (They look like they intersect on a flat drawing, but they don't in 3D.) Possibly the fatal blow to the idea is the existence of Pluto's moon Charon. It's difficult to come up with a way to eject Pluto from orbit around Neptune that is gentle enough not to break up the Pluto-Charon system. My understanding is that the idea is not taken very seriously nowadays. -- PS/2: Yesterday's hardware today. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology OS/2: Yesterday's software tomorrow. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Oct 87 06:07 EST From: <11SSTEIN%GALLUA.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu> Subject: Star Program Any of you got a star locator program for the VAX? I would appericate it if you would send me the file along with instructions. I really want an astronony program on my VAX but do not know how to form one. Graphics and printable programs would be the most appreicated. See ya. Scott Steinbrink 11SSTEIN@GALLUA.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 87 04:51:24 GMT From: tektronix!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60RC) Subject: Re: Pluto In addition to the Sky & Telescope article mentioned in an earlier posting, there is an article in the Sept. 26 Science News about Pluto. --- Dan Tilque dant@tekla.tek.com or dant@tekla.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 87 16:14:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Mir Elements, 24 September 1987 I just had pointed out to me that the figure I post as the ``mean motion acceleration'' (and advertised as such in the NORAD element sets) is actually ONE-HALF the acceleration of the mean motion. Future postings will warn about this, for those of you with your own programs. One of the AMSAT programs takes this into account, as do SPACETRACK and SGP4. I've already sent mail about this fact to the author of the other program. Also, to the person who inquired via email about the interpretation of the mean motion (sorry, I've already flushed the message and have lost your name and address): The mean motion includes the first-order-secular perturbation of the mean anomaly (from the second harmonic of the Earth's gravitational potential). The semimajor axis must be corrected for this. Mean motion also includes some corrections for short-period perturbations. kBk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Oct 87 09:56 EST From: <11SSTEIN%GALLUA.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu> Subject: Astronomy software I wonder if you know anyone who has an astronomy software/source code for the VAX/VMS? I would like something to report data on constellations, where I can find stars and a given time and place. If you have it, please send me a copy of it and I will appericate it. Scott A. Steinbrink "Wizard" Also, for your information, I found a unnamed star in the constellation Taurus and I have named it after my girlfriend, Cecilia Ziegler. It's offically registered by the United States Government. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 87 02:10:49 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!codas!cpsc6a!rtech!llama!wong@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (J. Wong) Subject: Re: Orbits, Phobos, Venus, . . . In article <175@pembina.UUCP> andrew@alberta.UUCP (Andrew Folkins) writes: >2) ... and was playing with an exhibit modelling a spacecraft in orbit. > The object was to try to get the thing into geosynchonous orbit. > "Hey", I thought, "this would be a neat thing to program". The > question : anyone out there have any references for determining an > orbit given an object's location and velocity vector? I've done > this dynamically, but I want to be able to determine such things as > apogee and perigee altitude & speed, eccentricity, etc. When I was a Reed, Prof. Richard Crandall wrote a program that given initial coordinates and velocity displayed the orbit of an object in a two-body system supposed to represent the Earth/Moon system. (As it turned out, it was damn hard to get any stable orbits. The satellites would always end up crashing into one of the two bodies. Perusing the code I discovered that the ratio of the masses of the two bodies was 1/6 ... Unfortunately, although that is the ratio of surface gravity for the Earth/Moon it is not the ratio of their masses. The mass ratio is something like .012 (my memory is bad; I may be off by an order of magnitude.) So, the model really was of a binary star system with very few stable orbits. With the correct mass ratio, getting a stable orbit was much easier.) J. Wong ucbvax!mtxinu!rtech!wong ------------------------------ Date: 12 Oct 87 22:21:36 GMT From: tskelso@ngp.utexas.edu (TS Kelso) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins For those of you who are interested in satellite tracking, the most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (512) 892-4180, and are updated several times weekly. As a service to the amateur satellite community, the most current of these elements are uploaded weekly to rec.ham-radio. The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300 or 1200 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. TS Kelso ARPA: tskelso@ngp.utexas.edu The Center for Space Research The University of Texas at Austin UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo,sally}!ngp!tskelso ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 87 22:50 CDT From: Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: Planetary motion I am writing a program that calculates the planet's orbits from the gravitational field. Would someone recommend a reference book that has each planet's orbital radius and velocity at perihelion. I already have a reference that has a table of orbital inclination, longitude of perihelon, mean longitude at epoc, 15.0 Jan. 85. It also has the longitude of Node but I don't know what this is. Thanks in advance. Mark Fischer BITNet: mwf8191@tamsigma ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 1987 14:56-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu To: Emanuel.henr@xerox.com, space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Aircraft and lightning This is the effect of lightning strikes on metal skinned aircraft. Sometimes it doesn't even make a hole. Sometimes breakers will trip also, but it's no big deal (at least according to all the pilots who landed afterwards!). However, this is an issue that worries the FAA about certificating composite aircraft. The lack of conductivity could allow local heating to damage composites by delamination. I've heard suggestions for including wire meshes, or some other conductive material in the airframe. There's someone who posts to SpaceDigest who was involved in the Rutan Voyager project, maybe he can comment or get info on Rutan's approach to lightning safety in composite craft. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 87 18:10:40 GMT From: steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@uunet.uu.net (Mike Trout) Subject: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches? In article <543@uop.UUCP>, robert@uop.UUCP (Townsend Brown) writes: > ok, so maybe it was lightning...but why such an even hole and not a > jagged rip?? Lightning damage to airplane skin comes in all shapes, sizes, and flavors. It ranges from tiny holes that are barely visible to the naked eye, to jagged, burned gaping wounds. Lightning comes in a variety of stroke frequencies and voltage intensities. The amount of time the stroke impacts on the surface, its intensity, and the orientation of the bolt axis to the plane's line of travel all have major effects on what type of damage is done. The most common damage is tiny holes, or pitting that does not penetrate the skin. Often these are not even discovered for some time after they occur. Jagged rips are comparatively rare. > does anyone have an archive of the discussion? Not me. Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 87 21:25:48 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (John Pantone) Subject: Re: SR71 sighting This last August we here in San Diego were treated to a dynamite air-show at Miramar NAS. On display (among many others) was an SR-71 (roped off) in all it's glory. The most wonderful part of this was, though, the day before the show. A co-worker and I were leaving work, and heard a much louder-than-usual jet engine noise. We looked up, and turning onto what looked to be a left-hand downwind, at a VERY low altitude was the Blackbird! I almost jumped out of my skin! That plane - even at low altitude, and low speed is the damnedest looking airplane I've ever seen. My Kingdom for another look! John M. Pantone jnp@calmasd.GE.COM ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 87 18:33:40 GMT From: steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@uunet.uu.net (Mike Trout) Subject: Re: SR71 sighting In article <437@nysernic>, weltyc@nysernic (Christopher A. Welty) writes: > I was on my way to Oregon last Thursday on an American Airlines 707, Sorry, Christopher, I hate to flame a fellow RPI person (I'm a part-time student), BUT... Unless you were in some kind of time warp, you were not in a 707. American retired its last 707 in (roughly) 1981. They sold them to the Air Force, who designated them C-18A. With certain exceptions, airline passenger use of the Boeing 707 was banned in the USA effective midnight December 31, 1983 (noise regulations). I had the privilege of seeing a Lufthansa 707 at ORD at 10 pm on that date; it was preparing for its last US departure. A quick check of my AA timetable shows the following American Airlines and American Eagle aircraft serving PDX, EUG, and LMT, in Oregon: Boeing 727 McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Swearingen Metro However, my timetable does not reflect the AA/AirCal merger, so AirKill's Boeing 737s and British Aerospace BAe 146s may be added to the list. Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 87 18:41:59 GMT From: devvax!jplpro!des@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Smyth) Subject: Aircraft and lightning In article <560026600.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >This is the effect of lightning strikes on metal skinned aircraft. > . . . The lack of conductivity could >allow local heating to damage composites by delamination. Carbon fiber is a very good conductor. I sincerly doubt that any airframe built today or in the future would not contain alot of carbon fiber. Therefore, no problem. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 87 20:35:49 GMT From: tektronix!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60RC) Subject: Re: SR71 sighting Christopher A. Welty writes: >Just a little anectdote to share.... > > that's probably as close as I'll ever get [to the SR-71] Try looking for the SR-71 at military airshows. Here's my closest approach to the Blackbird: Every year in May, Fairchild AFB (near Spokane, WA) has an annual open house and air show. I stopped going to these a while back (I used to live in the Spokane area) but in 1980 they advertised that a SR-71 was going to be there. The airshow that year was held on May 18 (some of you may already be anticipating what happened.) I decided to go see the Blackbird and was about half way out to the base (stuck in a lot of traffic, a lot of other people were going out there too) when the radio announced that the open house was cancelled and said something about Mount St. Helens errupting (this didn't make sense to me; Mt. St. Helens is about 200 miles from Spokane). However, I also noticed a dark cloud on the horizon to the Southwest; it looked a lot like a thunder storm (it was a warm and clear spring day). Anyway, they had to get the SR-71 out of there in a hurry and a lot of the other planes on exhibit were stuck there for some time. The Spokane area was coated with a layer of pulverised rock about 3 cm in depth (I'll leave to your imagination what that would do to an aircraft engine). So I didn't get to see the Blackbird, but who knows, it may show up at an airshow near you but not if you live anywhere close to an active volcano. Dan Tilque dant@tekla.tek.com or dant@tekla.UUCP ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #18 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Oct 87 06:18:22 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04605; Sun, 18 Oct 87 03:16:44 PDT id AA04605; Sun, 18 Oct 87 03:16:44 PDT Date: Sun, 18 Oct 87 03:16:44 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710181016.AA04605@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #19 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 19 Today's Topics: Aircraft and lightning Re: SR71 sighting Re: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches? Re: SR71 sighting Re: SR71 sighting Re: SR71 sighting Re: SR71 sighting Re: SR71 sighting "microwave plane" USAF Museum (was SR71 sighting) Re: space news from Aug 24 AW&ST Next shuttle Re: Let Japan give us below-cost launch until they go broke Re: Offshore corporate launch facilities Re: Let Japan give us below-cost launch until they go broke Re: Let Japan give us below-cost launch until they go broke Not a dumb idea using Soviet launch capability in short term ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Oct 87 05:00:11 GMT From: super.upenn.edu!eecae!crlt!russ@rutgers.edu (Russ Cage) Subject: Aircraft and lightning Graphite does not conduct as well as aluminum, which already gets holes burned in it as a result of lightning strikes. Further, the entire aircraft is not graphite; the epoxy between cloth layers and Kevlar cloth are both insulators, and would be heated greatly by current surges which went through them (Kevlar, which is much tougher than graphite, will be used on the aft fuselage sections of propfan aircraft so that a thrown blade will bounce off instead of coming through the skin at sonic speeds). If the epoxy in, say, the wing spar box were suddenly heated to the point where it was plastic as a result of a strike which hit one wingtip and left the other, catastrophic failure of the spar could result. This is not good. It would be much easier to heat a high-resistance piece of graphite to epoxy's plastic point than to heat a piece of low-resistance aluminum to its much higher melting point. I have seen that Kevlar and graphite cloth with vapor-deposited aluminum coatings, for lightning protection, are either already available or will soon be. *This* will (help) eliminate the problem. Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ihnp4!itivax![m-net!rsi,crlt!russ] ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 87 18:52:54 GMT From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) Subject: Re: SR71 sighting I hate to make you jealous, but two years ago at an airshow east of here (I forget the name) they had an SR-71. We couldn't get close to it because they were preparing to fly it -- and fly it they did! It made several low passes, one with the landing gear down, nice and slow, and another with the afterburners roaring. They demonstrated how that bird could MOVE, too. The pilot really kicked it in gear and was lost in the distance in a matter of seconds. They also demonstrated its rate of climb, which was phenomenal. Amazing! --Rod ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 87 15:18:36 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches? I have no documented evidence for holes burned in modern aircraft. But, books I've read on the history of the Zeppelin airships report that lightning burned several holes through the fabric covering the airships. This must have been very exciting in hydrogen filled ships. Note that these ships had a doped fabric covering over an aluminum alloy frame. They were not covered with sheet metal like modern airliners. Bob Pendleton Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet Alternate: {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet I am solely responsible for what I say. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 87 18:24:44 GMT From: fred!anderson@ames.arpa (Douglas T. Anderson) Subject: Re: SR71 sighting In article <2436@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: > >My Kingdom for another look! Join us at the Reno Air Races next year! On 9/20 of this year I attended the Reno Air Races and got some GREAT photos of the Blackbird at abt 1500 AGL doing a fly-by. Fortuneately I have an auto winder on my camera and just held the switch down.. He was there and gone in less then 30 seconds. For about 5 minutes before his fly-by he was stooging around at about 7k feet waiting for a race to end (P-51's, P-47's f-8's and a Sea Fury or two in the air WITH a SR-71, amazing). He was too far to get a picture of but he really impressed me with his manuverability. That plane should be a fighter/bomber (I know there was an interceptor version) I just looks so sinister! While the SR-71 was flying by a P-38 was taxing getting ready for its demo flight. I have this photo of a SR-71 overflying a F-14 and a P-38 on the ground. All and all a GREAT race. (BTW, Tsunami, the first home built unlimited air-racer crashed on landing after this race. Seems he had blown his engine and pranged it a little hard on landing. The good news is the pilot walked away.) Douglas T Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 87 15:12:45 GMT From: sundc!hadron!klr@seismo.css.gov (Kurt L. Reisler) Subject: Re: SR71 sighting At the Wright Paterson AFB museum in Dayton OH, they have (had?) a SR-71 in on of the back exhibit hangers. You could get close to it. You could even TOUCH it. Let me tell you that it is a little strange touching somthing that is that black. If you are ever within 200 miles of Wright Paterson, an extended trip to the museum is worth it. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 87 15:00:16 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!ifly2@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Laib) Subject: Re: SR71 sighting In article <648@hadron.UUCP>, klr@hadron.UUCP (Kurt L. Reisler) writes: > At the Wright Paterson AFB museum in Dayton OH, they have (had?) a SR-71 > in on of the back exhibit hangers. You could get close to it. You could > even TOUCH it. Let me tell you that it is a little strange touching > somthing that is that black. > > If you are ever within 200 miles of Wright Paterson, an extended trip to > the museum is worth it. Having been there, and having kissed the 71 on the nose, I can attest that the color is actually deep BLUE. A specialized coating with properties of heat dissipation and radar absorption. Beautifully sinister. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 87 12:59:50 GMT From: spdcc!m2c!ulowell!cg-atla!weber@husc6.harvard.edu (Jeff Weber X7026) Subject: Re: SR71 sighting FYI--- NOVA (PBS science program) is advertizing a show on spy aircraft for next week. Aired in Boston (WGBH) Tuesday at 2000 and again on Sunday (early pm). Jeff ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 87 15:56:44 GMT From: ncr-sd!randall@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Randall Rathbun) Subject: Re: SR71 sighting FYI, The aircraft at the annex building at Wright-Patterson that looks like a SR-71 is actually a YF-12A. Have been there twice, yet still get goose-bumps looking at it. It's huge, and yes, very dark blue-black. The SR-71 came from the YF-12A. Those GE J-58 Engines are enormous. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 87 16:58:07 GMT From: ubc-vision!alberta!ers!pma@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Paul Martin) Subject: "microwave plane" I saw in the news the other night that the Canadian "micro wave" plane is flying. The plane uses battery power to fly to a point where the dish can begin to beam the power at it. The flight lasted 20 minutes in less than ideal weather (they considered cancelling the flight due to winds) and ended when the plane was landed. The actual craft flown was a 1/8 scale prototype of the full size plane. The commentators mentioned the potential for these planes to replace communications satallites. The planes would fly "indefinitley" at an altitude of ~ 70 000 ft. Some of the advantages: 1) no worries about launch windows 2) lower cost 3) This is the biggy - if something goes wrong with the communications system the plane is carrying, you just land it, fix it, and send 'er back up again 4) The plane uses no fuel Seems like a good deal to me ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 87 19:18:12 GMT From: pixar!good@ucbvax.berkeley.edu ("He who attacks must vanquish. He who defends must merely survive.") Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: USAF Museum (was SR71 sighting) In article <648@hadron.UUCP> klr@hadron.UUCP (Kurt L. Reisler) writes: :At the Wright Paterson AFB museum in Dayton OH, they have (had?) a :SR-71 in on of the back exhibit hangers. : :If you are ever within 200 miles of Wright Paterson, an extended trip :to the museum is worth it. Funny you should mention it! I was just there yesterday. As has been mentioned, it is really a YF-12 on display. It is currently parked outside the annex next to the B-1A. Truly an impressive bird, it doesn't have the bumpy, black radar-absorbtive paint of the SR-71. I was able to stand up (sort of) inside the wheel-wells. There were fittings, guages and instructions for filling the radar and missile components with nitrogen. The insulated drum the tires fit into was also pretty neat. I second the notion that a trip to the museum is worth it. I got a good eye-full of some of my favorite all-time airplanes (besides the YF-12): XB-70 Valkyrie, P-61 Black Widow, B-58 Hustler, B-17 Flying Fortress, and even a nice Me-262. They also have the one-and-only X-3 Stilleto (the best-looking dog of an airplane in history: although the research did prove quite useful it never performed as well as it looked) parked near an X-15 and a Bell X-1. I could go on and on. I suggest you go yourself. While in Dayton, the birth place of aviation, check out Carrillon Park and see a replica of the Wright brothers' bike shop, and some other neat stuff. --Craig ...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 87 15:30:34 GMT From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) Subject: Re: space news from Aug 24 AW&ST In article <8727@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: )Aviation Leak spent one paragraph discussing Joe Kerwin's medical report on )the deaths of the Challenger crew; WSN printed the whole thing. I missed this. Can anyone post a short summary of what it said? -- Lawrence Crowl 716-275-9499 University of Rochester crowl@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department ...!{allegra,decvax,rutgers}!rochester!crowl Rochester, New York, 14627 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Oct 87 06:25 EST From: "RON PICARD" Subject: Next shuttle Since we are obviously not mass producing all our shuttle componants, how hard would it be to tailor the next shuttle? In particular, what would be the cost savings, weight reduction and functional capabilities of making the next shuttle without the Canadarm? Could we make this our 'heavy lift' orbiter? Are there any other componants we could do without on one fourth of the fleet to get the payload capability up? Ron Picard | You get what you pay for General Motors Research Labs | unless you pay for it with taxes ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 87 15:26:08 GMT From: aimt!breck@uunet.uu.net (Robert Breckinridge Beatie) Subject: Re: Let Japan give us below-cost launch until they go broke First, is there any guarantee that "they will go broke?" It seems possible that a government could go on subsidizing launches just enough to beat our best price as long as it wants. Second, while they're making launch after launch they are getting experience. They are working out bugs. They will learn how to operate more cheaply than we can operate, with or without subsidy. Hope I'm not too far off base. -- Breck Beatie uunet!aimt!breck ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 87 19:10:31 GMT From: ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!glg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (G.Gleason) Subject: Re: Offshore corporate launch facilities In article <535@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: < Subject: Re: Let Japan give us below-cost launch until they go broke Newsgroups: sci.space It depends on your perspective: where you wish to go and how you wish to go into space versus space at all costs. Do you want the US Government to run a trucking Agency? [If not NASA, and it does not, then who?] Frankly, I can't see JSA `dumping' launches like chips. It's much too resource intensive, and Japan is quite resource poor. Manned space is the furtherest thing on their minds. Unmanned space [unperson'ed space, ] is interesting to them. That's why their Halley missions were interesting. It boils down to how pure a capitalist you are. If you are willing to be really pure, and you don't mind internationalism, then you should not object. You won't be putting many people out of work since there is little free enterprise space industry (the vast majority is non-competitive military). If you desire to look over "national" interests, then you had best be prepared to compromise "free enterprise" and and sink money into what many people (space critics) regard as a black hole (private space). I'm not endorsing either, just pointing out the options. You had best also consider the diversity of the space community: communications, sensing, manufacturing, exploration, and who does each as well as fund each (since they are all vastly different). P.S. On SR-71s. If you want to see them, like walk up to one, visit Beale AFB on their open house. They fly them during as well. Just another reason to visit California. There will be an Open House at EAFB in November and hopefully I would like to see the phase 2 X-29A flying. There might be an SR-71 fly over there. P.P.S. I spoke to my Division's PIO. Ames is really swamped, we have a tiny PI office, so you are stuck with me, but I have to cut back reading news. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 87 09:05:17 GMT From: eagle!sph@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (S.P.Holmes) Subject: Re: Let Japan give us below-cost launch until they go broke I see no real obection. You'd be encouraging a larger launch traffic than normal, and it'd probably be worth it to take the loss in return for added practical experience. Launch costs are likely to fall with bulk use. In any case, If it increases the traffic into space, some benefits should result. Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Oct 87 12:39:04 From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Not a dumb idea using Soviet launch capability in short term Date: Fri, 18 Sep 87 23:05:19 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Dumb idea of the month [sic] Just what we need - to depend on the USSR for access to space. Why not turn over all border stations, shipyards, and airlines to them while we are at it? I was not suggesting we turn anything over to the USSR, merely that we rent their services until we have enough of our own. If we had no shipyards of our own, it might be reasonable to contract for use of neighbor's shipyards if they had surplus capacity they were eager to sell. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #19 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Oct 87 06:18:59 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05938; Mon, 19 Oct 87 03:17:22 PDT id AA05938; Mon, 19 Oct 87 03:17:22 PDT Date: Mon, 19 Oct 87 03:17:22 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710191017.AA05938@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #20 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 20 Today's Topics: Below-cost launches Re: Offshore corporate launch facilities Re: Offshore corporate launch facilities Commercial Space Transportation and US Competitiveness Re: Space resources Re: Meeting announcement Re: Space resources Proxmire effort fails... Reply from Alan Cranston, including NASA info, re Mars Observer Museum Spacecraft Re: Museum Spacecraft Re: Museum Spacecraft Golden oldies... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 6 Oct 87 07:50:16 CDT From: steve@ncsc.arpa (Mahan) Subject: Below-cost launches Robert Elton Maas (v8.5) writes: > . . . We can stop our own subsidy, but we can't stop Japan or ESA, so > what do we do about the problem? I suggest draining them dry. . . . This is a classic example of monopolistic business practices; i.e. run your business at a loss and undercut all competitors until they lose enough business to become unprofitable and drop out of the marketplace. After all competitors are gone from the marketplace you have a monopoly and may then set prices to suit yourself. Because of the long lead times and high expenditures necessary to develop boosters and launch facilities it would take a very large incentive in the way of cost savings for another entity to enter the marketplace (not to mention the historical spectre of the way former competitors were treated). We can only speculate about the intentions of other governments and agencies (and this is only speculation). However, please note that (1) the abovementioned approach to competition requires massive financial resources (2) which nations today enjoy the most favorable balance of payments. -steve ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 87 04:12:27 GMT From: tektronix!reed!psu-cs!qiclab!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Offshore corporate launch facilities In article <2132@sfsup.UUCP> glg@/guest4/glgUUCP (xmpj20000-G.Gleason) writes: Having shot themselves in the foot long enough to give themselves lead > poisoning, the bureaucrats are anxious to pee in all available > punchbowls. They have the legislative ability to block US access to > Soviet launch facilities, but they cannot stop a Seychelles or Ivory > Coast corporation from doing the same. > > It will be consummate irony if US space policy causes a "brain drain" > from the US and the Eugene Miyas and Dani Eders go elsewhere. I've always WANTED to go elsewhere...like the Moon, for starters. Transient pit stops on the surface of the Earth mean about as much as which streets I use to get to the airport...the real voyage begins after leaving the Earth. As an aside, Australia looks like a likely home for ex-patriate launch companies. Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation ------------------------------ Posted-Date: Sat, 17 Oct 87 08:34:12 PDT To: BBoard@venera.isi.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov From: Craig Milo Rogers Subject: Commercial Space Transportation and US Competitiveness Date: Sat, 17 Oct 87 08:34:12 PDT America's space program is in a shambles. How can we recover in a rapid, safe, efficient manner? Can we regain our share of the growing commercial market in space? Mr. James C. Bennett, Vice President of the American Rocket Company, will discuss these themes in a lecture starting at 8:00 PM in the meeting room of the Glendale Federal Savings and Loan building, 21821 Devonshire Street (near the corner of Devonshire and Vassar) in Chatsworth, California (in the San Fernando Valley of LA). Commercial development of space resources depends upon frequent, reliable, low-cost transportation to and from space. Americans do not have this capability at present, despite the expenditure of large amounts of government funds. Establishment of a private commercial launch industry, free from bureaucratic slugishness and political interference, offers the best opportunity for recovery. American Rocket Company (AMROC) is a privately funded US company located in Camarillo, CA. It is currently developing a family of Industrial Launch Vehicles for commercial space transportation service. The recent development progress of the company will be discussed, including the issues currently being negociated with the United States Government. James. C. Bennett is Vice President, External Relations for AMROC, and was one of the three founders of the company, along with George A. Koopman, the President, and Bevi C. McKinney, the Chief Designer. He has been involved in private space commercial projects since 1978, inclusing the Sabre Foundation Earthport Project, Arc Technologies (later Starstruck, Inc.), and has been with AMROC since its founding in May 1985. Mr. Bennett is the author of numerous articles and professional publications, including most recently "Privitising Space Transportation", a special report of the Reason Foundation, and is a member of the AIAA. He has been active in the L5 Society (now part of the National Space Society) since 1977. This lecture is one of many activities sponsored by the Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrialization and Settlement (OASIS). The organization is a non-profit educational group which promotes space development. It is the Los Angeles Chapter of the National Space Society. The public is invited; there is no admission charge. For more information about this lecture or other OASIS activities call the OASIS Message Machine at (213) 374-1381, or contact Craig Rogers . ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 87 21:37:57 GMT From: ghostwheel!milano!mcc-pp!rsb@sally.utexas.edu (Richard S. Brice) Subject: Re: Space resources >Didn't the fuel cells used by Apollo also produce water.. Yes, but I remember a fuel cell failure as the cause of the explosion which damaged the Apollo Service Module. The result was no more power and no more water. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 87 19:29:28 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Meeting announcement > Roger Boisjoly headed a group at Morton Thiokol in charge of > investigating space shuttle joints, including O-rings that failed > catastrophically on the Challenger. He was one of the engineers who > argued against launch... Temporarily. When told to change his hat, he changed his opinion too. Anyone who goes to see this videotape should bear in mind that Boisjoly was probably in the single best position -- senior engineer in the area where the danger was -- to make a stink and halt the launch. He didn't. -- PS/2: Yesterday's hardware today. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology OS/2: Yesterday's software tomorrow. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 87 21:28:06 GMT From: amdahl!dlb!auspyr!sci!daver@ames.arpa (Dave Rickel) Subject: Re: Space resources I seem to remember something from way back in grade school (would have been either Gemini or Apollo) about them not being able to drink the water produced by the fuel cells--some contaminant or another. I don't know if they got this fixed or not. david rickel decwrl!sci!daver ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 1987 19:43-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Proxmire effort fails... According to my sources on Capitol Hill, the Proxmire effort to zero the space station budget has failed. As I understand it, he zeroed it in committee but the full funding was restored Thursday. The only furthur hurdle is now on the full HUD and Independant Agencies budget level, re: Gramm-Rudman. However, it is to be expected that the fiscal year funding level will be between ~500 and ~700M, most likely towards the upper end. For those of you who helped with cards, letters, phonecalls, mailgrams or whatever, thanks. Dale Amon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Oct 87 13:47:58 From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Reply from Alan Cranston, including NASA info, re Mars Observer Recently I have sent several letters to my elected officials & representatives re space and arms control. One of them expressed my desire for the Mars Observer and displeasure that it was being delayed. (The general idea is to write in favor of the missions I like, and avoid knocking the competing missions.) A few days ago I received a reply from Senator Alan Cranston (Calif.), which consisted of a brief original covering letter plus an enclosed one-page NASA report on MARS OBSERVER dated April 1987. Launch is being delayed from 1990 to 1992 for the following reason: (quoted except parts in brockets) There are a limited number of launch opportunities for planetary science missions through 1990. In addition to the Mars Observer, NASA has three other approved planetary missions: Magellan Galileo Ulyssis While no work of a major nature had started on the Mars Observer mission, the were well underway or almost complete. Therefore, it was NASA's decision that the Mars Observer was the only missin on which money could be saved by slipping the launch date. (end of partial quote, partial paraphrase) I.e. there are VERY few planetary-mission slots upcoming, currently all three of them are already filled, no room for a new start such as M.O., it would cost lots of extra money to postpone the other three already well underway, while it wouldn't cost extra to postpone M.O. (however I don't see how postponing M.O. can actually save money, unless somehow it can use cheaper technology not yet ready to use now; postponing M.O. saves money only by not wasting money mothballing the three other missions, unless it is ultimately cancelled; pessismistic opinion of REM). We sure could use another orbiter or two, plus other launch capability... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Oct 87 16:21:39 EDT From: subar%mwcamis@mitre.arpa Subject: Museum Spacecraft John Woods brought up a good point: > I don't think I'd want to fly in the Apollo capsule that they had on > display, and I think it would be *real hard* to put it back in working > order. It turns out that the spacecraft and aircraft in the Air and Space Museum are not in working order, nor are they meant to be. Only their appearance is preserved (and restored, if need be), not their functionality. It would take a great deal of money to bring the space vehicles to their original condition, not to mention the bucks needed to retrofit them with more recent technologies ( eg computer, control, life support, etc.) David Subar subar@mitre.arpa ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 87 23:09:44 GMT From: sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu!marchant@jade.berkeley.edu (Will Marchant) Subject: Re: Museum Spacecraft In article <8710072021.AA02770@mitre.arpa> subar%mwcamis@MITRE.ARPA writes: > . . . >It turns out that the spacecraft and aircraft in the Air and Space >Museum are not in working order, nor are they meant to be. . . . >David Subar >subar@mitre.arpa I just wanted to expand a little on David's reply. Here is a quote from "The Aircraft Treasures of Silver Hill: The behind the scenes workshop of the National Air and Space Museum" written by Walter J Boyne (Chief of Restoration and Preservation.) Each aircraft is fully restored in the sense that all wiring and hydraulics are hooked up, all controls properly connected, and gears, flaps, and other parts can be made to operate. It would be wasteful to spend time restoring such things as radar, radios, and instruments to full operating condition, inasmuch as they would never be used and some of them operate on frequencies no longer in existence. All the parts and components of such equipment are preserved and reinstalled, however; if it were necessary for some legal or scholarly reason to make them work, they could be brought to op- erational status. The point is that the NASM would rather have a preserved original piece in a display aircraft/spacecraft than to have a flight worthy replica. For example: They leave the old hydraulic lines in 'cause they're the originals, even though they might not hold pressure. I highly recommend this book to people interested in learning about the restoration process. The first 60 pages have a discussion of the restoration facilities history and the process of restoration. The rest of the book (about 200 pages) is a discussion of some of Boyne's favorite "classic" aircraft in the museum. Sorry this was so long. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 87 12:44:01 GMT From: amelia!msf@ames.arpa (Michael S. Fischbein) Subject: Re: Museum Spacecraft In article <5350@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> marchant@sag3.ssl.berkeley.edu (Will Marchant) writes: >Here is a quote from "The Aircraft Treasures of Silver Hill: The behind >the scenes workshop of the National Air and Space Museum" written by >Walter J Boyne (Chief of Restoration and Preservation.) > > Each aircraft is fully restored in the sense > that all wiring and hydraulics are hooked up, > all controls properly connected, and gears, > flaps, and other parts can be made to operate. Last fall sometime (I don't remember exactly when) I was visiting some friends in the DC area. We happened to notice that it was the annual open house weekend for the restoration facilities. That was an amazing trip; if you get a chance to take it, do so. You get to see what they have in storage waiting to be restored; you see a lot of displays that they don't have room for at the museum; and best of all, you can see the stuff they are in the process of restoring and the processes and priorities they have. I was particularly interested in some WWII stuff: a few Bakas and the mid section of either Enola Gay or Bock's Car (I can't remember which). I was fascinated by all of it. Michael Fischbein msf@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 1987 17:05-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Golden oldies... I seem to remember that Vanguard I was put in a 300 year orbit, so I would think it is the oldest satellite orbiting the earth. The earliest Sputniks were in very low orbits, as was Explorer I. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #20 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Oct 87 06:19:26 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08090; Tue, 20 Oct 87 03:17:50 PDT id AA08090; Tue, 20 Oct 87 03:17:50 PDT Date: Tue, 20 Oct 87 03:17:50 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710201017.AA08090@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #21 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 21 Today's Topics: AMROC Talk Re: Museum Spacecraft Re: Museum Spacecraft Most Successful Space Missions Results Re: NASTRAN Biginners Workshop Re: DAILY NEWS IN BRIEF-10/14 Re: Museum Spacecraft Re: Oldest artificial object in orbit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 87 10:22:50 PDT To: BBoard@venera.isi.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov From: Craig Milo Rogers Reply-To: Rogers@venera.isi.edu Subject: AMROC Talk Date: Mon, 19 Oct 87 10:22:50 PDT Sender: rogers@venera.isi.edu America's space program is in a shambles. How can we recover in a rapid, safe, efficient manner? Can we regain our share of the growing commercial market in space? Mr. James C. Bennett, Vice President of the American Rocket Company, will discuss these themes in a lecture on November 13 starting at 8:00 PM in the meeting room of the Glendale Federal Savings and Loan building, 21821 Devonshire Street (near the corner of Devonshire and Vassar) in Chatsworth, California (in the San Fernando Valley of LA). Commercial development of space resources depends upon frequent, reliable, low-cost transportation to and from space. Americans do not have this capability at present, despite the expenditure of large amounts of government funds. Establishment of a private commercial launch industry, free from bureaucratic slugishness and political interference, offers the best opportunity for recovery. American Rocket Company (AMROC) is a privately funded US company located in Camarillo, CA. It is currently developing a family of Industrial Launch Vehicles for commercial space transportation service. The recent development progress of the company will be discussed, including the issues currently being negociated with the United States Government. James. C. Bennett is Vice President, External Relations for AMROC, and was one of the three founders of the company, along with George A. Koopman, the President, and Bevi C. McKinney, the Chief Designer. He has been involved in private space commercial projects since 1978, inclusing the Sabre Foundation Earthport Project, Arc Technologies (later Starstruck, Inc.), and has been with AMROC since its founding in May 1985. Mr. Bennett is the author of numerous articles and professional publications, including most recently "Privitising Space Transportation", a special report of the Reason Foundation, and is a member of the AIAA. He has been active in the L5 Society (now part of the National Space Society) since 1977. This lecture is one of many activities sponsored by the Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrialization and Settlement (OASIS). The organization is a non-profit educational group which promotes space development. It is the Los Angeles Chapter of the National Space Society. The public is invited; there is no admission charge. For more information about this lecture or other OASIS activities call the OASIS Message Machine at (213) 374-1381, or contact Craig Rogers . ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 87 23:24:43 GMT From: mike@ames.arpa (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Museum Spacecraft >It turns out that the spacecraft and aircraft in the Air and Space >Museum are not in working order, nor are they meant to be. Only their >appearance is preserved (and restored, if need be), not their >functionality. It would take a great deal of money to bring the space >vehicles to their original condition, not to mention the bucks needed >to retrofit them with more recent technologies ( eg computer, control, >life support, etc.) If you're talking about taking a flown Apollo or Gemini and refly it, forget it jack. :-), it ain't gonna work. This is because the spacecraft you see are merely hollow shells of their former selves. After a mission the module would be considered merely an engineering test unit, to be torn apart for studies. The various components would be tested, and if they perform real well, they might end up in a later spacecraft. Apollo 17 had so many reused modules that Ron Evans claimed (in jest, I'm sure) that his Apollo was the first fully reused spacecraft and not the Colombia. After all of the tests were completed, and if the unit wasn't passed on for another mission, it would apparently be dumped after the serial numbers were rubbed off. I know, I have an Apollo VHF radio in my closet that was apparently flown. With no numbers I can't track down which mission it is from though. mike -- *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick *** "ever felt like life was a game, and someone gave you the wrong instruction book?" [discalimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 87 16:21:32 GMT From: ulysses!faline!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Museum Spacecraft > section of either Enola Gay or Bock's Car (I can't remember which). Unless it has been recently moved, Bock's Car (the B-29 that dropped Fat Man on Nagasaki) is in the Air Force museum at Wright-Patterson AFB near Dayton, Ohio. Behind it are spare casings for both types of atomic bombs. (THESE are certainly NOT in working order!) If you enjoyed the aviation half of the A&S Museum, you'll love the AF Museum. It is physically *huge* (one of the *inside* exhibits is a B-36) and the exhibits are well organized in historical progression. There is some space stuff, but relatively little. The place is both fascinating and sobering, especially the section on nuclear weapons. One could almost envision Major Kong riding down on one... Phil ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 87 16:37:14 GMT From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: Most Successful Space Missions Results Here are the results of the "most successful space missions" survey. As was pointed out, my catagories and criteria were pretty loose. Particularly, success can be interpreted as "got more done" or as "biggest step". As a result, I'll just summarize what was said without identifying a "winner". Earth Observation (i.e. for science; comsats and spysats are out) Landsat was the most popular, providing the "best visuals of Earth and resources that we have". SPOT was also mentioned. Also, "the first weathersat that led to a hurricane evacuation as the most successful in the sense of establishing remote sensing as something we'd never want to live without again". Manned Exploration (e.g. moon landings) Some mentioned just Apollo. But, near as I can tell, Apollo is the only program that fits this catagory, so individual missions must be compared. Apollo 11 was the first and biggest step. Apollo 14 showed one could play golf on the moon. Apollo 15 was the "first expedition to carry the lunar rover. Touched down in an extremely interesting area (Hadley Rille) and drove over some highly mountainous terrain." Apollo 17 got the most done and had the "most extensive explorations of any Apollo mission and the only one with a geologist on site". Manned Space Science (i.e. earth orbit) Most chose Mir (and Salyut) for "establishing a world in which you get up in the morning knowing that people are living and working in space". Vostok I (?) was the "first demonstration that people could live and function in space". Skylab 4 was also mentioned. Planetary Flyby People liked Voyager, but split on which one they liked. Voyager I "introduced the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn as worlds, not just points of light". He puts Giotto in close second because it provided the "first pictures of actual physical processes in comet nuclei". Voyager 2 "performed all functions were, then was successfully reprogrammed to rendezvous with two additional planets that were not considered in the original mission profile. Will eventually become the fourth man-made object to leave the solar system". The first Mariner Mars fly-by proved "it could be done--would we have ever done Voyager if Mariner had not worked?). Giotto "was such a tough task)". Planetary Observation (i.e. in orbit around something other than Earth) The Viking orbiter was the favorite because of the interesting weather and because it provided "evidence of water on Mars". The Mariner 9 "redefined our picture of Mars almost totally". The Venus radar mapper was also mentioned. The Lunar Orbiter was a second choice, "but we really *knew* a fair amount about the moon before it flew". Planetary Landing Viking was most popular, it was "a soft lander on a planet suspected of harboring life". Venera I provided "direct proof of greenhouse effect on Venus". Also mentioned was a "Soviet lunar lander (forgotten name) for "return of lunar soil samples to Earth". Surveyor was chosen "for being the first and for having to prove that a powered descent/landing was possible (Viking was able to make some use of the atmosphere for braking). Also because we were able to go get some pieces of it (Apollo 12?) to see what spending a few years on the surface of the moon did to its materials." Astronomy (e.g. orbiting telescopes) IRAS was the clear winner. It provided the "first maps of infrared sky, discovery of orbiting material around stars, ultra-high luminosity galaxies, asteroid debris belts, and new comets and asteroids plus maps and/or measurements of nearly every kind of astronomical object." Skylab was also mentioned. "Other candidates include Uhuru, Einstein, Copernicus, IUE, as well as numerous solar telescopes". Overall Many people did not pick an overall winner. The missions are too disparate to have good evaluation critera. However, there were some nominations. IRAS because "no other mission contributed so much to so many different areas". "Surveyor, because it was a difficult engineering task, it returned a lot of useful information, and *most of all* it paved the way for the next step of lunar exploration rather than fizzling out in government waste and confusion. When Surveyor 1 acutally landed on the moon and didn't disappear into the dust, I remember feeling this great confidence that there really would be people walking on the moon in a few years." Apollo 11 was also mentioned. Some people mentioned other possible catagories. I include them here. Least Successful Manned Mission "STS-25 blew up w/out ever leaving the atmosphere, killing six astronauts and the first Teacher in Space candidate. Grounded the shuttle for 2 1/2 years and increased the already high deficit in U.S. launch capability." Least Successful Planetary Flyby "The Ranger mission that failed to achieve escape velocity and fell back to Earth." Least Successful Planetary Lander "Mars 3 was a Soviet probe that landed on Mars during a planet-wide dust storm. It transmitted twenty seconds of BLANK television picture and then crashed." Coping with Problems in Space The "recovery of Apollo 13 and her crew intact as possibly the greatest achievement of the space programme, in terms of finding the right solutions to a series of unexpected problems under immense resource and time constraints." Skylab was also mentioned. Most Important Use of Space Comsats were mentioned. Lawrence Crowl 716-275-9499 University of Rochester crowl@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department ...!{allegra,decvax,rutgers}!rochester!crowl Rochester, New York, 14627 ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 87 19:22:20 GMT From: pbox!romed!cseg!dws@rutgers.edu (David W. Summers) Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: Re: NASTRAN Biginners Workshop Your article about NASTRAN sounds very interesting, but it doesn't give a CLUE as to what NASTRAN is! Could you (or someone in the know) tell me what it is? Thank you very much! - David Summers ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 87 18:17:07 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: DAILY NEWS IN BRIEF-10/14 Newsgroups: nasa.telemail.larc >NEW YORK TIMES, OCT. 14 > >Opinion-Editorial, "NASA'S PIE IN THE SKY" By Larry D. Spence > > Spence, an associate professor in Penn State University's >science, technology and society program says, 'The 29-year-old >National Aeronautics and Space Administration refuses to grow >up. According to published summaries, a 63-page report by the >former astronaut Sally K. Ride on long-term goals in space is the >latest example of NASA's immaturity." > > Spence writes that the report has something "for every space >bureaucrat, manufacturer, scientist and enthusiast." He says >that instead of priorities, the report offers a shopping list >with prices deleted. > > The article says the report is "wonderfully ambitious for an >institution that has trouble getting anything off the ground." This informed comment sounds interesting. Could some one who gets the Times send or post the complete letter. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya (immature SOB) "You can get anything you want at Alice's restaurant..." NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 87 23:20:41 GMT From: mike@AMES.ARPA (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Museum Spacecraft In article <1278@s.cc.purdue.edu> ain@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Patrick White) writes: >Also, does anybody know which Shuttle is on display(?) just off one of >the runways of Dulles airport in Washington DC? I saw it as my plane >took off, and was wondering which shuttle it was. Thanks. > >-- Pat White That would certainly be the Enterprise (Dum-de-dum, de-de-de-de-Dum). There are only 2 non-flyable "shuttles", the Enterprise which you saw, at the A&S Museum annex, and the Pathfinder (OV-100, I think), which is in Japan, I believe. By the way, has anyone heard rumors of a possible Smithsonian A&S Museum West?? In the mid 70s they were seriously looking around at doing one out here, and now I seem to recall hearing someone mention that they were considering taking another stab at it. *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick *** ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 87 04:31:34 GMT From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Oldest artificial object in orbit > > Objects left in low lunar orbit usually hit the moon before long. > Which is why there are only three ascent modules, and not seven. Not necessarily. Most of the later ascent modules were deliberately crashed into the moon after use. This was done on Apollos 12, 14, 15 and 17. Due to a mistake by the crew the Apollo 16 LM did not execute its deorbit burn and it remained in lunar orbit for a year before finally decaying. Apollos 7 and 8 carried no LM, and the lunar modules on Apollos 9 and 13 burned up in the earth's atmosphere. The Apollo 10 ascent stage was burned out of lunar orbit into solar orbit after use to put the ascent engine through a full duration test (it didn't get much of a workout starting from lunar descent orbit). This leaves only Apollo 11's ascent stage, but it is very unlikely to still be there. Source: "The History of Manned Space Flight" by David Baker, ISBN 0-517-54377X. Phil ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #21 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Oct 87 06:17:57 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10977; Wed, 21 Oct 87 03:16:34 PDT id AA10977; Wed, 21 Oct 87 03:16:34 PDT Date: Wed, 21 Oct 87 03:16:34 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710211016.AA10977@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #22 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 22 Today's Topics: space news from Sept 7 AW&ST Re: New Summary of Ride Report Re: New Summary of Ride Report Re: Planetary Society Re: Planetary Society ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Oct 87 23:39:34 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Sept 7 AW&ST The Chinese recoverable spacecraft that carried the Matra experiment also carried Chinese materials-processing experiments. NASA decides it's time to be brave: *both* CRAF (Comet Rendezvous / Asteroid Flyby) and AXAF (Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility) are down as new starts in the FY89 budget request. Total request is for $13G. The ball is now in the White House's court. [Historically, NASA just does not get two new starts in one year. Will Reagan put his money where his mouth is? Stay tuned.] First full-scale test of new SRB design successful. Three more tests are due before the June shuttle launch: DM-9 (November; fully representative of the flight configuration) (this one was close but not quite), QM-6 (Feb), and QM-7 (April, using the new variable-temperature test stand, set for "summer" for starters). QM-8 will follow (Sept, thermostat set for "winter"). More firings may occur in late spring 1988, as "production verification" tests that will not be extensively instrumented but will be dismantled and inspected afterward. Tentatively there will be two of these per year from now on. The schedule for DM-9, QM-6, and QM-7 is tight for a June launch. NASA turns down Spacehab Inc.'s request for a flight agreement, tells the company "try again after we're flying again". This is the result of over a year of negotiations! NASA has also discussed the idea of cancelling other commercial agreements (e.g. 3M and Space Industries) due to shuttle overbooking, but has decided that reneging on signed agreements would be a bad idea. Spacehab was told that new commercial payloads would fly in 1995 at the earliest, and that its request for a systems development agreement (in which payment for the launch would be deferred on the grounds that the payload is a useful addition to shuttle capabilities [which it is]) has been rejected. High-level NASA support for commercial space activity is weak these days. A "NASA official in the commercial space office" comments: "[management] would be happy to fly astronauts up and down and nothing else. Payloads are a nuisance that they don't want to be bothered with." This may be a mistake in the long term, given that DoD is pulling its payloads off the shuttle whenever possible and the payload glut may be a shortage by the mid-90s. The rejection of Spacehab surprised many. Spacehab comments: "NASA is absolutely overwhelmed with getting the shuttle back... People can't think beyond that." Spacehab expects to sign up a customer with clout (possibly DoD), which will force reconsideration of its requests. NASA commercial space office's request for FY89 funding towards NASA use of Spacehab and Space Industries facilities has been rejected by management. Apparently senior NASA managers feel that if the capability is useful, NASA should develop it in house. Morale in NASA in general and the commercial space office in particular is very low. NASA is not implementing official government commercial-space policies, partly because neither NASA nor the White House is pushing it. US space station negotiators en route to Italy with a new draft of the space station agreement with ESA. Wespace, the Westinghouse subsidiary working on Space Industries' Industrial Space Facility, will start buying hardware in early 1988 if a major customer can be found by then. SII and Wespace are a bit disappointed at the low level of customer interest. They are aiming at DoD and NASA right now, in hopes of keeping the first launch on schedule (late 1990). Mir cosmonauts run emergency evacuation drill. McDonnell Douglas rolls out first new Delta (customer: SDI). Cosmos 1873 launched into an odd orbit, suggestive of strategic spysat. Soviets say it is "analogous" to Cosmos 1871, which re-entered after a few days in a polar orbit. [It is unusual for the Soviets to comment like this.] There is speculation about a possible connection with the spaceplane program. USAF awards study contracts for space-based radar system, which might start launching in 1993. NASA tentatively signs with Boeing for another shuttle-carrier 747. Rogers Commission and others have pointed out that a crash of the existing carrier would essentially ground the shuttle. House subcommittee orders work on the space-station crew-rescue vehicle suspended due to runaway cost growth (from $15M next year to $30-45M next year) before it even starts. [!!!] Shuttle engines for STS-26 begin acceptance-test firings. Japanese engineering-test satellite reaches Clarke orbit. Aussat will indeed specify delivery in orbit for its next satellites. British Satellite Broadcasting already specified this in a deal with Hughes, but BSB is a startup that could be expected to contract things out, while Aussat is an experienced operator which has done things the other way in the past. There is speculation that Intelsat will do the same next year for its next generation. Aussat says that the main reason was that the insurance companies won't quote prices until three months before launch, which makes long-term planning difficult unless somebody else (i.e., the satellite supplier) accepts the risk of promising a firm price earlier. The satellite business is slow due to overcapacity and launcher failures, so the suppliers are willing to consider such schemes. One of Hughes' unsuccessful competitors on the BSB deal is now in the position of having to scrap already-built satellites due to lack of customers. Hughes will go to the insurance market for coverage on the BSB satellites, so it is mostly risking having to pay more than it expects. McDonnell-Douglas is talking about providing Delta launch insurance itself, in hopes of selling more Deltas that way, but details are not set; one complication is that the USAF's launch-site-use rules seem to require outside insurance coverage. A particular problem for US suppliers bidding on Aussat is that Aussat has no objections to using Proton as the launcher, but US companies probably cannot get export licenses for this. Given that Proton is pretty cheap, this might give European satellite builders a considerable edge. Hughes says that the US ban on Soviet launchers "could be disastrous for the US satellite industry". Aussat also considers Long March acceptable, a further complication. Insurance companies say that having satellite builders and launchers take on some of the risk is reasonable. Having the customer do it all is a historical relic of days when the customers had more money than the builders, they say. There is still concern about liability coverage for private launches. A nasty worst case would be a launch from the Cape going wild and hitting the Vertical Assembly Building while two shuttle orbiters are inside; damages could be ten BILLION dollars. Hitting a populated area is less likely because the distances are longer, although one concern is the possibility of toxic gas clouds from an explosion -- this was a problem with the Titan failure at Vandenberg. [Clearly, what the US launcher industry needs is a private launch facility, somewhere out in the boondocks where there are no expensive neighbors, and preferably outside the US. This has actually been obvious from the start -- did anyone really think that the USAF would be reasonable about the matter?] Non-US launchers appear to have an advantage on the insurance front as well as raw cost, since their insurance is usually covered by their governments and US insurers have no idea how to price insurance on them. NASA is trying to encourage private participation in the space station. Unfortunately, NASA has also announced restrictive policies on secondary shuttle payloads, aimed at reducing the massive backlog of such payloads. This will hamper the very companies that might be interested in the station. Development of the rocket-boosted shuttle escape system is going slowly. One problem is that the rockets to be used have been out of production for years and rockets for testing have had to be obtained from the Royal Thai Air Force! They will be replaced as soon as the production line restarts, and only new rockets would be used on real missions. Aircraft tests are to begin early in October, once the cause of a ground malfunction is sorted out. Decision on using the system on STS-26 scheduled for March. NASA is looking at a new escape-system idea: a 21-foot metal pole extending from the orbiter hatch, to guide crew members clear of the wing. [Essay question, for extra marks: Why wasn't this obviously superior approach even included in the original list of methods, and what are its chances of being accepted?] The Naval Weapons Center is helping develop crew survival gear, including possibly a partial-pressure suit and oxygen system. NASA hopes that such equipment might make a Challenger-type accident survivable. NASA Space Flight Safety Panel recommends that NASA look at restricting access to witnesses' testimony after accidents, as DoD does already. The concern is that fear of lawsuits might alter testimony. NASA already has some non-disclosure rules, which are not being enforced. One difficulty is the Freedom of Information Act. The Panel made various other recommendations, including a suggestion that NASA managers should have tours of duty within safety organizations, to bring systems expertise into safety offices and export safety awareness. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 87 22:13:33 GMT From: k.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@j.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) Subject: Re: New Summary of Ride Report In article <10942@beta.UUCP>, ryg@beta.UUCP (Richard S Grandy) writes: > Having just finished the Ride Report, two points really struck me: > > 1) A major emphasis of the report was on developing a national > strategy for the space program rather than just advocating one or more > specific programs. > In today's world, America clearly cannot be the leader in all > space endeavors. But we will be the leader in very few unless > we move promptly to develop a strategy to regain and retain > leadership in those areas we deem important." [pg 57] > > Now if the general public just understood that...... The way to end up in a very bad shape is to have a governmental body, or even a body composed of good scientists, say that we must concentrate our resources in this direction. There is not, there never was, and as long as we remain human there never will be agreement on how to proceed in space or in any other endeavor. What we need is to unleash the talents of people who believe in the various directions of space development to put their talents to use, and to raise money from those sources, governmental or not, which are willing to pay. I believe that tens of millions of people believe that man belongs in space, and that support for various activities can be found to support activities _not_ hamstrung by the government. I believe that the evidence shows that, except for such things as the early government involvement in the Apollo project, that government has only made a mess of things. I personally would be willing to contribute to programs with the goal of having free people living in space being foremost. Sagan does not believe in that but would opt for unmanned exploration, and let the USSR freeze us out of space. I do not ask him to change his priorities. Get the bureaucracy off our backs! Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (ARPA or UUCP) or hrubin@purccvm.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 87 22:25:08 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: New Summary of Ride Report Newsgroups: sci.space Amazing, since writing to Jon Leech, I've tried phoning the Office of Exploration (zilch!). >The way to end up in a very bad shape is to have a governmental body, >or even a body composed of good scientists, say that we must >concentrate our resources in this direction. There is not, there never >was, and as long as we remain human there never will be agreement on >how to proceed in space or in any other endeavor. What we need is to >unleash the talents of people who believe in the various directions of >space development to put their talents to use, and to raise money from >those sources, governmental or not, which are willing to pay. You have to be extremely careful, hence you MUST concentrate your resources. About 8 years ago, I made my first serious trip for JPL to NASA HQ. We were discussing the problems of software: you know: Requirements, Design, Code, Test, Blah blah. The problem all have to realize is that latter implementation details affects the choice of requirements. Consider, I gave the example: Let's go to Mars, okay, just starting from scratch, let's suppose we didn't know how we wanted to get there, but all methods are valid. So one group builds rockets, another sees Star Trek (made about 10 years earlier) and says lets build matter transporters. At this stage, either method is valid, but suppose you really wanted to get into space and viewed that latter as a waste. Further suppose I gave more money to those people rather than you. (Remember, I'm a dumb bureacrat, right?) >I believe that tens of millions of people believe that man belongs in space, Sure. >and that support for various activities can be found to support activities >_not_ hamstrung by the government. I believe that the evidence shows that, >except for such things as the early government involvement in the Apollo >project, that government has only made a mess of things. I personally would >be willing to contribute to programs with the goal of having free people living >in space being foremost. Sagan does not believe in that but would opt for >unmanned exploration, and let the USSR freeze us out of space. I do not ask You are pushing Carl's opinions to an extreme beyond what he believes. Carl doesn't represent the Agency either. I can only suggest you sink more money into private space. I will oppose hindering efforts by other bureacrats (excepting DOD, don't want to get involved with them) if you put more money into private space. >him to change his priorities. Get the beaurocracy off our backs! Bureaucracy! Yes, please get it off my back. >Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center "Send physical mail, to your representatives..." Anti and pro NASA. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 87 06:09:53 GMT From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu (Keith P. Mancus) Subject: Re: Planetary Society I'm really curious about the survey. I think the people on the net are wise enough to see the bias and read it carefully. I would be interested to see just what the percentages are; how many support the Moon base, how many support Mars, how many think both are a waste? Consequently, I'm asking all you net.readers out there (ESPECIALLY the ones who never post anything) to send me email with your answers to the survey questions. If I get a significant response I'll tabulate the data and post the results. -Keith Mancus ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 87 18:48:40 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Planetary Society Planetary Society Questionaire excerpts: > (Whatever its goals, the space station may cost one to two billion > dollars a year over the next 30 years--20% of NASA's budget, .5% > of the Defense budget.) Notice that the estimated cost is included for the space station question > 4. Should human exploration of Mars be a goal of U.S. space policy in > the next two decades, either alone or in conjunction with other > spacefaring nations?? Mars is probably more expensive than any of the other missions, but no mention of cost. > 6. Would you want to see increased U.S. government spending for the > Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence? Again, no mention of cost. > 7. The Moon may be a place for an eventual scientific base, and even > for engineering resources. Setting up a base or mining experiment > will cost tens of billions of dollars in the next century. Should > the United States pursue further manned and unmanned scientific > research projects on the surface of the Moon? Cost of lunar mission is included in the question. > 8. Planetary scientistshave long been attracted to Saturn's moon, > Titan, with an atmosphere filled with complex organic molecules and > with a possible surface ocean. A U.S.-European mission has been > proposed to explore Titan in the 1990's, but to do it requires > developement of a new U.S. spacecraft--the Mariner Mark II. Would > you like to see the United States establish an unmanned Titan-probe > mission as a space research priority in this century? No mention of cost. As a working hypothesis that explains the observed data, when a mission that advances planetary exploration is listed, the cost is not mentioned. A mission that expands permanent inhabitation of space has it's cost mentioned. This bias in the way the questions are asked [begin hypothesis] was intended to produce poll results confirming the pre-existing bias of the planetary society [end hypothesis]. Please don't infer that I am against planetary exploration, I am all for it. I want it to be relatively inexpensive to do, though, which is why I work where I do. Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #22 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Oct 87 06:18:42 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13336; Thu, 22 Oct 87 03:17:32 PDT id AA13336; Thu, 22 Oct 87 03:17:32 PDT Date: Thu, 22 Oct 87 03:17:32 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710221017.AA13336@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #23 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 23 Today's Topics: Re: New Summary of Ride Report cooperation The View from 1969 Budgets (DoD vs. NASA) Re: space news from Aug 24 AW&ST Recent Nova (rerun?) Re: Recent Nova (espionage technology) Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies Re: Spacedrive, ie: Scotty, beam me up... Re: Oldest artificial object in orbit Physics Re: Space Drive ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Oct 87 19:48:15 GMT From: udel!gatech!emcard!fedeva!csun!psivax!nrcvax!ihm@cs.rochester.edu (Ian H. Merritt) Subject: Re: New Summary of Ride Report >Having just finished the Ride Report, two points really struck me: > >1) A major emphasis of the report was on developing a national strategy > for the space program rather than just advocating one or more > specific programs. > . . . > In today's world, America clearly cannot be the leader in all > space endeavors. But we will be the leader in very few unless we > move promptly to develop a strategy to regain and retain leadership > in those areas we deem important." [pg 57] > > Now if the general public just understood that...... Now if only the general public ever even READ that. Wouldn't it be nice if the press would pick up something like the ride report and do a special news program to expose the public to it and help them to understand its significance instead of focusing their entire resources on the scandals between various presidential candidates? --i ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 87 19:36:07 EDT From: mac Subject: cooperation It will be impossible for man to explore the heavens without more cooperation between all those members now involved. The inefficiency of the present venture is absurd. The members of the exchange are forced to guess at the success and failure of the most active program in the world - CCCP. Why are there no Soviet students and scientists available to take part in this free exchange of thought? The task at hand is too great and our human and inanimate resources small. To reach Mars and beyond there will have to be a unified effort. Duplicating and triplicating our efforts is absurd. I fully intend to take part in this quixotic adventure. After medical I'm off to study EE, physics, and ......RUSSIAN. ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 19 October 1987 1950-EST From: DAVID%PENNDRLS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu (R. David Murray) Subject: The View from 1969 On a vacation trip I happened into an antique store and noticed a copy of LIFE, July 15th, 1969 (cover price 50 cents!) with the headline "What's beyond our flag on the moon?". Recalling several comments on what the view had been like "way back then" I thought it would be interesting to find out first hand what the popular press was saying at the height of Apollo. Turns out it's not *quite* the popular press viewpoint: the text of the article is by Arthur Clarke. I thought the net might be interested in a few highlights from the article. "When a Saturn V soars spaceward on four thousand tons of thrust, it signifies more than a triumph of technology. It opens the next chapter of Evolution. No wonder that the drama of a launch engages our emotions so deeply." "Once we have gained a foothold on our single natural satellite -- a world as large as Africa ... we will establish permanent bases there." "Yet our Moon's Greatest value may be as a stepping-stone to more distant worlds. Here, close to Mother Earth, we will perfect the skills needed for the conquest of Mars and Mercury, and the many moons that orbit giant Jupiter, ringed Saturn." "If the Moon did not exist, the Apollo program would still be necessary -- to establish the manned "space stations" of the 1970's." "[the need for repairing satellites in orbit] . . . Such reuseable vehicles (perhaps stubby, winged ships that can land at ordinary airfields) are already on the drawing boards. Then will be the DC-3's of the Early Space Age -- for they will herald the true dawn of interplanetary commerce." [Accompanying this is a painting of a space station made out of what I am fairly sure are meant to be Saturn V booster stages. In the background is a shuttle. It looks only remotely like the actual shuttle (prettier but less practical). Ironically, it bears the number "4" rather than a name.] There really isn't much to this piece. It is printed in large type and would seem to be more a vehicle for the (rather nice) three page painting of the major figures in Apollo project. All of Clarke's words are as true today as they were in 1969, only the timetables have changed. Of course, we now have the problem that the Russians have a more advanced time table . . . The only date Clarke attempts almost came true: Skylab went up. But then it came down. -- R. David Murray DRL Computing Facility University of Pennsylvania ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 87 11:50:00 PDT From: "DSS::BOLD" Subject: Budgets (DoD vs. NASA) To: "space" Reply-To: "DSS::BOLD" I am more than a little "fed-up" with those individuals who constantly complain about the size of NASA's budget compared with the Defense Department's. These people tend to forget three things: 1. A government dedicated to preserving the liberty of its citizens must make defense of its nation's borders and interests its first priority. (I know there is some doubt about whether our government fits that description, but that's another story.) 2. Adequate defense is more expensive than adequate space exploration. (It is also more expensive than adequate education, another budget some frequently compare to the Defense Department's.) 3. Defense, like space, has great potential for "spinoff" technologies. Consider computers, which exist only because the military saw their value for calculating projectile trajectories and code breaking. (Here is an example of the "spinoff" helping both space exploration and education.) The Planetary Society is not the only group to make this comparison; it sometimes appeared in the L5 News. (The Planetary Society Questionnaire just made me think of it.) As this comparison does nothing but reveal the political leanings of the person who makes it, i.e., don't privatize NASA + envy of some other department's funding level, it's time we dropped it from our "argument repertoire." Kevin W. Bold (BOLD@AFSC-SD.ARPA) ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 87 19:43:00 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: space news from Aug 24 AW&ST > ... feasibility study of mobile > communications satellite system, possibly using Molniya orbits for good > coverage at high latitudes. I suppose I should explain this, since some people have asked about the term. Clarke (geostationary) orbit is the preferred one for comsats, but it has problems for ground stations at high latitudes. Clarke-orbit satellites are low on the horizon for such stations, and in fact are below the horizon for stations near the poles. This causes various problems. The Soviet solution to this is to use a different orbit for their Molniya comsats. The Molniyas are in highly elliptical orbits at high inclinations, with apogee over the northern hemisphere. This means that they spend most of their time moving quite slowly across the northern sky (and incidentally spend the low-altitude part of their orbits deep in the southern hemisphere, away from hostile nations). This isn't as good as Clarke orbit, since the Molniyas do move and stations need to track them continuously, but for high latitudes the results are better. The Soviets do now make some use of Clarke-orbit comsats as well, but the Molniyas remain important. There are a few other users of such orbits as well; I believe one of the upcoming amateur-radio satellites will use such an orbit. -- "Mir" means "peace", as in | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "the war is over; we've won". | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri 16 Oct 87 20:32:41-EDT From: C. P. Yeske Subject: Recent Nova (rerun?) I just saw an excellent program on aerial, satellite, and communication reconnaissance. It was NOVA, produced on PBS. They had a good presentation of the implications of the technology, a good overview of the hardware used, as well as a brief historical overview. Topics touched on included the SR-71 and U-2 spy planes, the Key-Hole and Reolyte class satellites. If you would like a transcript of the program, send 4$ to "NOVA Box 322, 'Spy Machines', Boston MA 02134." For film footage for educational purposes call "800-621-2131." Curt Yeske Technical Administrator Carnegie Mellon Computing Services CY13@te.cc.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 87 14:02:50 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Recent Nova (espionage technology) Newsgroups: sci.space I've not seen it, but I was told by another person in the know this was not a good episode. Let me suggest a better reference: not light reading but interesting: "The Manual of Remote Sensing." I can send publisher and other information on request. There are others. I had too much to do on both of those evenings and will have to catch the rerun. There are also some good grad and undergrad programs: U of Mich., UC Santa Barbara (which I took), and surprisingly, Pasadena City College near Caltech has a good photogrammetry program. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 87 07:32:30 GMT From: imagen!atari!portal!cup.portal.com!Charlie_Alan_Bounds@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies Just finished re-reading this thread of news (Re:Sensor policies etc). It has strongly re-inforced my depressing opinion that the main business of national security in the US is to prevent American citizens from knowing what their own government is doing. There is little doubt that the Russians know everything classified SECRET or lower and most everything classified TOP SECRET. But ordinary citizens don't (and can't find out)! Stand up for your right to know what your country is up to! Charlie Bounds Charlie@cup.portal.com ...Sun!portal!cup.portal.com!Charlie ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 1987 15:48-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Spacedrive, ie: Scotty, beam me up... Bob Gray: Aye, And who betterrr to build and operate a wee space drive than a Scotsman? I wouldn't feel secure conning a starship with any other nationality in the engine room. Hmmm. I might like a German as his assistant, and I'll take a French chef. (I like Italian chefs too, but the mass of the crew would increase beyond the capacity of even a reactionless drive) Let's see, I'd want Japanese communication electronics, American structural materials, computers and fabrication and how about an Australian launch site? If the ship needed an economist to help start a new colony, I wouldn't allow anyone else on board but an Austrian who studied under Von Mises. Now somebody get me the ship so we can leave... Yours truly, with tongue firmly glued to cheek, Captain DM Amon, Starship Black&Decker ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 87 16:05:42 GMT From: oltz@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Michael Oltz) Subject: Re: Oldest artificial object in orbit In article <1481@faline.bellcore.com>, karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > > The list shows three Lunar Module Ascent Modules still orbiting > > and one Lunar Module Descent stage still orbiting. > ...Lunar orbits are notoriously unstable. > Objects left in low lunar orbit usually hit the moon before long. Which is why there are only three ascent modules, and not seven. -- Mike Oltz oltz@tcgould.tn.cornell.UUCP (607)255-8312 Cornell Computer Services 215 Computing and Communications Center Ithaca NY 14853 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 87 16:13:29 EDT From: PH520003%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Physics ---just got back from eight weeks out at SERI (Solar Energy Research Institute) and elsewhere. This is not a permanent net address, but mail here should get to me for a month or so, anyway.--- (1) "Room Temperature" superconductors. The latest information I've heard is that the reports of drops to superconductivity at 200-300 K are probably measurement artifacts having something to do with the electrical contacts. (2) Electrons "communicating" with other electrons instantaneously. This is indeed an old effect, first considered in a "thought experiment" by Einstein as a way to show that quantum mechanics was an incomplete theory. In the simplest form of the experiment, a system ejects two particles with opposite polarization. (For the sake of simplicity, let's say this is a positronium "atom" in the ground state which decays into two photons in opposite directions with opposite polarization; although just as easily it could be a system ejecting electrons with opposite spins.) Measure the polarization of one photon, either one. Say it's right polarized. Now measure the other, you will discover that, like magic, the polarization is opposite: somehow the first one measured has somehow "communicated" what its polarization was so that the other one could switch over to left polarization before you measure it. This is not particularly paradoxical until you add in the fact that (in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics) a photon does not have any polarization at all until it is measured. It was the measurement on the *first* photon that caused the second photon to become left polarized, and the "information" that the first photon was measured travelled to the second photon instantaneously. I can see of no way of encoding useful (to us) information on this communication. There's an even chance that the first photon measured will be right or left, and the "information" passed is that the other photon is opposite. There are other interpretations of quantum mechanics. All of them have some feature which is just as peculiar as this. However, note that the *equations* of QM are straightforward and (as far as anybody has ever measured) the predictions are correct. It is only when you try to interpret the equations into common-sense ideas that they seem to be peculiar. (Myself, I tend to go for a "hidden variable" interpretation of QM, which is what Einstein was suggesting by proposing the EPR thought experiment in the first place. I like hidden variable interpretations because the Schro"dinger formulation of QM is *explicitly* a hidden variable theory, with the "hidden" variable encoded in the phase of the wave function. But I don't think that hidden variable theories are particularly inconsistant with the Copenhagen interpretation.) --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 1987 15:37-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Space Drive Just to keep the fun going, keep in mind that there are known strange effects involving very long, very massive, rapidly rotating cylinders: they wrap space time around themselves in such a way that 'orbiting' the object is equivalent to time travel (forward or backwards depending on direction relative to the rotation, and limited by the 'length' of the object in time) because you are following 'time-like' lines through space time. This has never been verified experimentally, but general relativity has proven pretty accurate otherwise, so I see know reason to doubt this any more than black holes and Einstein-Rosen bridges. So who knows? Maybe there is some funny business that can occur in smaller rotating objects. But I doubt it... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #23 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Oct 87 11:46:35 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00469; Fri, 23 Oct 87 08:03:17 PDT id AA00469; Fri, 23 Oct 87 08:03:17 PDT Date: Fri, 23 Oct 87 08:03:17 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710231503.AA00469@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #24 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 24 Today's Topics: FTL quantum effects (was Holographic Universe) Re: Space Drive Re: SPACE DRIVE Re: SPACE DRIVE Electrical Equivalent of Dean Drive Or Crackpottery Lives! Re: Space Drive Re: SPACE DRIVE SPACE DRIVE Re: Universe As Hologram Re: HOTOL engine for sale. asteroidal composition ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Oct 87 04:21:02 GMT From: trex.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) Subject: FTL quantum effects (was Holographic Universe) I'm posting the following article for Jayen Vaghani, who works with Michael Paddon in Australia and has no direct post access to the net. Thanks for your input, Jayen! ******************************* Reading about the Aspect experiments in this newsgroup has reminded me of John Gribbin's book "In Search of Schroedinger's Cat" which is a book about the history and possible future of quantum mechanics in laymen terms. It also talks about the Aspect experiments and makes the same point that no information can be transmitted this way. However, later in the book it talks about a research team at Sussex headed by a guy called Terry Clark. Apparently, in their experiments, they set up a superconductor ring about 1 cm in diameter which was "squashed in" at one position. This allowed them to circulating an electron in the ring in a standing wave pattern. With this standing wave pattern, it appears that the superconductor ring acts as a single boson particle with some energy level. Using electromagnetic fields, they can manipulate the energy level on one side of the ring and measure the time taken to respond at the other side. The book says that there was no measurable delay in response time on the other side of the ring. That is the change in energy level seemed to be instantaneous. The book goes on to say that while this has no use for long-range communications, it is quite possible that computers could use this type of communication removing any delay in communication between circuit components. The book finishes by mentioning that the team was now looking at building a "macro-atom" from a 6 metre cylinder. Brian Josephson (Josephson Injunction device) was mentioned as being part of the team. Now the book is about 4 years old which is a long time in some research fields. Does anyone know what has happened to these experiments? Are they still underway? Have their been anymore results? Maybe this has already been mentioned before as I have only just started reading sci.space. UUCP: {seismo,ukc,ubc-vision,mcvax}!mulga.oz!jayen ARPA: jayen%mulga.oz@seismo.css.gov CSNET: jayen%mulga.oz@australia ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 87 16:38:27 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: Space Drive I've been reading all this about a "new" space drive with a great deal of pleasure. I spent a lot of time in junior high building these things with my Erector set. I learned a lot of physics figuring out why they didn't work. When I first saw the G. Harry Stine article in Astounding ( or was it Analog by then? ) I was truely enlightened. Then someone comes along and says that the thing is generating an upward force that can be measured on a balance scale. That shoots my smug self assurance right in the foot. A spring scale is easy to fool, balance scales aren't. My first thought was that the guy had his thumb on the scale ( so to speak ), but I hate to assume someone is dishonest. So how could it do the impossible? I actually hope it is doing the impossible. I don't really care if it drives N physicists mad. But, there is a plausible way for the device to generate lift without converting angular momentum to linear momentum. Everything I know about the device is taken from the net. So before I go on I'm going to describe what I think the thing looks like. The description of the machine says it has two gyros ( fly wheels ) spinning at opposite ends of a rotating bar. Looking something like this II II II II II-====|====-II II II II II if looked at from the side. Imagine that the II things are fly wheels and the | - are pivot points. As the thing rotates about the central axis the two fly wheels will try to precess, but will not be allowed to change their axis of rotation. In my thirteen year old mind I thought that the precession force had two components, one trying to push the fly wheel up out of the plain of rotation, and one trying to push the fly wheel in toward the axis of rotation. If this were true, then in a machine like this the inward components of the force would cancel and the upward component would add. Ta Da! a reactionless space drive. Oh yeah, you have to turn it against something, so build two counter rotating machines. No problem. Doesn't work. So how could an actual machine generate an actual force? How do you throw a curve ball, a floater, or a sinker? A rotating cylinder or sphere moving through the air will generate a force by interacting with the air. There was a long discussion of this on the net not that long ago. The fly wheels are cylinders. They are spinning rapidly. The fly wheels are at the end of a rotating bar, so they are moving around in a circle. I bet the tests were not performed in a vacuum. I think that this "space drive" is realy a rather complex propeller. Sorry for the length of this ramble. Tell me whats wrong with it. Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 87 19:07:54 GMT From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu (Keith P. Mancus) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE In article <567@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> you write: >>Davis mechanics is based on the law: >> >> F = ma + D da/dt >> >>............................................... The best place to >>apply this in the nucleus of atoms -- D must be less than something >>like 10^-30 sec in order that atoms don't explode today. This, of >>course, renders the Davis term unmeasurable in macroscopic physics, >>which is where Davis claimed to discover the phenomenon in the first >>place. > An upper bound of 10^-30 would suggest that D=0! I don't believe in Davis mechanics, but this objection seems wrong to me. In the nucleus of an atom, particles behave according to the laws of quantum mechanics. Those laws restrict the energy levels of particles to a very low number of possible states. Moving up the scale slightly, to electron orbitals, I know that you cannot add some randomly determined amount of energy, and you *certainly* can't add energy as a continuous process. Since the electron must 'step up' in discrete stages, it can't slowly acquire more energy, and may thus be immune to Davis' "Law". Since Davis claims his "law" exists in the macroworld, I think it would be more legitimate to make objections based on the macroworld. There's no shortage of them! -Keith Mancus ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 87 10:47:07 GMT From: nuchat!sugar!peter@uunet.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE In article <1648@culdev1.UUCP>, drw@culdev1.UUCP (Dale Worley) writes: > Davis mechanics is based on the law: > F = ma + D da/dt > Where D is a constant with the units of time... any object in orbital > motion gains energy (as measured by the usual formula)... > ...apply this in the nucleus of atoms -- D must be less than something > like 10^-30 sec in order that atoms don't explode today. Are you sure that this is applicable at the quantum scale? Orbital motion becomes somewhat of a fuzzy concept down there. -- Peter da Silva ------------------------------ From: bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Date: 15 Oct 87 22:38:00 EST Subject: Electrical Equivalent of Dean Drive Or Crackpottery Lives! Reply-To: >From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu >This was, I think, in the early 1950's. The quarrel with Campbell went >on for years and I was always sort of mad at him. But looking back, >ah, those were great times. The crackpots just don't seem as inventive >now! This gets a little far from space news, but there is hope yet for present-day crackpots. Here at NBS, tests were just completed on a perpetual motion machine from some "inventor" in Mississippi (Don't remember his name). Complicated gadget with coils, voltages, etc. The bottom line is that it is the electrical equivalent of the mechanical Dean Drive. Rather than fooling a bathroom scale with mechanical resonances, this thing fools voltmeters with rapidly varying voltages so it can appear that you get out more energy than you put in. I guess this means that crackpots are still much the same as in Dean's days. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 87 16:21:56 GMT From: clyde!watmath!watdcsu!magore@rutgers.edu (Mike Gore, Institute Computer Research - ICR) Subject: Re: Space Drive Hello Bob, [ This concerns the issue of how one might fool a balance scale ] In article <522@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) '> ' writes: [...] >Then someone comes along and says that the thing is generating an >upward force that can be measured on a balance scale. That shoots my >smug self assurance right in the foot. A spring scale is easy to fool, >balance scales aren't. My first thought was that the guy had his thumb >on the scale ( so to speak ), but I hate to assume someone is >dishonest. [...] Consider: Balance Weight ^ ==================X===============(O) | Spin up or spin down pivot rotating v directions of rotation wheel So the questions is now what happens _during_ spin up or spin down ? As far as I can see a force will be acting on the balance arm during that time. I understand that the spin rate was some 16000 rpm at full speed. [ Now why do I feel that I am forgetting something obvious ??? Let's see ... it's monday ... :-) ] Comments ??? Best Regards, # Mike Gore ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 87 02:22:22 GMT From: super.upenn.edu!eecae!crlt!russ@rutgers.edu (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: SPACE DRIVE In article <6503@apple.UUCP>, ems@apple.UUCP (Mike Smith) writes: >In article <1625@culdev1.UUCP>, drw@culdev1.UUCP (Dale Worley) writes: >> bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) writes: >> > The device was powered by a 6 1/2 cc water cooled model aircraft >> > engine running at 16,000 rpm. >> Yow! Think of the volume and velocity of the exhaust that mother >> produced! [...] 1729 cc (almost two liters) of exhaust per second. >> [...] That exhaust stream could produce a >> *lot* of force. >Umm, isn't 1.7 liters about the same as a medium sized balloon? Seems >to me that I have filled one of them in a second or two. Didn't seem >like that much 'volume and velocity' to me ... It wouldn't, because you aren't doing some things that the engine is: 1.) You're not blowing high-pressure pulses through a small opening; this would increase the velocity and thus momentum and force. A steady stream would move more slowly and have less momentum. 2.) You're not heating your expelled air by combustion; the exhaust volume would be several times the 1700 cc/second displacement, due to its high temperature. This increases the energy (and velocity, and momentum/force) even further over a cool stream. It does look like the contribution of the exhaust to the thrust would be substantial, and the credibility of the results from the experiments with the device is pretty low. Dean/whoever found a nice way to turn glow fuel into thrust in air with even lower efficiency than a propeller. Show me one that works in vacuum and I'll stop being so skeptical. >E. Michael Smith ...!sun!apple!ems -- The above are the official opinions and figures of Robust Software, Inc. Forewarned is half an octopus. Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ihnp4!itivax![m-net!rsi,crlt!russ] ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 87 15:18:56 GMT From: culdev1!drw@xn.ll.mit.edu (Dale Worley) Subject: SPACE DRIVE peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <1648@culdev1.UUCP>, drw@culdev1.UUCP (Dale Worley) writes: > > [various argumentation involving effects of 'Davis mechanics' on > > nucleons] > Are you sure that this is applicable at the quantum scale? Orbital > motion becomes somewhat of a fuzzy concept down there. True. But things get even more horrible than considering the applicability of this method. The essence of q.m. doesn't revolve around the forces acting, but rather describes a formalism for computing motions. Sort of like the fact that one can say "Davis mechanics is like Newtonian mechanics, just F=ma is changed a bit."; there's a lot more to Newtonian mechanics than just the acceleration law. Now, in q.m., the forces are described by a "Hamiltonian operator", which is constructed (in simple cases) by a known derivation from the expressions for potential and kinetic energy for a analogous system in Newtonian mechanics. The problem is that everywhere throughout q.m. (and Newtonian mechanics), energy is assumed to have certain properties, most particularly, being conserved. This is not true in Davis mechanics, using the standard definition of kinetic energy. Thus, to construct a quantum Davis mechanics will require a new definition of 'kinetic energy', and will cause changes throughout q.m. Presumably some of these changes would cause experimentally observable results. Dale Worley Cullinet Software ARPA: culdev1!drw@eddie.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 87 20:03:10 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: Universe As Hologram I was reading "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" recently and came across a reference to an experiment conducted by a Terry Clark at U of Sussex around 1983. It involved a superconducting ring about 5mm diameter with a very narrow constriction at one point, creating a standing wave around the ring. Apparently this standing wave allowed the whole ring to be treated (even to act) as a single quantum 'particle'. A detector set up on one side of the ring detected changes in quantum states caused by a stimulus on the other side. What caught my attention was the remark that the change in quantum state was _not_ observed to start at the stimulus and propagate at C around the ring, rather it occurred simultaneously around the whole ring at once. Now, that sounds like FTL to me, but perhaps that was phase velocity? Does anyone have more knowledge (NOT wild-assed speculation, please) about this experiment or followups to it? (The Clark team apparently had planned a meter-long setup next - did it ever get built? What results?) Has the experiment been repeated? Etc, etc... Alastair JW Mayer ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 87 07:25:17 GMT From: tektronix!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60RC) Subject: Re: HOTOL engine for sale. Bob Gray writes: >Mr Bond said he would offer his work [on HOTOL] to the Europeans first >and then to the Americans. The Japanese would be next on his list. He >is fed up with his work being wasted. He wants to see his machine fly. Then I suggest that he go straight to the group that's most likely to give him the most long range support: the Japanese. Then the Europeans and lastly the Americans. Or if he really wants support, the Russians will probably give him all he wants. (There should probably be a smiley in there somewhere, but I'm not sure where.) Dan Tilque dant@tekla.tek.com or dant@tekla.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 1987 17:32-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: asteroidal composition Organic Matter on Asteroid 130 Electra, D P Cruikshank and R H Brown, Science Magazine, p183-184, 9-Oct-87 "Infrared absorption spectra of a low-albedo water-rich asteroid appear to show a weak 3.4 micrometer carbon-hydrogen stretching mode band, which suggests the presence of hydrocarbons on asteroid 130 Electra. The organic extract from the primitive carbonaceous chondrite Murchison meteorite shows similar spectral bands." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #24 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Oct 87 06:18:46 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02057; Sat, 24 Oct 87 03:16:05 PDT id AA02057; Sat, 24 Oct 87 03:16:05 PDT Date: Sat, 24 Oct 87 03:16:05 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710241016.AA02057@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #25 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 25 Today's Topics: Space's tobacco? FALCON Re: CELSS Re: CELSS and oxygen regeneration Re: CELSS and oxygen regeneration How big does a space station have to be to rotate it? CLESS: Biosphere project Space Station teams Re: How big does a space station have to be to rotate it? Re: CELSS and oxygen regeneration ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Oct 87 21:12:49 PDT From: John Sotos Subject: Space's tobacco? There has been a lot of pining in the popular space community: "If only space had a product like the New World had tobacco" (ie, a clear economic benefit of settling remote territory). Well, p 110 of the October 12 Aviation Week notes that "a possible key area of lunar exploitation could be the transport to Earth of Helium-3 in the form of gas or liquid to support fusion power generation.... If as little as 40,000 lb of He-3 could be transported to Earth and used in a national array of fusion reactors, it could supply the energy needs of the US for about a year." This amount should be carryable in two Moon-Earth trips, the article states; there are a few more details in the article as well. Support your local tokomak, eh? John ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Oct 87 20:46 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: FALCON Aviation Week (10/19/87) had an article on FALCON (Fission Activated Laser CONcept). This laser, being investigated at Sandia, uses fission fragments from a pulsed nuclear reactor to directly excite a gaseous lasing medium. According to the article, FALCON promises to be more compact than other space based laser systems, and might generate millions of laser pulses before requiring refueling. The article says the system uses U235 as the fissionable material and hydrogen gas as the lasing medium and coolant. Optical transmission problems are cited as the most significant technical challenge to the concept. The concept has been tested using existing pulsed reactors, and optical gain and lasing have been demonstrated (it was not said what power level was achieved, nor what the efficiency was). If FALCON can produce short pulses energetic enough to kill ICBMs, one should be able to place it in low lunar orbit and do interactive sampling of the lunar surface. The laser would focus onto a small spot to vaporize material. Use optical and mass spectra to determine composition. Another obvious use is a lunar laser launcher. At what wavelength would hydrogen lase? Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 1987 14:49-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: CELSS Too my knowledge, the most advanced CELSS work in the world is being done by a company called Space Biospheres Ventures in Arizona (NOT under government contract or support. WHOLLY private capital). I was told by a friend who was a commissioner on the National Commission on Space that these people are 10 years ahead of NASA. As a libertarian, I can only snicker and say, of course... ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 87 21:55:53 GMT From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!crash!gryphon!mhnadel@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Miriam Nadel) Subject: Re: CELSS and oxygen regeneration In article <37*thompson@arc.cdn> thompson@arc.CDN (bradley thompson) writes: >In reference to the general comments regarding conrolled ecolocical >life support systems: > 1- the American program has sputtered along for almost 30 years now. >Early 60's work, done mainly under Air Force sponsership, concentrated >on algal regeneration of oxygen and the use of organisms like >Alcaligenes [Hydrogenomonas] sp. for food production and concurrent >carbon dioxide regeneration. The following NASA programs have been >sparten but it appears as if a major gear up is in the works. For more >information talk to Bob MacElroy at NASA-Ames. My general impression at the CELSS workshop meetings I've been to (thus about 2 years out of date) was that there was still a lot of talk about algal regeneration of oxygen. A good person to contact about those aspects of CELSS is Mike Modell at MIT. As I understand things Bob MacElroy is no longer running the CELSS program at Ames. There was some reshuffling a few years ago (say 3 1/2) though I suppose they might have moved him back there. As for a major gearup, the talk I heard was always about having a ground-based demo in the '90s. But it seems to have stayed mostly at the talk level. The only actual experimentation I knew of going on at Ames was some stuff Steve Schwartzkopf and Mel Averner were doing involving growing plants under low-g. It turned out to be a harder problem than they thought. Stuff like oak trees did OK, but rice was disastrous (roots not knowing where to grow or something like that). Hence, algae were well thought of, despite palatability problems. > 2- our Soviet friends have conducted successful ground based tests >of non-optimized systems using CELSS technology. The longest test that >I am aware of that was sucessful was 6 months. No problems of any great >nature. Their goals appear to be a minimum 2 year system. Mars? 2 years wouldn't be worth it for a fully closed system. Aside from which, the 6 month tests were not remarkably successful; the atmosphere kept creeping up to around 40% carbon dioxide. Keeping a reasonable atmosphere for 5 years (the breakeven point) is beyond their technology, too. Miriam Nadel mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM {philabs, trwrb}!cadovax!gryphon!mhnadel ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 87 01:18:20 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Re: CELSS and oxygen regeneration (====O====) [space colonies are great models] If I rememeber correctly, OMNI magazine has for the past few years been reporting irregularly on the New Alchemy Institute, a group which is supposedly very concerned with the Earth's ecosystem. One of the OMNI articles from several years back reported their methodology: take a tub of ecosystem into a debilitated environment and let the growth spread from the tub to the surrounding area. One spin-off OMNI reported included a planned twelve-month eight-person closed ecosystem experiment in the Arizona desert. I wish I had access to my brother's back issues so I could refer to the three issues I remember specifically mentioning the New Alchemy Institute- at least one issue has a contact address in the continental United States for the NAI. The address (which I have not written to, and is at least two years old) is: New Alchemy Institute 237 Hatchville Road East Falmouth, MA 02536 If memeory serves me correctly, the magazine Mother Earth News also mentioned them in passing in one of their major articles several years back as well. I'm sending them a letter right now, asking for various pieces of information, any general news releases concerning them, and anything else they want to tell me. If I get an answer, I'll summarize and post. Any assistance here would be appreciated. Now if they had ecosystem simulations and mathematical models as well, we could easily get somewhere fast..... -Joe Beckenbach (CS BS '88) ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 87 08:04:57 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@AMES.ARPA (MacLeod) Subject: How big does a space station have to be to rotate it? This is a pretty mundane question, but one I've wondered about. As far as I know, neither the US or the USSR has put up a space platform and spun it about its axis for the benefit of the crewmen within. (Of course, I realize that zero gravity was the whole goal of much of the research carried out on these platforms...). What is the minimum structural diameter of a space station that was designed to spin to provide a gravity-like acceleration? It would have to be something over four meters, for example, since at that diameter your head would be near 0G regardless of how accelerated your feet were. Some pretty novel effects possible, I'd imagine. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 87 7:51:39 MDT From: John Shaver Modernization Office Subject: CLESS: Biosphere project A firm is promoting a BIOSPHERE adjacent to Tucson. They plan to put people, plants and animals inside a sealed room to demonstrate that this is a feasible activity over a long period. It is slightly different in Tucson that it would be in space, however, the self-containment aspects can be studied. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 87 23:14:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Space Station teams _High_Technology_ magazine (August 1987) had a story on the Station. There are four "work packages" and thirty companies in 8 teams bidding for them. NASA is *supposed* to pick a team as of November to do the work on each package. In the following section, team leaders are in CAPITALS. The teams are in column form under the team leader. The packages and teams are: Segment I Crew and lab modules ($2.5 billion) BOEING MARTIN MARIETTA Grumman Aerospace General Electric, Astro Space Division Lockheed Missiles & Space Hughes Aircraft Teledyne Brown Engineering United Technologies (Hamilton Standard) TRW USBI Booster Production Wyle Laboratories McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Segment II Framework (main boom) ($3.7 billion) ROCKWELL McDONNELL DOUGLAS Grumman Aerospace Honeywell Harris IBM Intermetrics Lockheed Missiles & Space Sperry RCA SRI International TRW Segment III Free-flying platform and research eqpt. ($750 million) GENERAL ELECTRIC RCA TRW Honeywell IBM Lockheed Missiles & Space McDonnell Douglas RCA (I don't know why it's here twice.) Computer Sciences Segment IV Power system ($1.0 billion) ROCKETDYNE TRW Ford Aerospace & Commun. Lockheed Missiles & Space (On both sides!) Garrett Fluid Systems Planning Research Corp. General Dynamics Analex Lockheed Missiles & Space Teledyne Brown Engineering Sunstrand Eagle Engineering The preceding was copied from _High_Technology completely without permission. Alphabetical Listing of Companies and Segments: Key: #1: Segment I Crew and lab modules #2: Segment II Framework (main boom) #3: Segment III Free-flying platform and research eqpt. #4: Segment IV Power system Analex, #4 Boeing, #1 Computer Sciences, #3 Eagle Engineering, #4 Ford Aerospace & Communications, #4 General Electric, #3 Garrett Fluid Systems, #4 General Dynamics, #4 General Electric, Astro Space Division, #1 Grumman Aerospace, #1 Grumman Aerospace, #2 Harris, #2 Honeywell, #2 Honeywell, #3 Hughes Aircraft, #1 IBM, #2 IBM, #3 Intermetrics, #2 Lockheed Missiles & Space, #1 Lockheed Missiles & Space, #2 Lockheed Missiles & Space, #3 Lockheed Missiles & Space, #4 Lockheed Missiles & Space, #4 Martin Marietta, #1 McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, #1 McDonnell Douglas, #2 McDonnell Douglas, #3 Planning Research Corp., #4 RCA, #2 RCA, #3 RCA, #3 Rocketdyne, #4 Rockwell, #2 SRI International, #2 Sperry, #2 Sunstrand, #4 TRW, #1 TRW, #2 TRW, #3 TRW, #4 Teledyne Brown Engineering, #1 Teledyne Brown Engineering, #4 USBI Booster Production, #1 United Technologies (Hamilton Standard), #1 Wyle Laboratories, #1 Through the course of my job interviewing, I have heard several companies' representatives complain that their companies had "lost the contract" with NASA for the Station. I thought the results weren't due until November. It isn't always the best policy to question the interviewer's source of information. I wish I knew, however, what the real status is on the Station bids. Would someone who knows what NASA has done on these bids please let me know? I am putting special emphasis on these companies during my job search. If NASA has decided which teams will get the contracts, I want to know. -- Ken Jenks jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 87 22:08:25 GMT From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu (Keith P. Mancus) Subject: Re: How big does a space station have to be to rotate it? In article <2612@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: >What is the minimum structural diameter of a space station that was >designed to spin to provide a gravity-like acceleration? It would have >to be something over four meters, for example, since at that diameter >your head would be near 0G regardless of how accelerated your feet >were. Some pretty novel effects possible, I'd imagine. Actually, those 'novel effects' must be avoided. The Coriolis force causes some really nasty problems; if the radius of rotation is too small, a "water hammer" can be set up, and just turning one's head too quickly in the wrong direction could be fatal. Even somewhat larger radii could make you quite sick. The figure I heard quoted for minimum usable radius was about 300 yards. If you want your ship to be much smaller (Apollo-sized?), you could build two and connect them with a 300 yards rod or cable. (Warning: the stress in that rod is going to be HIGH!) Anybody have more to add? I really know very little about Coriolis effects, and nothing at all about the water hammer. -Keith Mancus ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 87 04:46:08 GMT From: ihnp4!upba!eecae!crlt!russ@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: CELSS and oxygen regeneration In <1965@gryphon.CTS.COM>, mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM (Miriam Nadel) writes: >Aside from which, the 6 month tests were not remarkably successful; the >atmosphere kept creeping up to around 40% carbon dioxide. Keeping a >reasonable atmosphere for 5 years (the breakeven point) is beyond their >technology, too. Forty percent, or four percent? I recall that 4% is about the limit for human tolerance, and it's mighty uncomfortable. If you don't mind using a special atmosphere (CO2-enriched, at the expense/to the benefit of your own breathing air) for growing your plants, even this could work out. Freezing CO2 out of air is a proven technology. I have read that many plants become very efficient photosynthesizers when they are grown in a high-CO2 atmosphere, due to the reduced energy needed to drive the concentration gradient. Miriam, do you have any figures on how much this might reduce biomass requirements? It might change the break-even point. Russ Cage ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #25 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Oct 87 15:48:25 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04701; Mon, 26 Oct 87 03:24:37 PST id AA04701; Mon, 26 Oct 87 03:24:37 PST Date: Mon, 26 Oct 87 03:24:37 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710261124.AA04701@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #27 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 27 Today's Topics: Long duration shuttle missions? Re: Next shuttle Re: Next shuttle Re: AMROC Talk Getting NASA patches Re: Museum Spacecraft Re: Museum Spacecraft Re: Oldest artificial object in orbit Physical requirements for flight Re: Physical requirements for flight Apollo 13 "accident" Re: Museum Spacecraft Re: Getting NASA patches Re: Getting NASA patches ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Oct 87 21:06:29 PDT From: John Sotos Subject: Long duration shuttle missions? On p 29 of the October 12 Aviation Week there is a mention that the House Appropriations Committee may block space station hardware contracts unless (among other things) NASA commits to "modifying one orbiter so it can fly extended shuttle flights until the space station becomes operational." This is the first I have heard of such a modification. What limits the shuttle's time in orbit now? Power? Water? Propellant? John ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 87 15:16:20 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: Next shuttle In article <8710121152.AA00779@angband.s1.gov> PICARD@gmr.COM ("RON PICARD") writes: > [...] What would be savings, weight reduction and functional >capabilities of making the next shuttle without the Canadarm? Could we >make this our 'heavy lift' orbiter? Are there any other componants we >could do without on one fourth of the fleet to get the payload >capability up? Well, you'd severly cripple the functional capabilities of the shuttle. But more to the point, the Canadarm unbolts fairly easily from the Orbiter - it isn't a structural component and can be (and has been) left off to save weight if it isn't needed for a mission. Indeed, there's even a provision for blowing the thing off (I assume explosive bolts, but perhaps something less violent) if it jams extended in such a way as to prevent the cargo bay doors from being closed prior to reentry. It doesn't weight that much, either. Don't have the exact figures, but it's only some tubing and motors - it won't even support its own weight in a 1-G field. You're going to have to look elsewhere for weight savings. If you really want heavy lift, think about removing the wings, fin, and crew compartment. Recover the engines by parachute... Alastair JW Mayer ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 87 20:21:35 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Next shuttle > What would be the point of making the shuttle without the remote > manipulating system (which is what I assume your Canadarm reference is > to)? ... More to the point, it does nothing for us, since the arm is removable. It need not fly on missions where it is not needed. And yes, the RMS's proper name (at least in some quarters) is "Canadarm". -- "Mir" means "peace", as in | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "the war is over; we've won". | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 87 22:00:20 GMT From: hplabsz!kempf@hplabs.hp.com (Jim Kempf) Subject: Re: AMROC Talk Could someone post a short summary of the talk to the net, if it looks like there is some meat there? Some of us who are interested might not be able to make it to LA. Thanks! Jim Kempf kempf@hplabs.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 87 13:22:39 GMT From: sundc!hadron!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (rich kolker) Subject: Getting NASA patches Since the shuttle jumpsuits some of us ordered have gone out, I've gotten several requests for information concerning where people can get NASA mission and other patches for them. Here's the information I have, feel free to add to it. Any major NASA facility (KSC,JSC, JPL, Headquarters, Goddard etc.) has a gift shop. Many of them mail order. I know that HQ sells the real patches (many sources sell good replicas) and that Goddard also has a nice selection of Soviet patches. The National Air and Space Museum, Washington, DC does mail order and has most everything. The Space Shop, The Space and Rocket Center, Huntsville, AL 35807 phone (800) 633-7280. They definitely do take mail order, have most everything going back to Gemini (everything before then was not a real mission patch). STS-26 patches are available. As best I've been able to determine. The pattern for sewing patches onto the shutlle coverall is. Right shoulder - NASA "worm" Right chest - Mission patch Left chest (under nametag) - NASA "meatball" Left shoulder - American flag ++rich ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 87 13:33:29 GMT From: sundc!hadron!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (rich kolker) Subject: Re: Museum Spacecraft In article <3142@ames.arpa> mike@ames.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes: >In article <1278@s.cc.purdue.edu> ain@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Patrick White) writes: >>Also, does anybody know which Shuttle is on display(?) just off one of >>the runways of Dulles airport in Washington DC? I saw it as my plane >>took off, and was wondering which shuttle it was. Thanks. >>-- Pat White >That would certainly be the Enterprise (Dum-de-dum, de-de-de-de-Dum). >There are only 2 non-flyable "shuttles", the Enterprise which you saw, >at the A&S Museum annex, and the Pathfinder (OV-100, I think), which is >in Japan, I believe. The Pathfinder is currently on display at the Space and Rocket Cemter, Huntsville, AL. It is currently just sitting there (nicely restored) but shortly will be mated with an External Tank and SRB casings to create the only full shuttle stack on display. For those of you who (like me) were unaware of the Pathfinder, it was built by NASA (not Rockwell) as a test article to check fit on the various shuttle servicing hardware. It did spend some time as an exhibit in Japan, before reaching its final home in Huntsville. ++rich ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 87 03:31:38 GMT From: nuchat!splut!jay@uunet.uu.net (Jay Maynard) Subject: Re: Museum Spacecraft In article <1278@s.cc.purdue.edu>, ain@s.cc.purdue.edu (Patrick White) writes: > Years ago, when I was much smaller, I got a chance to see the Saturn V > rocket on display.. (where? faulty memories suck!). Were you, perchance, at the Johnson Space Center (may have been the Manned Spacecraft Center, if it was that long ago)? They have one on display, in sections, horizontally. > At that time, I noticed that one of the wire harness connectors > between the lower and middle stages was missing.. apparently cut off > the rocket by some souvenir seeker. I'll have to go look at the one at JSC next time I'm on site. > Also, does anybody know which Shuttle is on display(?) just off one of > the runways of Dulles airport in Washington DC? I saw it as my plane > took off, and was wondering which shuttle it was. Thanks. I believe it's _Enterprise_. At least, that's what the one parked next to the runway last time I flew out of Dulles claimed to be...I didn't find out until I got back that that was the real thing, either (#^%$$%^&*&^%!!!!) Jay Maynard, K5ZC (@WB5BBW)...>splut!< | uucp: uunet!nuchat!splut!jay ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 87 01:08:34 GMT From: miq%psuvm.bitnet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Jim Maloy) Subject: Re: Oldest artificial object in orbit In article <5440@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, marchant@sag4.BERKELEY.EDU (Will Marchant) says: >My current version of the NASA Satellite Situation Report (Dated June >30, 1987) shows that the earliest launched artificial objects still >left in orbit are the Vanguard 1 satellite and two associated objects >(probably boosters, I will try to research this). These were launched >on 17 March, 1958. What happened to Sputnik I and II? When did they re-enter? (Or were they destroyed by a Soviet Tesla-effect weapons test? :-) ) James D. Maloy Bitnet: MIQ@PSUECL, MIQ@PSUVM ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 87 17:25:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Physical requirements for flight What are the physical requirements for mission specialists on the Shuttle? What are they likely to be for the Station? I'm especially concerned about such things as a hernia (surgically repaired, no problem now), torn knee cartilidge (repaired, fine now), and contact lens / glasses restrictions. To whom can I write (in NASA or wherever) to get the official story? -- Ken Jenks, MS: AAE, BS: CS (Resume available on request) jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 87 11:52:59 GMT From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov (rich kolker) Subject: Re: Physical requirements for flight In article <74700050@uiucdcsp> jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >What are the physical requirements for mission specialists on the >Shuttle? What are they likely to be for the Station? The ability to pass a class II flight physical and 20/100 in each eye correctable to 20/20. At least that's what my application for the job says. I'm waiting to finish up my MS before applying. Information can be obtained from (where else?) the personnel office at JSC. ++rich ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1987 14:17:39.95 CDT From: (Mike Kent) Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: Apollo 13 "accident" >>Didn't the fuel cells used by Apollo also produce water.. >Yes, but I remember a fuel cell failure as the cause of the explosion >which damaged the Apollo Service Module. The result was no more power >and no more water. The Apollo 13 "accident" was caused by a series of events. The fuel cells did not have anything to do with the explosion. As I remember it was caused by: 1) A drop of the O2 tank several inches in the tank cause a testing drain valve to be non functional. 2) Running too much voltage thru the heaters coils in the tank after a test to get the tank empty. The specs had been changed on tanks heaters and the subcontract built the tank to the old specs. The excess voltage served to weld the circuit breakers in the tank together. The circuit breakers were temp. activated. They could not open as designed when the tank go too hot and cut off the juice. Once the heater activated, it continued to heat and build pressure until the tank exploded (half way to the moon). The explosion put a small leak in the other O2 tank. If it had been ruptured there would have been no time to power up the Lunar Module for its life boat scenario mission. It was the combination of failures and freak accidents and mistakes that caused the Apollo 13 "accident". Does this sound familiar to a more recent "accident" ? This is how I remember the cause of the Apollo 13 from what I read. Mike Kent UCS_MWK@SHSU Sam Houston State University, Huntsville Texas ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 87 11:50:11 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpf!swd@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dawson) Subject: Re: Museum Spacecraft In article <452@ncspm.ncsu.edu>, jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu (Jay Smith) writes: > In article <3142@ames.arpa> mike@ames.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes: > >are only 2 non-flyable "shuttles", the Enterprise which you saw, at the This past summer (June 1987) I was on vacation and had a chance to go through Huntsville AL. If I remember correctly the PATHFINDER is on permanent display at the Space Museum there. The display was pretty new. I have some pictures that I have to find to verify this. By the way if anyone gets the chance to go through this museum it is well worth it. Steve Dawson ihnp4!ihlpf!swd ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 87 16:22:19 GMT From: ncsuvx!ncspm!jay@mcnc.org (Jay Smith) Subject: Re: Getting NASA patches In article <440@netxcom.UUCP> rkolker@netxcom.UUCP (rich kolker) writes: >Since the shuttle jumpsuits some of us ordered have gone out, I've >gotten several requests for information concerning where people can get >NASA mission and other patches for them. Here's the information I >have, feel free to add to it. Well, what about the official NASA patch contractor, one of NC's proud contributions to the space program, the A-B Emblem Company. Write to: A-B Emblem Division Conrad Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 695 Weaverville, NC 28787 and ask for the space emblem price list. They sell other patches, too. You can even get them to do a custom job if you want sufficient quantities. Inquire for more details. Their Mercury and Gemini patches go for $1.25, Apollos for $2.25, and STS for $3.50 (these are last year's prices). They also have Skylab, Apollo-Soyuz, NASA, and other interesting patches like the Roadrunner Apollo 14 patch (can anyone explain this one?). And if you think your ordered patch has some faulty stitching, then just send it back and they will fall all over themselves apologizing in the letter they send with your replacement. The Mercury and Gemini 3 and 4 patches sold are total fabrications. But there was a Gemini 3 patch (totally different from the one being sold) that was imprinted on the cover of Gus Grissom's book GEMINI and worn by John Young on his flightsuit as late as 1981. It wasn't worn during the actual mission, though, and I think it may have been designed later. A real space collectible, and I have no idea how to get one. The real Gemini patches were manufactured by the previous NASA patch contractor (who was it?) and A-B Emblem claims total ignorance of any patches other than the ones they sell. Some inaccuracies in A-B's Gemini patches: Gemini 5 -- "8 days or bust" was not on the patches worn during the flight because NASA didn't want adverse publicity in case they didn't meet the mission objectives (newspaper headline: "Astronauts Have To Settle For Bust"). It was the original design, though. The Gemini 9 patch they sell is inaccurate since the names were on a separate patch below the main patch, and not amidst the design as they have it now. The Gemini 10 patch should have no names on it, and the "X" should protrude beyond the borders of the patch. The others are pretty close, except for some minor color variations. BTW, does anyone know what patch John Young was wearing on the right shoulder of his flightsuit during the months before STS-1? I can't find any pictures with a good view of it. Does anyone know where I can get a velcro Navy astronaut wings name tag? Thanks in advance. Jay Smith uucp: ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 87 21:07:32 GMT From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: Getting NASA patches In article <458@ncspm.ncsu.edu> jay@ncspm.UUCP (Jay Smith) writes: >...Does anyone know where I can get a velcro Navy astronaut wings name >tag? Join the Velcro Navy and Stick to the World! :-) Jordin (Ask not for whom the velcros -- it crows for thee) Kare ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #27 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Oct 87 06:20:46 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06427; Tue, 27 Oct 87 03:18:08 PST id AA06427; Tue, 27 Oct 87 03:18:08 PST Date: Tue, 27 Oct 87 03:18:08 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710271118.AA06427@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #28 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 28 Today's Topics: Mir Elements, 20 October 1987 Re: Physical requirements for flight Re: Getting NASA patches Re: USAF Museum (was SR71 sighting) Re: Oldest Artificial Object in Space Re: Getting NASA patches Re: Sputniks re-entry Re: cooperation Re: Budgets (DoD vs. NASA) Re: Budgets (DoD vs. NASA) International Space Re: Budgets (DoD vs. NASA) Great Depression II and the space station ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Oct 87 21:40:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir Elements, 20 October 1987 Satellite: MIR Catalog id: 16609 Epoch day: 87292.83862028 Inclination: 51.6271 degrees RA of node: 233.2988 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0041810 Argument of perigee: 289.3233 degrees Mean anomaly at epoch: 70.2910 degrees Mean motion: 15.83372545 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00047079 * 2 revs/day/day Source: NASA Goddard via Henry Vanderbilt of NSS. The orbit remains substantially unaltered from the last element set. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 87 16:47:48 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Physical requirements for flight > What are the physical requirements for mission specialists on the > Shuttle? What are they likely to be for the Station? Not too severe. Although I haven't seen the details, none of the things you mention seem likely to be a big problem... except, remember, you will be competing with many other people who won't have such minor disadvantages. Theoretically-irrelevant things (e.g. are you a pilot?) are known to become quite relevant when the time comes to thin the ranks of the applicants. I don't know to what extent minor physical defects are noticed at that point. The odds of being selected will improve significantly if you work for NASA in some other capacity for a few years first. This is a known bias. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 22 Oct 87 12:53:42 GMT From: pyrdc!netxcom!rkolker@uunet.uu.net (rich kolker) Subject: Re: Getting NASA patches In article <458@ncspm.ncsu.edu> jay@ncspm.UUCP (Jay Smith) writes: >interesting patches like the Roadrunner Apollo 14 patch (can anyone >explain this one?). It was the patch of the backup crew for Apollo 14 (I'm not sure who that was, but in general, the rules in those days were backup flight x, fly on flight x+3, so it might have been Cernan, Evans and Schmitt). NASA was (and maybe still is) big on using cartoon and comic characters for such uses as color coding (Snoopy on Skylab) and the zero-defects program (lots of BC and Wizard of Id posters...boy I'd love to have one). I do have a sticker version of a Wizard of ID Skylab patch with Rodney and the Wizard in a wooden bucket in orbit, looking out with a spyglass. >Gemini 5 -- "8 days or bust" was not on the patches worn during the >flight because NASA didn't want adverse publicity in case they didn't >meet the mission objectives (newspaper headline: "Astronauts Have To >Settle For Bust"). It was the original design, though. My infomation was that some white parachute nylon was sewn over the legend during the flight, so that Cooper/Conrad could tear it off after the mission on the patches they flew with. ++rich ------------------------------ Date: 23 Oct 87 04:19:14 GMT From: speedy!thurm@speedy.wisc.edu (Matthew J. Thurmaier) Subject: Re: USAF Museum (was SR71 sighting) Just a quick note: In the 60th edition of FLYING magazine, there was an article called "maching birds" which talked about hypersonic airplanes. They mentioned that there are LOTS of problems that comercial and private builders haven't run into or thought of yet. For example, the air force spent >$1,000 just to find a paint for the decal that would not burn of when the airplane is in cruse and the skin is super-hot. Matthew J. Thurmaier U of Wisc - Madison, Computer Systems Lab matt@rsch.wisc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 24 Oct 87 16:41:08 GMT From: ihnp4!chinet!hcfeams!aicchi!dbb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Burch) Subject: Re: Oldest Artificial Object in Space I Hope that somebody can back me up on this one; I recall reading long ago that, during the sounding rocket program at White Sands back in the 1950's, a rocket was launched that contained a high velocity gun in its nose section. This gun was fired at apogee, and the projectile was calculated to have reached earth escape velocity. I realize that this is more of a stunt than a practical attempt at a space launch. IF it really happened, then that projectile is undoubtedly the oldest artificial object in space. (At least the oldest one launched from Earth.) -David B. (Ben) Burch Analysts International Corp. Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 87 02:39:54 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Getting NASA patches A company called "Action Packets" manufactures replica mission patches, and a bunch of other space-related stuff, which is sold in museum and gift shops. The local L-5 (now NSS) chapters had a successful fundraiser a few years ago by selling such patches at an airshow. We got them from Action Packets. The wholesale price is about like so: 95 cents each for 3 inch mission patches, $1.89 each for 4 inch mission patches, space shuttle program patch, 3 inch size $0.89 NASA 'worm' , red on white $0.85. No minimum order, but minimum quantities of 5 patches of a type, typically. This is not a problem, since their price for 5 is about what you pay for one at a museum shop. Buy 5, and sell or give away the rest to promote space. Their address: 344 Cypress Road, Ocala, FL 32672 Tel: 1-800-874-9853 (in Florida: 1-800-342-0150) Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing ------------------------------ Date: 26 Oct 1987 18:13-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Sputniks re-entry The early sputniks, Liaka the dog included, were big, heavy and in very low orbits. I don't think I & II stayed up more than a few years at most. By the way... Liaka was long dead when her capsule burned up. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 87 16:40:18 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: cooperation > The task at hand is too great and our human and inanimate resources > small. To reach Mars and beyond there will have to be a unified > effort. Nonsense; the Soviets appear both willing and able to go it alone. Oh, they are interested in cooperation, but they are not depending on it. Just as well, too. PS/2: Yesterday's hardware today. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology OS/2: Yesterday's software tomorrow. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 22 Oct 87 04:47:56 GMT From: nysernic!weltyc@rutgers.edu (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Re: Budgets (DoD vs. NASA) In article <8710211857.AA12451@angband.s1.gov> "DSS::BOLD" writes: >I am more than a little "fed-up" with those individuals who constantly >complain about the size of NASA's budget compared with the Defense >Department's. And I with people saying the outrageous defense budget is warranted. > 2. Adequate defense is more expensive than adequate space >exploration. (It is also more expensive than adequate education, >another budget some frequently compare to the Defense Department's.) A matter of pure opinion - not fact as you seem to assert. I could say a lot about what I think we don't need to be spending money on that is called "defense". Our defense is more than adequate, it's overdone. Many times over (I can assert opinions, too). > 3. Defense, like space, has great potential for "spinoff" >technologies. Consider computers, which exist only because the >military saw their value for calculating projectile trajectories and >code breaking. (Here is an example of the "spinoff" helping both space >exploration and education.) Ha! You aren't actually claiming that the military was responsible for the existance of computers???? I hope not. Military spending may have produced many beneficial advances in science, but I claim that if that money had been aimed at space development, much more would have been accomplished, and the earth might be a more stable place.... [Of course, you're probably one of those people who thinks that Russkys are inherently evil and should be destroyed, else they would destroy us, so maybe it wouldn't be so stable...] Look, supporting the space program can easily be considered a defense measure - even if there is no military use of it. Unless we keep up with our "enemies", we will soon be left in the shadow of their technology, as they were in ours previously. Many people don't believe the Soviet Union would sit on a major technological advantage as we have (I don't subscribe to that view, but some people with the "defend the land from the commies" outlook do). In fact the entire argument as to why we should have so much money spent on defense can be turned right into an argument for space: "We have to at least match them." I beleive that we, as a race, should attempt to expand beyond this planet, and I don't think any country should go it alone. But if that can't be done, I'm willing to settle for my own country. If that can't be done, I'm willing to settle for another, but I'd rather not. Christopher Welty --- Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!rutgers!nysernic!weltyc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Oct 87 13:51:18 pdt From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Budgets (DoD vs. NASA) >I am more than a little "fed-up" with those individuals who constantly >complain about the size of NASA's budget compared with the Defense >Department's. And I, too, am a little annoyed about this posting. >These people tend to forget three things: > 1. A government dedicated to preserving the liberty of its >citizens must make defense of its nation's borders and interests its >first priority. Please spare us from "defense and liberty" as holier than thou. People can become wrapped up in the tyranny of defense as any other form of tyranny. What avail is liberty if the defense constraints all other activity? It makes us little better than the Soviet military. Those we are supposedly being protected from. Do patriots have to place defense first? > 2. Adequate defense is more expensive than adequate space >exploration. (It is also more expensive than adequate education, >another budget some frequently compare to the Defense Department's.) Do we do defense at the cost of education and or exploration? I thought we were trying to defend our way of life which includes education. I sometimes believe the education budget should be merged into the military (they are the larger educator body in the world), then education will become a matter of the National defense. ;-) Don't forget they were called the National Defense Student loans. We are eating our seed corn. It is the ultimate paradox that we have such hi tech weapons with people who can barely read. This is part of the sad state of our country and our economy. What makes the United States of America free and strong are our ideas, not just our technology. Some people fear our ideas: learning is a powerful weapon. We didn't have to go conquer other nations like our predecessors. > 3. Defense, like space, has great potential for "spinoff" >technologies. Consider computers, which exist only because the >military saw their value for calculating projectile trajectories and >code breaking. (Here is an example of the "spinoff" helping both space >exploration and education.) While the spinoff arguments for space have toned down (they are not used to justify the Program much), military science is increasing. Yes to quote Edward Abbey: "Cancer causes jobs." Sometimes, when I get tired, I see three courses for the future: 1) nuclear war now: go to win: if the human races ends, so be it: Richardson, et al are fulfilled: not very pleasant for the young, and I sit at a ground zero. We can let you guys prove to us how good you are. Species and civilizations don't live forever. Perhaps the human animal does not deserve to live? We fail the Drake equation of those societies which can survive their own technology. 2) nuclear war in 20 years, impregnate all fertile women, build an huge fighting force, build a militaristic empire [subsume all countries who are with us: our interests], and fight in 20 years, again, not very pleasant, for some. Makes us little better than those we supposedily hate. P.S. this was what earlier empires did. 3) start to resolve our differences now. Peaceably. [Irreconciliable differences? always options 1 and 2.] Not easy. Work on joint projects? maybe. But stabilizing. I work for the Space Agency as a chance to work in high technology without working on direct military connections (yes spinoffs). Sometimes, the gap is small and other times the gap is much larger (like exploration). But there is more freedom of discussion and better chance of spinoff here than there. Needless to say these are my opinions and not those of NASA. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 87 10:00:44 EDT From: MAC Subject: International Space Italians, Frenchmen, Australians, Americans, Austrains, the list goes on. It would be easier to just write Earthmen. Economics is forcing the cooperation we should have started with 30 years ago. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Oct 87 03:45:43 GMT From: pyramid!prls!mips!vanthof@hplabs.hp.com (Dave Van't Hof) Subject: Re: Budgets (DoD vs. NASA) In article <8710211857.AA12451@angband.s1.gov> "DSS::BOLD" writes: >I am more than a little "fed-up" with those individuals who constantly >complain about the size of NASA's budget compared with the Defense >Department's. Me too, I'd like to see NASA's and the DOD's flipped. ... lots of _stuff_ deleted ... > > 3. Defense, like space, has great potential for "spinoff" >technologies. Consider computers, which exist only because the military ^^^^ huh? >saw their value for calculating projectile trajectories and code breaking. >(Here is an example of the "spinoff" helping both space exploration and >education.) Isn't that a pretty strong statement? Sorry, but I _don't_ believe this. There are many "spinoff" technologies from both NASA and the DOD, many of which have done us (civilian types) much good, for which I am thankful. Of course there are others... >The Planetary Society is not the only group to make this comparison; it >sometimes appeared in the L5 News. (The Planetary Society >Questionnaire just made me think of it.) I have gotten a few of those questionnaires from the Planetary Society and promptly tossed them... For some reason I get the feeling the questions are 'loaded'. Oh well, nuff said. Vant UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,hplabs,sun,ames,prls}!decwrl!mips!vanthof or vanthof@mips.com (really Dave Van't Hof) ------------------------------ Date: 24 Oct 87 20:51:33 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: Great Depression II and the space station If the government mishandles the economy or if it is beyond anyones control, the first thing, from historical analogy, is for a public works spending program like the Hoover dam started in 1930 to be tried. The effort was too smallcause much of an effect to the economy but it was a step in the right direction. It was followed by a much larger commitment to public spending programs. Since the space program is already in place it would seem that this would be a good place to start. A disasterous downturn of the economy might be good for space station prospects. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #28 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Oct 87 06:22:48 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01948; Thu, 29 Oct 87 03:20:18 PST id AA01948; Thu, 29 Oct 87 03:20:18 PST Date: Thu, 29 Oct 87 03:20:18 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710291120.AA01948@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #30 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 30 Today's Topics: Re: Translation of Mir Beam me up, Scotty... SPACE DRIVE Beam me up, Scotty... Re: Why are there so many new boosters in development? Re: Why are there so many new boosters in development? Re: How big does a space station have to be to rotate it? Re: How big does a space station have to be to rotate it? CELSS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Oct 87 05:02:58 GMT From: livesey@sun.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: Re: Translation of Mir In article <121400081@inmet>, janw@inmet.UUCP writes: < (He misquotes): Actually, I did a lot worse than misquoting. I reduced a definition that occupies most of a column down to SIX words. That's why I also supplied the full reference to the dictionary I used; so that anyone could look it up for themselves, and see the full story. That's also why I included the Russian phrase used, so that anyone who objected to my English could roll their own. I am sorry Jan hates how I condensed (*not* misquoted) it, but he is making a great deal of fuss over very little. > It says: (3) village *ucm* (...) village community. > > (1) Mr. Livesey omitted what looks like *ucm* in italics: meaning > *historical*. Too bad. The word is dead as a doornail. Thanks, I know what 'istoricheskii' means (actually, 'archaic' is better here than 'historical') but I am not sure I understand why that disqualifies this suggestion. For words, 'historical' does not mean 'dead', it often means 'in storage for later reuse'. Consider how many archaic words we use in English, especially when naming things. Ye Olde Tea Shoppe. Ark Royal. Cathedral Close. Capitol. Senate. Add your favourite example. > (2) He omitted the word *community* after *village*. Even worse. Even worse. Oh woe! A village *is* a community, Chum. I omitted the word 'community' because 'village community' is redundant in English. Hands up all those who talk about their 'village community'. You actually never need to talk about your 'village community' because 'village' covers it nicely. According to my dictionary, 'village' means 1. a group of buildings between a hamlet and a town in size. 2. a community smaller than a town. 3. the inhabitants of a village - villagers. Please notice that the dictionary is using community here as a synonym for 'village' and also in the sense of a place. Villages are not exclusively places, and communities are not exclusively collections of people: both are both. Village is place, organization, and people. To argue that a foreign word can *never* be translated 'village' because it refers only to the people or the self-governing organization of a rural community seems odd, since that sounds like a good reason why it *can* be translated 'village'. All bets are off if you are a social historian attempting to classify exact communal organization, but that is not the case here. > Village here is an ADJECTIVE. Rural. By this method of quotation, the > village idiot would become a village. Rubbish. A village idiot is an idiot who lives in a village. A rural community is a village. As for 'village community', if not 'village', then what does it mean, when 'village' includes the people who live there? > But "our *mir* has decided to collect an extra ruble per family to pay > the landlord, and to flog the delinquent payers", that would have made > sense back then. Oh, did they? Our village raises money by charging for the use of the Church Hall. Our village will spend some of the loot celebrating on Guy Fawkes Day. With the remainder, our village is going on an outing. If the money runs out, our village has decided to incorporate, and become a town. Do I need to go on? Please notice that in the first, second and fourth example, I used 'village' in the sense of its government, raising taxes and making decisions. Does that sound like 'peasant self-government' to you? It does to me. Gee, maybe 'mir' and 'village' are not that far apart after all :-| (Now Jan will send to my village to have me flogged for insolence, and if the village decides to do it I may have to run away from the village). > Sorry to occupy your attention with Russian linguistics so much; but I > am encouraged by all those postings about Russian being a must for > space buffs. I am encouraged too, and I certainly defer to Jan in his knowledge of Russian. We are all very lucky that we have him around to clarify these somewhat technical matters for us. If he says that 'mir' is only used in the narrowly technical sense of the members of the commune, or the commune itself, or the village commune, or the rural community but has no connection with 'village' then that's good enough for me..... >It means *village* as little as *parliament* means Britain or >*plebiscite* means France. It is not a *place*. .....I am entertained, though, that he thinks a word must mean a *place* (his italics) in order to translate to 'village', since that is simply not true. It seems like poetic justice, somehow. By the way, 'parliament' is a very bad example, since in Britain, we constantly interchange place and person there, too. "Parliament has decided" and "I went past Parliament today". It's a little pedantic to insist on "Houses of Parliament" for the place, and "Members of Parliament" for the people. (Gee, now some pedant will call me on that, too). Same for 'Church', 'University', 'Crown', 'Chair'..... makes you wonder if it isn't a general rule. More seriously, though, here is what lay behind my suggestion. Russians today are very fond of making puns on the meanings of 'mir'. They do it all the time. The country is strewn with signs proclaiming "Mir miru" (peace to the world), or at least it was when I lived there. Why stop there? The thought that crossed my mind was that some wit may have made a sly little 3-pun here: "a village-world up in the sky symbolising peace." It has merit as a play on words, and they may also have figured how much it would irritate Jan. Jon. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Oct 87 15:14:00 PDT From: "DSS::BOLD" Subject: Beam me up, Scotty... To: "space" Reply-To: "DSS::BOLD" Dale Amon's recent contributions to SPACE DIGEST reminded me of a question I had while watching the otherwise enjoyable STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME. After obtaining the whales, they returned to their century the same way they travelled to the past. Would it not have been easier, and more credible, to simply travel in a large circle around the solar sytem at just under light speed for a few minutes (their time) and let time dilation take over? I'm always eager to give Einstein a free plug. Kevin "Mad Max" Bold (BOLD@AFSC-SD.ARPA) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1987 11:45 EDT From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: SPACE DRIVE It is easy to fool a bathroom scale, but it may be easy to fool a balance scale, too. Imagine an oscillating device on one pan of the balance and a passive counterweight on the other side. The active device first jerks straight up, driving the pan down. The the active device moves its weight down - but, this time, it also thrusts first left and then right. Repeat the cycle over and over. On the up-stroke, the balance bearing has very low friction because that's what it is designed for. But on the down-stroke, there is a much larger force on the pivot because of the alternating sideways thrust. So the friction is larger during the intervals when the weight is moving down. The balance will not move so much. The net result will be to make the pan rise and give a false impression tat weight has been lost. But no Newton Law is violated. Moral. Don't trust instruments under novel conditions. A scale does not measure weight. It only does what physicsal laws dictate. Caveat experimentor! ------------------------------ Date: 23 Oct 87 16:38:05 GMT From: ssrat@athena.mit.edu (Mike Zraly) Subject: Beam me up, Scotty... >After obtaining the whales, they returned to their century the same way >they travelled to the past. Would it not have been easier, and more >credible, to simply travel in a large circle around the solar sytem at >just under light speed for a few minutes (their time) and let time >dilation take over? I imagine 23d century materials would ahve to be plenty tough but wouldn't it be better to avoid subjecting the hull to three hundred years of bombardment by driving through dust at light speed? Shields you say? Tsk tsk man, you'd have us do away with a fine bit o' drama just so you can be sensible? Ach, what a strange century. By the way, the very method you suggested was used in Joe Haldeman's (you know, the MIT professotr who writes on the side ;-) _Forever_War_, when one character wanted to wait for the other to return without them both being separated irrevocably by the years. #Michael S. Zraly #ssrat@athena.mit.edu (insert pithy quote here) ------------------------------ Date: 22 Oct 87 12:28:29 GMT From: k.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@j.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) Subject: Re: Why are there so many new boosters in development? In article <7519@reed.UUCP>, douglas@reed.UUCP (P Douglas Reeder) writes: > What are the economics/politics that lead to there being seventeen > zillion boosters in development by various countries and companies? > How much is performance improved by new designs? If we all know it > would be more efficient to have only 15 different boosters, why do we > have so many more? If we knew enough to know which kind of booster, taking into account all the costs (including launch costs, failure risks, development costs, etc.), was best (or nearly so) for each type of space activity, we could probably get by with five different boosters. We might have nearly all of the scientific information needed to make such decisions, but I doubt that we have what is needed in the engineering knowledge. After all, hasn't practical solar energy on a basis which would make all other types obsolete been just around the corner thirty years ago? :-) The late Willy Ley pointed out that the German rocket program used no scientific discovery later than 1906. We need to use the talents of those individuals whose minds are unfettered by "we know the best way" to come up with bright ideas. We need to fetter those "authorities" who wish to prevent it. Let us conquer space! Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (ARPA or UUCP) or hrubin@purccvm.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 87 03:04:16 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Why are there so many new boosters in development? In article <7519@reed.UUCP>, douglas@reed.UUCP (P Douglas Reeder) writes: > What are the economics/politics that lead to there being seventeen > zillion boosters in development by various countries and companies? > How much is performance improved by new designs? If we all know it > would be more efficient to have only 15 different boosters, why do we > have so many more? > -Doug Reeder, Reed College Reason number 1: organizational imperatives (i.e. protect your turf) This is why the Air Force and NASA are both trying to develop a heavy cargo rocket. Neither wants to give up control of such a major, visible program. Reason number 2: national prestige In the old days, the mark of a 'real' nation, rather than a 'hick' nation was having a national airline. Boeing has sold lots of airplanes to small countries, complete with pilot training courses, who have no need for their own airline as measured by the amount of traffic. Today, most countries have airlines. The current 'status symbols' that mark an advanced nation are a space program and having an atomic bomb. Reason number 3: orbit mechanics and payload size Payloads want to go to different orbit inclinations (same speed, but different directions). Thus , you cannot select from all the available payloads to make up sets of equal mass cargoes. There is usually a few oddballs who want to go somewhere that noone else wants to go to. These come in different sizes, so a variety of cargo capacities for your rockets is handy to have. The cargo capacities of the existing and proposed US launchers are roughly as follows to a low-altitude low-inclination orbit (the easiest to get to): Scout 500 lb Connestoga up to 2000 lb Industrial Launch Vehicle 700 lb to several thousand lb Titan II about 4000 lb Delta II 10,000 lb Atlas-Centaur 13,000 lb Titan 4 39,000 lb Space Shuttle 50,000 lb ALS or Shuttle C 100,000 lb Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 87 12:25:00 GMT From: pur-phy!hal@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Hal Chambers) Subject: Re: How big does a space station have to be to rotate it? When deciding how big the station has to be, don't overlook the possibility the 1/3 to 1/2 g may be sufficient to provide an efficient and safe long-term work environment. Hal Chambers ------------------------------ Date: 23 Oct 87 04:04:05 GMT From: tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: How big does a space station have to be to rotate it? In article <2612@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: Subject: CELSS These proposals for CELSS with tanks of algae or greenhouses with higher plants seem curiously old fashioned. Photosynthesis isn't very efficient, and although it is nice to have self-reproducing chemical equipment, live organisms are difficult to control and produce poorly characterized mixtures. I suggest we look instead at chemical techniques. Energy can be put into the system by electrolysis (of water) or thermal dissociation (of carbon dioxide). To make food, I'll propose encapsulating enzymes in small, semipermeable polymer bubbles. Enzymes can be made, on Earth, in large quantities by genetically engineered microbes. Place the encapsulated enzymes in continuous flow reactors, then circulate reagents. We can separate enzymes with different pH, temperature or oxygen tolerances into different vessels. The goal is a system in which water, CO2, nitrogen and lesser elements go in and oxygen, sugars, fats and essential amino acids come out (we can import vitamins). That mixture isn't terribly tasty, though; one should synthesize more complex polymers and import or synthesize flavorings. It's also necessary to break down complex waste products. This can be done by reduction with electrolytically produced hydrogen (interestingly, there are anaerobic bacteria that get their energy by this process), or by oxidation. This is probably all a lot harder than I make it sound, but it would be interesting indeed if basic foodstuffs could be made synthetically. Arthur C. Clark had an amusing story about the social problems of totally artificial food (in the story, a spinoff of the space program). Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #30 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Oct 87 06:22:42 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03815; Fri, 30 Oct 87 03:17:37 PST id AA03815; Fri, 30 Oct 87 03:17:37 PST Date: Fri, 30 Oct 87 03:17:37 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710301117.AA03815@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #31 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 31 Today's Topics: CELSS Re: How big does a space station have to be to rotate it? Space station teams Help on Station teams How big space station; CELSS Re: Recent Supernova: Lost opportunity? STAR DATABASE Re: Recent Supernova: Lost opportunity? Re: Recent Supernova: Lost opportunity? Re: Recent Supernova: Lost opportunity? Re: Recent Supernova: Lost opportunity? Supernova ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Oct 87 23:30:49 EDT From: Steve Abrams Subject: CELSS In Space Digest V8, #25, Russ Cage writes: "Forty percent, or four percent? I recall that four percent is about the limit for human tolerance and its mighty unconfortable." As I work in a pulmonary biophysics lab, I thought I could respond knowledgeably. We are currently involved in a study of alveolar ventilation that involves studying ventilatory response to various CO2 level atmospheres. Four to five percent is the normal range of values for end-tidal CO2 (peakvalue for each exhalation). The subjects "re-breathe" the same volume of air, while we use a chemical CO2 absorber to keep the CO2 concentration low...ventilation remains the same. We then replace the volume of air with a mix of 93% O2 and 7% CO2 (room air has around 21% O2 and .03% CO2). This mix is re-breathed until the end-tidal CO2 is 8-9%. Believe me, these subjects are working to breathe at this point. They are sweating, getting wild-eyed, and seriously contemplating breaking our injunction not to come off the mouthpiece. I've tried it and "uncomfortable" is an understatement. Just for the heck of it, I mixedup 20 liters of 70% O2 and 30% CO2 and tried breathing it. I lasted 45-50 seconds and had a headache the rest of the day. I don't think anyone is going to breathe a 40% CO2 mix for very long...unless they have roots. Perhaps excess CO2 can be frozen out of the "people" modules, shoveled into the "plant" modules to perk them up? Could excess O2 be similarly frozen out (well, liquified) and piped back to the "people" areas? The farmers could "suit up" for a litttle IVA (Intra-Vehicular Activity). Steve Abrams ------------------------------ Date: 27 Oct 87 06:25:46 GMT From: stride!tahoe!bryson@gr.utah.edu (Derry Bryson) Subject: Re: How big does a space station have to be to rotate it? It seems to me that if your diameter is too small your head will weigh enough less than your feet (or midsection) that you will notice. Also, if you are moving too fast, won't you notice the difference when you change direction while walking? Derry Bryson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Oct 87 07:41:28 PDT From: judice%unxa.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (Louis J. Judice) Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: Space station teams >>Segment III Free-flying platform and research eqpt. ($750 million) >> >> GENERAL ELECTRIC RCA >> TRW Honeywell >> IBM >> Lockheed Missiles & Space >> McDonnell Douglas >> RCA (I don't know why it's here twice.) >> Computer Sciences >> GE vs. RCA does not sound like much of a competition, considering the fact that RCA is a wholly owned subsidiary of GE. /Lou ------------------------------ Date: 28 Oct 87 15:23:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Help on Station teams A while back, I posted a list of the teams of companies who bid on the Space Station contracts. I have the names and addresses of places to contact in some of those companies (will E-mail if you're interested; will post if enough interest). However, I haven't been able to get in touch with some of the companies involved, and I'd like some help finding addresses and phone numbers. I'd appreciate it if you would E-mail me any of the following information on any of the companies listed below: address, city & state, area code or phone number. I'll take it from there. The list of "lost" companies follows: Alphabetical Listing of Companies and Segments: Key: #1: Segment I Crew and lab modules #2: Segment II Framework (main boom) #3: Segment III Free-flying platform and research eqpt. #4: Segment IV Power system Analex, #4 Computer Sciences, #3 Eagle Engineering, #4 Garrett Fluid Systems, #4 General Dynamics, #4 Grumman Aerospace, #1, #2 "Large piece" of Station awarded in July Honeywell, #2, #3 Rumor says H is doing control systems Intermetrics, #2 Phone: (800) 325-5235 (Never an answer) Planning Research Corp., #4 Phone: (703) 734-1199 (Never an answer) Rocketdyne, #4 Sunstrand, #4 USBI Booster Production, #1 Thanks! -- Ken Jenks, MS: Aero/Astro Engineering, BS: Computer Science, UIUC Looking for job in space. Help, anyone? jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks ------------------------------ Date: 22 Oct 87 18:06:38 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: How big space station; CELSS In article <915@pur-phy> hal@newton.physics.purdue.edu.UUCP (Hal Chambers) writes: >When deciding how big the station has to be, don't overlook the >possibility the 1/3 to 1/2 g may be sufficient to provide an efficient >and safe long-term work environment. This is a good point; not only will it reduce the stress on the cross members of a structure, but a larger structure can be built for a given material - making sure that the whole thing is engineered with a reasonable amount of safety. L4 and L5 (two popular colony spots) would need this extra safety margin, since they are outside the magnetosphere and would thus need shielding. Most of the stuff Gerard O'Neill did in his colony book looks okay to me, but then I haven't done any serious back-of-envelope calculating yet. Speaking of b.o.e.c., I've been toying around with the idea of finding a (good) model of how a small ecosystem works, but I need equations, rates of respiration and photosynthesis, etc etc. Is there any good source of any of these items-- and other necessaries for the simulation of a closed environment? For Introduction to Environmental Engineering class at Caltech last year, I tried simulation for one assignment. ["What happens when we get rid of all the Brazilian rainforest?" and using some back-of-envelope numbers.] Thanks to a bug in the simulation I couldn't correct, the Earth died in seven years. Again, this was a buggy simulation. However, between learning more on simulation and on models of ecosystems, good results could be forthcoming. Is this what all those researchers are doing in CELSS research, or do they go with the experimental approach? Any news appreciated. USnail: Caltech 1-58 Pasadena CA 91125 USA -Joe Beckenbach (CS BS '88) ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 87 17:00:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Recent Supernova: Lost opportunity? In a previous response, I wrote: ... > > Did neutrinos from 1987A precede radiation from 1987A by hours? > > This would not be entirely suprising. The interstellar medium is not > exactly a vacuum. The speed of light might be reduced by a very small > fraction in the interstellar goop intervening between us and the SN. > Since neutrinos, from what I know, are not significantly slowed by > interactions with matter, this might have caused the effect noted > above. > > Another possibility is that it takes a while for the light from a > nuclear reaction in a star to reach the surface, while the neutrinos, > again, would hardly be slowed at all. > > Either of these would explain the difference in arrival time between > the photons and the neutrinos. The second one is more likely to be > the Truth. ... I received some E-mail from pur-ee!iuvax!inuxc!ihnp4!ihlpa!animal on Wed Oct 21 08:13:40 1987 as follows: > I saw that Nova show too, and they specifically said that the delay > between the neutrino burst and the visible appearance of the supernova > was caused by the amount of time it took the visible energy to get > from the core to the surface. So it would appear that (b) is the > right answer. > > Dan Starr > AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville IL I feel better about "(b)". The speed of light in the interstellar gook can't be *that* different from 100% c. -- Ken Jenks jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Subject: STAR DATABASE Date: Fri, 23 Oct 87 15:13:15 -0400 From: Fred Baube Does anyone know where to find a set of 3-D co-ordinates for the neighborhood ? Say, the nearest hundred or so stars ? ------------------------------ Date: 23 Oct 87 12:13:36 GMT From: super.upenn.edu!eecae!crlt!russ@rutgers.edu (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: Recent Supernova: Lost opportunity? I had forgotten this until now. Please forgive me, but I will try to make up for it (even though I am falling asleep...) The two proton-decay experiments have provided confirmation of the neutrino signature of the core collapse precipitating a supernova. But what of gravity waves, which theory also predicts would be emitted in copious quantities? Guess what, folks. When SN-1987A went off, all but *one* of the world's gravity-wave detectors were out of service for one reason or another. (Information courtesy Jim Loudon, staff astronomer of the University of Michigan Exhibit Museum, (313) 426-5396.) That one detector *did* record impulses at the time in question. Unfortunately, it records pulses at random due to seismic and other disturbances, and there was no other detector in operation at that time to provide a confirming signal, so... we *still* have no firm evidence for the existence or non-existence of gravity waves, since THE INFORMATION COLLECTION APPARATUS WASN'T RUNNING WHEN IT NEEDED TO HAVE BEEN! Life's a bitch, eh? Maybe next time (whenever *THAT* is). Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ihnp4!itivax![m-net!rsi,crlt!russ] ------------------------------ Date: 24 Oct 87 19:01:27 GMT From: tybalt.caltech.edu!jeric@csvax.caltech.edu (J. Eric Grove) Subject: Re: Recent Supernova: Lost opportunity? In article <971@crlt.UUCP> russ@crlt.UUCP (Russ Cage) writes: >The two proton-decay experiments have provided confirmation of the >neutrino signature of the core collapse precipitating a supernova. But >what of gravity waves, which theory also predicts would be emitted in >copious quantities? > >Guess what, folks. When SN-1987A went off, all but *one* of the >world's gravity-wave detectors were out of service for one reason or >another. > >we *still* have no firm evidence for the existence or non-existence of >gravity waves, since THE INFORMATION COLLECTION APPARATUS WASN'T >RUNNING WHEN IT NEEDED TO HAVE BEEN! It is certainly true that the various gravitational-wave detectors were not operating at the proper moment, but one must be extremely careful about making statements like the above. G-wave astronomy is very much in its infancy. The instruments are engineering prototypes, operating as much for developing understanding of the physics and engineering problems as for making physically interesting measurements. These are not robust, reliable devices. In addition, even those who have a vested interest in such matters say that SN1987a would have at best been marginally detectable by the best present gravitational-wave instruments. I have been told (although I haven't done the calculation myself) that the noisy instrument which was operating at the time should not have had the sensitivity to detect the SN, according to reasonable models of SN explosions. By all means, I think the various detectors should be running as much as possible; who knows, maybe they'll see something and surprise us, but one should be very careful about placing expectations which are too high on a technology which is simply not yet ready. J. Eric Grove jeric@tybalt.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!jeric ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 87 17:59:50 GMT From: nuchat!sugar!peter@uunet.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Recent Supernova: Lost opportunity? Paraphrased: > Neutrinos travel faster than light in the interstellar medium, because > light travels slower than C. The second part is true, the speed of light is lower than 'C' in almost wany real environment. The first part is false, because neutrinos travel at the speed of light just like photons. As a side issue: look up Cherenkov Radiation. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 87 02:49:47 GMT From: ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!glg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (G.Gleason) Subject: Re: Recent Supernova: Lost opportunity? In article <971@crlt.UUCP> russ@crlt.UUCP writes: >But what of gravity waves, which theory also predicts would be >emitted in copious quantities? >Life's a bitch, eh? Maybe next time (whenever *THAT* is). Are there any speculations about when it is likely to be? It hasn't really been that long that we have been able to detect this type of event, and an even shorter time that we have been able to get decent measurements. Unless we have just been lucky that one happened at this particular time, I would think that they are not extremely rare. Are there any ways to calculate an expected frequency? Gerry Gleason ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Oct 87 17:28 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Supernova To: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu, space@angband.s1.gov Ken Jenks said in a recent message about SN 1987A... > The interstellar medium is not exactly a vacuum. The speed of light > might be reduced by a very small fraction in the interstellar goop > intervening between us and the SN. This effect is calculable. It is insignificant for visible light. > Another possibility is that it takes a while for the light from a > nuclear reaction in a star to reach the surface, while the neutrinos, > again, would hardly be slowed at all. This is basically correct, although the energy in a type II SN is thought to come from gravitational collapse of the core, not nuclear reactions. >> Can neutrino detectors determine the direction of detected neutrinos? > Neutrino detectors work by tracking tiny flashes of light given off > when the neutrinos interact with the molecules in a large vat of > liquid (cleaning fluid is often used). The direction of these tracks > could be plotted and would give the general direction of the neutrino > source. Ken is confusing the solar neutrino experiment, which detects relatively low energy neutrinos from the sun by detecting the radioactive argon produced by inverse beta decay of chlorine (no light flashes involved, and it's not real time), with the IMB and Kamiokande detectors. The latter are very large pools of very pure water, with photomultiplier tubes distributed to detect Cerenkov radiation from fast charged particles. These detectors can find the direction of the neutrino *if* it scatters off an electron, since the Cerenkov radiation of the electron is emitted in a cone around the electron's direction of motion. These cones did indeed point roughly towards SN 1987A (although the electron scatters off at an angle, the scattering is biased toward the direction in which the neutrino was travelling). Most of the neutrinos from SN 1987A that were detected interacted with nuclei, and provided no directional information. >> Will future super nova eject detectable neutrinos? > If our understanding of the fusion reactions is correct, yes. Our > understanding is incomplete, however. Our detectors don't come up > with anywhere near the number of neutrinos that theory says Sol should > be putting out. Either our detectors are bad or we don't understand > the physics of Sol well enough. First of all, fusion has little to do with type II SN's. In fact, in a type II SN energy is thought to be removed from the shock wave by nuclear photodisintegration. The energy that powers the explosion is thought to come from the enormous gravitational binding energy of the newly created neutron star. Recall that an object dropped onto a neutron star liberates about 10% of its rest mass as energy -- much more efficient than nuclear reactions. Second, it's not clear to me what the "solar neutrino problem" has to do with supernovas, although SN 1987A can rule out some explanations for the problem. The neutrinos from SN 1987A were remarkably like what theory had predicted. This is not to say that supernovas are well understood. >> Can we determine the direction to the predicted supernova? > Yes, theoretically. Well enough to aim a wide-angle camera. Even better than that, eventually. Place several real time neutrino detectors around the solar system (in asteroids, say). The arrival time difference between two detectors lets us determine the angle between the line connecting the detectors and the line from the detectors to the supernova. Three detectors narrows the region down to two points in the sky; a fourth detector narrows it further to one point. The accuracy with which we can measure the position increases as the detectors are spaced farther apart, and as the neutrino pulse gets narrower (and as the count rates in the detectors increase, making the measurement of timing differences more accurate). This technique is used today to locate gamma ray bursters. It would probably be easier to use widely spaced gravity wave detectors, since they are less massive, and I suppose would have better temporal resolution. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #31 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 31 Oct 87 06:55:50 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05410; Sat, 31 Oct 87 03:16:14 PST id AA05410; Sat, 31 Oct 87 03:16:14 PST Date: Sat, 31 Oct 87 03:16:14 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8710311116.AA05410@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #32 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 32 Today's Topics: A New Age of Discovery -- The Space Frontier Re: Recent Supernova: Lost opportunity? New Yorker article and White Sands 'launch' Re: SPACE Digest V8 #31 SR-71 Variants Re: SR-71 Variants (Really D-21) grow your own shuttle? Re: grow your own shuttle? Re: Next shuttle Old Shuttle Mockups Re: shuttle orbiter max time on orbit Wood as structural material Shuttle Escape System ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 87 15:19:01 PST To: BBoard@venera.isi.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov From: Craig Milo Rogers Reply-To: Rogers@venera.isi.edu Subject: A New Age of Discovery -- The Space Frontier Date: Fri, 30 Oct 87 15:19:01 PST Sender: rogers@venera.isi.edu The Planetary Society and the Division of Planetary Science of the American Astronomical Society invite you to attend a public lecture by Dr. Thomas O. Paine, "A New Age of Discovery -- The Space Frontier", introduced by Dr. Carl Sagan, President of The Planetary Society. The lecture is Monday, Nov 9, 1987, at 8:00 PM in the Kuiper Room of the Pasadena Convention Center, 300 E. Green Street, Pasadena. Admission is free. [Parking is not -- CMR] As humankind extends the boundaries of the space frontier, we are poised on the edge of the next age of discovery. Like the expansion across the oceans of Earth five hundred years ago, our species is once again beginning to feel the pull of the "exploration imperative" -- across the oceans of space. On this occasion Dr. Paine will share his vision of the destiny of Earth's people, painting a vivid picture of where humankind will be in the next century. Dr. Thomas O. Paine, member of the Board of Directors of The Planetary Society [and active in the National Space Society, too], was NASA Administrator between 1968-1970 when the first seven Apollo missions flew. As Chairman of the National Commission on Space, he led the effort to create a "bold agenda to carry America's civilian space enterprise into the 21st century". The resulting Commission report, "Pioneering the Space Frontier", presents a vision and a plan for our next fifty years in space. [Editorial: Although the Commission completed its report in 1986, the President's staff refused to forward it to President Reagan for consideration.] I just received this announcement in the mail, courtesy the Planetary Society. Craig Milo Rogers ------------------------------ Date: 28 Oct 87 12:27:05 GMT From: pur-phy!hal@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Hal Chambers) Subject: Re: Recent Supernova: Lost opportunity? In article <327@ur-tut.UUCP> jap2@tut.cc.rochester.edu.UUCP (The Mad Mathematician) writes: >...unless neutrinos are massless they cannot travel at the speed of light... They are massless just as photons are. Various experiments have tried to determine a non-zero mass but have only set an upper limit on the mass (I don't know the current value) which is very small. Hal Chambers ------------------------------ Date: 29 Oct 87 15:53:54 GMT From: cfa!mink@husc6.harvard.edu (Doug Mink) Subject: New Yorker article and White Sands 'launch' In article <865@thumperbellcore.com>, mike@thumperbellcore.com (Michael Caplinger) says: > I think I read in SKY AND TELESCOPE some time back that it was proven > that the White Sands launch couldn't possibly have put anything into > solar orbit -- in fact, even orbital velocity was highly unlikely, and > the objects have certainly come down by now. Some fairly famous > astrophysicist was in charge of this -- was it Zwicky, maybe? It was Zwicky; there is a bit about him in this week's New Yorker in an article which is primarily about Eugene and Carolyn Schumaker and their search for asteroids. Zwicky appeared in a diversion into the history of Palomar Observatory. This article seems to convey the spirit of good, old-fashioned professional telescope observing quite well (I've done a bit in my time, though I prefer the warmth of the telescope's computer room to the cold telescope dome). There are also interesting bits about the history of the space program. I recommend this article highly, though I forgot who wrote it. Doug Mink Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astophysics Cambridge, Massachusetts mink@cfa.harvard.edu or {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!mink ------------------------------ Posted-From: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA Cc: jrt@mitre-bedford.arpa Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #31 Date: Fri, 30 Oct 87 09:12:36 EST From: jrt@mitre-bedford.arpa Greetings to the net...Ref. widely spaced neutrino, gravity detectors for SN events...Good idea but how would one compare neutrino/gravity wave arrival times given the time it would take to communicate with the other detector sites? Also, how about the difficulty in synchronizing clocks? ------------------------------ Subject: SR-71 Variants Date: Mon, 26 Oct 87 15:52:33 -0500 From: Fred Baube At the Air & Space Museum is one of those books laden with pictures, about the SR-71 / YF-12 / A-11. One of the more interesting shots is of a drone variant that consisted of one of the engines, and not much more. There is no information given about performance, but it must have set a record or three ! Anyone know amy more about this ? ------------------------------ Date: 29 Oct 87 14:59:08 GMT From: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!johng@uunet.uu.net (John Gregor) Subject: Re: SR-71 Variants (Really D-21) In article <8710261552.aa11421@note.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube) writes: >At the Air & Space Museum is one of those books laden with pictures, >about the SR-71 / YF-12 / A-11. One of the more interesting shots is >of a drone variant that consisted of one of the engines, and not much >more. There is no information given about performance, but it must >have set a record or three ! Anyone know amy more about this ? The drone (D-21) sat piggy-back on an A-12. It seperated from the mother craft at speed on the edge of hostile airspace and was, via a radio link, remotely piloted over the reconaissance collection area. It would then be flown back over a neutral area, discharge the tape, and self destruct. It did not use the J-58 engine. It used a Marquardt RJ-43-MA-11 ramjet. The inlet spike was fixed. Judging from the angle, the bird probably cruised at Mach 3.15 or so. One of the early tests went very wrong though. In 1966, using a fully fueled D-21 for the first time and a new seperation procedure, the D-21 failed to clear the shockwave of the A-12. It plowed into the tail of the craft. The A-12 pitched up and out of the envelope at Mach 3. It broke up in flight. Pilot Bill Park and LCO Ray Torick ejected. They landed in the ocean. Both survived the ejection, but Torick drowned before recovery. As an aside, there were several instances of bail-outs at cruise altitude and speed. Those S1030 pressure suits were tough suckers. Kelly Johnson scrapped the A-12/D-21 project. They tried hanging them off of B-52's, but they needed a booster rocket in order for the ramjets to operate. Source: Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird Paul F. Crickmore Osprey Publishing Limited ISBN 0-85045-735-1 -653-3 (Paperback) BTW, does anybody know of a way to get info out of Lockheed regarding the A-11/A-12/SR-71. I'm looking for pictures and any technical documentation that has been declassified. Thanks John Gregor ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 87 13:19:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1!seefromline@uunet.uu.net Subject: grow your own shuttle? Subject: oak-panelled romper room in the shuttle? Can anyone offer up reasons why wood is not a suitable material for use in space? Much is made of the new composites using carbon fibre based products, all of which seem very complex and expensive. I wondered why suitably treated wood is not used instead. It has many admirable properties under variable loads, is wonderfully easy to produce and machines well. If it works on sailing ships I think it aught to fly well... All anecdotes greatfully received... George Michaelson, University College London. JANET: george@uk.ac.ucl.cs ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 87 15:02:27 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: grow your own shuttle? In article <44600006@pyr1> george@Cs.Ucl.ac.uk writes: > Can anyone offer up reasons why wood is not a suitable >material for use in space? Not really a structural use, but the chinese use oak to make the re-entry heat shields of their recoverable experiment capsules. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Oct 87 03:41:51 GMT From: nuchat!splut!stu@uunet.uu.net (Stu Cobb) Subject: Re: Next shuttle In article <74700041@uiucdcsp>, jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > Does anyone know what the changes would be if the orbiter were to be > given a two-week duration instead of its present one-week flight > duration? Consumables are the major driver. What are "consumables"? Electrical power, propellants, and atmospheric reconstitution. Electricity (actually, cryo H2 and O2 for the fuel cells) is probably the hardest. There was a proposal a while back to launch a mini-station, consisting mainly of a large solar cell wing, which could power the Shuttle indefinitely. Given power, they were considering thirty day missions. Stu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Oct 87 12:32:44 EDT From: Steve Abrams Subject: Old Shuttle Mockups Re: Pathfinder > There are only 2 non-flyable "shuttles", the Enterprise which you > saw, at th e A&S Museum annex, and the Pathfinder (OV-100, I think), > which is in Japan, I believe. > *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick *** When I was at the 1987 National Conference of Students for the Exploration and Development of Space (SEDS) in Huntsville, AL in August, the Pathfinder was at the Alabama Space & Rocket Museum/Space Camp/Space Academy. Unless it was just a mock-up (of a mock-up, yet) created for use in the movie, "Space Camp." If I'm wrong, then what's it doing in Japan? Just a display piece? Anyone got any info? Steve (powered by STAR TREK re-runs) Abrams ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 87 02:13:15 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: shuttle orbiter max time on orbit In article <940@crlt.UUCP>, russ@crlt.UUCP (Russ Cage) writes: > First and most obviously, consumables. I believe that the current > duration limit is set by the on-board oxygen and hydrogen supplies for > running the fuel cells and keeping the atmosphere breathable. The > tanks for these are fixed in size (food and LiOH cannisters could be > given another mid-deck locker). Does the toilet have a limited tank > capacity? That could prove problematic as well. Mr. Cage is correct about the fuel cells reactants being a limiter on the orbiter time on orbit. According to the "Shuttle Operational Data Book" (Document number JSC-08934), the fuel cells produce 4 pounds of water per hour at a power level of 5 kW, which is a typical value. The maximum sustained power output on the Orbiter is currently 7 kW, which is set by the area of the radiators. You can go up to 12 kW for short (1/2 hr) periods of time, but then have to wait until all your systems cool down again. By conservation of matter, water produced=reactants (oxygen, hydrogen) consumed. An electrical power tank set carries 844 pounds of reactants. Electricity generation would use 96 pounds per day. The cabin leaks 2 pounds of oxygen per day, and each crew member uses 2 pounds of oxygen per day. These are supplied from the tank sets also. So, a tank set is good for about 7 days of typical on-orbit operations, or about 5 days with material processing, or some other full-bore power user and a large crew. The usual mission load is three tank sets, with sometimes one of the three present but empty. This provides a spare in case one of the units fails. With three full ones, you get two to three weeks of theoretical stay time, and about 9 to 10 days of safe mission time, with allowance for contingencies. The cargo bay-under floor region is where the tank sets go. There is room for 7 sets, with plumbing installed for 5 sets. If you made the modifications and carried 7 sets, you would have a reasonable prospect of a one month mission capability. This is not an accident, the original design specification called for a 28-day capabilty on orbit. For longer missions, the now all-but-forgotten power extension package could be used. A solar array/battery combination providing equivalent power would mass about 1500 lb, equal to one full tank set in mass. It would allow missions limited by other conditions, such as food, malfunctions, etc. This gives you what my boss describes as a 'ground based, partially reuseable space station'. Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Oct 87 08:42:36 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Wood as structural material >Can anyone offer up reasons why wood is not a suitable material for use >in space? It has been used. Balsa wood was used in certain parts of the 3rd stage Saturn V. It had several advantages: lightest weight for strength, very good insulation (thermal), cheap, easily worked. Problems: wood, since it is grown has fixed length fibers, this can lead to discontinuties, so consistency is a problem. Aside from the fact that it does not appear as a high tech material, the only thing stopping further use is our concept of "space-age" high tech materials (are you willing to `insult' the materials science people? they are very powerful in the Agency). How you you expect to keep track of all these technological advances? ;-) >Subject: oak-panelled romper room in the shuttle? I think you will have to settle for a poster as best due to liftoff weight. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Oct 87 14:48:14 EDT From: Jeffrey R Kell Subject: Shuttle Escape System >Date: 19 Oct 87 23:39:34 GMT >From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) >Subject: space news from Sept 7 AW&ST > >[....] >NASA is looking at a new escape-system idea: a 21-foot metal pole >extending from the orbiter hatch, to guide crew members clear of the >wing. Clear of the wing? And then what? Sounds more like a sheesh-kabob to prepare you to barbequeue in the exhaust plume of the SRBs. :-) But for ground-detected failure modes it is indeed a simple solution. >The Naval Weapons Center is helping develop crew survival gear, >including possibly a partial-pressure suit and oxygen system. NASA >hopes that such equipment might make a Challenger-type accident >survivable. Survivable? Even if you survived the blast and shrapnel, the wind shear would be one heck of an experience... It sounds like a publicity-seeking "warm fuzzy" to me. Exploding in the air can only rarely forecasted in certain failure modes, and if it does blow, how can you expect to survive? If there was any advance warning it should be possible to separate the orbiter and try to coast back down or at least get away from the explosion. Is that a feasible escape mode? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #32 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 1 Nov 87 06:51:24 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06836; Sun, 1 Nov 87 03:17:02 PST id AA06836; Sun, 1 Nov 87 03:17:02 PST Date: Sun, 1 Nov 87 03:17:02 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711011117.AA06836@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #33 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 33 Today's Topics: Shuttle Escape System Re: grow your own shuttle? Re: White Sands 'launch' similar to private one Re: White Sands 'launch' similar to private one Re: A Commercial Launch Re: Great Depression II and the Space Station Computers and Military Technology (159 lines long) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Oct 87 21:26:53 GMT From: necntc!linus!utzoo!henry@AMES.ARPA (Henry Spencer) Subject: Shuttle Escape System > >NASA is looking at a new escape-system idea: a 21-foot metal pole > >extending from the orbiter hatch, to guide crew members clear of the > >wing. > > Clear of the wing? And then what? Sounds more like a sheesh-kabob to > prepare you to barbequeue in the exhaust plume of the SRBs. :-) Nope, you've missed the context. This is an alternative to the escape- rocket system, intended as a way of bailing out in controlled *gliding* flight. Assuming that major trouble strikes after SRB burnout and that you can't reach a runway, right now you are *dead*, because the shuttle is too fragile for a belly landing or ditching. And unfortunately it isn't enough to just pack parachutes along, because the shuttle hatch is right in front of the wing and simply jumping out isn't safe. > >hopes that such equipment might make a Challenger-type accident > >survivable. --------------- > > Survivable? Even if you survived the blast and shrapnel, the wind > shear would be one heck of an experience... Since the Challenger crew *did* survive the blast and shrapnel, that issue is irrelevant. And the cabin would be falling at more or less terminal velocity after a relatively brief period of deceleration, making it no worse than bailing out of an aircraft... assuming you could stay conscious to do it, which is the point of oxygen systems and partial-pressure suits. > ... Exploding in the air can only rarely forecasted in certain failure > modes, and if it does blow, how can you expect to survive? Joe Kerwin's medical report made it quite clear that the Challenger crew definitely survived until water impact. There is no possible dispute that they were alive and conscious for at least a few seconds after things came apart, since some of their emergency air packs had been turned on manually. > If there was any advance warning it should be possible to separate the > orbiter and try to coast back down or at least get away from the > explosion. Is that a feasible escape mode? Not while the SRBs are burning; the orbiter is too fragile and is unlikely to survive either (a) separation from live SRBs or (b) shutting down the SRBs [it is possible to shut down a big solid rocket, but it's drastic and violent]. Is it too much to ask that people read the Rogers report before airing their views on the issues to the entire net? Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 29 Oct 87 18:47:26 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: grow your own shuttle? > ... Aluminum and fiberglass have the advantage of not outgassing. Obviously you haven't noticed the news items about the outgassing problems with composite structures in one of the Hubble Telescope instruments! Aluminum, okay. Fiberglass, not to be taken for granted. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 27 Oct 1987 15:57-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: White Sands 'launch' similar to private one A similar launch was carried out by a rocketry club in the sixties. A balloon was used to carry an amateur rocket to high altitude. The rocket gained another 10 miles altitude and the nose cone exploded at apogee. But not just any old explosion. It was a shaped charge of plastic explosive that spit out a bead of molten aluminum at Earth escape velocity. Thus they have the honor, whenever they wish to step forward publicly and claim it, of being the FIRST private organization to place an object in solar orbit. Obviously it is impossible to VERIFY that a bead was so launched. But their telemetry (and I believe some unofficial tracking assistance from a NIKE site) showed that the charge exploded at the predicted altitude, velocity and attitude. I have all the details and particulars, but I'm afraid I can't give them out without permission from the people who did it. I was not involved and did not find out about this until about 5 years ago when I was told about it and shown the archives of the project. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Oct 87 20:29:39 GMT From: faline!thumper!mike@bellcore.bellcore.com (Michael Caplinger) Subject: Re: White Sands 'launch' similar to private one I think I read in SKY AND TELESCOPE some time back that it was proven that the White Sands launch couldn't possibly have put anything into solar orbit -- in fact, even orbital velocity was highly unlikely, and the objects have certainly come down by now. Some fairly famous astrophysicist was in charge of this -- was it Zwicky, maybe? Mike Caplinger ------------------------------ Date: 28 Oct 87 16:47:36 GMT From: ece-csc!ncrcae!ncr-sd!ncrlnk!ncrwic!ensub!encad!mjohnson@mcnc.org (Mark Johnson) Subject: Re: A Commercial Launch In article <343@ablnc.ATT.COM> rcpilz@ablnc.ATT.COM (Robert C. Pilz) writes: >A private company, E-Prime Aerospace Inc., expects to launch a payload >for the Air Force some time in November. E-Prime is a launch services >company located in Titusville Fla. This will be their first rocket. >This will be the first commercial launch from Cape Canaveral. The >rocket will be called Loft-1. I do not know what kind of rocket it is >yet, but it is manufactured or tested near Huntsville Ala. (Maybe The Loft-1 vehicle is being built up by several different groups: - Univ. of Alabama/Huntsville Aero Engineering - An amateur radio group with 10 channels of assorted telemetry relaying acceleration, velocity, altitude, and other flight parameters using the 28, 146, and 420 MHz amateur bands - North Coast Rocketry, a supplier of parts to 'advanced rocketry' users (outgrowth of high power model rockets in the last 5 years) They are building the flight vehicle itself. - Vulcan Systems, Inc., a supplier of solid rocket motors located in Colorado Springs, will be supplying the motor, which will have a thrust of 5000 nt (just over 1000 lb) for 5 seconds. - A high school in the suburban Atlanta area is providing a small biological experiment. The Loft-1 vehicle will be approximately 12 feet long, 6 inches in diameter, weigh 85 lb at takeoff, and is expected to reach approximately 17000 feet. The vehicle will be recovered by 2 large parachutes and will be aimed to splash down in the Atlantic. I know this sounds small - it is. Nonetheless, it is the first attempt at flying a civilian vehicle at the Canaveral Air Force Station, and all the coordination efforts by the various groups are just as extensive as if they were launching something much bigger. To wit, the launch was originally scheduled for Oct. 15th but the AF didn't get its end of the paperwork completed, thus the delay into November. If anyone wants it, I can supply exact telemetry frequencies and other exact data about the vehicle...I have a copy of their press release. My source for all information is reliable as it is the builder of the biological experiment package. All components have been ground tested as of Oct. 10th, and a duplicate flight vehicle was successfully flown in Colorado in late September. I will be glad to email text info or snailmail copies of the other info to anyone interested...send email requests to address below. -- Mark Johnson (mjohnson@ncrwic.UUCP) NCR Engineering & Manufacturing-Wichita, KS phone: (316)688-8189 email:...!rutgers!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson US snailnet: 3718 N. Rock Rd., Wichita, KS 67226 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Great Depression II and the Space Station Date: Tue, 27 Oct 87 10:36:24 -0500 From: Fred Baube > Bruce Watson writes: > If the government mishandles the economy or if it is beyond anyones > control, the first thing, from historical analogy, is for a public > works spending program like the Hoover dam started in 1930 to be tried > ... A disasterous downturn of the economy might be good for space > station prospects. There's a book "Report from Iron Mountain" from some years back, where a committe examined what useful purposes are served by war and the military, and how a society would duplicate them in war's absence. (I've since been told it was written as a gag, but if so, it's a reasonably thoughtful gag.) They found that of all the purposes served by war and the military (unity, technological spin-offs, Keynsian Black Hole for arbitrary amounts of money [Hoover Dam in orbit :-)], national inventory-taking, others), the space program fit the bill on all except the unity in the face of a threat. So, if the space station could address some bogeyman (say, "competitiveness", or Secular Humanism, or Libyan Death Squads), it would truly fit the bill in a timely way! ------------------------------ Date: 28 OCT 87 02:08-PST Reply-to: clopez%UCIVMSA.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Computers and Military Technology (159 lines long) From: Carlos A. Lopez >> 3. Defense, like space, has great potential for "spinoff" >>technologies. Consider computers, which exist only because the >>military saw their value for calculating projectile trajectories and >>code breaking. (Here is an example of the "spinoff" helping both >>space exploration and education.) >Ha! You aren't actually claiming that the military was responsible for >the existance of computers???? I hope not. Military spending may have >produced many beneficial advances in science, but I claim that if that >money had been aimed at space development, much more would have been >accomplished, and the earth might be a more stable place.... [Of 1) Yes, the existence of computers is HIGHLY related to there initial military value. While computers were an eventual technological development, their rapid advances are due mainly to extensive military funding. 2) Government, especially military, spending is primarily responsible for the advancement in science in the last 40 years. 3) Space development is also a function of military funding and scientific development. You don't believe me? Let me share part of a paper I wrote for a recent course in "Computers and Military Technology." This should also answer a few questions like why is the DoD so heavy involved in science and the space program, how does the government fund science and technology, and why is the U.S. so preoccupied with "high/advanced" technology. ---------- The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) founded in 1846 is one of the first organizations set up by scientists to promote science. A quote by Science magazine, published in 1885 by the AAAS said, "There is little danger that the work of American experiment stations will be rigidly scientific." This is because basic science does not usually pay off right away. Yet, President Reagan said in 1985 that "No nation depends as much as we do on the science base." How did these very different views develop? If we look at the amount of money the government has spent on research and development over time, we see that major changes occurred during and after WWII (see table 1). -------------------------------------------------------- 1900 $2 million 1940 $70 million 1945 $700 million 1986 $70 billion with $60 billion more contributed mainly by industry Table 1: R&D expenditure in the United States -------------------------------------------------------- WWII moved research and development from being funded by industry and foundations (like the Rockefeller Foundation) to being hugely funded by federal government. In summary, during the prewar period science kind of marched along by itself. Then in the second world war something happened that turned science into big business. We will now look at the events that happened during and after WWII which had such an impact on the government's role in the pursuit of science and technology. The central person is Vanenvar Bush, the electrical engineer who built the differential analyser. In 1938 he was the President of the Carnigie Foundation in Washington, D.C. He realized that in the war just starting (WWII), it would be very important for the government to use all scientific manpower available. He felt an even larger scientific effort to that in WWI would be needed. In WWI, Thomas Edison was head of commission to find way to fight german submarines. Bush persuaded Roosevelt to create the National Defense Research Council in June 1940. Bush headed the council, which included among others, the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Cal Tech. They looked for research that might be important in the war effort. This is where universities were brought into the war effort for the first time. For example, MIT built a radar lab which was based on british radar developments at the time, the John Hopkins lab built fuses for bombs, and the Moore school at the University of Pennsylvania used differential analysers and people, mostly women, to compute firing tables for ballistic trajectory charts. Out of this project later came the ENIAC computer. Cal Tech did radar research also. Money was given to universities, who then decided how to spend it. Before this, government (with the exception of the Dept. of Agriculture and their "research stations") didn't support universities. Universities were something only the states were involved in. All of a sudden, the government needed people to help in the war effort, and those people were in universities. This marks the change from universities as ivory towers of academia, to major universities and major takers of government monies. All these places later became major scientific centers. The most noticeable scientific project of the war was the Manhattan Project which developed the first atomic bombs. In 1938, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to President Roosevelt saying that advances in physics made nuclear bombs possible, that the Germans were looking into this, and that we had to do something. In 1941, Bush started a project that spun off into the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos Laboratories. Headed by J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientists there eventually created the fission bombs dropped on Japan in 1945. There are many other noticeable scientists, as well as technological and political issues involved within the Manhattan Project, but they digress from the subject at hand. Other important contributions of science to the war effort was made by advancements in medical science. For example, the rate of soldiers dying by disease (instead of bullets) was reduced by a factor of 100 compared to WWI. Also, the average life expectancy in the US was increased from age 49 to age 65 over the first half of this century. Thus, WWII proved to the government and people that science is very important to the nation, and the individual. This set the stage for Bush's report published to Roosevelt in 1945 called "Science, the Endless Frontier." In it he said that we must use science for national defense and welfare, and blueprinted an organization called the National Research Foundation which would be headed by scientists who would set policy and decide what projects would be funded. This eventually became the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 1950, except it was controlled by Congress. For the first time, permanent organizations to support science and research were formed in the government, based on the power of science demonstrated in WWII. In 1946, the direction and finance of science was controlled largely by the Department of Defense (DoD). The Navy created the Office of Naval Research, then with a budget of $40 million dollars. Similar offices were later created by the Army and Air Force. Later, the NSF was created in 1950. Then in 1957, spending by the government was again increased after the Soviet launch of Sputnik. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) were created by reaction to the perceived threat to national security. NASA headed America's space program, and DARPA guided individual projects it felt important to national defense. Heavy spending by the government on universities continued until about 1965 when the Vietnam war began draining resources. The Vietnam war and turmoil of the the 60's raised questions about the military-university relationship. Most citizens did not like the military funding what was considered pure scientific efforts. And many universities did not like having classified work in support of the war being done on campus. Congress responded with the Mansfield Amendment in 1969 which said that military spending for research at universities must have a clearly defined military oriented goal, but repealed it a year later. The end result was that most campuses refused to do classified work. Present spending by federal organizations on research and development: Department of Defense (DoD) - $34 billion National Science Foundation (NSF) - $1.5 billion National Institute of Health (NIH) - $4.5 billion National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) - $13 billion (There are many others, sorry I don't have the numbers for them.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos A. Lopez (clopez@ucivmsa) | Project: Cutting a record to show Computer Science Student Extraordinare | the world I can't sing. University of California at Irvine | Plan: To be the "Don Johnson" of CS. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #33 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 2 Nov 87 07:16:48 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08322; Mon, 2 Nov 87 03:22:38 PST id AA08322; Mon, 2 Nov 87 03:22:38 PST Date: Mon, 2 Nov 87 03:22:38 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711021122.AA08322@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #34 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 34 Today's Topics: Computers and Military Technology Western Decadence 1, Proletarian Values 0 Computers and Military Technology Titan 34D Takes Off Recent spy satellite launch Re: Vandenburg launch (was Re:Budgets (DoD vs. NASA)) Can't 86 Headers yet Close Encounters of the Asteroidal Kind Re: CELSS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Oct 87 20:09:10 GMT From: tmca@ngp.utexas.edu (Tim Abbott) Subject: Computers and Military Technology In article <8710281535.AA00305@angband.s1.gov>, clopez@UCIVMSA.BITNET writes: > > 2) Government, especially military, spending is primarily responsible > for the advancement in science in the last 40 years. > > You don't believe me? Let me share part of a paper I wrote for a > recent course in "Computers and Military Technology." This should > also answer a few questions like why is the DoD so heavy involved in > science and the space program, how does the government fund science > and technology, and why is the U.S. so preoccupied with > "high/advanced" technology. [ . . . following is extensive treatise supposedly arguing that military is good for science . . .] You *consistently* confuse science with technology throughout your article, listing a number of scientific achievments, made within the *scientific* community and later used and developed by the military for whatever *technological* ends they required. Science is, or should, be pursued for science's sake, of itself it is rarely directly useful to humanity. Technology, however, is the practise of making science useful. The DoD undoubtedly spents vast sums of money on technological development (though it's debatable as to whether they are actually being of use to mankind) but they do not spend very much at all on pure science, the universities do it for them, for free as far as they're concerned. The numbers at the end of your article say it all (unfortunately I wiped them before I realized I needed them, but from memory:) R+D funding for 198?: NSF : $1.3 Billion DoD : $34 Billion Isn't it amazing how much TECHNOLOGY you can get for so little SCIENCE? By the way, you might think my point a trifle picky, this may be because you're a technologist - I am a scientist. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Oct 87 14:25:00 PST From: "DSS::BOLD" Subject: Western Decadence 1, Proletarian Values 0 To: "space" Reply-To: "DSS::BOLD" I caught a show on the Discovery Channel last Sunday which went hand-in-hand with the cover story of the 26 Oct 87 issue of TIME. The subject of both was Life in the Soviet Union. The Soviets have become so Westernized it isn't funny. And to think they were going to bury us! If the world is to survive, the Soviets must admit that communism doesn't work, wasn't worth trying, and then realize world domination is not necessary for world influence. Then, and only then, can we trust them enough to join them in combined space ventures, let alone sign arms reduction treaties. Perhaps we could then implement the plan Buckminster Fuller described in Critical Path, and construct a world wide electric power grid. The only change I would make is to fuel the grid with power from SPSs rather than windmills. (It's been a while since I read that book, so forgive me for skimping on the details here.) +++ I would like to thank all who responded to my observations on DoD and NASA budgets; I had almost forgotten how easy it is to push a liberal's buttons. One thing these letters had in common was leaving out the part where, after I said, "a government dedicated to the liberty of its citizens must make [defense] its first priority," I acknowledged the room for controversy about our government fitting in that category. I would like to acknowledge here an equally important controversy: are we getting our money's worth from the defense budget? If Sen Barry Goldwater thinks we're spending too much on defense, then we probably are, but that does not change the fact that societies are willing to be governed in order to be defended, so defense should still remain the top priority of any given government. Providing, of course, you like to play the government game. Defense is going to be more expensive than education because it needs more money for R&D. It also needs more money to attract recruits if it is to remain voluntary. (I refer readers to Heinlein's observation on conscription in "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long.") Here's what I meant by giving the military credit for the existence of computers: no one else had the clout to get the funding to have them built! Had the military not seen the computer's usefulness in calculating trajectories and breaking enemy codes, the computer would at worst still be an idea discussed only in advanced math classes or else, at best, we would be building the computers of the 1940's today. The average Soviet citizen, who probably isn't Russian, isn't evil, even if he/she is Russian; as for the people who rule the USSR, well, the fact they want to stay in power says it all. Whatever governments touch, they ruin. The Challenger tragedy proves my point. It's bad enough we have to trust ours with defense; space and education, which I also mentioned in my letter on budgets, are much too precious to leave in government hands. Instead of complaining about how relatively little the government spends on them, let us work for their privatization. Kevin "Mad Max" Bold (BOLD@AFSC-SD.ARPA) ------------------------------ Date: 29 Oct 87 21:54:12 GMT From: hao!boulder!sunybcs!bingvaxu!leah!itsgw!nysernic!weltyc@ames.arpa (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Computers and Military Technology In article <8710281535.AA00305@angband.s1.gov> clopez@UCIVMSA.BITNET writes: >>> 3. Defense, like space, has great potential for "spinoff" >>>technologies. Consider computers, which exist only because the >>>military saw their value for calculating projectile trajectories and >>>code breaking. (Here is an example of the "spinoff" helping both >>>space exploration and education.) >> >>Ha! You aren't actually claiming that the military was responsible >>for the existance of computers???? I hope not. Military spending may >>have produced many beneficial advances in science, but I claim that if >>that money had been aimed at space development, much more would have >>been accomplished, and the earth might be a more stable place.... [Of > >1) Yes, the existence of computers is HIGHLY related to there initial >military value. While computers were an eventual technological >development, their rapid advances are due mainly to extensive military >funding. You just wasted 190 or so lines of text on me, pal, since you clearly didn't read my message very carefully. I am well aware of what advances military spending is responsible for. I do not challenge those FACTS. I challenge the way of thinking that concludes these advances would not have occurred if the military hadn't spent the money. If the money had been spent in a peacful way to advance science, rather that to get ahead of our enemies, then I claim many of the same advances of significance (including computers) would not have been overlooked. In fact, I would say that if the money had been spent on the space program instead of for the purposes of war, many far more significant advances would have come about. There is no telling what we could be doing right now if we had space stations, lunar bases, visits to mars, etc. There is no question in my mind that these things would be possible -even exisiting - today if we spent as much money on the space program as we spent on the "defense" department. The "war is good because of the important technological spinoffs" argument is ludicrous. Of course, if it wasn't for the Vietnamese War, we wouldn't have great movies like "Platoon", "Full Metal Jacket", and "Top Gun", so maybe war is a worthwhile thing.... I don't mean to sound like a pacifist - not that there's anything wrong with being one. I'm not, and I appreciate the value of a strong defense. But there is a great deal of difference between what we have and a stong defense. The ratio of money spent to useful result is appalling (of course, NASA is no different). And anyway, that's not my point. My point is, (to rereinterate) that the war creates spinoffs argument is faulted. Christopher Welty --- Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!rutgers!nysernic!weltyc ------------------------------ Posted-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 87 10:49:54 PST From: Craig Milo Rogers Reply-To: Rogers@venera.isi.edu Subject: Titan 34D Takes Off Date: Wed, 28 Oct 87 10:49:54 PST Sender: rogers@venera.isi.edu According to an article in the New York Times, Tue 27 Oct 1987, the Air Force successfully launched a Titan 34D from Vandenberg on Monday. This launch is being hailed as the most important post-Challenger success. Recall, the last two Titan 34Ds failed. The payload was not announced, but probably was a KH-11 reconnaissance satellite, considering that the only operational KH-11 prior to the launch has a remaining life expectancy of only 2 months. The KH-11 is widely regarded as the mainstay of US imaging reconnaissance. No advance announcement of the launch was made. Craig Milo Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 87 14:14:56 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: Recent spy satellite launch I heard a brief news item the other day about a successful US spy satellite launch. Can anyone say if this was another KH-11 or if it was the new KH-12? Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 28 Oct 87 18:56:22 GMT From: nosc!trout!ganzer@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Mark T. Ganzer) Subject: Re: Vandenburg launch (was Re:Budgets (DoD vs. NASA)) In article <1792@unc.cs.unc.edu>, leech@unc.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes: > Speaking of which, there was a 2 paragraph item in today's paper > mentioning that the AF had successfully launched the first Titan 34D > since the Vandenberg explosion in 1986. Payload was not described, but > I imagine it was a spysat. In the local San Diego paper, they said that it was indeed a KH-11 spysat and that it was a ground test unit that had been refurbished. This is supposed to hold us over until they can get a KH-12 up in a shuttle launch. -- MarK T. Ganzer Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego Internet: ganzer@nosc.mil UUCP: {ucbvax,hplabs}!sdcsvax!nosc!ganzer ------------------------------ Date: 30 Oct 87 12:38:00 PST From: "DSS::SINDER" Subject: Can't 86 Headers yet To: "space" Reply-To: "DSS::SINDER" In a private response to a query of mine, Ted said a Needle/SkyHook arrangement might be feasible on MARS. Have there been any "BREAKTHROUGHS" in materials science ((I'm an ex-animator making a living as systems analyst for the Air Force via GSA. And I'm heavily into Computer Graphics)) since I'm only aware of their inability to do the job ( Skyhook-wise ) here on Earth. How about the Moon? What are the differences with Mars in relation to making the NEEDLE and SKYHOOK work. It sounds like a most fascinating topic to me. Qualifying for NASA work on the Shuttle? ======================================== Working for NASA being a good way of getting selected. To the Best of my knowledge, Dave Brin made the 2ND cut for being selected (prior to the Challenger), and is working for NASA in the U.K. I think he has high expectations of being selected for a mission. =============end== Asking questions is one way to learn. Thanks, Alan Sinder at Air Force System Command - Space Division ( HQ SD ) (Sinder@afsc-sd.arpa) ------------------------------ Posted-Date: Thu, 29 Oct 87 08:55:34 PST From: Craig Milo Rogers Reply-To: Rogers@venera.isi.edu Subject: Close Encounters of the Asteroidal Kind Date: Thu, 29 Oct 87 08:55:34 PST Sender: rogers@venera.isi.edu I've recently been skimming "Asteroids", Tom Gehrels ed., Univ. of Arizona Press 1979. The article on p. 222 is titled "Exploration and 1994 Exploitation of Geographos", by Samuel Herrick. This article was a March 1971 preliminary draft for NASA publication, rejected as "premature". It gives an overview of the 1994 close approach of Geographos (an earth-crossing minor planet), explosive cleavage of a significant part of Geographos, subsequent navigation to earth-rendezvous orbit, and sample retrieval via terrestrial impact. The article mentions the numerous scientific benefits of an asteroidal sample-and-return mission, and certain social and engineering benefits commensurate with mission scale. A new Central American canal is proposed. Although Herrick specified a new canal through Columbia, I imagine another site could be used, such as Nicaragua. Also, the eradication of minor debris approaching the earth would be an ideal test for certain SDI systems. Unfortunately, there is a time constraint. Cleavage and orbital modification should being in 1989, and, I suppose, require a Saturn V class launch vehicle (What? the Energia? nah...). Craig Milo Rogers ------------------------------ Date: 29 Oct 1987 14:31-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: CELSS Paul: It might well be possible at some point to create a CELSS as you describe, but I suspect that long before then genetically tailored organisms will be built to do the same job with less hardware and little or no possibility of failure. IN the long run we also have to deal with micro-ecologies on any extended voyage. Life follows us wherever we go, and we need to balance things to keep control. Already the russians ahve found problems with algae or fungus growth on station interior surface. I believe they may scrub walls down with disinfectants now and then (anyone who remembers the precise details feel free to state them). In addition, in a long term facility it is INEVITABLE that we will collect mice, roaches, Dermestes, flies, gnats, fruitflies, rats... The list goes on. An occasional atmospheric evacuation might kill them, but can you imagine the effect of a week old dead rat in a space station? That means cats, which means fleas... Other life on board is also psychologically helpful. The russians have found that tending growing plants on board is a favorite past time and reduces stress on long tours of duty. It has also been found (recent article in Science for corroboration) that pet ownership has a powerful stress reducing effect and is recommended for heart patients. I would suggest that the antics of a space station cat could be more effective than a ground based team of the brightest psychiatrists on Earth. I suggest cat because it could at some future date serve the dual purpose of vermin removal just as old ships cats did. We may not get rats for awhile, but eventually everything gets routine and someone doesn't quite check the food container before putting it in the shipping container... Dogs are nice to have around also, but I'm not sure if they would adapt as well to free fall as cats. Anyone who ever dropped a cat can see that they are acrobats in free fall. I also suggest that lots of green plants, probably flowering and food producing will be needed for a splash of color, an occasional fresh garnish to a freeze dried meal, and that indefinable freshness that growing things give the air. (a combination of an earthy smell along with extra O2, volatile plant oils, etc) Even if you could copy the scent, the psychological effect would not be the same. The main point is, we will take a wide spectrum of critters with us, both as invited and uninvited guests, and we will have to be able to balance these microecologies anyway, so we might as well incorporate them in the design. Biology can be as effective as metal and plastic. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #34 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 3 Nov 87 06:20:50 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10250; Tue, 3 Nov 87 03:17:52 PST id AA10250; Tue, 3 Nov 87 03:17:52 PST Date: Tue, 3 Nov 87 03:17:52 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711031117.AA10250@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #35 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 35 Today's Topics: 1987 AAS Conference Re: Help on Station teams CELSS Station contractor addresses ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 87 20:17:24 PST From: Craig Milo Rogers Reply-To: Rogers@venera.isi.edu Subject: 1987 AAS Conference Date: Fri, 30 Oct 87 20:17:24 PST Sender: rogers@venera.isi.edu Space: A New Community of Opportunity The 1987 AAS conference is in Houston, Texas, November 3-5. It consists of the usual opening and closing remarks, social evenings, and panel discussions. The panel discussions are led by NASA, Lockheed or McDonnell Douglas representatives. The panel topics are: governing policies and issues space utilization/application flight mechanics/guidance and control rocket propulsion astronomy, astrophysics and solar system exploration life sciences tracking and data systems structures and composite materials automation and robotics space station/large structures I received a copy of the conference brochure from SSI on 27 Oct 87. If anyone on this list is going to this meeting, please send a summary of it. Thanks. Craig Milo Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Oct 87 10:02:35 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI To: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Help on Station teams Well, here's your list, and I went thru the ELECTRONIC INDUSTRY TELEPHONE DIRECTORY, '87/'88 issue and got all the listings below except one, which came from the '86/'87 EEM (the EEM was fairly useless for this search, by the way; only had Honeywell listed of all these firms!): > Analex, #4 Nothing > Computer Sciences, #3 There are a bunch of different states listed for this name; don't know if these are different firms or branches of just one: PO Box 21127 Kennedy Space Ctr, FL 32815 (305) 853-2484 8728 Colesville Rd Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301) 589-1545 304 W Rt 38 / PO Box N Moorestown, NJ 08057 (609) 234-1100 4835 University Sq Ste 8 Huntsville, AL 35816 (205) 830-1000 (Applied Tech Div) 200 Sparkman Dr N W Huntsville, AL 35805 (205) 837-7200 (Defense Sys Div) 6565 Arlington Blvd Falls Church, VA 22046 (703) 237-2000 (Energy Resch Div) > Eagle Engineering, #4 Nothing > Garrett Fluid Systems, #4 Bunch of "Garrett"s, but no "Fluid Systems" > General Dynamics, #4 Several listings: General Dynamics Bldg Ft. Worth, TX 76101 (817) 777-2000 Corp HQ - Pierre Laclede Ctr St. Louis, MO 63105 (314) 889-8200 (Local to me -- people are always picketing this office protesting nuke subs...) > Grumman Aerospace, #1, #2 Again several: 2852 Kelvin Ave Irvine, CA 92714 (714) 660-4200 S Oyster Bay Bethpage, NY 11714 (516) 575-3369 Grumman Blvd / MS F05-07 Calverton NY (516) 575-0574 > Honeywell, #2, #3 Many, many listings; I include a couple: Defense Sys Div - 5700 Smetana Dr M N O2-3380 Minnetonka, MN 55343 (612) 936-3196 13350 US 19 Clearwater, FL 33546 (813) 531-4611 Also, the EEM lists: Aerospace & Defense Grp - Honeywell Plaza Minneapolis, MN 55408 (612) 870-5186 > Intermetrics, #2 Phone: (800) 325-5235 (Never an answer) Indl Sys Div - 733 Concord Av Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 661-0072 > Planning Research Corp., #4 Phone: (703) 734-1199 (Never an answer) 1500 Planning Research Dr McLean, VA 22102 (703) 556-1000 > Rocketdyne, #4 Nothing > Sunstrand, #4 Nothing > USBI Booster Production, #1 How about "United Space Boosters / BPC"? 188 Spartman Dr / PO Box 1900 Huntsville, AL 35807 (205) 721-2400 The fine print is getting to me; I hope I copied all these numbers correctly, and have tried to check. Msg me if you want me to re-check any of them. Regards, Will Martin wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (on USENET try ...!seismo!wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA ) ------------------------------ Date: 29 Oct 87 22:01:54 GMT From: ihnp4!upba!eecae!crlt!russ@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Russ Cage) Subject: CELSS In article <8710280500.AA07735@angband.s1.gov>, EXT768@UKCC.BITNET (Steve Abrams) writes: [confirmation of human CO2 tolerance data that I recall from reading about WWII submarines. Thanks, Steve!] >Perhaps excess CO2 can be frozen out of the "people" modules, shoveled >into the "plant" modules to perk them up? Could excess O2 be similarly >frozen out ( well, liquified) and piped back to the "people" areas? >The farmers could "suit up" for a litttle IVA (Intra-Vehicular >Activity) . That's exactly what I had in mind; put the CO2 where it's wanted. I got the idea of freezing the CO2 out from an undersea habitat I recall reading about (Cousteau?); I am not certain how well the freezing process would work with low pressure O2-N2 as opposed to high-pressure heliox, however. Chemical absorbtion may be more workable, with thermal or electrochemical decomposition of the resulting compound. Getting excess O2 out of the plant modules while leaving the CO2 behind would be much easier than moving the CO2 in the other direction. O2 likes to dissolve in silicone polymers, and will diffuse through very nicely; artificial gills and oxygen purifiers have been made using this property of silicones. A large area of silicone film with a pressure differential will leak lots of O2 from one side to the other and has no moving parts to break. Suiting up for gardening would mean donning an oxygen mask, at the most. Or, one could just purge the CO2 while people work, then refill the module with the CO2-rich mixture after they're done. Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ihnp4!itivax![m-net!rsi,crlt!russ] ------------------------------ Date: 31 Oct 87 19:10:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Station contractor addresses There was enough E-mail asking me to mail out copies of the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the Space Station contractors I've gathered in my job search that I will post the (almost) complete list. Please don't abuse this list -- I've gone through a lot of trouble and a lot of phone money to compile this, and the folks at the other end have been unfailingly cooperative. I'd appreciate it if you didn't abuse their generosity. As you can see, the only contractors I know nothing about are Analex and Eagle Engineering. (Rocketdyne seems to be a division of Rockwell. That's why it's so hard to find in company registries, etc.) Please DO NOT mention my name or where you got the names and addresses of these people if you contact them. I don't want to be personally responsible for these nice people getting hundreds of phone calls, but I do want to get skilled people in touch with the appropriate places in the Station project to enhance the nation's space program. A dilemma: personal desires vs. philosophical ideals. Thanks to those of you in net.land who helped me compile this list. With any luck, this will help some good people make some connections they would otherwise miss in the space industry. -- Ken Jenks, MS: Aero/Astro Engineering, BS: Computer Science, UIUC Looking for job in space. Help, anyone? jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TEAR HERE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Alphabetical Listing of Companies and Segments: Key: #1: Segment I Crew and lab modules #2: Segment II Framework (main boom) #3: Segment III Free-flying platform and research eqpt. #4: Segment IV Power system Analex, #4 Address: TX or CA Phone: Boeing, #1 Address: The Boeing Company Employment Office PO Box 1470 Huntsville, AL 35807 Phone: Computer Sciences, #3 Address: PO Box 21127 Kennedy Space Ctr, FL 32815 (305) 853-2484 8728 Colesville Rd Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301) 589-1545 304 W Rt 38 / PO Box N Moorestown, NJ 08057 (609) 234-1100 4835 University Sq Ste 8 Huntsville, AL 35816 (205) 830-1000 (Applied Tech Div) 200 Sparkman Dr N W Huntsville, AL 35805 (205) 837-7200 (Defense Sys Div) 6565 Arlington Blvd Falls Church, VA 22046 (703) 237-2000 (Energy Resch Div) Phone: Eagle Engineering, #4 Address: Phone: Ford Aerospace & Communications, #4 Address: Phone: (301) 345-0250 Ask for Jim Furilla or Judy Kopetz Garrett Fluid Systems, #4 Formerly Garrett Pneumatic Systems Division Address: Garrett Fluid Systems Company 1300 W. Warner Rd, Box 22200 Tempe, AZ 85282 Phone: General Dynamics, #4 Address: General Dynamics Bldg Ft. Worth, TX 76101 (817) 777-2000 Phone: General Electric, Astro Space Division, #1, #3 Address: Attention: Mike Kavka Mail Stop 101 Astro Space Division East Windsor POB 800 Princeton, NJ 08543-0800 Phone: (609) 426-3400 Grumman Aerospace, #1, #2 Large piece of Station awarded in July Address: 2852 Kelvin Ave Irvine, CA 92714 (714) 660-4200 S Oyster Bay Bethpage, NY 11714 (516) 575-3369 Grumman Blvd / MS F05-07 Calverton NY (516) 575-0574 Phone: Harris, #2 Address: Phone: (303) 727-4000 Ask for GASD Honeywell, #2, #3 Address: W. R. Moore Mail Station 257-5 Honeywell 13350 US Highway 19 Clearwater, FL 34624-7290 Defense Sys Div 5700 Smetana Dr M N O2-3380 Minnetonka, MN 55343 (612) 936-3196 Aerospace & Defense Grp Honeywell Plaza Minneapolis, MN 55408 (612) 870-5186 Phone: (813) 539-3689 Hughes Aircraft, #1 Address: Hughes Aircraft Radar Systems Group Engineering Employment POB 92426 Los Angeles, CA 90009 Hughes Aircraft Space Communications Group Attn: Employment Ofc. - College Relations 909 N. Fepulveda El Segundo, CA 90009 Phone: (213) 606-2111 (Radar Systems Group) (213) 647-7177 (Space Communications Group) IBM, #2, #3 Address: IBM Personnel 3700 Bay Area Bvd. Houston, TX 77058 Phone: (713) 282-2300 Intermetrics, #2 Address: Indl Sys Div - 733 Concord Av Cambridge, MA 02138 Phone: (800) 325-5235 (617) 661-0072 Lockheed Missiles & Space, #1, #2, #3, #4, #4 Address: {Shuttle contract, not Station} Lockheed Space Operations Company Attn: Mr. Don Quirk 110 Lockheed Way Titasville, FL 32780 Phone: (305) 867-2765 (Kennedy Space Center) (305) 383-2200 (Titasville switchboard) Martin Marietta, #1 Address: Phone: (504) 257-4716 (Sandy) McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, #1, #2, #3 Address: Richard B. Rout, Dept. 5900, Mail Code 11-3 McDonnell Douglas Astronautics and Space Division 5301 Bolsa Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone: (714) 896-5633 Planning Research Corp., #4 Address: 1500 Planning Research Dr McLean, VA 22102 (703) 556-1000 Phone: (703) 734-1199 RCA, #2, #3, #3 (Subsumed by GE/Astro Space) Address: (See GE/Astro above) Phone: Rocketdyne, #4 Address: Phone: Rockwell, #2 Actually, this guy works with Shuttle, not Station Address: Steve C. Hoefer Supervisor, Crew Activity Planning Rockwell Shuttle Operations Company Rockwell International Corporation 600 Gemini Avenue Houston, TX 77058 Phone: (713) 483-4438 SRI International, #2 Address: SRI International Personnel Dept. 333 Ravenswood Ave. Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone: (415) 859-3993 (Elizabeth Brackmann) Sperry/UNISYS, #2 Changed name from Sperry to UNISYS Address: (Eastern Time) Phone: (800) 645-3440 Sunstrand, #4 Address: Sundstrand Energy Systems Unit of Sundstrand Corp. 4747 Harrison Ave, P.O. Box 7002 Rockford, Ill. 61125 Phone: (815) 226-6000 TRW, #1, #2, #3, #4 Address: Jack Friedenthal Bldg. 135, Rm. 2823 One Space Park Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Penny Burkes Bldg. R2, Rm. 2130 One Space Park Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Phone: (213) 535-6027 (Penny Burkes) (213) 297-8765 (Irwin Newman) Teledyne Brown Engineering, #1, #4 (Did not actually bid on #4) Address: Teledyne Brown Engineering Attn: Mr. Tom Robinson Cummings Research Park Huntsville, AL 35807 Phone: (800) 633-2090 USBI Booster Production, #1 Address: United Space Boosters BPC 188 Spartman Dr PO Box 1900 Huntsville, AL 35807 Phone: (205) 721-2400 United Technologies (Hamilton Standard), #1 Address: Phil Beaudoin Hamilton Standard One Hamilton Road Windsor Locks, CT 06096 Phone: (203) 654-6000 (203) 654-4601 (Personnel) Wyle Laboratories, #1 Address: Wyle Laboratories Personnel Department Attn: Mr. Gordon Bakken 7800 Govenor's Drive West Huntsville, AL 35807 Phone: (703) 834-1633 (Mr. Gordon Bakken in NJ) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #35 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 4 Nov 87 06:32:22 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12529; Wed, 4 Nov 87 03:20:51 PST id AA12529; Wed, 4 Nov 87 03:20:51 PST Date: Wed, 4 Nov 87 03:20:51 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711041120.AA12529@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #36 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 36 Today's Topics: Mir Elements, 29 October 1987 space news from Sept 21 AW&ST Re: Ecological experimentation Re: Wood as structural material Cats in space... Re: Ecological experimentation Distributed Astronomy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Nov 87 23:38:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir Elements, 29 October 1987 Please accept my apologies for the error in the posting for 27 October. There was a typo in the acceleration of mean motion that was made before the data ever reached me. Elements as of 29 October are: Satellite: MIR Element set 889 Catalog id 16609 Epoch day: 87301.86217561 RA of node: 186.2823 degrees Inclination: 51.6269 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0042844 Argument of perigee: 324.3939 degrees Mean anomaly at epoch: 35.4203 degrees Mean motion: 15.83985948 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00047310 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch revolution: 9716 Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RBBS', Austin, TX. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Nov 87 00:23:33 GMT From: necntc!linus!utzoo!henry@AMES.ARPA (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Sept 21 AW&ST Again the inside-front-cover two-page-spread ad with the Apollo photo and the caption "It's time we raised our sights again", from United Technologies. Ariane launches two Clarke-orbit comsats successfully, restoring it to operational service. The Spartan shuttle-based free-flyer has been given four mission slots through 1992. (A Spartan Halley-imaging mission was one of the Challenger payloads.) US space-station negotiators return from Europe, progress nil, after what was supposed to be the final bilateral meeting. Military use and the management structure remain unresolved. An interim plan may be needed to keep the international partners involved, because development will start in November and agreement by then is unlikely. USAF to hold competition in 1988 for a new expendable to carry ten military comsats that used to be booked on the shuttle. This will be an Atlas-Centaur class launcher [and nobody will be surprised if the Atlas Centaur wins, since it is the only major US expendable without a current government subsidy, er um I meant contract]. A significant change is that the USAF just might be willing to listen to companies selling launch services rather than just hardware. Parts of the next Ariane to start arriving at Kourou end of Sept., launch set for mid-Nov carrying German TV broadcast comsat. The one after that, V21, is scheduled for December with French and US comsats (the US one will carry a piggyback Geostar package). After that, in 1988, will be the first flight of an Ariane 4, carrying a European metsat, a US comsat, and the latest Amsat amateur-radio satellite. Security is being tightened up at Kourou, partly because of unrest in the neighboring country of Surinam, partly as a dry run for later military payloads, and partly because of Kourou's growing strategic importance as an operational spaceport. Antiaircraft weaponry was much in evidence for the V19 launch, and press photography from above ground (roofs etc.) was banned to ensure that security measures are not revealed. A segment of the country's #1 highway will be rerouted to keep the road out of portable- weapon range of newer launch complexes. As predicted, the call for tenders for Aussat's next generation of satellites calls for delivery into orbit by the supplier, including up to two replacement satellites in the event of launch failure. Eutelsat is debating whether to drop its opposition to a competing (private venture) broadcast-satellite venture, SES. Eutelsat's director recommends accepting the competition in the belief that SES won't survive it. FCC rejects Arinc's proposal to build a global aviation comsat system to be owned by the airlines (as Arinc is). The rejection was due to a request for too much spectrum space (in conflict with the FCC's desire to use some of that band for land-mobile communications) and inadequate documentation of proper financial backing. Arinc says the rejection was groundless and will challenge it in court if necessary. NASA officially declares the Aug 30 SRB test a success, with no hot gas leaks and joint opening about a tenth of the old design's. NRC reports on the space station, saying that the Phase One design is okay, but there are problems with cost estimates, management structure, and excessive reliance on the shuttle. It recommends various improvements but neither cancellation nor major changes. NRC says shuttle performance improvement is needed. "The current shuttle is barely adequate for the limited purpose of deploying the space station. It is clearly inadequate to meet broader national needs in space." NRC recommends improving the SRBs right away, deferring shuttle-derived heavylift developments, and pursuing later use of expendables. NRC stresses the need for another orbiter after the Challenger replacement: "It is dangerous and misleading to assume that there will be no shuttle losses and to fail to plan for such possibilities." At least one orbiter should be equipped for two-week stays in space. NASA should strengthen its backup hardware plans for the station and include a crew-rescue vehicle, and should pursue a man-rated expendable as a shuttle backup. NRC says committing to Phase Two of the station is premature, especially when the US has not set its long-term goals in space; NRC says that setting said goals should have high priority. NRC also questions inclusion of the free-flying platforms in the station project, saying that the polar platform in particular has nothing to do with the station and should be evaluated on its own merits or lack thereof. Jim Beggs, ex-administrator of NASA who oversaw early station development, does not believe the $30G cost estimates some people are citing, and says that the station has "been reviewed to death". General Dynamics and Martin Marietta selected for small study contracts for liquid-fuelled shuttle boosters. Picture of Martin Marietta's design for the Awesomely Lucrative Spacelauncher, er excuse me Advanced Launch System: looks like sort of a fat Delta, with a bunch of solid strap-ons and a hydrogen-fuelled core. The solids would be mass-produced as monolithic units (not segmented) and would have fixed nozzles to make them cheaper. The core would use SSMEs for starters, with later cost reductions from redesign for one-shot use. For the later "objective" version, the solids might be replaced by a flyback LOX/hydrocarbon booster that would drop off at about Mach 3 (roughly the point at which conventional materials hit their limits). MM thinks that investing in cheaper production of non- reusable systems is cheaper than complicating the systems to make them reusable, but is pursuing both possibilities for the moment. NASA names all-military crew for STS-27 (a military mission): Robert Gibson, Guy Gardner, Richard Mullane, Jerry Ross, William Shepherd. British aerospace industry calls on British government to reverse its policy of reducing space R&D funding. Weinberger re-affirms DoD policy that the space station must be available for military use. West Germany reserves a Titan 3 launch for its TVSat 2. Hughes signs for a Titan 3 launch for Japan's JCSat-2. Interesting side note: Air France expects Concorde charter business to pick up now that Ariane is flying again! Arianespace frequently uses Concorde to fly VIPs to Ariane launches. "Aerospace Forum" piece by Dr. Thomas O. Paine, administrator of NASA from 1968 to 1970 and chairman of the National Commission on Space, criticizing the US for lack of coherent space objectives. "After a lifetime spent studying the rise and fall of great civilizations, the historian Toynbee identified the critical factor as national response to challenge... We failed our first test. In the 1950s, the US had the technology base needed to launch an artificial satellite. Forward-looking engineers discussed the project for a decade, but our leaders lacked vision and decisiveness. We were mere spectators in 1957 when Sputnik rocketed into orbit... [NASA was created] with a charter to place America at the forefront of space exploration. But the US only fell further behind as prominent scientists denounced Project Mercury. Their argument collapsed in 1961 when Yuri Gagarin [flew]. Six weeks later, John Kennedy responded with characteristic vigor... The dramatic lunar expeditions established the US as undisputed leader on the new frontier. NASA's triumphs were followed by 15 years of presidential indecision and neglect... Hadn't we won the space race? ... An aimless NASA was a welcome target for short-sighted budget cutters. Without long-range objectives, investment to renew NASA's increasingly obsolescent technology base could not be justified... The loss of Challenger was only a symptom... By the mid-1980s, America's underfunded civilian space program was exhibiting the lack of vision and direction that had lost America the opportunity to lead humanity into space in 1957..." "The year 1992 marks the 500th anniversary of Columbus, and the 75th anniversary of the Russian Revolution. Will it be celebrated in the Soviet Union with TV images transmitted to Earth by cosmonauts orbiting the Moon? And in the US with a Santa Maria replica flying a pizza company flag as it chugs up the Potomac?" PS/2: Yesterday's hardware today. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology OS/2: Yesterday's software tomorrow. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 87 02:23:34 GMT From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Ecological experimentation > ... Questions I personally would like to see or answer include: What > sort of culture do these people set up? What kind of poetry or > literature could come out of such an environment? Is eight people > enough? Don't expect detailed answers to some of these questions. The people involved in setting it up have declined at least one offer to run basic psychological studies as part of the experiment. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 87 16:39:41 GMT From: ihnp4!aicchi!dbb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Burch) Subject: Re: Wood as structural material The current configuration of the space shuttle has the external tank covered with a cork insulator. Cork is the bark of a certain type of Oak found in the southern parts of Europe. -David B. (Ben) Burch ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Nov 87 12:03:25 est From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) Subject: Cats in space... Dale Amon recently mentioned cats in orbit. Some time back I read about an early experiment on this, I believe in _The Right Stuff_. It's been a while, so this is a paraphrase, but... Soon after the first experiments with zero-G in ballistic cargo planes (late 50's, early 60's?) some whiz kid decided to test the oft-asserted but never before tested theory that cats would do well in zero gravity conditions. This was not important enough to justify the flight of the full scale cargo plane, so they sent a cat up in a fighter with a camera mounted in the cockpit to monitor. Most of the film shows the pilot frantically trying to remove the cat from his arm. At one point the pilot succeeded in pulling the cat off and hanging it in midair. However (perhaps due to some unknown feline discipline, or perhaps imperfect zero-G) the cat magically flew back to the pilots arm and stayed for the rest of the flight, despite strenuous attempts to the contrary. I would suggest that the first mission to include both cats and people carry along a good supply of kitty Valium :-> kr0u@andrew.cmu.edu Kevin Ryan "I am but a figment of your imagination!" ------------------------------ Date: 2 Nov 87 23:46:32 GMT From: trwrb!cadovax!gryphon!mhnadel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Miriam Nadel) Subject: Re: Ecological experimentation In article <4362@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> beckenba@cit-vax.UUCP (Joe Beckenbach) writes: >In article <562534315.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >>IN the long run we also have to deal with micro-ecologies on any >>extended voyage. Life follows us wherever we go, and we need to >>balance things to keep control. [...] >>Other life on board is also psychologically helpful. The russians have >>found that tending growing plants on board is a favorite past time and >>reduces stress on long tours of duty. [...cat stuff...] >>I also suggest that lots of green plants, probably flowering and food >>producing will be needed for a splash of color, an occasional fresh >>garnish to a freeze dried meal, and that indefinable freshness that >>growing things give the air. (a combination of an earthy smell along >>with extra O2, volatile plant oils, etc) Even if you could copy the >>scent, the psychological effect would not be the same. >>The main point is, we will take a wide spectrum of critters with us, >>both as invited and uninvited guests, and we will have to be able to >>balance these microecologies anyway, so we might as well incorporate >>them in the design. Biology can be as effective as metal and plastic. Unfortunately the types of plants we've been able to grow at zero-G don't do much but make nice scenery. The experiments done on the shuttle did OK with oak trees and pools of algae but were dramatically unsuccessful with grain. The existence of micro-organisms has led to a design concept which more or less separates each species so you'd only get to look at the other species under glass. And, dearly as I love cats, I think most of them are too neurotic to adjust well to space. >NASA's director of Life Sciences Division is interested; I don't know >what sort of involvement NASA has chosen, if any. This does have >applications in settling the inner solar system, as the National >Commission of Space said in its annual report. [So far, NASA has a >single sphere which has survived sealed for 17 years- its occupants are >one species of shrimp and three of algae. However, nothing on a much >grander scale has ever been attempted.] Not quite true. NASA has been focused more on the practical problems of growing plants at zero-G and has been thinking about payload considerations as well (i.e. keeping weight down). But they do have several small experimental setups, most of which are partially closed to mass transfer (even the so-called fully closed scenarios that have been studied have about 3% of the human food supply coming from stores, presumably for micronutrients that might be deficient in an all-vegetarian diet.) >What sort of culture do these people set up? What kind of poetry or >literature could come out of such an environment? Is eight people >enough? Can the structure actually survive the two years? How can I >get in on this sort of experiment? [no smiley here, I want to be part >of a landmark ecological experiment as much as I want to go in space] The cultural question is probably not immediately relevant to either this experiment (2 years is not enough time to develop a culture; the U.S. has had over 200 and is still trying :-)) or to near term space applications (again thinking of maybe 5-10 years which doesn't give people much time for culture invention. The real development of a unique culture to come out of humans in space will probably have to wait until there are people who were born in space, who've lived most of their lives off the earth. Don't hold your breath.) The psychological aspects are interestiing and there has been some concern about them at NASA. In particular, the psychological acceptance of various diets which could practically be provided by a CELSS was a minor topic of discussion at some of the CELSS workshops I've been to. And it seems to come up in a paper or so every year at the Intersociety Conference on Environmental Systems (next one is in June in San Francisco, I think. Check with AIAA if you're interested in going). Personally I think that the personalities of the people who are involved would be a major factor in the success of such an experiment. If it looks anything like our space missions, they may be so busy much of the time that there is relatively little interaction. Nonetheless, considering how badly I get cabin fever during blizzards when I'm skiing, I doubt I could stand spending two years in relatively confined quarters with 7 other people always around. Too little privacy seems more likely to me than being too isolated. Miriam [seeking my own bedroom on any spaceflight I'm on] Nadel "Any road followed to its end leads precisely nowhere" - Princess Irulan mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM {philabs, trwrb}!cadovax!gryphon!mhnadel {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!mhnadel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Oct 87 18:15:48 EST From: loeb@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU To: jrt@mitre-bedford.arpa Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov, jrt@mitre-bedford.arpa Subject: Distributed Astronomy You wrote Date: Fri, 30 Oct 87 09:12:36 EST From: jrt@mitre-bedford.arpa Greetings to the net...Ref. widely spaced neutrino, gravity detectors for SN events...Good idea but how would one compare neutrino/gravity wave arrival times given the time it would take to communicate with the other detector sites? Also, how about the difficulty in synchronizing clocks? Most astronomical sites record there data on videotape along with pulses generated by an atomic clock. This is done mainly for the purposes of Very Long Baseline Inferometry, but it also makes the problems you were talking about not problems at all. Welcome to the net. Yours, Danny ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #36 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 5 Nov 87 15:50:30 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15109; Thu, 5 Nov 87 03:23:40 PST id AA15109; Thu, 5 Nov 87 03:23:40 PST Date: Thu, 5 Nov 87 03:23:40 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711051123.AA15109@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #37 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 37 Today's Topics: Re: Neutrino mass Re: Recent Supernova: Lost opportunity? Why light bends in gravity. Re: Why light bends in gravity. Was it Jupiter, Saturn, or Xanth? Sagan lecture: "Star Wars or Mars?" Space Shuttle Escape Kerwin's report pointers? Re: Wood in spacecraft Escape systems Re: Wood as structural material Space Shuttle Escape ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 Oct 1987 14:38-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Neutrino mass I think the upper limit of possible mass was set by the error bars in the arrival times from SN1987A at <7-12ev. If someone has the paper handy, correct me. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Oct 87 00:04:03 GMT From: clyde!watmath!lasibley@rutgers.edu (Lance) Subject: Re: Recent Supernova: Lost opportunity? I read in a recent (ie. within the last year - 1 1/2 yrs.) article that two or more separate images of the same quasar were observed. It was known that they were images of the same quasar because quasars are as unique as fingerprints, ie. no two are exactly alike. The theory behind this dual image is that the light coming from the quasar was bent by the gravity of some extremely massive galaxy or other object between us and the quasar, resulting in not only an image of the quasar where it should have been, but an image where the light had been bent. Question: if light can be bent by gravity, then light has mass and can therefore not travel at the speed of light. There's got to be a flaw here somewhere that I'm missing; I'm not terribly familiar with relativity, as rec.arts.startrek readers no doubt remember. Can someone please straighten me out on this? ------------------------------ Date: 30 Oct 87 15:48:36 GMT From: clyde!watmath!water!jmlang@rutgers.edu (Jerome M Lang) Subject: Why light bends in gravity. In article <15304@watmath.waterloo.edu> lasibley@watmath.waterloo.edu (Lance) writes: > I read in a recent (ie. within the last year - 1 1/2 yrs.) article > that two or more separate images of the same quasar were observed. > [...] The theory behind this dual image is that the light coming > from the quasar was bent by the gravity of some extremely massive > galaxy or other object between us and the quasar, [...] The difficulty is in proving that they are from the same quasar. The light from the quasar is split in two (or more, the number of beams has to be an odd number -- see an article in Scientific american for a readable article on that). Now those two beams follow different paths that most likely will have different length. So: one of the images is of the quasar as it was, say, 1 billion years ago, and the other one is from the quasar as it was, say 1.2 billion years ago. During these 200 million years, the quasar has moved, has evolved, etc.... > Question: if light can be bent by gravity, then light has mass and > can therefore not travel at the speed of light. There's got to be a > flaw here somewhere that I'm missing; [...] Yes, there is something missing. The easiest way of looking at the problem was given by A. Einstein, (yes, the same guy that worked on relativity.) The key point is that you cannot distinguish (locally, but that is getting a bit picky) between a gravity field and an acceleration field. This is known as the equivalence principle. So, like Einstein did, imagine yourself in an elevator that is accelerating upward. Now use a flashlight to send a horizontal beam of light. Since the speed of light is finite, and if you accelerate fast enough (many g's), then you'll notice that the beam of light will curve downward. The light does not have to have mass, it is just a property of the space you are in: the geometry. Corollary: Imagine yourself in a very strong gravity field, such as near an object of very great density. Take the field to be spherical for simplicity. Now take your flashlight and send a beam of light in any direction. With the same reasoning as in the preceding paragraph, using the equivalence principle, you will conclude that your beam is bent towards the object. Now increase the gravity field (by increasing the density of the object, or by getting closer, or whatever). The beam will bend more. It may even bend so much that no matter where you point your flashlight, the light will always go closer to the object than the point where you are. Light will not escape. What you've got is a ... ta ... la... a black hole. Je'ro^me M. Lang || jmlang@water.bitnet jmlang@water.uucp Dept of Applied Math || jmlang%water@waterloo.csnet U of Waterloo || jmlang%water%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 87 23:15:59 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: Why light bends in gravity. In article <15304@watmath.waterloo.edu> lasibley@watmath.waterloo.edu (Lance) writes: > Question: if light can be bent by gravity, then light has mass and > can therefore not travel at the speed of light. There's got to be a > flaw here somewhere that I'm missing; [...] One of the earliest tests of general relativity was to look for the predicted bending of light by the Sun. General relativity predicts a bending exactly twice that given by a simplistic Newtonian calculation. This prediction has been verified by radio observations to about 1%, if memory serves. The article referenced below gives a good argument for why the bending must take place. There is no implication of non-zero rest mass for photons. in article <1221@water.waterloo.edu>, jmlang@water.waterloo.edu (Jerome M Lang) says: > The difficulty is in proving that [separate images on the sky] are > from the same quasar. [and split by gravitational deflection from an > intervening body.] Now those two beams follow different paths that > most likely will have different length. So: one of the images is of > the quasar as it was, say, 1 billion years ago, and the other one is > from the quasar as it was, say 1.2 billion years ago. There are now five or six instances where quasar multiple images are believed to be caused by gravitational lensing. In some cases, but not in others, the lensing object can be seen. Theoretically, there are always an odd number of images, but often two are so close together that they cannot be distinguished. The calculated time delays between different paths are generally only a few years. It should be possible to verify the calculations by monitoring variability of the images; this monitoring is now being done by Rudy Schild here at the Observatory. For images separated by only a few arcseconds, though, there is hardly any doubt that gravitational lensing is occurring. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 2 Nov 87 06:59:22 GMT From: imagen!atari!portal!cup.portal.com!Charlie_Alan_Bounds@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Was it Jupiter, Saturn, or Xanth? Tonight (11/1) at about 10:00 pm PST my wife noticed an object in the sky. It was a very bright star some 20 degrees east of the moon (sorry I don't have so much as a protractor to measure arc). We watched it with 10x binoculars and noticed that it had two dim points, one on each side, and what may have been a line between them. Our question is, did we see Jupiter and a couple of its moons or was it Saturn (I think that line was an optical illusion but my wife isn't so sure and she has been right before). Please reply by mail -- a query of this scope could generate a HUGE flood of network traffic from you know-it-alls! :-) Charlie Bounds Charlie@cup.portal.com ...sun!portal!cup.portal.com!charlie (note: mailbox name is Charlie, NOT Charlie_Alan_Bounds. Silly mailer). ------------------------------ Date: 02 November 87 22:51 EST From: UUAJ%CORNELLA.BITNET@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu Subject: Sagan lecture: "Star Wars or Mars?" I'm sure this will be of interest to netters; I'm trying to post it while it's still fresh in my mind. Carl Sagan gave a lecture this evening here at Cornell attacking S.D.I. and promoting the proposal for a joint US/Soviet initiative for the exploration of Mars. I shall not repeat the many avenues of attack he used on S.D.I., as I'm sure you all have heard similar arguments in one form or another. I will say that my impression of his presentation of the Mars initiative was that while it seemed to imply a long-term, cooperative effort involving near-earth presence, there was no substantive statement made to say, "Yes, let's also get a major presence going that might have some application beyond this Mars proposal," ie., my impression was that you could read more positive things into his remarks than were there. I asked the following during the question period: "You propose a long-term Mars US/USSR mission. Would not a similar major cooperative mission of lunar exploration, including a permanent human lunar presence, also fulfill the objectives you gave [eg, technologically challenging but feasible, something that the populace could identify with emotionally, visionary, etc.], plus have the added advantages of possible near-term economic benefits such as return of resources to the earth, as well as having greater psychological significance to the populace, ie, the moon is something they can identify with rather than being a red dot? Why do you not advocate a lunar mission, if only as a way of building the infrastructure to help achieve an ultimate goal of Mars?" His repsonse went like this (this is of course not an exact quote but I'm trying to convey its flavor as best I can): "Excellent question. The reason is: rightly or wrongly, the American people don't identify with the moon. They say, 'Yeah, we went to the moon, they brought some rocks back, I saw one once, it looked just like a rock from Earth.' The moon is inherently a dull place. There's no geologic activity there, there's nothing there to stimulate our interest. We've been there already; it's too easy: we need to try something harder." And immediately turned to the next speaker, even though no speaking line had yet formed (I made sure I was going to be first for questions!). I remained with the small crowd after the talk but was unable to ask any follow-ups. If anyone who reads this was there, perhaps they can provide additional perspectives. As for flammage, please direct it to Dr. Sagan c/o Astro. Dept., Space Sciences Building, Cornell, Ithaca NY 14853 or c/o Planetary Soc., not me please. Artie Samplaski Wilson Synchrotron, Cornell UUAJ%CORNELLA.BITNET @ CU-ARPA.CS.CORNELL.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 30 Oct 87 19:04:57 GMT From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Space Shuttle Escape > I was wondering if it would be feasible to redesign the shuttle so > that the crew compartment was a separate entity that could be blown > off in an emergency with say a parachute in the nose. Is this just > too expensive, not feasible or just plain silly? ... The idea isn't silly, and things along those lines are being investigated for possible long-term use. It would undoubtedly cost a lot, it does have some technical problems, and worst of all it would add quite a bit of dead weight, every gram of which comes out of the payload capacity. One should also bear in mind that the sort of pyrotechnic devices that would be used (explosive bolts etc. and small solid rockets, presumably) are not 100% safe in their own right, so the safety tradeoffs need very careful assessment. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 31 Oct 87 05:50:39 GMT From: sonia!khayo@locus.ucla.edu (Erazm J. Behr) Subject: Kerwin's report pointers? Hi, I have missed the medical report on the last minutes of Challenger's crew and all the related materials (tapes?) released a few months ago. I would greatly appreciate any references to that - where (if at all) the report & transcripts were published. Please e-mail: khayo@math.ucla.edu. Thanks a lot! Eric khayo@MATH.ucla.edu ------------------------------ Date: 31 Oct 1987 14:44-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Wood in spacecraft I don't know if it is still true, but the USSR used wood like we use plastic in their earlier spacecraft. I heard Jim Oberg call them 'Victorian spacecraft'. I suspect one reason the US avoided wood was the use of low total pressure/high partial O2 atmospheres used in the early days. Even velcro burns spectacularly, as 3 now deceased astronauts discovered. Not to mention the cheapness, availability and 'high tech' aura of the artificial substitute. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Oct 1987 14:54-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu To: JEFF%UTCVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu, space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Escape systems Digest has been over this before. At least 2 Challenger astronauts were alive after the blast. Judy Resnik is thought to be the one who started her own emergency O2 and reached over and turned on Mike Smith's. Amounts consumed indicated that both breathed some. However, these packages are only intended to supply O2 in a smoke or hazardous fume environment for ground escape and do not supply the pressure required at 40K+ feet. Unconciousness certainly followed within minutes. Due to the rapid rate of fall, it is entirely possible that conciousness may have been regained by one or more before impact. NASA has not discussed this issue, but it has happened to pilots who blacked out at high altitude and awoke in time to recover from the dive. The shuttle cannot seperate from the boosters prematurely. It is not only not an option, it would be disastrous. The SRB exhaust plumes would melt and rip the wings off on the way by, so you don't gain anything. Bail out at MACH 1+ and high altitude is usually survivable with proper equipment and a good bit of luck. Bailout was done from 100K+ feet from a balloon in the 1950's. At that kind of altitude not only oxygen and pressure must be supplied, but also protection from heat loss and moderate protection against frictional heating as the denser lower atmosphere is entered. Not quite a reentry, but still enough to warm your seat. One of the biggest problems in any bailout from a high speed aircraft (assuming the canopy leaves before the ejection seat fires, and the seat fires before the aircraft blows or come apart, and the acceleration doesn't break your neck) is clearing the wings or empennage (tail to nonaviation types). Thus the rod idea. Hitting a vertical stabilizer at MACH 1 can ruin your whole week. Hmmm. Just to give you all a good stomach churn: heard tell of a mechanic that accidentally triggered the spring (not the main rockets) of an ejection seat. Made a real mess on the hanger ceiling... What I am not clear on is whether the rods is sufficient to guarantee clearance of the exhaust plume. One would presume that the SME's would be throttled to make the safest possible exit (not necessarily zero: think of the stresses on the struts). I just don't know. Maybe with a rocket assist as was suggested sometime back. After all, the exiting astronaut is in the same reference frame as the aircraft until he hits the slipstream, and with rocket assist may well be able to clear the danger zone before the SRB's pass by. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Nov 87 11:12:47 GMT From: super.upenn.edu!eecae!crlt!russ@rutgers.edu (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: Wood as structural material In article <991@aicchi.UUCP>, dbb@aicchi.UUCP (Burch) writes: >The current configuration of the space shuttle has the external tank >covered with a cork insulator. Last I heard of, the ET was covered with SOFI (Spray-On Foam Insulator). Its natural color is brown; it was painted white for the first few launches (to look pretty), but is now left its natural color to save the weight of the paint. Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ihnp4!itivax![m-net!rsi,crlt!russ] ------------------------------ Date: 2 Nov 87 17:56:10 GMT From: tikal!sigma!uw-nsr!brett@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Brett Van Steenwyk) Subject: Space Shuttle Escape In terms of using the fore section of the space shuttle as an escape system, it is an idea with merit, unfortunately, the one experience I have seen in implementing a similar system has been negative. In the original B-1 design, the nose section of the plane would blow off as an escape capsule (perhaps even a fly-home was planned). This system was put in only the first two prototypes due to its expense and questionable reliability. It seemed that the frame separation would come reasonably cleanly--the BIG problem was in cutting all of the cables--hydraulic as well as electric! They tried using these "explosive guillotines" to cut them--they did not work the greatest. Another problem with the space shuttle in particular is the hydrazine tank in the nose used for the front RCS (I hope that is what they call them) jets. If I remember right, they identified the Challenger crew cabin when it came out of the pall by the fact that this tank happened to explode right then. It would make placing a parachute rather difficult. --Brett Van Steenwyk PS: More flyback booster comment coming (soon, I hope!). ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #37 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 8 Nov 87 19:56:13 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17802; Fri, 6 Nov 87 03:20:43 PST id AA17802; Fri, 6 Nov 87 03:20:43 PST Date: Fri, 6 Nov 87 03:20:43 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711061120.AA17802@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #38 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 38 Today's Topics: LOFT-1 Private Launch Detailed Information (LONG - 160+ lines) Re: Budgets (DoD vs. NASA) Condensed CANOPUS - October 1987 RE: requirements for flight and wood on spacecraft ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Nov 87 18:48:02 GMT From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrlnk!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Mark Johnson) Subject: LOFT-1 Private Launch Detailed Information (LONG - 160+ lines) I have had considerable trouble with bounced email messages on requests for additional information on the LOFT-1 launch scheduled to fly at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station about Nov. 15, thus for those whose mail has been undeliverable, I am posting the whole works. It is rather lengthy, for which I apologize. Here is a detailed rundown on the LOFT-1 flight vehicle: LOFT-1 (Launch Operations Flight Test - 1) Santa Maria Length 144" overall Fin to fin span 42" Diameter 6" Takeoff weight 85 lb Performance estimates Projected Altitude 17000 ft Coast to Apogee 15 sec Burnout Velocity Mach 1.9 Flight time 420 sec Downrange impact distance 1.5 miles Vulcan Systems N5000-25 Motor specifications: Burn time 4.9 sec Average thrust 5000 Nt Total Impulse 25000 N-sec Propellant Vulcan "Smokey Sam" HTPB/Ammonium Perchlorate composite (produces copious quantities of BLACK smoke) The remaining portion of this note is excerpted from a press release from the University of Alabama/Huntsville, which is handling payload integration for E-Prime Aerospace. The memo was issued by J. Wayne McCain, 7/17/87 The payload for the E-Prime Aerospace LOFT-1 will consist of a sealed, cylindrically shaped compartment containing experiments from three sources - University of Alabama/Huntsville, QSI Corporation of Logan, Utah, and the Air Force Astronautics Laboratory, Edwards AFB, California. Individual experiments will be integrated and tested at UAH by Industrial and Systems Engineering department volunteers under the guidance of Dr. Jack Walker. UAH will also construct and assemble the overall payload section. UAH components will consist of three radio telemetry beacons to provide real time flight data, recovery aids consisting of strobe lights, and flotation/dye marker devices. The primary onboard vehicle power supply will be a group of 13.5 VDC, 4 AH, Nickel-Cadmium batteries. Data to be relayed will include vehicle velocity, altitude, outside air temperature, inside temperature, battery voltage, and battery current. Velocity and altitude will be displayed real time and other data will be recorded on multitrack tape for later study. QSI Corporation will provide a self contained, sealed experiment module, including power supply. This module will weigh 40% or less of the total payload capacity. the unit is being adapted from a critical-cargo monitoring system being developed by QSI to measure and record the acceleration and temperature environment of sensitive aerospace items during rail, truck, or air transportation. Accelerations along 3 axes and temperature in two payload compartments will be measured and recorded in solid-state RAM memory from liftoff to touchdown. A printout of reduced data will be provided at some time after recovery. The Air Force payload, tentatively to be provided by the newly formed Air Force Astronautics Laboratory (AFAL), has not been totally defined (this as of 7/17/87-msj), but will most likely consist of small samples from ongoing advanced research with general propulsion or specific defense applications. Several such programs are underway. The Air Force payload has been allocated two pounds of the payload capacity (End excerpt from press release. following paragraphs extracted from a letter, dated 7/29/87, J.W. McCain to D. Babulski, reprinted with permission of the recipient) ...a space has been reserved for the Brookwood High School Advanced Biology Experiment on the E-Prime Aerospace LOFT-1 flight to be launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. ... The ABE has been allotted a 2.5 pound, 5.900 inch diameter x 5.0 inch long cylindrical space in the payload section. It must be self contained and require no power interfacing. It must be sealed and watertight to at least one atmosphere. In addition, ABE should be capable of withstanding at least 20 g's and its module should have a crush strength of at least 200 pounds. A mass-simulator drop test will be conducted in late August (measure descent rate from 10,000 feet) and a full up telemetry drop test will be conducted in mid September. For the September test, a high-fidelity mockup of the ABE will be required. (End excerpt from private communication. Begin excerpt from Brookwood H.S. Advanced Biology Experiment project proposal, jointly drafted by D.J. Babulski and Debbie Roberts of Brookwood High School) The hypothesis for the experiment is: "Seeds in the class Angiospermae, subclass Monocotyledonae, families Gramineae and Amaryllis and subclass Dicotyledoneae, families Cruciferae and Leguminosae, when exposed to high energy solar radiation in the Mid-Troposphere, at an altitude of three miles, will exhibit a greater incidence of genetic defect or sterility as opposed to seeds of the same Class, subclass, and families held in a control group at ground level". After the payload section is recovered, the experimental canister and the payload section will be separated. In a controlled environment, but the control and flight experiment canisters will be opened and the seeds removed. Each seed will be assigned a numerical code. Seeds will then be distributed to students in a double blind format. The students will plant and nurture seeds to plant maturity, taking daily observations of germination, growth rate, abnormalities, etc. When all plant data has been accumulated, each of the Advanced Placement Biology students will evaluate the data, and write a report of experimental results. Additional Data: Transponder frequencies and telemetry data measurements (all 3 beacons are multiplexed) Beacon #1 Beacon #2 Beacon #3 Frequency, MHz 27.355 145.550 425.250 Input power, watts 5.0 5.0 5.0 Modulation type AM FM AM Bandwidty, kHz 5.0 11.0 5.0 Antenna type 1/4 wave 1/2 wave 1/4 wave base-load stub stub Data measurements Beacon # Measurement Samples/sec Units 1 Vehicle Alt. 5 feet 1 Vehicle velocity 5 ft/sec 2 Outside temp 5 deg F 2 Inside temp 5 deg F 2 Battery voltage 5 VDC 2 Battery current 5 mA 3 First motion cont. discrete signal 3 Separation cont. discrete signal 3 Impact cont. discrete signal 3 Salt water detection cont. discrete signal (end excerpts) Other Notes: The drop tests were conducted as planned during September, with the full-up mockup being dropped from an airplane and allowed to fall into a lake from 10,000 feet altitude. As far as I'm aware, all drop tests were successful. A flight test with a duplicate vehicle was performed in Colorado about Oct. 5, it was a roaring success, according to reports. The point of all this exercise isn't flying the vehicle-that's done often enough by research groups and high-budget rocketry enthusiasts. The point is that it's being done on an Air Force facility, by a private company's launch crew, in a coordinated manner! For those interested in seeing what the thing looks like, e-mail me a postal address and I will ship out a copy of the drawings I have. -- Mark Johnson (mjohnson@ncrwic.UUCP) NCR Engineering & Manufacturing-Wichita, KS phone: (316)688-8189 email:...!rutgers!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson US snailnet: 3718 N. Rock Rd., Wichita, KS 67226 ------------------------------ Date: 30 Oct 87 18:59:50 GMT From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Budgets (DoD vs. NASA) > (are you forgetting Vandenburg launch facility)... Why not forget it? It's most unlikely that the shuttle will ever fly from it. -- PS/2: Yesterday's hardware today. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology OS/2: Yesterday's software tomorrow. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 87 17:27:58 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Condensed CANOPUS - October 1987 Here is the condensed CANOPUS for October 1987. There were 5 articles, two presented here by title only, one short one in full, and two in condensed form. Comments in {braces} are from me. The unabridged version has been sent to the mailing list. CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Send correspondence about its contents to the executive editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded). Send correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA, 1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019. Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS widely, either electronically or as printout copies. If you do, however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many others receive copies. CANOPUS is partially supported by the National Space Science Data Center. {Two articles by title only} SUBORBITAL CONTRACTS - can10874.txt - 10/25/87 - {For Palestine, TX balloon launch operations and for Black Brant rocket motors} LEAD SCIENTISTS - can10875.txt - 10/25/87 {At Marshall and Langley} {Three condensed articles} GHOST STORIES - can10871.txt - 10/2/87 - {condensed} Contributed by Jo Ann Joselyn Occasionally, peculiar features show up in otherwise reliable spacecraft data sets. For example, the ATS-5, launched in 1969, {showed} a strange pattern in the behavior of the 50-eV to 50-keV particles near local midnight (DeForest, J. Geophys. Res., 77 , 651, 1972). After careful analysis, it was found that ATS-5 was charging to potentials as high as 10,000 volts during spacecraft eclipse. Other diverse reasons for unusual effects in data and systems are cosmic rays hits on imaging electronics, 'glinting' from adjacent spacecraft, physical contamination from spacecraft outgassing or debris, offsets caused by improperly shielded electronics, and simple instrument degradation caused by age and/or radiation dose. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Technical Committee on Space Sciences and Astronomy has formed a subcommittee to maintain records and make them available. {Concerned that future generations of engineers may have to relearn the same lessons the hard way.} If you can contribute examples, written or remembered, with or without specific reference to living or departed satellites, please contact Jo Ann Joselyn, NOAA R/E/SE2, 325 Broad way, Boulder, CO 80303. Her SPAN address is CRYOEL::JOSELYN, and telephone calls are also welcome at (303) 497-5147. SUNLAB INSTRUMENT TO "FLY" ? - can10873.txt - 10/25/87 - {unabridged} The solar telescope cluster flown on Spacelab 2 and once planned for reflight as the Sunlab series may fly yet. Although post-Challenger manifests have not shown any work for the instruments, "all sorts of things are bobbling around that might offer a flight opportunity, but it's all so tentative that we hate to talk about it publicly," Bohlin said. One possibility is to fly the Solar Optical Universal Polarimeter (SOUP) aboard a balloon during the 1991 solar maximum. HRSO DOING WELL AFTER NEAR-CANCELLATION - can10872.txt - 10/25/87 {last article - condensed but long} High-Resolution Solar Observatory (HRSO) is being studied as a free-flier rather than a sortie payload mated to the Space Shuttle or Space Station. The program was almost cancelled earlier this year, but has a new lease on life, according to NASA Solar Physics Branch Chief Dave Bohlin. "HRSO is alive and well and it may be doing better than we think," Bohlin said on Oct. 23, but it still faces some hurdles before final work can begin. HRSO started in the 1970s as the Solar Optical Telescope (SOT), a 1.1-meter solar white light/UV facility to be flown aboard the Space Shuttle. {This was when NASA was seeking to justify the Shuttle by attaching to it all conceivable payloads. --SW} Because of the anticipated cost, SOT's full funding was stymied by members of the House of Representatives who believed it should be funded as a "new start" rather than as a Spacelab line item. After several such rounds, NASA reduced the scale of the facility, gave up the UV capability, and renamed it HRSO. However, uncertainties about whether it would fly aboard the Shuttle or Station led Leonard Fisk, associate administrator for space science and applications, to consider cancelling it. What helped save HRSO was the free-flier study effort started by Astrophysics Division Chief Charles Pellerin. Since its inception as SOT, HRSO has been managed by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. "Of course, their is culture free-fliers," Bohlin said, "and they jumped right on it and were working weekends on it." The result is a design that roughly resembles a cross between the Solar Maximum Mission Satellite and the International Ultraviolet Explorer. {Telescope 1-meter diameter built by Perkin Elmer, instrument package by Lockheed} ...mounted atop a multi-mission modular spacecraft (MMS) like Solar Max uses. ...the spacecraft mainly would need electrical power and attitude control modules, "pretty standard stuff," Bohlin said. A Delta 2 would place HRSO in a sun-synchronous polar orbit. Because the spacecraft would not be attached to a manned platform, the detector will have to be charge-coupled devices rather than film as originally planned. This will reduce the field of view slightly to around 3 arc-min, and degrade resolution from 0.1 to 0.13 arc-sec. {This gives an oddball CCD size of about 1400 pixels square; I wonder what they're planning. Maybe if Tektronix could produce their long-promised 2048 pixel square chip, the resolution and field of view could be restored. --SW} [Three instruments - one from West Germany - will operate simultaneously.] ...needed to show the 3-D structure of solar magnetic fields. With HRSO being reconfigured as a free-flier, the possibility of restoring its UV capability is being raised. Great Britain has expressed an interest in providing a co-observing instrument strapped to the side of the spacecraft. And the Department of Defense is interested in combining HRSO with its long-delayed Solar Activities Monitor Experiment (SAMX, formerly SAMSAT). "If these can be done at little or no cost to NASA," Bohlin said, "we're sure going to go for it. These strike right at the heart of what HRSO is all about." {All these attempted additions are symptoms of the extreme lack of launch capability. Otherwise, it would probably be cheaper to do separate missions. The problem is that the endless cycle of increasing complication, delay, and expense leads to even fewer missions, and there is ever more incentive to further complicate those missions that exist.--SW} Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 87 16:48:20 GMT From: nuchat!steve@uunet.uu.net (Steve Nuchia) Subject: RE: requirements for flight and wood on spacecraft MY wife is a materials engineer working for one of the contractor firms at JSC. We found Eugene's comments about how powerful materials people are within NASA a little humorous, but he was (of course) correct about the reasons wood isn't used - unpredictable performance and outgassing. He didn't mention flammability, which is probably the number one reason. Apparently there is a small-scale war in progress between the materials safety people and the astronauts. If the astronauts had their way the entire cabin would be covered in velcro - the materials people have very strict rules designed to prevent flame propagation. Something tells me that using wood wouldn't go over very well, since you can't stick to it and it would use some of the flammable materials budget. Liz suggests that anyone wanting more info on flight requirements or astronaut recruiting contact: Public Affairs Office NASA JSC Houston, Tx 77058 She said the PAO director's assistant's name is Raynell Perez and can be reached at (713) 483 0229. It is fairly common knowledge that one should be either a military pilot or an employee of NASA with at least one PhD, and in perfect health. Other than that its a snap, right? Oh - I guess we should list persons sponsored by a corporation or a foreign government as pretty good bets. Steve Nuchia uunet!nuchat!steve (713) 334 6720 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #38 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 7 Nov 87 06:21:36 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19769; Sat, 7 Nov 87 03:17:49 PST id AA19769; Sat, 7 Nov 87 03:17:49 PST Date: Sat, 7 Nov 87 03:17:49 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711071117.AA19769@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #39 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 39 Today's Topics: Defense is not War Re: Vandenburg launch (was Re:Budgets (DoD vs. NASA)) Short Wavelength Chemical Laser Lunar Skyhooks Novices Defending Henry? Re: Vandenburg launch (was Re:Budgets (DoD vs. NASA)) Soviet Antisatellite Weapon Tests In Search of Schrodinger's Cat. Re: In Search of Schrodinger's Cat. Re: In Search of Schrodinger's Cat. Re: In Search of Schrodinger's Cat. Skyhooks on Mars Solar Energy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Nov 87 08:44:00 PST From: "DSS::BOLD" Subject: Defense is not War To: "space" There seems to be some confusion in the controversy on defense R&D which I'm sure will disappear with some definition of terms. Since my letter on budgets started it, it falls on me to clear it up. *Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary* defines defense as "...capability of resisting attack..." and "the military, governmental, and industrial aggregate esp. in its capacity of authorizing arms production..." When I use the term, I refer to the former, although the latter has bearing. The same dictionary defines war as "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations." Obviously, there is a difference. The author of a letter to SPACE DIGEST (Vol 8:34, "Computers and Military Technology") who stated "The 'war is good because of the important technological spinoffs' is ludicrous" is right, it would be ludicrous, but it's not the argument I or anyone else made. I was talking about DEFENSE R&D, which does have important spinoffs, not WAR, which would kill the people who might otherwise enjoy them. Defense is basic to survival; there is no point in having a strong space program, privately operated or otherwise, if someone else can just waltz right in and take it all away. The whole idea of defense, which I'm for, is to prevent war, which I'm against. While we have the right, nay, the DUTY to make sure we get our money's worth on defense spending and make equally sure the government spends only what is necessary on defense, please do not put words in someone's mouth, consciously or otherwise, just because they have a different perspective than you do. Kevin "Mad Max" Bold (BOLD@AFSC-SD.ARPA) ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 87 00:38:14 GMT From: mike@AMES.ARPA (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Vandenburg launch (was Re:Budgets (DoD vs. NASA)) In article <585@trout.NOSC.MIL> ganzer@trout.NOSC.MIL (Mark T. Ganzer) writes: (stuff about the Titan 34D launch) >and that it was a ground test unit that had been refurbished. This is >supposed to hold us over until they can get a KH-12 up in a shuttle >launch. Just a note about the KH-11. An epsode of Nova, called "Spy Machines", I think, was aired locally last week. I urge everyone on the net to take a look (except for Ivan), it's very interesting. They did talk about the KH-11, and showed photos which were supposedly from one, the only such pictures ever to make it out into the public. Quite impressive. (except for the jerk who released the pictures in the first place). *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick *** ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Oct 87 09:01 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Short Wavelength Chemical Laser I've just read that someone has come up with a chemically fueled laser amplifier that operates in the visible spectrum. Previously, chemical lasers have operated in the infrared. SDI would be very interested in a short wavelength chemical laser, since smaller mirrors could be used. The new system uses thallium excited by the reaction of silicon and ozone. Silicon and oxygen, at least, are ubiquitous on the moon. The report I read didn't indicate what were the efficiency or power output of the experiment. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Oct 87 06:07:15 GMT From: ihnp4!upba!eecae!crlt!russ@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Russ Cage) Subject: Lunar Skyhooks In article <8710302041.AA04666@angband.s1.gov>, sinder%dss.DECnet@AFSC-SD.ARPA ("DSS::SINDER") writes: >In a private response to a query of mine, Ted said a Needle/SkyHook >arrangement might be feasible on MARS. [...] How about the Moon? I did some calculations about stationary skyhooks for Luna a while ago. It appears that a sapphire/aluminum composite skyhook (both available from lunar soil) would be possible but maybe marginal, while a graphite fiber skyhook would be a piece of cake. Take an elevator from Nearside Station to L1 and a bit beyond, drop off on a tether, and go directly into 2:1 synchronous orbit! Another skyhook on Farside would provide direct access to L2 and a place to put communications platforms that could see a goodly fraction of the far side of Luna. Needless to say, capital costs for a skyhook would be quite a bit bigger than for a mass driver, and you'd need lots of traffic to justify one. Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ihnp4!itivax![m-net!rsi,crlt!russ] ------------------------------ Date: 2 Nov 87 09:02:56 GMT From: imagen!atari!portal!cup.portal.com!Charlie_Alan_Bounds@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Novices henry@utzoo.uucp writes: >Is it too much to ask that people read the Rogers report before airing >their views on the issues to the entire net? Henry, Henry. . . Let us NEVER discourage the novice, and besides, some of us have little or no access to assorted industry reports. Thank you bunches for your opinions and your condensations of industry reports. Charlie Bounds Charlie@cup.portal.com ...sun!portal!cup.portal.com!charlie ------------------------------ Date: 3 Nov 87 18:29:59 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Defending Henry? In article <1236@cup.portal.com> Charlie_Alan_Bounds@cup.portal.com writes: >henry@utzoo.uucp writes: > >>Is it too much to ask that people read the Rogers report before airing >>their views on the issues to the entire net? > >Henry, Henry. . . Let us NEVER discourage the novice, and besides, some >of us have little or no access to assorted industry reports. Well, gee, coming to Henry's defense? Well sort of... Frankly, novices should be tempered. I would replace the word NEVER. The discouraged are either half-hearted or a few will go out and prove one wrong and do it better (Seymour Cray, Gordon Bell, Steven Mather are good examples). Those who go out into space will really try. Not to let Henry off, I think, he asks too much of the average net reader, but I would otherwise say so via Email, reading the RR is unrealistic for most, but the question of report access which Charlie mentions is a strawman. I doubt many net readers would lift a phone to determine the main number at NASA HQ (my estimate would be around 50 [out of Reid's estimate of 7,000 readers]). I just tried something similar on another group (zilch for the Pentagon's number). When I was younger, I wrote more snail mail letters, most space companies DON'T have email access. There is a wealth of information just by asking by mail or even telephone. Sometimes little kids have more access to power than most adults think. Additionally, if Henry or I get out of line: many pieces of Email or physical mail are more effective than a single posting. In some ways you readers have it too easy. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 87 18:54:59 GMT From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) Subject: Re: Vandenburg launch (was Re:Budgets (DoD vs. NASA)) In article <8877@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >... He's in deep legal trouble for showing the world things that the >KGB knew five years ago. (The KGB got the user's manual for the KH-11 >out of an earlier spy episode -- how secret can its capabilities be any >more?!?) The security folks often play games like "they know, and we know they know, but we will act like we do not know they know, so that they will not know we know they know". The security folks are probably upset that "they know we know they know". (I make no value judgements, so please, no flames.) Lawrence Crowl crowl@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 2 Nov 87 19:06:24 GMT From: miq%psuvm.bitnet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Jim Maloy) Subject: Soviet Antisatellite Weapon Tests information confirmed. To the best of my knowledge and sources, the Soviets have conducted 20 tests of their co-orbital ASAT, with the most recent being in 1982. My question: have the Soviets conducted any tests of this, or any other ASAT since then? (Respond via e-mail if possible) James D. Maloy The Pennsylvania State University Bitnet: MIQ@PSUECL, MIQ@PSUVM Aerospace Engineering, '87 UUCP : {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!miq ------------------------------ Date: 31 Oct 1987 15:21-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: In Search of Schrodinger's Cat. I wish to thank the person who mentioned this book. It is WELL worth reading. Yes folks, FTL information transfer may be for real. Experiments were done a few years ago. The logic is as follows. A superconductor can act as a single quantum particle. Collapse of the wave function when the state of a quantum particle changes is instantaneous. Thus a change imposed on the superconductor ring at one point appears SIMULTANEOUSLY at all other points on the 'macroparticle'. It falls out of the strange side of quantum mechanics that Einstein spent the rest of his life trying to refute. And the Wheeler and Aspect experiments have proven the worst fears of Einstein to be reality. Whatever reality means once you accept that quantum reality is fact and causality as we know it is unreal. The Bell inequality has been PROVEN not to be true (and replicated three ways to Sunday or Saturday), and this means that instantaneous action at a distance is as real as the fact that things fall down. What I would like to know, is if there is anyone on this net at the University of Sussex who could contact Terry Clark and find out if the attempt to build a 6 meter distance test of the FTL idea was successful? The book is from 1984 and I have heard nothing of this. Please note that the form of FTL is not (yet) a means like radio. It is dependant on two points being physically close to a superconductor that spans the distance between them. Of course with new superconductor power cables spanning the continent in the early days of the next century... By the way, the book also discusses time travel, multiple universes, etc. Quantum theory has some very interesting things to say about them. Of course we have long known how the design for a time machine, we just don't have the technology to build a 100km long by 10km radius rod of neutronium rotating once per .5ms. Buy it, you'll like it! ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 87 23:25:20 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: In Search of Schrodinger's Cat. in article <562710075.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU says: > I wish to thank the person who mentioned this book. It is WELL worth > reading. [further laudatory comments] The author, John Gribben, is a deft but sensationalistic writer. I would be very cautious of his scientific explanations. Remember the "Jupiter Effect?" And at least one of his "science fact" articles (the one about "the astronomers' view of the greenhouse effect) in Analog was simply wrong, and others have been dubious at best. In any case, quantum mechanics theory does not imply faster than light information transfer. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 2 Nov 87 03:24:20 GMT From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu (Keith P. Mancus) Subject: Re: In Search of Schrodinger's Cat. Would someone please send me the journal name and issue ## that contained the report of the FTL superconductor experiment? I would love to read the original report on this, but the previous poster did not mention where and when it was published. Thanks. -Keith "We'll get FTL somehow" Mancus ------------------------------ Date: 2 Nov 87 16:05:31 GMT From: uop!robert@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (Robert McCaul--The Equalizer) Subject: Re: In Search of Schrodinger's Cat. Some of john gribben's work might be considered questionable, but his book on Schrodinger's cat is very worth reading. It gives one a good general feel for what to expect when looking into other books. "When freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will have freedom" ...sun!ptsfa!cogent! \ ...mcvax!prlb2!philabs!princeton!rutgers!retix! --> uop!robert ...uwvax!ucbvax!ucdavis! / uop!robert@ucdavis.arpa ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 1987 15:55-EST From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu Subject: Skyhooks on Mars Mars' gravity well is much shallower than Earth's. Because it also has a high rotation rate, it's just possible to build a synchronous skyhook (beanstalk) for it with Kevlar. Building in a tensile safety factor of two, a Mars beanstalk would have to taper to 16,000 times its base area at its thickest point. Its mass would be a million times the payload it could support at any one time. Without the safety factor, or with a material twice as strong for its weight, the taper would shrink to 125, and the mass ratio to a reasonable 8000. A low orbit rolling skyhook, whose ends approach the ground like spokes of a rolling wheel, can be made much smaller than a beanstalk. The taper is minimized when the total length is 1/3 the radius of the planet it orbits. For many solar system bodies including Mars, rolling skyhooks are very feasible with Kevlar, or even fiberglass or steel. Here are the numbers for a few. A safety factor of two is included. Taper is the ratio of area of the cable ends (the part that supports payloads) divided into the cable middle (that has to bear the weight of the rest of the cable as well as the payload). Mass is the ratio of cable mass to maximum payload. Note that many such payloads can be lofted or lowered one after another, so in the long run a cable can hoist many times its mass. -Fiberglass- ---Kevlar--- Body Taper Mass Taper Mass Mercury 2,200 23,000 49 350 Venus 10^20 10^21 10^10 10^11 Earth 10^22 10^23 10^11 10^12 Mars 17,000 200,000 136 1,100 Luna 13 72 4 13 Ganymede 35 240 6 28 Titan 29 190 5 24 A little paper about this was in the August 1978 L5 News, if such are archived. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Oct 87 15:42:19 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Solar Energy (Herman Rubin): > After all, hasn't practical solar energy on a basis which would make > all other types [of energy] obsolete been just around the corner > thirty years ago? :-) I rather resent the tone of this comment. Thirty years ago would have been just three years after the *invention* of the silicon solar cell [ref. 1], long before any details of manufacturing, economics, or distribution could have been worked out, not to mention the era when gasoline was virtually free and nuclear power was going to be "too cheap to meter." It's not surprising that solar energy did not materialize in 1957: nobody was funding it. Nobody was interested. Predictions of the large-scale use of solar cells for production of electricity date to approximately the energy crisis (ca. 1973) and said that solar cells could be a significant source of energy *IF* research to lower cost and increase efficiency was done. In fact, however, the solar research program initiated in 1976-77 by ERDA (which later became DOE), has been effectively discontinued since about 1980. The solar research budget was cut when Reagan entered office. Nobody is interested in solar research right now, since oil is once again cheap. Nevertheless, some of us are still working on photovoltaics research, and very significant advances in solar cell technology have been made over the last ten years, and continue to be made. The best single crystal silicon solar cells have achieved efficiencies of 27 percent under concentration; amorphous silicon, cadmium telluride, copper-indium selenide and thin polycrystalline silicon have emerged as candidate thin-film low-cost materials, electric utilities have begun to set up large-scale demonstration facilities, and costs have dropped from hundreds of dollars per watt to $2 (1987 dollars) per watt for large concentration systems, very close to the value of about $1/watt where arrays would become economical for large-scale utility power generation applications. If anybody were interested, solar energy really would be "right around the corner." ("Right around the corner" having a relative meaning, of course. Nothing happens at all until you build the factory to produce the cells, and it would then take a while for the output to accumulate.) In fact, however, right now power plants of any sort, solar or otherwise, simply are not being built. General Electric recently closed down its unit to manufacture Coal-fired power plants (and despite all the hubub about other sources of energy, coal fired plants supply the majority of power produced in the US.) (1) D.M. Chapin et. al., _J. Applied Physics_, 25, p. 676 (1954). --Geoffrey A. Landis, Ph.D BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #39 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 8 Nov 87 20:09:26 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00460; Sun, 8 Nov 87 15:49:33 PST id AA00460; Sun, 8 Nov 87 15:49:33 PST Date: Sun, 8 Nov 87 15:49:33 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711082349.AA00460@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #40 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 40 Today's Topics: CELSS research Mysterious Eagle Engineering Gravity Lenses Question Recent Supernova: Lost opportunity? Re: Gravity Lenses Question Re: Escape systems Re: requirements for flight and wood on spacecraft Re: Station contractor addresses Re: Recent Supernova: Lost opportunity? Soviet manned missions; records made and future plans ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 87 12:05 CDT From: Subject: CELSS research The CELSS research program, contrary to what some people were expressing in earlier mailings, is very active in this country. The reason you don't hear much about it is that watching a plant grow does not excite the press in quite the same way as a rocket launch. CELSS research was very active in the 1960's, but, like many research areas in the space program, has suffered from neglect for much of the past decade. The past few years, thanks to the efforts of Jim Bredt, the CELSS research program director at NASA headquarters, it has gone through a lot of changes. He was able to grab the program by the heels and give it a good shake. A lot of loose change fell on the floor. The program has been reorganized and there is a lot of young blood with fresh ideas involved in it. Jim Bredt is retiring due to his health but he deserves a lot of credit for rocking boat. One very significant project he started is called the CELSS Breadboard Project. It is a CELSS technology test bed in the Life Science Support Facility at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida. An old vacuum chamber used to test the Mercury capsules for leaks has been refurbished into a two story air-tight plant growth chamber. As universities and other NASA research centers develop ideas for CELSS, they can be tested using this facility. There are active CELSS research programs at Cornell, U. of Wisconsin, Utah State, Texas A&M, EPCOT Center (Yes, Disney is working with the folks at KSC. These are very competent engineers and plant scientists although they have to pay attention to bells and whistles for the public.), U. of Florida, as well as Johnson Space Center and Ames Research Center. The point here, I guess, is that there is a lot of work being done, but it is all done quietly. There are a few more points I would like to comment on. Carbon dioxide toxicity for plants is reached at concentrations well below human tolerance. Although the effects vary with specie, I will suggest a rough rule of thumb that one percent carbon dioxide (at atmospheric pressure) is too high for plants to tolerate on a continuous basis. Reducing the oxygen content can also be injurious. Studies on flood tolerance of plants suggests that when the oxygen in the soil becomes less than 19 percent the roots begin to respire anaerobically. This can cause the death of the plant within a few days. Reducing the oxygen of the atmosphere could produce the same effect in the roots during the day cycle and in the entire plant during the night cycle. Running the lights continuously is not a solution. Photosynthetic efficiency drops off drastically under those conditions. Also, many plants have reproductive cycles which are very sensitive to day length. Adding machinery to do gas separations and all these other ideas complicate a system which is hard enough to deal with as it stands. We do not need a Ferrari which will suffer in performance if it gets a little out of tune. We need a pickup truck which can get beat up a little and still perform. The solution to this problem lies in simplicity and taking advantage of our knowledge of biological processes. We have to get those processes to do some of the work for us rather than beat the problem to death with machinery. Bruce Wright Department of Agricultural Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-2117 (409) 845-3600 ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 87 16:25:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mysterious Eagle Engineering I've gotten a whole lot of E-mail from many people on the net. Thanks to everyone who sent things in to help me with my search for employment. I'm working hard to keep the letters and resumes going out as fast as I get addresses in. One of my "problem companies" -- somebody who seemingly has no address and does no advertising -- has been Eagle Engineering. I had never heard of them. Nobody I knew had ever heard of them. Then I received the following. (The following is quoted material, but I won't put those ">" things in.) From: MATTHEWS%ASD.SPAN@STAR.STANFORD.EDU Subject: Eagle Engineering To: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Status: R I have before me the 1987 Eagle Engineering calendar, and on the bottom of each page they give the following information: Street Address: 711 Bay Area Blvd., Suite 315 (only a couple of miles down the Webster, Texas 77598 road from my apartment!) Post Office Address: P.O. Box 891049 Houston, TX 77289-1049 Phone Number: (713) 338-2682 In the back there's this blurb about the company (I'm quoting liberally, without permission, but since this calendar is obviously an advertisement for the company, I don't think they'll mind): "Eagle Engineering is dedicated to providing clients with the highest quality of consulting services and products in the aerospace field. Eagle meets the need of each customer by providing experienced and extremely talented people. Assignments are accomplished by assembling multidisciplinary teams tailored to meet the unique challenges of each client. Team members are drawn from over one hundred officers, employees, associates, and consultants who individually average over 25 years of experience. Their technical and managerial experience covers virtually every aerospace discipline. Projects include conceptual design of aerospace vehicles, future space technology development, advanced space mission planning, failure analysis and fault isolation, liability litigation, project feasibility evaluation, proposal preparation, human factors engineering, operations analysis, and general management consultation. Meeting the daily challenges of these activities keeps the Eagle staff on the leading edge of aerospace technology." The company is made up mostly of engineers retired from NASA and contractors, which accounts for the high average experience. In fact, I don't think any of them have been in the space program less than 10 years (with the exception of a few very lucky co-ops). They have been mostly subcontractors to NASA and to major contractors in the JSC area, but in recent years the expansion of the commercial space industry has opened up many new opportunities for Eagle; they are the prime engineering contractor for Space Services Incorporated of America (Conestoga launch vehicle) and provide systems engineering support for Space Industries, Incorporated (especially the Industrial Space Facility project). You can post this (or part of this, I know it's a little long and maybe boring) if you want to. Mike Matthews (ARPAnet) MATTHEWS%ASD@STAR.STANFORD.EDU MATTHEWS%LOCK@STAR.STANFORD.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 87 22:04:17 GMT From: ganelon.usc.edu!robiner@oberon.usc.edu (Steve) Subject: Gravity Lenses Question OK, I understand how gravity can bend light, but I don't understand why there are several DISTINCT images. Why isn't the image 'smeared' or elongated near the gravity lens. I'll try a ascii drawing: *----------------------------------------- \|/ star ==================== --|-- @ --------____________ stretched image of star gravity -----________ | lens ------- /|\ / \ Why isn't this the case. What causes distinct single images, and why aren't they distorted enough so that we can tell for sure they must be 'refractions'. =Steve Robiner= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Nov 87 11:44:31 EST From: loeb@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU To: clyde!watmath!lasibley@rutgers.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Recent Supernova: Lost opportunity? Lance was wondering why light is attracted by gravity. The answer is very simple. Gravity attracts not only mass, but mass/energy. In other words, something highly energetic feels more a higher gravitational froce than something of equal mass but less energy. Matter is merely another form that energy can take, and all forms of energy attract each other via gravity. Yours, Danny ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 87 17:00:29 GMT From: tybalt.caltech.edu!erc@csvax.caltech.edu (Eric R. Christian) Subject: Re: Gravity Lenses Question In article <5025@oberon.USC.EDU> robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve) writes: >OK, I understand how gravity can bend light, but I don't understand >why there are several DISTINCT images. Why isn't the image 'smeared' >or elongated near the gravity lens. I'll try a ascii drawing: You get distinct images because the original sources are point sources. These sources are usually (always?) QSOs (Quasi-Stellar Object or quasars). The diagram would look more like this: Image 1 *------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- QSO *------ @ -------- observer (not seen) -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- Image 2 *------ In three dimensions, I would sort of expect to see a ring, but you actually only see a finite (usually odd) number of discrete images. I don't understand the geometry that causes this. The reason you can tell they are from the same source is that the timing and spectrum of a QSO is as distinctive as a fingerprint. You should note that all of the images are affected and that you don't see unbent light directly from the source. Eric R. Christian erc@tybalt.caltech.edu.uucp ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 87 18:00:09 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Escape systems > However, these packages are only intended to supply O2 in a smoke or > hazardous fume environment for ground escape and do not supply the > pressure required at 40K+ feet... In fact they are not O2 packs at all, they are air packs, so they wouldn't be a whole lot of help even at lower altitudes. > ... Due to the rapid rate of fall, it is entirely possible that > conciousness may have been regained by one or more before impact. Kerwin's medical report said that if the cabin did lose pressure (which is not certain -- it was too badly smashed up by the water impact for the forensic people to be sure), it was unlikely that any of the astronauts would regain consciousness in the time available before impact. > What I am not clear on is whether the rods is sufficient to guarantee > clearance of the exhaust plume... There is no exhaust plume in gliding flight, which is the only situation that the rocket and rod concepts are meant for. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 87 21:50:45 GMT From: psuvax1!vu-vlsi!swatsun!leif@rutgers.edu (Leif Kirschenbaum) Subject: Re: requirements for flight and wood on spacecraft I find the discussions of what materials may be used on spacecraft vis-a-vis organic materials quite interesting, but what is outgassing? Leif Kirschenbaum, Swarthmore College class '91 ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 87 19:10:16 GMT From: nuchat!steve@uunet.uu.net (Steve Nuchia) Subject: Re: Station contractor addresses In article <74700059@uiucdcsp>, jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > > There was enough E-mail asking me to mail out copies of the names, > addresses, and phone numbers of the Space Station contractors I've > > As you can see, the only contractors I know nothing about are Analex > and Eagle Engineering. (Rocketdyne seems to be a division of Rockwell. Eagle Engineering is a small Houston company providing engineering services to JSC and presumably anyone else who can afford it. If my info is correct it was formed around some oldtimers who were in demand by name. Anyway, the area code is definitely 713. There is a listing in my phone book for "Eagle Engineers" at 711 Bay Area Blvd, (713) 338 2682 which is probably them. -- Steve Nuchia | [...] but the machine would probably be allowed no mercy. uunet!nuchat!steve | In other words then, if a machine is expected to be (713) 334 6720 | infallible, it cannot be intelligent. - Alan Turing, 1947 ------------------------------ Date: 6 Nov 87 03:25:12 GMT From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Recent Supernova: Lost opportunity? > Lance was wondering why light is attracted by gravity... Light isn't "attracted by gravity". Rather, objects with mass distort space itself such that light follows what appear to be "curved" paths. As far as the photon is concerned, it is following what it "thinks" is a straight line. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Nov 87 10:53:51 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soviet manned missions; records made and future plans For the Russians the October month started off by holding a three day international forum in Moscow to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Sputnik I's flight. This series of lectures, combined with the subsequent International Space Federation conference in Britain starting Oct. 12th, revealed a considerable amount of information about the Soviet's future plans. First it was stated that their cosmonauts have been doing landing tests with their shuttle, using jet engines on the test vehicle. There have been problems with the control system which will delay their first launch test until 1989. Apparently they will be doing about 4 unmanned launches first, much to the annoyance of the cosmonaut corps. Also they have given a tentative schedule for their large Energyia launches, with the next one being planed for early next year (they want no repeat of the problems with the last launch). According to some reports that I got 3rd hand from visitors to both conferences the USSR is intending to launch some 70 Energyia class boosters between now and the end of this century, building up to 8-9 launches in 1999. During the same period their space shuttle take offs will increase to 4 times annually. The Energyia is apperently designed to be a nearly fully reuseable launcher, with the LH/LO engine section of the core stage being detachable to be returned to earth by some means (possibly their shuttle). Growth versions of Energyia will move from the 4 strap-on, side cargo carrier version sent up this year, to 6 and 8 strap-on, axial cargo launchers. The largest version will carry up to 215 Tonnes (according to an estimate in Flight International magazine). One interesting point there is that when the Mars missions were being looked at by NASA in the early 1970's they settled on 180-200 Tonnes as the best size launcher for such missions. Their new very large space station core, called Novy Mir, will go up in 1996 on the advanced version of Energyia (6-8 strap-ons with the payload on a vertical stack, which would suggest a core mass of 150-200 metric tonnes). Since Mir was said to have a 5 year design lifetime, and Soviet researchers have stated that there will be a Mir II, this suggests to me that in 1991-92 a replacement will be launched that will be similar to the current station. In addition they have talked about a second observer and technical Star module (the 10-20 tonne additions that fit on the side port of Mir), which will be operational concurrent with their older versions. This is consistent with them operating two Mir type stations in the early 1990's before the new system comes on stream. The Cosmos 1887 biological satellite, launched on Sep. 29, had an eventful 14 day mission. During its flight one of the two monkey's on board managed to get one of its arms lose from the straps holding it, an began pushing all the buttons in sight. By accident (and not the Russians assure us due to monkeying around) the Cosmos proceeded to land some 2000 miles off course, making some delay in the retrieving of the data. The monkeys are in fine shape now. The first event in manned flight this month was the Oct. 24th breaking of the official space endurance record by Yuri Romanenko on board Mir. By exceeding 260 days he has currently been in orbit over 10% longer than the previous record holders: the Soyuz T-10B crew 237 mission on board Salyut 7 in Oct. 1984 (set by Leonid Kizim, Validimir Soloyev and Oleg Atkov). On Oct. 25th Romanenko exceeded one full year of accumulated time in orbit, while on Nov. 4th he exceed Kizim's record for total space time. Indeed the length of this mission is best illustrated by the 93 days Alexander Alexadrov has accumulated since he replaced Alexander Laveikin on July 29th. That time, which exceeded the longest US mission to date (Skylab 4), is on top of the 149 days he spent in the Soyuz T-9/Salyut 7 mission of 1983. Currently the crew has just finished unloading the Progress 32 cargo craft (the 13th vehicle to dock to Mir). Sometime this winter the new air lock module will be launched. This will initially dock axially on Mir, but it has another port on its rear that will take a Soyuz, and also has the manipulator arm that will move it to the side port of the docking ball on Mir. Your editor personally feels that this will be used to move a Soyuz to the side port to allow a docking of three capsules to Mir at the same time. The Soviets have talked about the final growth version of Mir containing crews of 6 to 9 people, which would require 3 Soyuzs. Also that having the air lock dock axially means that it can stay there without blocking the front port until the second side docking module is ready. This will minimize the time during which only one module is on the side of Mir - a relatively unstable situation. A rather strange happening occurred on Oct. 26th when the Soviets showed on Moscow TV a special program that detailed many of their past space failures. According to both the British Broadcast Corp. and Radio Moscow this program first reported the number of Soviet rocket scientists that were sent to Siberia and the damage that was done to their program by that event. Apparently they also showed a number of film clips of the earlier launch failures. One interesting question that I would like to ask of anyone who saw this program - did it show anything of the old 1970's G booster (their Saturn class moon rocket that failed 3 times according to most researchers). This is all part of a series of programs that the Soviet Government has been giving in the past week revealing the darker pages of the past 70 years of the USSR. Maybe with this we can finally find out some of the things we have always suspected about the Soviet program past operations (eg.1 did they really have someone ready to beat Apollo 8 to lunar orbit in 1968). Sorry this report is both long and not as timely as I could wish. Unfortunately our VAX has been having significant problems in the past month making it impossible for me to send any reports out until now (and I was off on some trips the month before). Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #40 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 9 Nov 87 06:32:49 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00699; Mon, 9 Nov 87 03:15:39 PST id AA00699; Mon, 9 Nov 87 03:15:39 PST Date: Mon, 9 Nov 87 03:15:39 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711091115.AA00699@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #41 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 41 Today's Topics: National Space Society Space Station crewing SPACE Digest V8 #39 escape capsules Commercial plea for space station - effective! Cost Optimized Launch Vehicles, circa 1965 Re: Gravity Lenses Question Hypergolic fuels ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Nov 87 21:59:35 GMT From: cbmvax!eric@rutgers.edu (Eric Cotton) Subject: National Space Society I recently got a mailing inviting me to become a member of the National Space Society. Is the NSS the result of the merger between the L-5 Society and a second organization (whose name escapes me)? Please e-mail if you know. Thanks. -- Eric Cotton Commodore-Amiga *======================================================================* *===== UUCP: {rutgers|ihnp4|allegra}!cbmvax!eric =====* *===== FONE: (215) 431-9100 =====* *===== MAIL: 1200 Wilson Drive / West Chester, PA 19380 =====* *===== PAUL: "I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." =====* *======================================================================* ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Nov 87 23:46:16 PST From: John Sotos Subject: Space Station crewing Having been off the net for a couple weeks, forgive me if this is old news, but NASA has announced the scheme for crewing the Space Station. The standard crew number will be four: one station commander responsible for safety and crew coordination, two career astronauts, and one non-career astronaut. One career astro will be called a station scientist and the other a station operator, but both will be cross-trained in the other's skills. But which one will be the simian feces monitor? (All but the last sentence courtesy Aviation Week, Oct. 26.) ------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1987 09:37 EST From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #39 Subject: Lunar Skyhooks ... the one experience I have seen in > implementing a similar system [the B-1] has been negative... It has been done successfully, notably for the F-111. Not trivial, but possible. I would attribute the scrapping of the B-1's escape capsule to a combination of the institutionalized incompetence of the US defence industry, and financial pressures during the B-1's complicated history. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 3 Nov 87 02:55:45 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arpa (MacLeod) Subject: Commercial plea for space station - effective! Has anyone else seen the (in my opinion) well-done commercial plea for renewed space activity from McDonnel-Douglas? It goes like this - (View from Earth orbit; earth to left.) Voice begins to ask if it would be good to have ongoing space research, a manned space station, and so on. (From below camera angle, a long Skylab-like station begins to move past the camera, and you can hear muffled SSB-type voice transmissions in the background. Obviously, this is a space station.) Voice asks several questions as the station passes by your POV, then says, "There is such a program, but it is not American" or words to that effect. (The end of the station comes into view with a huge red star and a CCCP on it. The muffled SSB transmissions are louder and now clearly in Russian. The station drifts onward.) The McDonnel-Douglas logo comes up and there is a request for support for a renewed US space effort. I may have some of this confused; I only saw it once and I wasn't paying attention at the beginning. It was quite moving, though, and I wish that they would run it every night during Nightline or somewhere where it would do some good. Has anybody else seen this? Mike MacLeod ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 87 19:33:39 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Newkirk) Subject: Cost Optimized Launch Vehicles, circa 1965 [ This is an extract from U.S. Civilian Space Programs, 1958-1981, Vol. 1, published by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, Jan. 1981. It seemed appropriate now that there are so many designs for new boosters around - dcn. ] Proposals for Large, Economical Rockets --------------------------------------- While much of the research attention has focused on attempts to squeeze extra percentages of efficiency out of propellants or out of engines, and then, out of reusability of very expensive vehicles, there was another design trend that showed up in proposals which would have relaxed some of the design constraints and instead aimed at economy so that while engineering abstract efficiency was not attained, overall program costs were to be cut. One kind of label which was used in the mid-60s was `Big Dumb Booster.' The goal was to come up with a rocket which could be built in a shipyard of ordinary steel, towed out to sea, filled with a pair of cheap propellants and sent on its way. In a sense, the OTRAG effort to launch clustered simple rockets to orbit from Zaire has elements of the same philosophy although the design approach was different. (1) There were many different plans offered by either established aerospace companies or by newcomers who one way or another were seeking a path to more nearly commercial applications of space flight though cutting the costs of launching to Earth orbit. It is not possible to catalog all of these here, but a few quite different vehicles have been described in brochures which are still available for study. Roost ----- Roost was a 1962 offering of Douglas Aircraft Co. It called for lifting 145,000 kg (320,000 lbs), or more, to a 555 km (345 mile) orbit using a single stage. It would have used a 15.2 meter (50 ft) diameter tank 83 m (273 ft) long, and powered by 12 hydrogen-oxygen engines of 4,448,455 Newtons (1,000,000 lbs) thrust each, possibly a variant of the M-1 motor [would have been developed for the Nova second stage - dcn]. Recovery was to include deployment of a balloon cone-shaped element inflated with leftover hydrogen pro- pellant or helium. This was to be able to return a 13,600 kg (30, 000 lb) manned payload from orbit. Obviously such a single-stage- to-orbit rocket does not meet the definition of a `Big Dumb Booster,' but through simplicity of design and reusability, the hope was to bring the payload cost down to under $660 a kilogram ($300/lb) for modest payloads, compared with $1,543 a kg ($700/lb) for the Atlas Agena, and for large payloads to bring the cost down to $100 a kg ($45.50/lb), compared with $330 a kg ($150/lb) for the Saturn V. (2) Sea Dragon ---------- The Sea Dragon proposal of 1965 from the Aerojet Company was intended to outclass Nova in size in the same way that Nova out- classed the Saturn V. As far as weights were concerned, the Saturn V had a liftoff weight of about 2,268,000 kg (5,000,000 lbs); the Nova would have been about 4,536,000 kg (10,000,000 lbs); while the Sea Dragon would have been in the 43,360,000 kg (100,000,000 lb) class. The promoters pointed out that the cost of liquid oxygen and kerosene for putting a kg of payload in orbit is on the order of $4.40 ($2.00 per lb). But for some solid propellants the pro- pellant cost for putting a kg of payload in orbit is more than $220 ($100 per lb). With some vehicles, the total cost of propellant and airframe runs to total over $2,205 a kg ($1000 per lb). But if the vehicle could be used a 100 times, the airframe portion of cost would drop from perhaps $2200 a kg ($998 per lb) to only $22 a kg ($9.98/lb), because the vehicle itself is so expensive compared with the propellants. The goal of Sea Dragon was to spread those costs of construc- tion through reuse. Sea Dragon was to be a two-stage vehicle, treated like a ship, by being assembled in a dry dock, towed to an ocean launch site, and fueled from tankers. Tilted on end, without the expense of gantry or other structure, the rocket would rise toward orbit directly out of the water. The rocket was also made simple by using pressure-fed motors. The intention was to recover both stages without parachutes, wings or retro-rockets, simply by hydrodynamic deceleration. (3) Cost Optimized Launch Vehicle (COLV - Big Dumb Booster) ------------------------------------------------------- The COLV Big Dumb Booster of Boeing, also called Project Scrimp, was developed as a concept in the years of 1967-1969. The approach was to have a family of launch vehicles with cost rather than performance the deciding design factor. These were in the lifting range of 450 kg (1000 lbs) to 45,360 kg (100,000 lbs). Engines were pressure-fed with no moving parts other than valves. Tanks were steel, and the pressurizing gas was steam. TRW and possibly other major liquid rocket motor companies ran design studies and preliminary tests on the propulsion required. Funding at Boeing was mostly corporate, although some Air Force money also was used. While the goal was to bring the cost of delivered payload down to $132 a kg ($60/lb), that attained in the design study was $190 a kg ($86/lb), still way below the prevailing costs of launching on conventional rockets of the same period. In the end, the national decision was to go to reusable vehicles rather than `Big Dumb Boosters.' Initially, the reusables have a higher cost per kilogram than these economical expendable vehicles have shown in the paper studies. But the advantage of the reusable vehicles was seen to be a potential for later generations to cut costs while the expendables would reach a floor on cost savings sooner. (4) (1) Space World, August-September 1978, pp 4-14. (2) Douglas Report SM-41719. A Conceptual Design for a Reusable One-Stage Orbital Space Truck. (3) Aerojet General. Sea Dragon, 9200-65. (4) Aviation Week & Space Technology, May 27, 1968, p. 30; July 29, 1968, p.13. -- Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn ------------------------------ Date: 6 Nov 87 15:56:51 GMT From: linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@husc6.harvard.edu (Frank Adams) Subject: Re: Gravity Lenses Question In article <5025@oberon.USC.EDU> robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve) writes: >OK, I understand how gravity can bend light, but I don't understand >why there are several DISTINCT images. Why isn't the image 'smeared' >or elongated near the gravity lens. Star images are point sources in even the biggest telescopes. At the distances we are talking about for gravitational lenses, even galaxies are point sources. Thus, any distortion is not visible. Multiple images come from the same image coming on different sides of the lens. If the lens were perfectly positioned between us and the source, and perfectly symmetrical, we would see a ring of light. Since neither of those is the case, a finite number of images are seen. As an approximate analogy, the effect is a bit like seeing multiple reflections of the same object in a curved mirror. -- Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Ashton-Tate 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108 ------------------------------ Date: 7 Nov 87 22:46:02 GMT From: nosc!humu!uhmanoa!aloha1!islenet!scott@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Scott Allen) Subject: Hypergolic fuels Can anyone describe what happens to hypergolic fuels contained in missile tanks on SSBNs when they sink, pass crush depth, and are exposed to sea water, as in the case of the Yankee SSBN which sank off the US East Coast in October of 1986? News pictures of the Yankee showed a tube door blown off and a brown gas coming out of the tube. This was apparently fuel, and if it was hypergolic, why was there no accompanying fire or explosion? The same brown gas was present at the explosion of the Titan missile a few years ago. Is the brown gas fuel or a product of combustion? Does its presence mean that all the fuel has been burned? When the Yankee sank last year and its remaining missiles were crushed, would they have exploded, or would the fuel have been dispersed in the sea water? -- Scott Allen {ihnp4|dual|vortex}!islenet!scott Honolulu, Hawaii 808-941-8500 808-947-3657 808-946-1919 Islenet ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #41 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Nov 87 06:15:22 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02345; Tue, 10 Nov 87 03:13:01 PST id AA02345; Tue, 10 Nov 87 03:13:01 PST Date: Tue, 10 Nov 87 03:13:01 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711101113.AA02345@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #42 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 42 Today's Topics: Re: conciousness at impact digitized (3D) shuttle data Fletcher speech to World Affairs Council "Spaceflight" 1976-87 available in Los Angeles Re: Gravity Lenses Question Definitions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Nov 1987 18:34-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: conciousness at impact I usually don't disagree with Henry, but I'll stand by my guns that given the rate of fall from high altitude and the short time spent in thin air, I feel the possibility of revival before impact is a strong one. Procedure for commercial aircraft on loss of pressurization is to DIVE for low altitudes. Since there have been a few incidents of this type, possibly there is some information on passenger revival time. I'm not aware of any from FL400, although I think the one over the Med. a few years back was somewhere around FL300 give or take 5K ft. If there is anyone associated with NTSB out there, maybe we could get some facts from real life. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 87 20:29:31 GMT From: super.upenn.edu!eecae!upba!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utcsri!uthub!ecf!apollo@rutgers.edu (Vince Pugliese) Subject: digitized (3D) shuttle data I am trying to find a source of a polygonal data base for the space shuttle. I am very interested in a very complete definition that includes things like the cargo bay doors. If anyone knows of such a database please e-mail to me or post to the net as I'm sure there are others who would be interested in the same. Thanks in advance, Vince Pugliese apollo@ecf.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 87 19:40:35 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Fletcher speech to World Affairs Council On November 6, NASA Administrator Fletcher gave a speech to the World Affairs Council meeting in Los Angeles. The NASA public information office considered the speech of sufficient importance to distribute its prepared text via NASAMAIL. With page numbers and blank space edited out, the speech and an accompanying press release run over 500 lines, so I will not post it. Normally, I might try to summarize, but I simply cannot find in this speech any conclusions to extract. If anyone else would like to try, I will send a copy by e-mail. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Sender: "Bruce_A._Hamilton.OsbuSouth"@xerox.com Date: 9 Nov 87 17:36:44 PST (Monday) Subject: "Spaceflight" 1976-87 available in Los Angeles From: "Bruce_Hamilton.OsbuSouth.OsbuSouth"@xerox.com Cc: Hamilton.OsbuSouth@xerox.com Reply-To: Hamilton.OsbuSouth@xerox.com LOS ANGELES AREA SPACEFANZ: Before my apartment fills up, I want to get rid of my more-or-less complete collection of "Spaceflight" 1976-87. "Spaceflight" is the magazine of the British Interplanetary Society, and gives definitive treatment of all world spacefaring events and programs. Make an offer. I won't be insulted by $0, but there might be a lot of interest to outbid. YOU MUST PICK UP THE MAGS in El Segundo; I'll work out details with the high bidder. Interest in the complete collection preferred, but I'll consider breaking it up if necessary. The stack of mags is roughly 2 or 3 feet high. --Bruce ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 87 16:22:18 GMT From: decvax!watmath!water!jmlang@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Jerome M Lang) Subject: Re: Gravity Lenses Question What a coincidence: Last Saturday, the Globe and Mail (Toronto) announced in their regular science column that an Einstein 'ring' had been discovered. In an Einstein ring, the gravitational field of a galaxy distorts the image of another galaxy into a ring (instead of the multiple images that we have been talking about in the last while). Can anybody send me any technical journal references of that discovery? ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Je'ro^me M. Lang || jmlang@water.bitnet jmlang@water.uucp Dept of Applied Math || jmlang%water@waterloo.csnet U of Waterloo || jmlang%water%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 87 03:46:13 GMT From: ptsfa!pbhya!bwm@AMES.ARPA (Bruce Mohler) Subject: Definitions Two questions from a novice: What does the acronym 'CELSS' stand for? What is the purpose of a 'skyhook'? ----- Bruce Mohler Pacific*Bell, San Diego, CA pbhya!bwm ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #42 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Nov 87 08:47:37 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01669; Wed, 11 Nov 87 03:13:14 PST id AA01669; Wed, 11 Nov 87 03:13:14 PST Date: Wed, 11 Nov 87 03:13:14 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711111113.AA01669@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #43 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 43 Today's Topics: Re: Ecological experimentation When will we know? Brazil in space Re: National Space Society Video disks Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Nov 87 03:01:47 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Ecological experimentation > (even the so-called fully closed scenarios that have been studied have > about 3% of the human food supply coming from stores, presumably for > micronutrients that might be deficient in an all-vegetarian diet.) You also want some outflow, or else you have to worry about buildup of trace substances. This is not a trivial issue -- something like 5 parts per million of nickel, for example, is a hazardous waste. Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 87 02:47:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: When will we know? I've heard a lot of rumors, but I haven't heard any "hard facts". When will NASA decide on the Space Station teams? Please include a reference to a real, live piece of paper. All the rumors have said November, but have evenly spread between 11/1, 11/15, 11/30, and everything else. Some have even said it might slip by a month or two. This is quite important to me, as I'm about to be employed by some lucky company. I'd like to know ASAP who wins the bidding on the Station's four Work Packages. -- Ken Jenks jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 87 16:23:55 GMT From: steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@uunet.uu.net (Mike Trout) Subject: Brazil in space Some time ago, I asked for information about science fiction works that postulate Brazil as the big power in space. There was considerable posting on the subject, with quite a bit of disagreement about which author "really" first came up with the idea of Brazil in space. I also got some e-mail on the subject. For those that still care, I've summarized the list. The following is a list of all material that was e-mailed to me as "Brazil in space" literature. Errors and such will probably exist; this is not my field. Obviously, "Brazil in space" is in some danger of becoming a science fiction cliche. Poul Anderson _Avatar_ various stories involving "Nick van Rijn" various stories involving the "Polseotechnic League" Ben Bova _Privateers_ L. Sprague deCamp various novels and short stories involving "Viagens Interplanetarias" Frederick Pohl _Gateway_ various sequels to _Gateway_ Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) =-=-=-=-=-=-= UUCP:brspyr1!miket ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 87 03:04:25 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: National Space Society > I recently got a mailing inviting me to become a member of the > National Space Society. Is the NSS the result of the merger between > the L-5 Society and a second organization (whose name escapes me)? I'm posting this on the grounds that it's of more general interest. Yes, NSS is the combination of the L5 Society and the National Space Institute. It is a bit too early to tell what the flavor of the combination will be, but it is worth your while to join nevertheless. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Nov 87 09:08:00 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Video disks The subject of space video disks was mentioned before on the net. I ran into several space archives while visiting a local record store in the video section. The contents are principally footage from previous manned-missions up to 1983. The store was Tower Records, but I'll post the address of the source if people are interested. Just send me mail to let me know (6 and I'll post, 5 or less, get mail). This may be old hat to some. --eugene ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 87 23:57:03 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzz!dam@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (XMRN50000[sms]-d.a.morano) Subject: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! About the McDonald Douglas commercial for more - American - space station research, I agree that the commercial was very effective. I only saw the commercial once and I thought it was very well done. I was totally caught off guard - just as the advertiser intended - by first thinking that the commercial was for some US satellite or for the old US SkyLab program. I started at the beginning of the commercial thinking this is just another "Oh, Look how much technology has been done in the US" type commercial. But, as the commercial progressed, I soon became enthralled with it for some unknown reason (maybe the fact that it dealt with space itself ; I don't know !). This caused me to watch further and pay attention, again just what the advertiser was hoping for. I hear the low background talking and watch as the station passed over head. I now started to see the red star and hear the voices more clearly, and then it hit me ; it was a Soviet space station !!! And the cosmonauts start laughing, almost at us ! The commercial must have only been a few seconds, maybe 15 seconds, but it had me captivated for its duration. I hope that they can replay it for a while longer so that I can get a second look at it. After the commercial was over, I was thinking to myself, "wow, that really had me going for a while." I must admit that the advertising firm which made this commercial really earned their fee. Dave Morano - AT&T Middletown, NJ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #43 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Nov 87 06:23:55 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03791; Thu, 12 Nov 87 03:13:40 PST id AA03791; Thu, 12 Nov 87 03:13:40 PST Date: Thu, 12 Nov 87 03:13:40 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711121113.AA03791@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #44 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 44 Today's Topics: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! A Photon has Relativistic Mass but no Rest Mass Re: Definitions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Nov 87 21:44:46 GMT From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) Subject: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! Re: the McDon-D commercial -- I've seen it, but also only once. I could be way off base, but seems to me that I heard that someone (who obviously didn't pay attention) was claiming that it was anti-American, or not true, or something... and that either the networks didn't want to run it or McDon-D backed out, fearing it was giving them a bad name. Anybody have any details? --Rod ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 87 17:56:55 GMT From: heurikon!lampman@speedy.wisc.edu (Ray Lampman) Subject: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! If you only read one article today, please read this ... > From: macleod@drivax.UUCP > [At the end of the video] The McDonnel-Douglas logo comes up and there > is a request for support for a renewed US space effort. I wish that > they would run it every night during Nightline or somewhere where it > would do some good. Has anybody else seen this? > Mike MacLeod > From: dam@mtgzz.UUCP > The commercial must have only been a few seconds, maybe 15 seconds, > but it had me captivated for its duration. I hope that they can replay > it for a while longer so that I can get a second look at it. > Dave Morano How do we get this video aired on Nightline or (to quote Mike) somewhere where it would do some good? There must be a way ... By recent estimates there are about 12000 people who read this group. Let's suppose they all have a phone number at NBC they can call. Let's suppose they all call and promise to watch Nightline and the other commercials (this is what NBC is really interested in, right? :-), if NBC will run the McDonnell-Douglas commercial during Nightline. What do you think might happen? Can this possibly succeed? Can 12000 people make a difference? Can the people of sci.space accomplish something as a group? Will the general population view the commercial and then call their congress critters? Or will they call Nightline and ask for a show explaining the meaning of "Mir"? "Mir" means "Peace", as in, the race is over, we've [USSR] won (I really like that signature :-). This could make an interesting Nightline. - Ray (lampman@heurikon.UUCP) ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 87 17:49:16 GMT From: paul.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) Subject: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! In article <2677@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: Flamers, please note before reading the following that I am not opposed to building the space station if it can be properly justified. I haven't seen the commercial. It sounds well-done from the point of being effective propoganda. (Especially considering that McDonnell-Douglas stands to make a lot of money from Space Station contracts, and so wants to develop favorable publicity.) MdD's argument does not, however, make any objective sense at all, in explaining why a space station will benefit the U.S. more than spending the money elsewhere (including other space projects such as BDB, solar energy, planetary exploration, astronomy, etc.) Beating the Russians in a propoganda race is not an acceptable reason to spend 20-40 billion dollars. The Russians have been successful in space because they have adopted a policy of sustained effort, building upon past achievements, and reasonably good cost control. The U.S. has tended to have one crash program every ten years or so; the technology developed in previous programs is discarded. The Saturn V was the heaviest-lift booster we ever developed; in 1987, we can't build another Saturn V. We had Skylab in orbit a long time before they launched Mir, but we couldn't build or launch another one now. To succeed in the long run, we _must_ adopt the attitude that we will do useful things, in a sustained effort, toward long-term goals. Budgeting is a zero-sum game; we must make every gigabuck count. Although I'm not automatically opposed to the building of the Space Station, I don't believe NASA has come up with a convincing reason for building it other than sustaining NASA's budget. (And, of course, space races with the Russians.) If NASA presents a clear, unambiguous reason for building the station, and justifies the $20 billion (plus overruns now being previewed) that it will cost, >>> showing why its cost would be of greater long-term benefit to the United States than spending the money elsewhere, in terms of concrete national goals, <<< then I'm all for it. But I feel NASA has thus far failed to do this. Before we build the space station, I think we should do the following: - Launch Galileo, the Space Telescope, and any other satellites that are sitting on the ground becoming obsolete. - Fix the shuttle program and develop a realistic estimate of how many flights we can launch with reasonable safety margins. - Develop a Big Dumb Booster, preferably man-rated. In the interim, reactivate production of existing small boosters. - Develop plans for space exploration and exploitation that do not involve boondoggles, and that we can be happy with for 30 years. - If the Space Station can be proved to generate benefit commensurate with its cost, the groundwork will then be laid for building it. .-.-. Steve Masticola -.- ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 87 17:26:18 GMT From: idacrd!mac@princeton.edu (Bob McGwier) Subject: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! in article <3291@mtgzz.UUCP>, dam@mtgzz.UUCP (XMRN50000[sms]-d.a.morano) says: > Summary: commercial plea for space effective - I agree ! > About the McDonald Douglas commercial for more - American - space > station research, I agree that the commercial was very effective. etc. I saw United Technologies last night. It began with Saturn V liftoff, Neil Armstrong's landing, Kennedy's speech, the bible verses "and God said, let there be light", etc. Ends with "Isn't it time we looked up again?" Again VERY effective and by God if emotional appeals will get the job done, go for it. Of course, these companies stand to make billions, I hope they do. Bob McGwier ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 87 13:18:13 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: A Photon has Relativistic Mass but no Rest Mass clyde!watmath!lasibley@rutgers.edu >Question: if >light can be bent by gravity, then light has mass and can therefore not >travel at the speed of light. There's got to be a flaw here >somewhere... The problem here is that when physicists use the word "mass", they use it in two different ways. A photon has no REST MASS, that is, measured in its own reference frame, it would have no mass, or, equivilently, if you could stop a photon and measure the mass, it would be zero. But you can't stop a photon (when you try, it disappears) and you also can't reach its own reference frame, which is travelling at the speed of light. When it is important to distinguish which type of mass a physicist is talking about, the symbol m_o is used for rest mass. Rest mass is the term in the relativistically invariant quantity E**2-(p*c)**2=(m_o*c**2)**2. Setting momentum p to zero will reduce this equation to the familiar E=mc**2. A photon does have RELATIVISTIC mass. This is the ordinary mass which is affected by gravity. Relativistic mass is much less useful for most physics first, because it is not relativistically invariant (it depends on how fast the object is moving), and second, since relativistic mass is the mass seen in the equation E=mc**2, it's just as easy to refer to the energy instead of the mass anyway. However, since a photon does have energy, it must also have mass. The equation for mass (relativistic mass) of an object is m=m_o*gamma, where gamma is a function of velocity that goes to infinity at velocity = c, gamma=SQRT(1-(v/c)**2). That's how a photon can have relativistic mass but zero rest mass: since it only moves at c, gamma is infinity. In this particular case, it turns out that infinity times zero equals E/c**2. Not only CAN a photon travel at the speed of light, it MUST travel at the speed of light (in vacuum). --Geoffrey A. Landis, Ph.D BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 87 20:21:37 GMT From: ucsdhub!jack!man!crash!gryphon!mhnadel@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Miriam Nadel) Subject: Re: Definitions In article <5862@pbhya.UUCP> bwm@pbhya.UUCP (Bruce Mohler) writes: > >What does the acronym 'CELSS' stand for? > Closed Ecological Life Support System. Some people claim the C really stands for "controlled" but this doesn't make much sense since the fundamental property of a CELSS is closure to mass transfer (though not heat transfer). In addition, the term PCELSS is used for a partially closed system (e.g. one in which say 50% of the food would be grown and 50% provided by resupply. In fact, all of the so-called CELSS scenarios studied to date are really PCELSS since they allow for about 3% resupply, primarily of micronutrients). There is also an opinion that the "E" stands for "Environmental" not "Ecological." Not being a biologist type, I don't know if this distinction has any significance at all - "environment" means something quite different to us automation types. The earliest reference I know of to closed life support systems is "The Closed Life-Support System," Report on a conference at Ames Research Center, April 14-15,1966, NASA SP-134. The earliest use of the acronym CELSS (at least in references I have) is in the paper "Technology Requirements for Closed Ecology Life Support Systems Applicable to Space Habitats," J.M. Spurlock and M.Modell, presented at the American Astronautical Society Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Oct. 18-20, 1977. Miriam Nadel -- "Always a godmother - never a God" - Fran Liebowitz mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM {philabs, trwrb}!cadovax!gryphon!mhnadel {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!mhnadel ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #44 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Nov 87 06:18:36 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06037; Fri, 13 Nov 87 03:16:30 PST id AA06037; Fri, 13 Nov 87 03:16:30 PST Date: Fri, 13 Nov 87 03:16:30 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711131116.AA06037@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #45 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 45 Today's Topics: Mir Elements, 7 November 1987 Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! Re: Definitions Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! Brown Dwarf and media idiocy Re: Dyson Sphere Discovered? Re: Dyson Sphere Discovered? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Nov 87 21:09:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir Elements, 7 November 1987 Satellite: MIR Catalog id: 16609 Element set: 897 Epoch day: 87306.71935633 RA of node: 160.9565 degrees Inclination: 51.6280 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0042865 Argument of perigee: 342.4202 degrees Mean anomaly: 17.0947 degrees Mean motion: 15.84402800 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00189276 * 2 revs/day/day Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso Still no reboost; the thing is continuing its fall out of the sky. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 87 03:34:04 GMT From: psuvax1!vu-vlsi!swatsun!leif@rutgers.edu (Leif Kirschenbaum) Subject: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! In article <2171@steppenwolf.rutgers.edu> masticol@steppenwolf.rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) writes: >In article <2677@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: > >> Has anyone else seen the (in my opinion) well-done commercial plea >> for renewed space activity from McDonnel-Douglas? > >MdD's argument does not, however, make any objective sense at all, in >explaining why a space station will benefit the U.S. more than >spending the money elsewhere (including other space projects such as >BDB, solar energy, planetary exploration, astronomy, etc.) Beating the >Russians in a propoganda race is not an acceptable reason to spend >20-40 billion dollars. Right now we spend much more than that on defense, much of which is unecessarily spent. Isn't this propaganda for the American people? The space station will (this may be somewhat innaccurate, or repetitive for many readers) 1) force us to invent new technology 2) give easier access to a space environment for vacuum, microgravity, cold temperatures, etc. 3) permit on-the-site supervision and *repair* (how many experiments have failed in orbit that could be repaired by an astronaut) of various experiments including the space telescope and other scientific packages 4) allow us to put many of the satellites we currently use in one spot thus consolidating power supply, and allowing us to more easily maintain them. In addition micrometeorite protection would be easier with all the instrument in one place. Another factor is limited room in orbit: if every satellite needs 100 miles leeway (due to launch innacuracy and other factors) and the U.S. wants many satellites, and they have to be above the equator, smaller countries like Brazil or India may be pushed aside in their quest for satellite space. 5) be a launching platform for manned and unmanned missions 6) be an assembly site for manned and unmanned missions. I would think cleanliness would be easier in the vacuum or near-vacuum of space than on Earth. Leif Kirschenbaum '91 Swarthmore College ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 87 21:00:10 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Definitions > What does the acronym 'CELSS' stand for? "Closed Environment(al) Life Support System (Study)" This is the name of a program within NASA, as well as the generic name for a life support system that closes one or more of the (air, water, food) life support loops. Tim Vinopal, who was mentioned in connection with a Boeing CELSS study, happens to be a friend of mine. If anyone has a detailed question about the subject, I can pass the question on to him. > What is the purpose of a 'skyhook'? The purpose of a skyhook is to make it easier to get to and around in space. One way is by transferring momentum to a launch vehicle. The momentum has been accumulated in the skyhook (with possibly an associated ballast mass) using a high performance propulsion unit, such as an ion engine. While an ion engine is tens of times more efficient than a chemical rocket, it cannot produce enough thrust to get off the ground. In space, however, the engine can be run continuously, accumulating energy in the form of higher orbits for the skyhook. This energy can be transferred rapidly to a vehicle that attaches to the shyhook. Another advantage of a skyhook is that the energy transfer is reversible. So, the vehicle part (as opposed to the payload) can temporarily borrow the energy to do its' mission, then return that energy to the skyhook when done. In this connection, the skyhook has also been referred to as a 'momentum bank'. Note that 'tether', 'orbital tether', 'beanstalk', and 'skyhook' are synonymous. Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation ------------------------------ Date: 12 November 1987, 11:40:23 EST From: Joshua Knight Subject: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! The McD-D commercial was aired during (at least one game of) the National League baseball playoff series. I thought of commenting at the time given the previous laments on this list: > Date: Mon, 27 Jul 87 10:26:24 CDT > From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI > Subject: Pro-Space Publicity > > I was just looking through a back issue (May '87) of GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE ... > "...Budget limits said they could afford to buy time on only one Sunday > morning talk show and a few local-TV nightime news slots. [This explains > why I had never seen this ad nor heard of it before now.-WM] The > networks made that decision easy for them. Only NBC said it would run > the ad. ABC and CBS turned it down, said it was 'too controversial'." ... > "... When they > deny expression of 'controversial' opinions they don't like, this > Republic has a heap of trouble, folks." > (editorial by C. W. Borklund, Editor-In-Chief) ... > But much of this > effort has been stifled and suppressed by enemies of the pro-space > viewpoint. If someone with the clout of McDonnell Douglas can't get a > professionally-produced ad on TV, what chance do private persons have of > spreading the word with some kind of newsletter or lobbying effort? but decided it wasn't worth it then. Now that it seems to be appearing regularly, it is perhaps worth noting that the either the previous pessimism was misplaced or something changed. Note that airing this commercial during the playoffs is a good sign. This is normally the time when beer and shaving creme are advertised; things on which we spend more than space exploration. Josh Knight josh@ibm.com, josh@yktvmh.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 87 15:38:14 GMT From: paul.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) Subject: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! In article <1381@carthage.swatsun.UUCP> leif@swatsun (Leif Kirschenbaum) writes > The space station will (this may be somewhat innaccurate, or > repetitive for many readers) > 1) force us to invent new technology So would almost any massive technological effort, including BDB. The question is: to what end will we use the technology? My guess is that the Space Station would never have been promoted by the Reagan "administration" unless it was _primarily_ intended as an SDI test bed. [I gather that BDB refers to Big Dumb Booster. -Ed] > 2) give easier access to a space environment for vacuum, microgravity, > cold temperatures, etc. So would BDB. BDB would also make it easier and cheaper to build a space station. So why not build BDB first? > 3) permit on-the-site supervision and *repair* [of satellites] The shuttle was supposed to give us this capability. Total cost of shuttle: $40 billion, I think. Total number of satellites repaired in orbit: 2. Total value of satellites: Somewhat less than $200 million. Per pound of payload to LEO, the shuttle is the most expensive launcher invented in the last 20 years, and the game plan is to rely on it to build the Space Station. Let's build the BDB first! > 4) allow us to put many of the satellites we currently use in one spot > thus consolidating power supply, and allowing us to more easily > maintain them. The SS has the _disadvantage_ of occupying only one spot in space. Since it, too, is in LEO, it will be impractical to use the SS as a communications relay. Because there will be a lot of comunications going to/from the SS, it will be unusable for radio astronomy or communication with deep-space probes. Similar interference effects apply for magnetometry studies. The bigger a system is, the more trouble it is to integrate it. The SS would be usable as a weathersat or spysat, but we already have that technology. Again, the inevitable conclusion about the usefulness of the SS is: Star Wars. Period. > Another factor is limited room in orbit: if every satellite needs 100 > miles leeway (due to launch innacuracy and other factors) and the U.S. > wants many satellites, and they have to be above the equator, smaller > countries like Brazil or India may be pushed aside in their quest for > satellite space. Satellite space is hard to find only in Clarke orbit. The space station is to operate in low-earth orbit. It would be valueless to any small country that needs space in Clarke orbit. > In addition micrometeorite protection would be easier with all the > instrument in one place. Current technology satellites aren't protected against micrometeorites; they last about ten years on the average, and I've only heard about a couple of cases where a collision may have caused the failure of a satellite. Space junk is the real problem, but it's only a problem in geosynchronous orbit, where there are a lot of satellites whose orbits decay slowly. But the SS operates in LEO, so anything aboard would also operate in LEO. > 5) be a launching platform for manned and unmanned missions Which would still have to be hauled up from Earth. Build the BDB first, and it will be easier to get them up there. Besides, we managed to launch all kinds of manned and unmanned missions without a space station. We've sent probes to almost every planet in the Solar System without a space station. I'm also willing to bet that the total cost for launching _all_ those planetary probes was less than the SS. > 6) be an assembly site for manned and unmanned missions. I would think > cleanliness would be easier in the vacuum or near-vacuum of space than > on Earth. Which means that the astronauts have to go EVA to assemble their packages, if they really want to do it in vacuum. Or worh through gloveboxes or robot manipulators. We have grade-10 cleanrooms on Earth now, and I've heard of work being done on grade 0. Space has the disadvantages of microgravity, vacuum, extreme temperatures, and a cost currently not less than $300 per pound to get _anything_ there. In conclusion, let's explore, exploit, and colonize space, but let's be smart about it instead of trying to be sexy. Build the BDB first! -..-. Steve -.- ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 87 20:26:40 GMT From: web5h.berkeley.edu!adamj@jade.berkeley.edu (Adam J. Richter,260E,6427762,5496300) Subject: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! In re: the McD-D Space Station commercial: The reason that the networks are now airing the McD-D commercial is that the law or regulation requiring stations to yield equal time to opposing viewpoints has been repealled. --Adam J. Richter adamj@widow.berkeley.edu Adam J. Richter adamj@widow.berkeley.edu ....!ucbvax!widow!adamj (415)642-7762 ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 87 18:16:27 GMT From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu (Bill Wyatt) Subject: Brown Dwarf and media idiocy Did anyone else see the CNN story on Ben Zuckerman's Brown Dwarf discovery? Regardless of whether the object is real, is a brown dwarf or whatever, I'm incensed at the sloppy and downright ignorant way CNN reported the story. The following is from memory, so the details might be off, but: Before a commercial, they tease you with `Tenth planet discovered! More after this...' Then, they say a brown dwarf has been discovered 50 million light-years away (yes, that's *MILLION*), and cut to footage of the telescopes on Mauna Kea, used in the observations. They then cut to a graphic showing a big darkish object in orbit (you can see the circle, so you know it's in orbit) around a white dwarf. Lots of talk and voiceover by Zuckerman about the object. Finally, in the story wrap-up, the CNN anchorperson makes another reference to `the tenth planet'. During the story, no reference was made to what Zuckerman et.al. *actually* did or *actually* observerd (i.e. observed an infrared excess), or even why a brown dwarf is interesting/controversial. So how could such an IGNORANT story get out???!?! Something in another system is obviously not a `tenth planet', and where did that 50Mly number come from, putting it out beyond the Virgo Supercluster somewhere!! And the story itself had so little information content that even I, as involved with astronomy as I am, couldn't read between the lines to figure out what was happening. It's a sad commentary on the U.S. educational system when none of the people making up that broadcast knew enough science to avoid the idiocies in the story as broadcast. -- Bill UUCP: {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!wyatt Wyatt ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu (or) wyatt%cfa@harvard.harvard.edu BITNET: wyatt@cfa2 SPAN: 17410::wyatt (this will change, sometime) ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 87 15:00:04 GMT From: nather@sally.utexas.edu (Ed Nather) Subject: Re: Dyson Sphere Discovered? In article <1032@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM>, kempf@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Jim Kempf) writes: > Does anyone know any details about the brown dwarf Ben Zuckerman > discovered around Giclas 29-38? Zuckerman was quoted in the article I > read saying that he believed it might be a Dyson sphere-like > construction for converting part of the star's energy with excess heat > as the byproduct. Apparently, Zuckerman has been a CETI skeptic, so > the evidence must have been convincing. Zuckerman & Becklin discovered an unexpected excess of IR radiation in the direction of the variable white dwarf G29-38, an object much studied by our group at Texas because of its intrinsic variability -- it is the brightest of the known oscillating white dwarf stars. They interpret this excess as coming from a solid object in orbit, but there is no evidence that it is a solid object, and none that it is in orbit. It could be a cloud of dust in that direction. We explored our records of the variability and found no evidence for any periodic effect that might be attributed to orbital motion. It's quite a leap of faith to make that observation into a Dyson sphere. Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 87 14:55:09 GMT From: ethan@ngp.utexas.edu (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) Subject: Re: Dyson Sphere Discovered? The evidence for a brown dwarf is an infrared excess. There is some argument, which I have not seen, for discarding the possibility of a cloud of dust causing the excess. A Dyson sphere is one logical possibility for the excess but, in the absence of corroborating evidence for a technologically advanced civilization near that star, it would be ludicrous to cite this as evidence for aliens. Incidentally, I am assuming you mean SETI. Communication with ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence will have to wait until, and if, the search for it is successful. I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@WISCVM.WISC.EDU ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #45 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Nov 87 06:19:28 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08743; Sat, 14 Nov 87 03:17:33 PST id AA08743; Sat, 14 Nov 87 03:17:33 PST Date: Sat, 14 Nov 87 03:17:33 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711141117.AA08743@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #46 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 46 Today's Topics: Space Shuttle Escape Re: conciousness at impact Space video disks cassette of lunar landing Re: Defense is not War Re: "Spaceflight" 1976-87 available in Los Angeles Re: Hypergolic fuels Mir again PHOTONS BEING AFFECTED BY GRAVITY Greenhouse effect vs. Ice Age Re: SPICING UP AVIATION TERMINOLGY..... Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1987 21:47:53.05 CST From: (Mike Kent) Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: Space Shuttle Escape In regards to crew escape systems. All of the systems being discussed are designed for a controlled glide escape. Not for powered flight. None of the systems under consideration would save the crew from a Challenger type "Accident". The escape systems are to avoid killed the crew if the shuttle had to ditch. Ditching at 200+ mph in a shuttle is considered unsurvivable. Getting out of your seat during powered flight, alone would be an accomplishment. Getting to the hatch and being able to open it and ejecting is highly unlikely. Come on folks, could you do that under several g's acceleration ???? Mike Kent Graduate Computer Science Student Sam Houston State University Huntsville (the other Huntsville), Texas UCS_MWK@SHSUODIN ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 87 21:01:35 GMT From: necntc!linus!utzoo!henry@ames.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: conciousness at impact > I usually don't disagree with Henry, but I'll stand by my guns that > given the rate of fall from high altitude and the short time spent in > thin air, I feel the possibility of revival before impact is a strong > one. Unless my memory is seriously at fault, you are not disagreeing with me but rather with Joe Kerwin and the aviation-medicine and forensic experts who were involved in preparing the Kerwin report. It is possible that the report was prettied up a bit for the media's benefit, but based on other considerations I doubt it. > Procedure for commercial aircraft on loss of pressurization is to DIVE > for low altitudes. Since there have been a few incidents of this type, > possibly there is some information on passenger revival time. I'm not > aware of any from FL400... We're talking, I assume, about passengers who fail to put on their oxygen masks, since the astronauts had no oxygen supply. (The escape packs contain air, not oxygen.) It WOULD be interesting to hear the numbers. Note that apogee for the Challenger cabin was well above the height of the accident proper, also. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1987 09:51 EDT From: Ray Lauff Subject: Space video disks An excellent source of video disks in general is Starship Audio-Industries 605 Utterback Store Road / Great Falls, VA 22066 / (703)430-8692. They are not "space video specialists"; they have all kinds of disks, but I recently saw in their yearly catalog sever titles such as Space Archive 7: Supersonic flight, Space Archive 8: History of the space program, etc. I don't think they have all the archives, but at least they are reasonably priced. They also have the NASA "space disk" series, which runs on average $360 a disk, that contain "over 10,000 still frames of deep space objects, star charts,..." etc. They also list the National Air and Space Museum disks, more reasonably priced ($44.95), which contain 10,000 still frames. I'd suggest if you are interested you write or call for a catalog (free, I think). Ray Lauff (NOTE:I don't work for them, I just buy from them.) ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 87 18:03:06 GMT From: cca!mirror!ima!haddock!laura@husc6.harvard.edu (The writer in the closet) Subject: cassette of lunar landing I just ordered a cassette that I thought might be of general interest, at least in this newsgroup. I haven't received it yet, obviously, but it sounds like it should be good. I'm not affiliated with Books on Tape, Inc, but I am a very satisfied customer, and every other tape I have received from them has been excellent. (And if you decide to order, mention my name and I'll get a free book ... but that's not my motivation here, honestly.) Here's the scoop, straight from their October catalog flyer: "Man on the Moon" with Walter Cronkite Walter Cronkite is our guide through one of our nation's greatest dramas: the first manned landing on the lunar surface -- and the stirring story that led up to it. The remarkable resources of the CBS News Archives bring this great adventure to life. The story unfolds in excerpts from the historic original broadcasts -- from Sputnik to JFK's bold pledge, to the suspense-filled minutes without contact before the trumphant cry of "The _Eagle_ has landed!" You'll hear the voices of the astronauts and Cronkite's commentary from the Houston Command Center, as the awe of the moment made poets of scientists and newsmen alike. One cassette #45050 $7.95 + $1.50 shipping & handling California residents add 6% sales tax To order with Visa or Mastercard, call 1-800-626-3333 or send check or money order to: Books on Tape P.O. Box 7900 Newport Beach, CA 92658-7900 ------------- Have fun! Laura Crook ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Nov 87 16:56 O From: Subject: Re: Defense is not War In SPACE Digest V8 #39, Mr. Kevin Bold writes: >*Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary* defines defense as > . . . Mr. Bold attempts to severe the connection between making weapons and using them by quoting dictionary definitions of defense and war. He claims he is against war but for defense. Here we have a contradiction in terms, since despite dictionary definitions, defense is just a nicer word for war. What are weapons made for, if not using? History shows us that whenever there has been an arms buildup, those arms have not been left unused. This is the basic fallacy in the view, unfortunately widely spread, that more arms mean more security. The reality of the matter is the opposite of this. In my view, 50 000 nuclear warheads ready to wipe out all higher life on Earth do not mean security but in fact monstrous insecurity, but maybe Mr. Bold and people who think like him could show this to be not so, by quoting more dictionary definitions. The current world situation is caused by the awful power the military- industrial complexes have on politicians and economies; because weapons production furthers the short-sighted interests (profits, career advancement) of a too-large number of people; and because the ethical and moral development of humankind are a few hundred or thousand years behind its technical development. In other words, because selfishness, stupidity and violence still seem to be the rulers of the world. Tough text, but look where we are heading. What we need is a new idea of global security, with the recognition of the genuine security problems of the world as its first priorities: the destruction of the environment, the danger of the arms buildup, and the needs of the poorest 2/3 of the human race, who will not indefinitely tolerate their exploitation by the rich. (Here I will probably have to point out that I am not a communist, for the benefit of those who attach that label to those whose views they cannot tolerate. My views apply equally to the other side.) But since I have strayed far from space, I better stop. Teemu Leisti (LEISTI@FINUHA.BITNET) ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 87 21:03:23 GMT From: necntc!linus!utzoo!henry@ames.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: "Spaceflight" 1976-87 available in Los Angeles Anyone who's unsure about Bruce's Spaceflight collection might want to note that Spaceflight is (in my opinion) clearly the #1 space periodical available today. Ten years of back issues for cheap is a steal. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 87 20:56:33 GMT From: necntc!linus!utzoo!henry@ames.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Hypergolic fuels > News pictures of the Yankee showed a tube door blown off and a brown > gas coming out of the tube. This was apparently fuel, and if it was > hypergolic, why was there no accompanying fire or explosion? ... I'd say the brown gas was probably nitrogen tetroxide, which is the oxidizer most commonly used in hypergolic combinations. You don't get an explosion when only *one* of the propellants leaks. In fact, it is hard to get an explosion with hypergolics at all, because they burn on contact and never get a chance to mix before ignition. This is why Gemini could use ejection seats rather than an escape-tower system: the Titan was considered most unlikely to explode very violently, so getting far away from the rocket ASAP was not so important. Apart from lower performance, one price that you do pay for this relatively docile behavior is that nitrogen tetroxide is very poisonous, comparable to a WW1 war gas. Hydrazine, often used as the fuel in such combinations, is not exactly benign either... > When the Yankee sank last year and its remaining missiles were > crushed, would they have exploded, or would the fuel have been > dispersed in the sea water? Definitely not exploded, not if they were hypergolics. At least, not violently. Assuming that hull collapse or whatever was violent enough to rupture the missiles' tanks, I would bet on a minor explosion plus a major fire (yes, an underwater fire, it's not impossible) plus a lot of reaction with the surrounding water. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 87 04:39:18 GMT From: uop!robert@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (The Dog Faced Boy ) Subject: Mir again there is also a Mir press, it is the soviet physical society or something, from what i can guess by the few books in our library. perhaps another gig at winning the race?? ------------------------------ From: graham@drcvax.arpa Date: 12 Nov 87 08:42:00 EST Subject: PHOTONS BEING AFFECTED BY GRAVITY To: "space" Reply-To: Geoffrey Landis did a wonderful job of explaining relativistic mass, I had never quite understood it before. I still have a question though: I was under the impression, garnared from college physics and some reading that light was bent by gravity because the local region of space surrounding a gravity source was bent or curved. I thought that the light, from it's own perspective, was going in a straight line, and the space through which it was travelligng was curved, or bent. I admit only a small knowledge of these things, so I stand ready to be corrected if I am wrong. [If I am right, I'd like to know that too, restores faitn in my memory.] Dan Graham ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 87 14:36:09 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: Greenhouse effect vs. Ice Age I realize this is peripheral to the interests of Space, but there seems no other more appropriate forum on the ARPA/MILNET side to send this to, and aspects of this have been discussed in the Space Digest in the past. If someone on USENET wants to forward this to newsgroups over there, feel free -- I'd appreciate being mailed copies of any followups or related postings that don't go to the Space list; otherwise I'll never see them. For some years now, it has been stated by many authorities that we are presently in an interglacial period, and (I believe) that we should be fairly close to the end of that interglacial. There should be another Ice Age coming up soon (in geologic terms). At the same time, we have seen evidence of global warming due to the greenhouse effect, caused by man's activities. I have never seen any discussion of the effect of these two opposite forces in combination. Is one cancelling out the other, and the heating due to the greenhouse effect building up more rapidly than the natural cooling process could ever counteract? Or is it just that the cooling which will lead into the next glaciation has not yet started, awaiting the trigger such as a large volcanic eruption (cf the last Nova, on volcanoes and the Toba eruption happening at the start of the last steep cool-down) or nuclear winter? Or perhaps a slow cooling trend has already begun, but is being masked by the short-term effect of the human-caused temperature rise? Any pointers to books which discuss this specific topic? Thanks much! Regards, Will Martin wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (on USENET try ...!seismo!wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA ) ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 87 20:51:26 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@AMES.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Re: SPICING UP AVIATION TERMINOLGY..... I note the numerous followups to this terminology and the request for the definition to CELSS. My suggestion to the original poster is not to use the net for queries of this type (i.e., what is a canard?) a better suggestion is take a moment and use a dictionary, or better, get a book on general aviation. In the case of a new acronym like CELSS, the problem are the people following up, please send that person mail. Send mail, send mail, sendmail...... This is a plea for self-moderation. These groups are like preaching to the converted, so try not to get too involved in your and our own retoric. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 87 04:36:45 GMT From: uop!robert@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (The Dog Faced Boy ) Subject: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! i am sorry, i disagree, budgeting is not a zero sum game, very few things in life are. and to view them as such limits possibilities a great deal.. it is just as "zero sum" as argueing that it is either one view or another, when a collection could work as well if not better...does'nt anyone teach system technology anymore?? ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 87 16:53:08 GMT From: heurikon!lampman@speedy.wisc.edu (Ray Lampman) Subject: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! In article <153@heurikon.UUCP> lampman@heurikon.UUCP (Ray Lampman) writes: > How do we get this video aired on Nightline? Let's suppose 12000 > people call NBC and promise to watch Nightline and the other > commercials ... OK. Before everyone points out that Nightline is on ABC, and that NBC would be unhappy if 12000 people called them and promised to watch another network, I'd like to acknowledge my error. But doesn't NBC sound better? I think it's the alliteration of the N's. NBC News Nightline? Yeah, that's it! :-) - Ray (lampman@heurikon.UUCP) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #46 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Nov 87 06:19:56 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10839; Sun, 15 Nov 87 03:18:41 PST id AA10839; Sun, 15 Nov 87 03:18:41 PST Date: Sun, 15 Nov 87 03:18:41 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711151118.AA10839@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #47 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 47 Today's Topics: Justification (?) for Space Station 10th planet Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! Re: SPICING UP AVIATION TERMINOLGY..... Great Depression II and the space station ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Nov 87 23:34:51 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Justification (?) for Space Station In article <1381@carthage.swatsun.UUCP> leif@swatsun (Leif Kirschenbaum) gave several justifications for the Space Station (material preceeded by >>). Then in article <2181@sabbath.rutgers.edu>, masticol@sabbath.rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) responded (material preceeded by >) This posting gives a justification not originally included, and presents some challenges to it. Then it amplifies and corrects some of the previous responses. There is, I'm afraid, no neat conclusion about the Station, but perhaps some of the other suggestions are worth considering. New justification: 7) If one believes that humans must begin to live and work in space for long periods of time, it behooves us to get started doing that. We need to learn more about long-term life support systems and about human response to space conditions. There is no other way to learn than to do it. Challenges: a) We can take advantage of Russian advances in space medicine. (Not that these will tell us everything we need to know, but they will certainly answer the fundamental question of whether long stays are feasible. Once we know something is possible, we are most of the way along to figuring out how to do it.) b) Building life support systems and other technology will be easier in the future. There is no urgency to invest now. c) Space Station will divert attention and resources from other needed projects: Cheaper launch vehicles, a continuing assembly line for Shuttles, science and Earth resources missions. While budgeting is not a "zero-sum process", the resources available are limited, and spending a vast amount in one area will certainly limit expenditures in other areas. d) Management concentration on Space Station and the need to justify it politically may force other payloads to be attached to SS even when that is technically disadvantageous. (This process certainly occurred on the Space Shuttle, and combined with the decision to cancel other vehicles, it has been a disaster.) e) The Space Station represents another "new beginning", instead of building on existing achievements. The same money would buy 4-5 new Shuttles. The STS assembly line could be kept permanently open, and new Shuttles could be specialized for particular roles. (E.g. one "stripped" version for maximum payload or altitude, like Atlantis but more so; one with extra tankage for maximum stay on orbit; one with deployable solar panels for maximum electric power; one with Spacelab, or its derivatives, permanently installed to reduce turnaround time and costs; etc.) I don't think there is any clear choice. If one feels very strongly that 7) is correct, then that is justification enough, and all other projects are secondary. On the other hand, I take e) fairly seriously and think it would be a mistake not to exploit the STS as far as possible. If resources were available to exploit STS fully and to build SS and to do the other missions and projects we want, I would be all for that. (And would gladly pay my share.) But I simply don't believe the resources are there in the present political climate, and it is perfectly justifiable to give SS a lower priority than the other two areas. Now back to the previous material: [Space station would:] >> 1) force us to invent new technology > So would almost any massive technological effort, including BDB. And including other launch vehicles, non-rocket launch technologies, development of an ion engine, the "Mission to Planet Earth" and "Planetary Exploration" recommended by the Ride report, the Great Observatories program (partially) underway, and non-space activities such as the Superconducting Super Collider. It seems to me that almost any of these would result in more new technology than would SS. >> 2) give easier access to a space environment for vacuum, >> microgravity, cold temperatures, etc. > So would BDB. I can't see how Space Station would reduce the cost to orbit at all, though BDB certainly would. (If successful, of course, but that caveat applies to anything we might want to try.) The tenable justification is that SS would allow access to space for longer time intervals. So would extended Shuttle missions, of course, and this line of justification requires showing a need for missions longer than 4 weeks or for some other requirement that cannot be met at lower cost by an enhanced Shuttle. >> 3) permit on-the-site supervision and *repair* [of satellites] > The shuttle was supposed to give us this capability. [Cost is > excessive.] Cost for satellite repair via SS is likely to be even more than via Shuttle, since one needs OMV to bring satellites for repair, rather than just matching orbits. This cost would not apply to Station-attached satellites (but see below for problems with that.) >> 4) allow us to put many of the satellites we currently use in one >> spot thus consolidating power supply, and allowing us to more >> easily maintain them. > [SS interference with many types of payloads due to large bulk and > radio transmissions to/from. Added cost of integrating complex > system.] Add contamination by water and other wastes. Also, there is no reason a combined power supply should save money unless satellites operate with low duty cycle. Moreover, additional complexity introduces additional failure modes. Finally, many satellites require orbits other than the SS orbit. The Ride report stated explicitly that the two programs mentioned above (Mission to Earth and Planetary) make essentially no use of SS, primarily because of its orbit. >> Another factor is limited room in orbit: > Satellite space is hard to find only in Clarke orbit. I don't think room in orbit is limited by the number of large, trackable objects such as satellites. Rather, collisions with micro-meteoroids and debris of old spacecraft are the limiting factor. In Clarke orbit, the problem is one of radio frequencies and antenna beam width rather than of physical conflict between satellites. In any case, SS does not help much, though consolidating satellites might make tracking marginally easier. > Space junk is the real problem, but it's only a problem in > geosynchronous orbit, I think the problem is greater in LEO because of the much greater amount of debris and the prevalence of non-equatorial orbits, which give higher relative speeds. >> 5) be a launching platform for manned and unmanned missions > We've sent probes to almost every planet in the Solar System > without a space station. I'm also willing to bet that the total cost > for launching _all_ those planetary probes was less than the SS. There is a shred of plausibility to this one, but only for really, REALLY big missions. The SS would save money if it avoided the cost of building and operating a bigger and less efficient booster. That can't be ruled out, but I'm not aware that the case has been made. Also, one has to justify the "really big mission." >> 6) be an assembly site for manned and unmanned missions. I would >> think cleanliness would be easier in the vacuum or near-vacuum of >> space than on Earth. > Space has the disadvantages of microgravity, vacuum, extreme > temperatures, and a cost currently not less than $300 per pound to get > _anything_ there. Cleanliness will be very hard, for wastes dumped overboard do not "just go away" but remain in orbit for a considerable time. There is much literature on Shuttle contamination, and SS will be worse because of its longer lifetime. (Of course, we have finally realized that many Earthly waste products are similarly long-lived.) > In conclusion, let's explore, exploit, and colonize space, but let's > be smart about it instead of trying to be sexy. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 87 19:48:39 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!rjp1@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: 10th planet I just saw a very short blurb on the TV about a scientist claiming to have discovered a planet (or was it a red giant?) encircling a much smaller white dwarf star. Seems weird that finally, someone discovers a 10th planet out there, but it doesn't belong to our own solar system! Anyone with more info on this?? Bob Pietkivitch (Prema - Shanti - Dharma - Satya) UUCP: ihnp4!ihlpa!rjp1 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 87 23:10:41 GMT From: paul.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) Subject: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! > i am sorry, i disagree, budgeting is not a zero sum game, > very few things in life are. > and to view them as such limits possibilities a great deal.. I really don't want to get deeply into this argument; just suffice it it say that the financing has to come from somewhere. If the government increases spending on the space station, they may well decide to cut spending on something which will be of more permanent benefit toward us. Or raise taxes. What are the reasons for the space station's existence? As compared to the space missions and other scientific research it will _likely_ displace, is it a good bet? Lastly, could it be done more easily and cheaply if we had inexpensive heavy launch technology available? Could other ambitious space projects benefit from BDB technology? If so, let's build the BDB first! > ... a collection could work as well if not > better...does'nt anyone teach system technology anymore?? A collection of what? Listen, does anyone have a list of the planned operations and experiments which will fly on the Space Station? Let's not argue in a vacuum if possible! (Unless we've got good space suits :-) -..-. Steve -.- ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 87 22:11:39 GMT From: psuvax1!vu-vlsi!swatsun!leif@husc6.harvard.edu (Leif Kirschenbaum) Subject: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! In article <2181@sabbath.rutgers.edu> masticol@sabbath.rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) writes: >In article <1381@carthage.swatsun.UUCP> leif@swatsun (Leif Kirschenbaum) writes >> 1) force us to invent new technology > >So would almost any massive technological effort, including BDB. A space station would create a different kind of technology. Technology like a closed life support system which is invaluable for future missions or even colonies. Though we may not *use* this technology for other purposes for many years, the information and data we can gather about closed life support will be invaluable. (I see an analogy to Navy dive tables, one has worked out how long one can stay under water at given depths with given atmospheres even though one doesn't need the data at the time. Later when divers worked on underwater drilling rigs the info. was useful) >> 2) give easier access to a space environment for vacuum, microgravity, cold >> temperatures, etc. >So would BDB. One couldn't stay a few weeks in orbit and conduct experiments. Right now a mission length for the Space Shuttle is approx. a few days, extendable to approx. 20 days. A space station would offer long term experimental opportunities. >> 3) permit on-the-site supervision and *repair* [of satellites] >> 4) allow us to put many of the satellites we currently use in one spot thus >> consolidating power supply, and allowing us to more easily maintain >> them. >The SS has the _disadvantage_ of occupying only one spot in space. >Since it, too, is in LEO, it will be impractical to use the SS as a >communications relay. Hmmm... true, but why not put the SS in a higher orbit? >Satellite space is hard to find only in Clarke orbit. The space >station is to operate in low-earth orbit. It would be valueless to any >small country that needs space in Clarke orbit. Couldn't one put the SS in Clarke orbit? (or is this impossible, I'm not familiar with orbits) >Current technology satellites aren't protected against >micrometeorites; they last about ten years on the average Then why not protect satellites? If they have continuous power from a SS, maintenance, and micrometeorite protection they should last as long as one wants. >> 5) be a launching platform for manned and unmanned missions >Which would still have to be hauled up from Earth. The raw materials would have to hauled up (or brought from the Moon or asteroid belt) which would be used to build systems. In addition, the system wouldn't have to withstand the stresses of lift-off or of Earth gravity and pressure. Given the SS proposed would *not* be able to accomplish all this, but one has to start somewhere. >I'm also willing to bet that the total cost for launching _all_ those planetary >probes was less than the SS. But will the missions be cheaper if started from the SS? >Space has the disadvantages of microgravity, vacuum, extreme >temperatures, and a cost currently not less than $300 per pound to get >_anything_ there. True, those characteristics are probably disadvantages in assembling systems, but they can be invaluable for industry. I would think that certain items produced in space would be far superior to those produced on Earth, and might even be cheaper. Vacuum and cold temperatures are there for the taking; one doesn't have to produce them. >Build the BDB first! >-..-. Steve -.- Anything I didn't respond to I have to admit was right; I didn't want to take up a lot of room writing "true" over and over. I am not very knowledgable re: this topic so there are probably technical details that would support the SS. Does anyone know of any? -- Leif Kirschenbaum '91 | "Do you have any tea?" Swarthmore College | I'm new at this game- no flames please. UUCP: rutgers!bpa!swatsun!leif | (only candles) Internet: bpa!swatsun!leif@rutgers.edu | Swat Motto: "Harsh but fair." ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 87 01:18:10 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!codas!killer!sampson@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Steve Sampson) Subject: Re: SPICING UP AVIATION TERMINOLGY..... > Stabilizer On a 707 for instance, the horizontal stabilizer moves up and down with the trim while the > Elevator moves up and down with the yoke. The stabilizer is adjusted at the front. Or else I'm looking at the picture wrong... ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 87 01:05:41 GMT From: clyde!burl!codas!killer!usl!usl-pc!jpdres10@rutgers.edu (Green Eric Lee) Subject: Great Depression II and the space station In message <1158@scicom.alphacdc.com>, wats@scicom.alphacdc.com (Bruce Watson) says: > >If the government mishandles the economy or if it is beyond anyones control, >the first thing, from historical analogy, is for a public works spending ... >public spending programs. Since the space program is already in place >it would seem that this would be a good place to start. Several buildings here on campus were built by the PWA(?) during the Great Depression, employing hundreds of people. This happened all around the country. There's a number of things to think about when funding public works projects: a) Does the project employ a lot of workers? When unemployment is high, political considerations arise, because unemployed people are notoriously suspicious of the theory that even if the money is spent on a low-labor big-bucks project, the money will somehow "trickle down" to the poor unemployed slobs. b) Does the project require skilled workers, or will unskilled workers do? If it requires large numbers of skilled workers, then you have something called "structural unemployment", which, simply put, means that you'll have a shortage of skilled workers and a surplus of unskilled workers -- again, politically infeasible. c) Is the result of the project useful? In the case of the Hoover Dam or Stephens Hall here on campus, the answer is a resounding "Yes!". Hoover Dam supplies electricity, and if Stephens Hall hadn't been built, USL would have a bigger crowding problem than it already has. Both make a positive contribution to the economy. So let's see how the space program measures up: a) The space program employs very few people (relatively). b) The people employed by the space program need highly sophisticated skills, meaning that you aren't going to be employing Joe Budweiser from the shut-down mill. d) The economic contribution of the space program is nil. It provides absolutely no product of even remote economic value, except for information. When people are struggling for food and clothing and housing, they could care less. My conclusion is that we are never going to be able to sell the space program on its economic merits, and to not even bother trying. Sure influential senators and congressmen are all scrambling for the privilige of having part of the porkbarrel, err, space station, but compared to the amount of pork they can get for boondoggles like 50 unneeded Army bases or making Castor Creek navigable or ...., well, you see, it's just a drop in the bucket.... -- Eric Green elg@usl.CSNET from BEYOND nowhere: {ihnp4,cbosgd}!killer!elg, P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 {ut-sally,killer}!usl!elg "there's someone in my head, but it's not me..." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #47 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Nov 87 06:25:18 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12264; Mon, 16 Nov 87 03:13:10 PST id AA12264; Mon, 16 Nov 87 03:13:10 PST Date: Mon, 16 Nov 87 03:13:10 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711161113.AA12264@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #48 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 48 Today's Topics: space news from Sept 28 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Nov 87 02:20:30 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Sept 28 AW&ST [You may have noticed that my promised recommendations of space books have not yet materialized. Please be patient.] Some interesting bits of new from other sources... Science (2 Oct) reports that the chairman of GM (which owns big satellite-builder Hughes) has written to George Schultz asking that US export policy forbidding use of Soviet launchers be revised. The State Department is still saying (unofficially) that the answer is "when Hell freezes over". A prominent reason for GM's interest is that the RFP for Aussat's next generation of satellites explicitly asks that bidders include an option to launch on Proton, something that bidders subject to US export rules can't do at present. The latest issue of Planetary Encounter (which I recommended a month or so back) reprints the entire Ride Report. And I think the latest issue of World Spaceflight News, which I haven't looked at properly yet, reprints the entire NRC report on the space station. Jupiter is just past an unusually close approach to Earth, and is worth taking a look at. You can see the Galilean satellites clearly with a cruddy set of binoculars, even from the middle of a big light-polluted city. [I know because I've looked at them several times from my apartment window.] Something I didn't mention much in my previous commentary on the NRC space station report was that NRC was most emphatic about one issue: space science will continue to require both expendable launches and shuttle flights independent of the space station, and should not be forced to funnel everything through the station, which is ill-suited for some types of work. Back to AW&ST.... French technicians run successful tethered test of the balloon system they propose for a Soviet Mars mission in the 90s. Congress limits NASA FY88 spending on expendables to two Deltas, but would have supplied more if only the Administration would set clear priorities. Space supporters hoped for a Titan 3 for Mars Observer and a Titan 4 as a backup for one TDRS. Spectacular photo, lit by the engine flame, of the V19 Ariane launch. Italy has indeed joined France's Helios spysat project, taking a 14% share that will be mostly ground systems due to the late decision. Spain is also interested. Helios will be a Spot derivative. [France is pushing Helios hard because it will fix a major weakness in Europe's bargaining position in intelligence matters: the US monopoly on spysat images.] ESA approves building a third Ariane pad at Kourou, specifically for use by Ariane 5. Work will start next year. Also, a site has been picked for the Hermes spaceplane's runway at Kourou. ESA is finishing plans for its next decade or so, for approval in November. The three major items are: Ariane 5, to fly in 1995 and start paying its way in 1996, with nine launches per year by 1999; the Hermes spaceplane, to fly unmanned in 1998 and manned in 1999; and Columbus, comprising a free-flyer in 1994, a module for the US space station in 1996, a polar platform in 1997, and a man-tended free-flyer in 1998. Also on the November agenda will be the possibility of a European data-relay satellite system, extension of Hermes's mission duration to 28 days, the continuing problems with NASA over the space station negotiations, and the impact of Britain's recent space-funding restrictions. ESA begins early planning for two station-preparation Spacelab flights in 1994-5. Picture of a model of a Boeing ALS concept, including a flyback booster. Boeing says that rocket engines are crucial to this, specifically an efficient high-pressure hydrocarbon-fuel engine that can be removed and replaced routinely (to permit engine maintenance independent of the vehicle). Eutelsat picks Atlas-Centaur to launch Eutelsat 2 in 1990, first firm commercial A-C contract. Deal includes options for two more. Scout launches two Navy navsats into polar orbit from Vandenberg Sept. 16. Progress 31 freighter undocks from Mir Sept 23, as Progress 32 is launched. Starfind [the latest innovative-navsat company] has asked the FCC to stop processing applications for innovative navsat systems, on the grounds that the current spectrum space cannot be shared by multiple systems without unacceptable interference. Starfind is particularly critical of Geostar. Soviet Union will offer launch insurance for satellites launched on Proton. This will include third-party liability, although they say that launches within the Soviet Union do not need a lot of coverage for this. The Soviets are now offering commercial terms for: launch into any orbit; man-tended or untended payloads aboard Mir, including return to Earth; launch and recovery of unmanned payloads; purchase of Soviet space hardware. The Soviets continue to claim that the two Proton failures early this year were due to an experimental fourth stage that is not part of the commercial Proton offer. US launch companies tell Congress that they are increasingly worried about the effect of US policies on international competition. A particular issue is that foreign launch companies usually have government backing in liability insurance, while the USAF demands that the company cover it all to use US facilities. Martin Marietta suggests US government coverage above an upper limit, to be set within the means of US companies. McDonnell-Douglas warns that a few firm contracts don't make a viable industry and the US industry is not necessarily competitive in the long run. General Dynamics shows its model launch-services contract, 27 pages versus thousands for a government contract. George Koopman, president of Amroc, is particularly critical of the government (AmRoc wants to use Vandenberg). Amroc has been trying to start negotiations with the USAF for nine months... unsuccessfully! USAF HQ says talk to Space Division, Space Division says it has no authority to negotiate. "This sort of bureaucratic nonsense results in real damage to our company and this industry." He says the USAF facilities-use agreement is disastrous: "AmRoc cannot sign this agreement and survive". USAF demands for "aggregate maximum casualty and liability insurance available on the world market" are "patently ridiculous... and a demand without reason, sense, or precedent", involving premiums that could ruin AmRoc. The draft agreement is "unworkable, bureaucratic, and anti-commercial". He says that the working-level USAF people are okay but that the upper management is a disaster. "Perhaps the most unbelievable of all is the Air Force's demand that we supply them with liability insurance against `judicial actions for violation of federal, state, or local laws'. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any insurance available against breaking the law." AmRoc has already lost two financial partners because of the USAF agreement, which is "scaring the living daylights out of the investment community". The latest changes in the Landsat commercialization plan could terminate the government's agreement with Eosat. The government says Eosat is acting like a government contractor rather than a commercial business. Eosat says that the government's treatment of Eosat sends "a strong message to people interested in the commercialization of space, `Don't get involved with us because we're kind of flaky. We stall, we use delaying tactics, and we don't bother to fund our commitments.' Knowing what we do today, if we could do it over again, we wouldn't have bid on this contract... there were six winners in the Landsat contract [out of seven competitors]; none of them are Eosat." Landsat customers are increasingly angry that there will obviously be a disruption of data continuity when Landsats 4 and 5 fail. The government, which formerly was going to fund construction of Landsat 7, now says that maybe it would be obsolete before launch, and wants to study it again instead. The government also observes that Eosat is not investing much of its own money in all this, and looks like another bloated government contractor... especially compared to Spot Image, which is aggressive and entrepreneurial despite its government subsidy. US and Canadian space-station negotiators fail to resolve differences, in what was hoped to be the final meeting. This is a bad omen, since Canada is closer to agreement than Europe and Japan, and is also much more important to the station, since its mobile servicing center is needed for station assembly. Canada is dubious about unrestricted US military use of the station, wants international management and regular reviews of the program, objects violently to language that would impose US export and technology-transfer laws on Canadian organizations, and would like binding arbitration rather than ill-defined "negotiation" for settling disputes. Canada is also worried about possible elimination of one or both of the polar platforms, which are important to Canada. It looks like none of the international partners will be officially on board when development starts in November. The partners "continue to ask themselves whether the station program is truly international or whether it is a US program with foreign participation". Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #48 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Nov 87 06:20:46 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14728; Tue, 17 Nov 87 03:19:17 PST id AA14728; Tue, 17 Nov 87 03:19:17 PST Date: Tue, 17 Nov 87 03:19:17 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711171119.AA14728@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #49 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 49 Today's Topics: Company List (long!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Nov 87 18:06:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Company List (long!) I didn't want to clutter this file with all these addresses, but I've gotten ~20 requests for a summary, so I figured this was of more general interest than I had thought. Again, I'd like to ask you who use these addresses NOT TO DISCLOSE THE SOURCE. I have a philosophical desire to get competent, interested people in touch with the space program, but a selfish desire not to be personally responsible for the people in this list being deluged by hundreds of letters. Please don't mention my name. I actually have a few other addresses and phone numbers of contact people, but I don't have time to type them in. I'm incredibly busy with thesis, classes, interviews, and plant trips (6 interstate interviews so far, more anticipated). Good luck, and follow your dreams! I'll meet you on orbit! -- Ken Jenks - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This first group of companies was found from a Contractor List supplied by NASA Johnson Space Center's Personnel Dept. Most of the NASA Personnel Depts. have these lists. I've gotten them for JSC, KSC, MSFC, & ARC. JSC is the only list I've put on-line. Barrios Technology Attn: Ronda Monchak 1331 Gemini Houston, TX 77058 Boeing Aerospace Attn: Lois Ramey PO Box 58747 Houston, TX 77058 Computer Sciences Personnel Dept. 16511 Space Center Blvd. Houston, TX 77058 (713) 486-8153 ext 259 Control Data Corp. Attn: Maria Ward 9894 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77036 Ford Aerospace & Communications Company Attn: Alvin Dailey PO Box 58487 Houston, TX 77258 (713) 280-6236 GE They are no longer General Electric -- Just GE. Attn: Imma Lee Ross or Linda Pratt 1820 NASA Road #1 Houston, TX 77058 (713) 333-8605 (Imma Lee Ross) or (713) 333-8604 (Linda Pratt) Grumman Aerospace Personnel Dept. 2800 Space Park Drive Houston, TX 77058 (713) 333-2560 Grumman Houston Corp. Personnel Dept. 12310 Galveston Rd Attn: Freddy-Ann Marcussen Webster, TX 77598 Jefferson Associates, Inc. Attn: Limas Jefferson 1120 NASA Road #1 Suite 100 Houston, TX 77058 (713) 333-3414 Lockheed Engineering & Management Service Attn: Linda Nilsen 2400 NASA Road #1 Houston, TX 77058 (713) 333-6601 McDonnell Douglas Attn: C. D. Price 16055 Space Center Blvd. Houston, TX 77062 (713) 280-1500 ext 1761 Northrop Service, Inc. Attn: Carol Alcorta PO Box 34416 Houston, TX 77234 Singer Company Link Division Attn: Patricia Records 2224 Bay Area Blvd. Houston, TX 77058 Sperry Univac Corp. Attn: Modelle Mann 16811 El Camino Real Houston, TX 77058 UNISYS Attn: Frances M. Bond 600 Gemini Houston, TX 77058 Eagle Engineering That mysterious company found at last! P.O. Box 891049 Houston, TX 77289-1049 (713) 338-2682 The following companies were found exclusively from net.pals: Spacehab Seattle based Space Industries Houston based External Tanks, Incorporated Tom Rogers Boulder, CO Third Millennium, Inc. 918 F Street NW, Suite 601 Washington DC 20004 PERMANENT, LTD 114 Westwick Ct #5 Sterling, VA 22170 (703) 444-1560 (voice) (703 or 202)-450-2732 (computer) The next list was found by a lot of hard work and many $ to Ma Bell. I took the list of Space Station contractors and tracked them all down. (Well, all by Analex and Rocketdyne. I'll get Rocketdyne soon, but Analex looks hopeless. Nobody has heard of it!) Alphabetical Listing of Space Station Companies and Segments: Key: #1: Segment I Crew and lab modules #2: Segment II Framework (main boom) #3: Segment III Free-flying platform and research eqpt. #4: Segment IV Power system Analex, #4 Nothing known. Boeing, #1 Also in Seattle, LA (213), Wash. DC, Renton VA. The Boeing Company Employment Office PO Box 1470 Huntsville, AL 35807 Computer Sciences, #3 PO Box 21127 Kennedy Space Ctr, FL 32815 (305) 853-2484 8728 Colesville Rd Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301) 589-1545 304 W Rt 38 / PO Box N Moorestown, NJ 08057 (609) 234-1100 4835 University Sq Ste 8 Huntsville, AL 35816 (205) 830-1000 (Applied Tech Div) 200 Sparkman Dr N W Huntsville, AL 35805 (205) 837-7200 (Defense Sys Div) 6565 Arlington Blvd Falls Church, VA 22046 (703) 237-2000 (Energy Resch Div) 16511 Space Center Blvd. Houston, TX 77058 (713) 486-8153 ext 259 Eagle Engineering, #4 711 Bay Area Blvd, Suite 315 Webster, TX 77598 (713) 338-2682 Ford Aerospace & Communications, #4 Also in Sunnyvale, CA Attn: Alvin Dailey PO Box 58487 Houston, TX 77258 (713) 280-6236 (JSC List) (301) 345-0250 Ask for Jim Furilla or Judy Kopetz Garrett Fluid Systems, #4 Formerly Garrett Pneumatic Sys Div I also saw a large sign saying GARRETT by the runway at LAX. Garrett Fluid Systems Company 1300 W. Warner Rd, Box 22200 Tempe, AZ 85282 (602) 893-5000 General Dynamics, #4 General Dynamics Bldg Ft. Worth, TX 76101 (817) 777-2000 General Electric, Astro Space Division, #1, #3 Subsumed RCA Attention: Mike Kavka Mail Stop 101 Astro Space Division East Windsor POB 800 Princeton, NJ 08543-0800 (609) 426-3400 Grumman Aerospace, #1, #2 Large piece of Station awarded in July 2852 Kelvin Ave Irvine, CA 92714 (714) 660-4200 S Oyster Bay / Bethpage, NY 11714 (516) 575-3369 Grumman Blvd / MS F05-07 / Calverton NY (516) 575-0574 2800 Space Park Drive / Houston, TX 77058 (713) 333-2560 12310 Galveston Rd/Attn:Freddy-Ann Marcussen/Webster, TX 77598 Harris, #2 (303) 727-4000 Ask for GASD Honeywell, #2, #3 W. R. Moore Mail Station 257-5 Honeywell 13350 US Highway 19 Clearwater, FL 34624-7290 (813) 539-3689 Defense Sys Div 5700 Smetana Dr M N O2-3380 Minnetonka, MN 55343 (612) 936-3196 13350 US 19 Clearwater, FL 33546 (813) 531-4611 Aerospace & Defense Grp Honeywell Plaza Minneapolis, MN 55408 (612) 870-5186 Hughes Aircraft, #1 Hughes Aircraft Radar Systems Group Engineering Employment POB 92426 Los Angeles, CA 90009 (213) 606-2111 Hughes Aircraft Space Communications Group Attn: Employment Ofc. - College Relations 909 N. Sepulveda El Segundo, CA 90009 (213) 647-7177 IBM, #2, #3 They also have a group in Sunnyvale. IBM Personnel 3700 Bay Area Bvd. Houston, TX 77058 (713) 282-2300 Intermetrics, #2 Indl Sys Div 733 Concord Av Cambridge, MA 02138 (800) 325-5235 (617) 661-0072 Lockheed Missiles & Space, #1, #2, #3, #4, #4 Lockheed has MANY offices in Sunnyvale, CA. That's where much of the Space Station research is happening. Contact Personnel Dept. Area code 408. Lockheed Space Operations Company {Shuttle contract} Attn: Mr. Don Quirk 110 Lockheed Way Titasville, FL 32780 Lockheed Engineering & Management Service Attn: Linda Nilsen 2400 NASA Road #1 Houston, TX 77058 (305) 867-2765 (Kennedy Space Center) (305) 383-2200 (Titasville switchboard) (713) 333-6601 (Linsa Nilsen, Houston) Martin Marietta, #1 Denver Aerospace is the group you want. Also in Sunnyvale. (504) 257-4716 (Sandy) McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, #1, #2, #3 Richard B. Rout, Dept. 5900, Mail Code 11-3 McDonnell Douglas Astronautics and Space Division 5301 Bolsa Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (714) 896-5633 McDonnell Douglas Attn: C. D. Price 16055 Space Center Blvd. Houston, TX 77062 (713) 280-1500 ext 1761 Planning Research Corp., #4 1500 Planning Research Dr McLean, VA 22102 (703) 556-1000 RCA, #2, #3, #3 Subsumed by GE/Astro Space Rocketdyne, #4 A subsidiary of Rockwell in LA area. Rockwell, #2 This address is for Shuttle activity, not Station. Station work is being done in Downey, CA, near LA. Try area code 213. Steve C. Hoefer Supervisor, Crew Activity Planning Rockwell Shuttle Operations Company Rockwell International Corporation 600 Gemini Avenue Houston, TX 77058 (713) 483-4438 SRI International, #2 SRI International Personnel Dept. 333 Ravenswood Ave. Menlo Park, CA 94025 (415) 859-3993 Sperry/UNISYS, #2 Changed name from Sperry to UNISYS UNISYS Attn: Modelle Mann 11681 El Camino Real Houston, TX 77058 (800) 645-3440 Sunstrand, #4 Sundstrand Energy Systems Unit of Sundstrand Corp. 4747 Harrison Ave, P.O. Box 7002 Rockford, Ill. 61125 (815) 226-6000 TRW, #1, #2, #3, #4 Jack Friedenthal Bldg. 135, Rm. 2823 One Space Park Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Penny Burkes Bldg. R2, Rm. 2130 One Space Park Redondo Beach, CA 90278 (213) 535-6027 (Penny Burkes) (213) 297-8765 (Irwin Newman) Teledyne Brown Engineering, #1, #4 (Did not actually bid on #4) Teledyne Brown Engineering Attn: Mr. Tom Robinson Cummings Research Park Huntsville, AL 35807 (800) 633-2090 USBI Booster Production, #1 United Space Boosters / BPC 188 Spartman Dr PO Box 1900 Huntsville, AL 35807 (205) 721-2400 United Technologies (Hamilton Standard), #1 Phil Beaudoin Hamilton Standard One Hamilton Road Windsor Locks, CT 06096 (203) 654-6000 (203) 654-4601 (Personnel) Wyle Laboratories, #1 Wyle Laboratories Personnel Department Attn: Mr. Gordon Bakken 7800 Govenor's Drive West Huntsville, AL 35807 (703) 834-1633 (Mr. Gordon Bakken in NJ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Many of these places have sent back cards/letters saying "We've gotten your resume; please wait for our reply. If we don't call back, you're out of luck." A few (Boeing, Rockwell, Lockheed) have invited me out for interviews. I've only gotten one "Bong Letter" -- Computer Sciences in Huntsville, AL, said, "We are quite interested in your qualifications and professional desires. At the present time, our commitments will not permit an offer of employment. However, we will keep your application in our active file..." Sure. Over fifty resumes out, only one rejection so far. Not bad. Yet. -- Ken Jenks, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks "For I dipt into the Future, far as human eye could see Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be; Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails, Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales." -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #49 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Nov 87 06:17:49 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA16830; Wed, 18 Nov 87 03:16:22 PST id AA16830; Wed, 18 Nov 87 03:16:22 PST Date: Wed, 18 Nov 87 03:16:22 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711181116.AA16830@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #50 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 50 Today's Topics: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! AW&ST advertisement in poster form Re: Brown Dwarf and media idiocy Re: Dyson Sphere Discovered? Space programs in Archives? re:3d digitized shuttle data Re: digitized (3D) shuttle data Re: Space Shuttle Escape Re: Video disks Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! Laser Disks and Slides ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Nov 87 19:12:31 GMT From: unc!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! In article <1383@pompeii.swatsun.UUCP> leif@pompeii.UUCP (Leif Kirschenbaum) writes: >>The SS has the _disadvantage_ of occupying only one spot in space. >>Since it, too, is in LEO, it will be impractical to use the SS as a >>communications relay. >Hmmm... true, but why not put the SS in a higher orbit? The shuttle can't reach Clarke orbit by tens of thousands of km - it can barely get into orbit as is, and payload capacity drops dramatically the higher it goes. Being in low orbits is also good from the radiation standpoint, until we can build appropriately shielded habitats. Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ "The idea of ``picking up where Apollo left off'' in lunar exploration is a chimera. There is nothing to pick up; when we dropped it, it broke." John & Ruth Lewis in 'Space Resources: Breaking the Bonds of Earth' ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 87 18:37:41 GMT From: unc!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: AW&ST advertisement in poster form The 2-page ad from United Technologies which appeared on the inside cover of the 9/21 issue of Aviation Week (picture of astronaut on the lunar surface, caption ``It's time we raised our sights again'') is a powerful image. It's also available in poster form; a polite letter to United Technologies Director of Public Relations United Technologies Building Hartford, CT 06101 resulted in my getting a free poster of the ad (along with some other UT ads and a corporate info brochure) in 10 days. My copy is going on my office door, the best to expose it to my coworkers; perhaps other people will want to do the same, thus this posting. A tip of the hat to UT for the free poster! -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ "The idea of ``picking up where Apollo left off'' in lunar exploration is a chimera. There is nothing to pick up; when we dropped it, it broke." John & Ruth Lewis in 'Space Resources: Breaking the Bonds of Earth' ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 87 20:59:19 GMT From: oliveb!pyramid!prls!philabs!ttidca!sorgatz@AMES.ARPA ( Avatar) Subject: Re: Brown Dwarf and media idiocy In article <769@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> wyatt@cfa.harvard.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes: >Did anyone else see the CNN story on Ben Zuckerman's Brown Dwarf >discovery? Regardless of whether the object is real, is a brown dwarf >or whatever, I'm incensed at the sloppy and downright ignorant way CNN >reported the story. The following is from memory, so the details might No, you've got it correct. I saw the same crap spew out of my TV too! >It's a sad commentary on the U.S. educational system when none of the >people making up that broadcast knew enough science to avoid the >idiocies in the story as broadcast. Yes, unfortunately the AH's that call themselves "Broadcast Journalists" are only silghtly more educated that the Couch Potato Viewers that make TV a $7.45 x 10E+7 business! The other broadcast gambit that tries to invoke Science (aside from the "10th-Planet-Story"..and BTW this happens every few years when something new is discovered in the Sky!) is when comparing the physical strength of various species, the 'Journalist' seems fond of making a big deal out of that time-worn nonsense about an Ant being as big as a Man and being able to "lift a house"..I pointed out to some Journalism-Bozo that if an Ant were as big as a Man he'd have trouble breathing let alone walking or carrying *anything*. The fellow looked confused, I explained the nature of the laws of Strength vs Scale to him, s l o w l y..he snapped that I was trying to embarrass him or some such rot...! Don't expect too much from these people, it's their nature to be bubble-headed. Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 87 21:10:19 GMT From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) Subject: Re: Dyson Sphere Discovered? In article <1032@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM> kempf@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Jim Kempf) writes: >Does anyone know any details about the brown dwarf Ben Zuckerman >discovered around Giclas 29-38? Zuckerman was quoted in the article I >read saying that he believed it might be a Dyson sphere-like >construction for converting part of the star's energy with excess heat >as the byproduct. Apparently, Zuckerman has been a CETI skeptic, so the >evidence must have been convincing. > Jim Kempf kempf@hplabs.hp.com Doesn't sound at all right to me. A Dyson Sphere has to be AROUND the star, not letting out much radiation at all. Maybe something like Ringworld, eh? I saw an article that said it was found because there was more infrared coming from there than the star alone could account for. Hasn't yet been confirmed by wobble in the star's orbit or anything, but it's speculated to be a gas giant, something like Jupiter, but no estimations of mass yet. The article was also a little skeptical because researchers have thought they have found planets before, but none of them have panned out. I'm with the wait and see crowd on this one. --Rod ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Nov 87 13:11 EST From: <11SSTEIN%GALLUA.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu> Subject: Space programs in Archives? Hello, my space buffs. I wonder if there is any LISTSERV or any place that has archives of astronomy programs... any help from you will be 100% appreicated. I'd like some programs for VAX/VMS.... thanks... - Scott Steinbrink 11SSTEIN@GALLUA ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 87 15:04:39 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utcsri!uthub!ecf!apollo@rutgers.edu (Vince Pugliese) Subject: re:3d digitized shuttle data A while back I requested a 3d database for the space shuttle. I received a number of mail requests for this database so I figured that as soon as someone sent me such a database that I would post it to the net. Yesterday, Novemeber 12,Ray Kreisel at SUNY Stony Brook sent me along a database. I will post it and his explanatory notes. As well I will be include a very simple C program, hacked together by fellow group member Darin Graham and myself. The program will work as is on an Apollo, for other machines you will have to make appropriate changes. These should be easy to spot as all our graphics calls are preceded by gmr_. Also mention is made in the fopen call to a file named shuttle_data_1 which is the database sans the second line which provides the upper and lower bounds on the points. This is really convenient for setting up window parameters. We both know that the program is far from optimum but as I say it was just a hack that we did in a short time. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 87 15:59:19 EST From: sbcs.RUTGERS.EDU!rayk@rutgers.uucp (Raymond T Kreisel) To: eecae!upba!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utcsri!uthub!ecf!apollo@super.upenn.edu Subject: Re: digitized (3D) shuttle data Newsgroups: comp.graphics,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle Here is a simple space shuttle from the SUN workstations demos the vectors are listd first and then the polygons are listed next. The first two numbers are the count, for how many vectors and how many polygons. The polygons just tell which vertices are connected. ray --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ray Kreisel CS Dept., SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony Brook NY 11794 {ucbvax,ihnp4,harvard,rutgers,ut-sally,rochester}!rayk%suny-sb@relay.cs.net "If I get home before daylight, I just might get some sleep tonight...." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Some 800 lines of number and a C program deleted here. If anyone wants this data send a note to space-request@angband.s1.gov and I'll forward the original. -Ed] Well that's all. Thanks Ray, and I hope this is of use to someone. By the way I spoke to someone at our computer graphics lab and they mentioned that they would be getting a 3d digitizer in the next few months so maybe I will grab a 72nd scale model of the shuttle and do the digitization myself. Please let me know if there are others who would be interested. Vince Pugliese apollo@ecf.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 87 22:21:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Escape > Getting out of your seat during powered flight, alone would be an > accomplishment. Getting to the hatch and being able to open it and > ejecting is highly unlikely. Come on folks, could you do that under > several g's acceleration ???? Yes, I could. At an amusement park, I convinced the bored attendant of the English Rotor (big centrifuge) to crank it up with just me inside. Based on trigonometry, stop-watch measurements of the angular rate and an eye-ball estimate of the diameter, I was pulling 2 1/2 g -- and it felt like it. I managed to sit up and crawl to the exit. I was darned dizzy by the time I got there, but I wanted to see if this was possible. I think, in an emergency, they could manage to activate an escape system if they're under less than 4 g's. What is the actual acceleration of the Shuttle? > Mike Kent -- Ken Jenks jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 87 06:33:04 GMT From: nosc!trout!ganzer@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Mark T. Ganzer) Subject: Re: Video disks There is a recent Space_Archives that covers the Halley encounters and the Voyager Uranus fly-by. I saw it (and a number of other Space_Archives) in the rental bin at Dave's Laser Video in Sherman Oaks for anyone in the Los Angeles area. Looking at the liner notes, it appeared that it was a mixture of video footage and a thousand or so still frames. Unfortunately, I was just visiting up there, so couldn't rent it. I have seen them for sale in a number of Tower Video stores in Southern CA, and they seem to be reasonably priced (app. $35?), though you may be able to get a slightly better price at a specialty store (Tower is strictly list price). I would like to hear what people think about this series, as I just recently acquired Laser-Vision and I don't recall any of the specifics of the previous discussions! -- MarK T. Ganzer Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego Internet: ganzer@nosc.mil UUCP: {ucbvax,hplabs}!sdcsvax!nosc!ganzer ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 87 07:29:39 GMT From: uwspan!root@unix.macc.wisc.edu (John Plocher) Subject: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! +---- lampman@heurikon.UUCP (Ray Lampman) writes in <153@heurikon.UUCP> ---- | > From: macleod@drivax.UUCP | > I wish that they would run it every night during Nightline... | | How do we get this video aired on Nightline ... | | suppose they all have a phone number at NBC they can call. Let's suppose they +---- ABC's version of Nightline :-) aired this commercial about 3 months ago on a segment titled "Lost in Space". As you can tell from the following, I taped the show and used it to prepare this note: You can get a copy of the transcript from the people who do those sort of things for $2.00 by calling: 800/USA-TEXT -or- 202/USA-TEXT and asking for the "Lost In Space" Nightline segment transcript. The cast: ( "stuff" is paraphrased from what was said. ``stuff'' is an actual quote) Ted Koppel "NASA seems to be using 'The Russians are ahead' to get more $" Reginald Turnill - Janes Spaceflight Directory "USSR is 10 years ahead of US in space" General Daniel Graham (Ret) - Director of High Frontier "We are being left behind; we are losing our strategic lead" John Pike - Federation of Amer. Sci. "They launch 5x more than we do, but ours last 5x longer" Marcia Smith - Aerospace specialist "Energia had one test which it failed" Background segment by James Walker. "US space effort is 'fits and starts', USSR's is constant. We *can* do it, the question is 'do we have the political will'?" [ He did a *good* job in presenting the stuff -John ] Some stats: Successful launches Typical manhours in space 1986 - 1987 yearly total since Yuri... ------------------- -------- -------------- USA 11 17 42,453 USSR 150 97 104,374 Guests: Dr. James Fletcher - Director of NASA Eugene Cernan - Former Astronaut, now ABC Space advisor Sen. John Glenn - Ohio, First American to orbit Earth #define OPINION Gawd, Fletcher is a jerk! He came off as someone who is trying to ignore any problems that NASA and the US are having. And if there *are* any problems, they aren't anything to worry about! #undef OPINION Some quotes: (This conversation is interspersed among segments from Walker's background presentation) Koppel: "What about USSR's lead in space activity?" Fletcher: ``[it is] only in the humans in space program that they are 10 years ahead" Koppel: "How significant is this 10 year lead?" Fletcher: ``Very significant *if* you want to go to Mars, but neither of us will get there before the year 2000 [mumble] or 2010, so we have a chance to close that gap if we choose to.'' [Walker's presentation touches on materials handling - an area where the Soviet program has been doing lots of work] Koppel: "What about this?" Fletcher: ``I don't expect them to have any more success in industrializing space than they do on Earth.'' "The soviet space effort is being exaggerated; they are just getting more publicity now, and *that* is why it looks like they are doing more. The US has done everything in full view of the media, now the Soviets are doing a bit of the same." Koppel: "Dry Rot, bad moral... in NASA?" Fletcher: ``... false perception. The moral is low simply because we are not flying'' Koppel: "what about questions about motivation problems?" Fletcher: ``nonsense'' Koppel: "You have heard these comments (background piece), seen the Newsweek article, Time... " Fletcher: "there are some areas where we are behind, but all will be OK" Cernan: "Disagree. NASA is loosing good people, engineers.. because of frustration at not having leadership" (about Dr. Graham, the national Science Advisor:) ``The sci advisor in the White House neither gets along with Dr. Fletcher nor do I believe knows a lot about space.'' There is more, but you get the drift. If anyone in the Madison, WI area would like to borrow the tape, give me a call at the University. -John -- Email to unix-at-request@uwspan with questions about the newsgroup unix-at, otherwise mail to unix-at@uwspan with a Subject containing one of: 386 286 Bug Source Merge or "Send Buglist" (Bangpath: rutgers!uwvax!uwspan!unix-at & rutgers!uwvax!uwspan!unix-at-request) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 87 19:23:06 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Laser Disks and Slides Not long ago, there were requests for sources of video discs and slides related to space and astronomy. By coincidence, a catalog just arrived in today's mail listing a wide assortment of materials: everything from the NASM videodisc archive to NASA stills and movies to observatory slide sets to Grolier's Encyclopedia on disc. Prices are $90-$400 per disc and around $1.50/slide for the sets. Various brochures are supposedly available to give more details. Disclaimer: I have never done business with this company and know nothing about it except what's in the catalog. MMI Space Science Corp., 2959 Wyman Parkway, Box 19907, Baltimore, MD 21211 USA. Phone 301-366-1222. The Astronomical Society of the Pacific offers slide sets, if those are what you want, for around $1.00/slide. Also astronomy-related posters, T-shirts, bumper stickers, etc. ASP is a non-profit educational organization, has been around for 99 years, and is very unlikely to rip you off. Ask for the "Astronomy Selectory", and enclose a (tax-deductible) dollar or two if you can afford it. ASP, 1290 24th Ave., San Francisco, CA 94122 Hope these sources are helpful. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #50 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Nov 87 06:17:32 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19004; Thu, 19 Nov 87 03:16:27 PST id AA19004; Thu, 19 Nov 87 03:16:27 PST Date: Thu, 19 Nov 87 03:16:27 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711191116.AA19004@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #51 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 51 Today's Topics: Mir elements, 14 November 1987 pro-space presidential candidate Re: Brazil in space Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! Re: Historical error Re: Hypergolic fuels Defense Still Isn't War, or THERE GLORY FOR YOU. Stealth Fighter Unveiled at 4th Annual Edwards AFB Air Show Re: Defense is not War Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! Re: Soviet manned missions; records made and future plans Re: Mir Elements, 7 November 1987 Soviet Mir mission: New Progress cargo to go up ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Nov 87 20:44:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements, 14 November 1987 Satellite: MIR Catalog id 16609 Element set 902 Epoch day: 87308.92682777 Inclination: 51.6248 degrees RA of node: 149.4408 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0042643 Argument of perigee: 351.7425 degrees Mean anomaly: 8.2289 degrees Mean motion: 15.84604728 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00049191 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch revolution: 9828 Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso ... and STILL no reboost! I unfortunately don't have old prediction bulletins on file very far back, but the current orbit (346 x 289 km) is the lowest I can remember for Mir. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 87 22:29:14 GMT From: clyde!burl!codas!mtune!lzaz!lznv!psc@rutgers.edu (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Subject: pro-space presidential candidate Business Week, November 2, 1987, p. 142A: THIS CANDIDATE MAKES AN ISSUE OF DATA BASES AND PRIVACY ". . . there's one little-known candidate who's running on a different platform: the Information Age. James R. Messenger, a 38-year-old public relations executive for American Telephone & Telegraph Co., thinks that the U.S. is ignoring the issues posed by the computerization of society, and he's running for President to do something about it. "Messenger warns that unless computer data bases are regulated, they will increasingly threaten personal privacy. [emphasis mine:] ANOTHER CAMPAIGN THEME IS A PROPOSAL TO COLONIZE SPACE. An Emmy-winning documentary filmmaker, Messenger says winning or losing the race isn't important. It will be enough, he says, 'if I can force the candidates to talk about real issues.'" -Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet psc@lznv.att.com I'm not speaking for my employer, I'm just speaking my mind. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 87 21:12:49 GMT From: necntc!dandelion!ulowell!cg-atla!hunt@eddie.mit.edu (Walter Hunt X7031) Subject: Re: Brazil in space In article <2142@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes: >Some time ago, I asked for information about science fiction works that >postulate Brazil as the big power in space. > > [Mr. Trout's summary] also, "There Is No Darkness" (Haldeman and Haldeman) features Latin American governments, including Brazil. The interstellar government is called the "Confederacio'n". ^ accent here. (ASCII sucks.) Walter ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 87 13:37:44 GMT From: nrl-cmf!umix!umich!itivax!crlt!russ@ames.arpa (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! In article <1383@pompeii.swatsun.UUCP>, leif@swatsun (Leif Kirschenbaum) writes: >In article <2181@sabbath.rutgers.edu> masticol@sabbath.rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) writes: >>The SS has the _disadvantage_ of occupying only one spot in space. >>Since it, too, is in LEO, it will be impractical to use the SS as a >>communications relay. >Hmmm... true, but why not put the SS in a higher orbit? Because the Shuttle cannot reach altitudes higher than about 200 miles (and that only with very light payloads), that's why. If you can't get to the station with Shuttle, it isn't much use. >>Satellite space is hard to find only in Clarke orbit. The space >>station is to operate in low-earth orbit. It would be valueless to any >>small country that needs space in Clarke orbit. >Couldn't one put the SS in Clarke orbit? (or is this impossible, I'm >not familiar with orbits) No. Clarke orbit is 22,300 miles in altitude, and in the middle of the second Van Allen radiation belt. Not only is it totally unreachable by Shuttle, but it is not habitable by humans without much shielding. This shielding would have to be launched at $5000+/pound. To parody Carl Sagan, it would be paying "billions and billions" for lead. :-P The space station, as proposed, would give us almost nothing compared to a habitable Shuttle external tank. Not the volume, not the cheapness, not the ease and simplicity of launch. The SS is a program designed to keep the space contractors going, not the space program. [What follows is editorial] I like the idea of the McD-D TV ad. It is finally bringing space back into the conciousness of the public. However, I think that the intended result (getting funding for NASA's idea of a space station, gold-plated and designed from scratch when we have dumb hardware on the shelf already that would do the job) is a mistake. We'd be doing the same thing we've done since the X-15 program scrubbed just short of the scramjet tests: throwing away a bunch of good R&D or even working hardware to re-invent the wheel. What we really ought to do is spend a billion bucks and get the durn F-1 production line going again. Once we could build Saturns, we could put pretty much anything we wanted into orbit, in one piece or a few pieces, much cheaper than Shuttle could do the job. And if one of them blew up, we'd be out one mission, not a fair fraction of our launch capability for the next several years. The above are the official opinions and figures of Robust Software, Inc. (313) 662-4147 Forewarned is half an octopus. Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ihnp4!itivax![m-net!rsi,crlt!russ] ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 1987 21:43-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Historical error History DOES NOT show that all arms buildups lead to war. History shows that SOME arms buildups have led to war while others have not. Interesting papers on the causes of conflict have been written on the historical backgrounds of the various cases. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 87 11:59:45 GMT From: nosc!humu!uhmanoa!aloha1!islenet!scott@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Scott Allen) Subject: Re: Hypergolic fuels In article <8921@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > When the Yankee sank last year and its remaining missiles were > > crushed, would they have exploded, or would the fuel have been > > dispersed in the sea water? > Definitely not exploded, not if they were hypergolics. At least, not > violently. Assuming that hull collapse or whatever was violent enough > to rupture the missiles' tanks, I would bet on a minor explosion plus > a major fire (yes, an underwater fire, it's not impossible) plus a lot > of reaction with the surrounding water. Thanks for your comments. Another factor leading to the possibility of fire would be the rise in temperature as pressure increases due to the captured air bubble inside the hull being compressed at the time of hull rupture. That would probably happen at some depth greater than about 5,000 feet. A friend of mine who has examined sunken subs says debris is often charred from such events. In the case of the Yankee, the question arises what might have happened to the nuclear weapons aboard (2 per missile) after it sank. There has never been any report that they have been recovered though the Russians have maintained a vessel near the site most of the time since the sinking. Scott Allen {ihnp4|dual|vortex}!islenet!scott Honolulu, Hawaii 808-941-8500 808-947-3657 808-948-6750 ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 87 13:44:00 PST From: "ZEUS::BOLD" Subject: Defense Still Isn't War, or THERE GLORY FOR YOU. To: "space" Reply-To: "ZEUS::BOLD" Teemu Leisti, in SPACE DIGEST V8 #48, objects to my use of the dictionary to bring some clarity to the defense budget controversy. In doing so, Leisti has demonstrated that clarity through definition of terms is not what the anti-defense forces want. Defense is not "a nicer word for war;" for someone afraid of being called a Communist just because of taking a different viewpoint, Leisti has no qualms about using such a McCarthyistic tactic in order to call someone who "takes a view [Leisti] cannot tolerate" a warmonger. (Neither do a lot of other "peace" activists, as other replies to my contributions on this subject have proved.) Of course, this is okay if you don't believe in dictionaries. Aggression is not the only use weapons may have, as Leisti naively states. Deterring a potential enemy from attacking is a legitimate use, and the one I prefer. But if necessary, I am willing to *retaliate*, as refraining from defending one's self makes the victim the attacker's accessory. If we can use space to defend our country and deter our enemies from attacking us, then let's do so. Let the other nations Leisti mentions create wealth for their peoples through privatized space programs of their own, and let the US set the pace by privatizing NASA. Space is big enough for both; so be it with our minds as well. Let's also keep the controversy productive by using words correctly. Kevin "Reddy KiloByte" Bold (BOLD@AFSC-SD.ARPA) ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 87 13:59:00 PST From: "ZEUS::BOLD" Subject: Stealth Fighter Unveiled at 4th Annual Edwards AFB Air Show To: "space" Reply-To: "ZEUS::BOLD" One of the more interesting displays at the Edwards Air Force Base Air Show was the roped-off area containing no plane (?) but did contain a reusable marker bearing the caption "Stealth Fighter." It had a one-man crew (a pair of empty flight boots with a card in front of them which read "STEALTH PILOT"), and is said to capable of speeds over 100 knots and altitudes of over 1,000 feet. It is my pleasure to include this snapshot: ******************************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ******************************************************************** Kevin Bold (BOLD@AFSC-SD.ARPA) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 87 18:55:57 GMT From: mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) Subject: Re: Defense is not War In article <8711121501.AA04832@angband.s1.gov> LEISTI@FINUH.BITNET writes: >Mr. Bold attempts to severe the connection between making weapons and >using them by quoting dictionary definitions of defense and war. He >claims he is against war but for defense. Here we have a contradiction >in terms, since despite dictionary definitions, defense is just a nicer >word for war. Switzerland spends a lot on defense (a higher proportion of GNP than most countries, including the USA) and rarely gets into wars. >What are weapons made for, if not using? In a word, deterence. >History shows us that whenever there has been an arms buildup, those >arms have not been left unused. How can we possibly tell from history how many wars have been prevented by strong defense? The fact that we keep having wars doesn't mean that there wouldn't be *more* wars if counties paid less attention to defense. Mike Coffin mike@arizona.edu Univ. of Ariz. Dept. of Comp. Sci. {allegra,cmcl2,ihnp4}!arizona!mike Tucson, AZ 85721 (602)621-4252 ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 87 02:39:59 GMT From: umn-d-ub!umn-cs!ems!questar!datapg!sewilco@speedy.wisc.edu (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Subject: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! In article <1044@crlt.UUCP> russ@crlt.UUCP (Russ Cage) writes: >No. Clarke orbit is 22,300 miles in altitude, and in the middle of the >second Van Allen radiation belt. Not only is it totally unreachable by >Shuttle, but it is not habitable by humans without much shielding. >This shielding would have to be launched at $5000+/pound. To parody Can [superconductor] magnets shield against the radiation? The belt is created by E-M, so the question probably is how strong the magnets must be. And whether the deflected particles should be aimed away from Earth. (Oh, good, an ion thruster with which to keep in orbit, and with which to push the dinky TV satellites out of orbit :-). Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG {ems,meccts}!datapg!sewilco Data Progress Minneapolis, MN, USA +1 612-825-2607 "My name is David Small, what makes you think you're David Letterman?" ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 87 18:40:20 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Soviet manned missions; records made and future plans > ... Maybe with this we can finally find out some of the things we have > always suspected about the Soviet program past operations (eg.1 did > they really have someone ready to beat Apollo 8 to lunar orbit in > 1968). My understanding is that (a) nobody seriously doubts that the Zond circumlunar missions in 1968 were unmanned Soyuz flights, and (b) the Soviets openly stated that a manned circumlunar mission was planned for late 1968. It sure sounds like they meant to do it. There is more room for debate on why they didn't. The best observation I've heard is (briefly) that the Zond missions must have been launched on Proton, since nothing else that they had operational could have done it, and Proton is not man-rated; presumably they meant to man-rate it but ran into problems. Harry Stine's opinion, which he says has recently been confirmed by the Soviets, is that Soyuz 1 went up on a Proton. (For those who don't remember, Soyuz 1 crashed, killing its pilot; the official explanation was that the parachute straps tangled.) Stine says that Proton gives its payloads a very rough ride and that Soyuz 1 was in trouble from the start because of that. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 87 20:38:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Mir Elements, 7 November 1987 > Satellite: MIR ... > > Still no reboost; the thing is continuing its fall out of the sky. Skylab again? Look out, kangaroos! -- Ken Jenks ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Nov 87 09:41:38 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soviet Mir mission: New Progress cargo to go up The cosmonauts on board the USSR's Mir space station complex have completed the unloading of the Progress 32 cargo carrier and are preparing to receive Progress 33 (it will probably have been launched by the time you read this). This will be the 13th vehicle to reach Mir, and the 8th Progress. The total cargo carried to Mir (22.5 Tonnes) by the Progress tankers now exceeds the mass of the Mir core section. While half of that is fuel, air, food and water that still means about 10 Tonnes of hardware has been added to the station from these cargo carriers alone (though not all of it may still be there). Mean while the reports are that Yuri Romanenko is getting tired, and is now down to a 5 hour work day for the research. Considering he has been up there for 284 days now that is not surprising. It has been confirmed that the crew replacing him and Alexander Alexadrov will be a 3 man group containing a doctor. If you want to consider where we are relative to the Soviet's, and where we shall be until the space station gets up look at the following. Even if all shuttle flights take place on the current schedule we cannot exceed the USSR's space experience for any given year during the next decade if all they did was keep a minimum crew of two people on Mir. Yet their plans call for Mir to have between 6 and 9 man occupation for a least some periods by 1991. If you believe that such experience is not going to useful then you cannot consider man to have any worth while function in space. The Soviet's have committed themselves to have at least one working, occupied space station from now on (ie for at least several decades). In this country people are still arguing whether it is a good idea. Let us keep the commitment to the station, and thus become a true space faring nation. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #51 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Nov 87 06:22:34 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01957; Fri, 20 Nov 87 03:21:30 PST id AA01957; Fri, 20 Nov 87 03:21:30 PST Date: Fri, 20 Nov 87 03:21:30 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711201121.AA01957@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #52 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 52 Today's Topics: Planet-like Object found beyond Our Solar System Re: Dyson Sphere Discovered? Re: Space Shuttle Escape Challenger Escape Re: Sunken subs Re: Brazil in space Re: space news from Oct 5 AW&ST re:3d digitized shuttle data Help, Scanners, Lasers, Graphics, 3D reproduction Re: Historical error NASA PROGRAM UPDATE Calendar from Morton Thiokol BDB and all the whining... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Nov 87 12:51 EST From: <11SSTEIN%GALLUA.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu> Subject: Planet-like Object found beyond Our Solar System All, here's a little something I "stole" from the Washington Post - (11/16/87) PLANET-LIKE OBJECT OBSERVED BEYOND THE SOLAR SYSTEM The first good evidence of a planet-like object beyond the solar system has emerged from detailed observations near a star about 50 light years from Earth. An object seen in the region may be the first known brown dwarf, a hypothetical body intermediate in size between a planet and a star. If confirmed, the discover would lend support to the idea of life in other solar systems. As long as our solar system contained the only known planets, it was hard to estimate how common such objects might be. A second example so close by - 50 light years is nearby on the galactic scale - suggests planetary systems are fairly common. The discovery may also help solve the so-called missing mass problem. The observed mass of the universe accounts for only about 10% of the gravitational force that appears to be operating in space. If it turns out there are many brown dwarfs, they could account for a share of the missing mass. The discovery was reported in last week's Nature by Benjamin Zuckerman of UCLA and Eric Becklin of the University of Hawaii. Other planet-like objects have been reported in the past but all have faded from believability because repeated attempts to see them failed. Better established are signs of disks of material around stars that appeared to be early stages of forming planetary systems. The difference between a star and a planet is chiefly one of mass. When interstellar gas and dust accrete into a ball, pressure builds up at the center. If enough mass builds up, the pressure and the heat can become great enough to start a thermonuclear chain reaction, the same process that makes a hydrogen bomb blow up. This is what makes stars shine. If the mass is too small to do this, the result can be anything from a cold lump of rock to a planet such as Jupiter that, unlike Earth, gives off more heat from its internal pressure than it recieves from the sun. If Jupiter, the largest planet in our system, were about 75 times more massive, its internal pressures would be enough to ignite nuclear reactions and turn it into a star. A brown dwarf would be a body many times larger than Jupiter, but not big enough to turn into a star. It would send out heat resembling the infrared radiation that Zuckerman and Becklin detected as coming from a point in the sky near the white dwarf star Giclas 29-38. The mystery object appears to have a surface temperature of around 1,700 F, much too cool to be a star but about 10 times hotter than Jupiter. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 87 18:02:16 GMT From: cfa!mink@husc6.harvard.edu (Doug Mink) Subject: Re: Dyson Sphere Discovered? in article <1032@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM>, kempf@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Jim Kempf) says: > Xref: cfa sci.space:3427 sci.astro:1473 > Does anyone know any details about the brown dwarf Ben Zuckerman > discovered around Giclas 29-38? Zuckerman was quoted in the article I > read saying that he believed it might be a Dyson sphere-like > construction for converting part of the star's energy with excess heat > as the byproduct. Apparently, Zuckerman has been a CETI skeptic, so > the evidence must have been convincing. I heard Zuckerman's presentation of his results in Pasadena last week at the annual meeting of the Division for Planetary Science of the American Astronomical Society. There was some interesting last-minute politicking over whether he could release his results before they came out in Nature later in the week, and the paper was inserted at the last minute. He said that the most likely cause of the infrared excess is a Jupiter-sized (more or less) object which is emitting energy from gravitational collapse rather than hydrogen burning. A dust cloud was ruled out due to the fact that a cloud close enough to the star to keep it a point source would not be stable. The Dyson sphere--actually he refered to several large collectors in orbit around the star--was another hypothesis, offered because he couldn't rule it out. Zuckerman has been not only a SETI sceptic, but a planet search skeptic. The rest of the planetary science community accepts his spectrum, but, having been burned several times in the past, reserves judgement on what is causing the infrared excess. Needless to say, this star will be a subject of intense study. Doug Mink Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Cambridge, Massachusetts mink@cfa.harvard.edu {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!mink ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 87 18:44:56 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Escape > ... I was pulling 2 1/2 g -- and it felt like it. I managed to sit up > and crawl to the exit... The Shuttle astronauts have sometimes walked around in the cabin taking photos during re-entry, which is 2-3 Gs as I recall. I think the normal maximum acceleration during launch is about 3 Gs. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 87 18:32:26 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Challenger Escape > >Is it too much to ask that people read the Rogers report before > >airing their views on the issues to the entire net? > > Henry, Henry. . . Let us NEVER discourage the novice, and besides, > some of us have little or no access to assorted industry reports. While I confess to having been a bit grumpy at the time I wrote that, I continue to feel that the request is a reasonable one. The Rogers report is **NOT** some obscure industry report; it is the primary document on the Challenger disaster, and anyone sounding off on things like shuttle safety systems really ought to have read it first. A copy should be no farther away than your local library. (If not, complain!) Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 1987 15:21-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Sunken subs I have heard that the pressure wall caused by hull rupture causes the air inside to ignite. That is the cause of the charring that is seen. People on board are not crushed: they are incinerated. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 87 00:10:20 GMT From: rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. Rupp) Subject: Re: Brazil in space L(yon) Sprague DeCamp, one of the leading SF writers of the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, wrote a novel called THE TOWER OF ZANID, in which the Brazilians were the space-faring nation. This novel was published in 1958. By the way, a close friend of mine here in San Diego is a science fiction writer whose name most of the readers of this group would probably recognize (How's *that* for anonymous name dropping! I withhold his name out of respect for his privacy.). He is also a mathematician and keeps himself well-informed on such matters. In other words, I respect his opinion highly. When this question first came up recently I asked him what he thought about the chances of Brazil's becoming a space power. His opinion is that such an idea is by no means out of the question. Brazil is a large nation with many resources and a big enough population to support scientific projects of great size. Right now they have an enormous international debt problem, but who knows what might happen a century from now. They are trying to create a homegrown microcomputer industry (with controversial political ramifications, as the news of the last few days atest to). And I think they also have a nuclear project going. We (or our grandchildren) shall see. Bill ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 87 22:35:43 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Re: space news from Oct 5 AW&ST In article <8955@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >Cover is a Landsat photo of the Hangzhou river delta, from the new Chinese ^^^^^ Again, these are images, these are not photos, the geometry is not the same as a photograph (linear rather than point perspective). Everyone on the net such educate the public on the difference. --eugene ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 87 02:01:27 GMT From: ndsuvax!ndsuvm1.bitnet!ud140469@uunet.uu.net Subject: re:3d digitized shuttle data Wow, this is great! Only the second or third time I read comp.graphics, and just when I'm about to ask after 3d image libraries and what do I find waiting for me? A 3d shuttle! Thanks to the poster of the info--it will come in handy. And now a similar request, but on a larger scale. I've recently started working on a new graphics system here at my university doing animated shows, etc (or at least learning to). This system, while really neat on the hardware is rather lacking on the software side, especially in relation to 3d image libraries (the system, while having full 3d wireframe rotational capabilities, was mostly intended for star display, so it's 3d image library is pitiful). My boss has asked me to go out and try to find some libraries to beef up our own. Here's where I ask help from fellow netters: I would appreciate getting info on sources of such image libraries (be it email, snailmail, phone #'s, etc). I would need the libraries themselves and then information on their structure (so that we can massage the data on our end into a format compatible with our system). If it's easier, we can go through snail mail instead of over the net. Of course we'd pay for the cost of any media, phone charges, etc. Public domain libraries would be appreciated, but not necessary (being a public university on public funds, we don't have a lot of bucks). We don't really care what system your data is on--we'll worry about converting it ourselves. Also, along a related line, are there any fileservers that have collection of these 3d images? Any help would be very much appreciated! Scott Udell UD140469@NDSUVM1.BITNET University of North Dakota P.S. I'm a beginner at graphics work, so please forgive me if I've used any incorrect terminology... ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 87 21:49:40 GMT From: ptsfa!well!lcole@AMES.ARPA (Len Coleman) Subject: Help, Scanners, Lasers, Graphics, 3D reproduction I need some help in locating information on scanner/graphics. Although I have no background in graphics or medicine, I have been asked to research the technology without being told how the technology will be used. One extreme example of a possible use suggested was to make large models of snowflakes. I view the snowflake illustration as frivolous and only used to indicate that the object to be reproduced could be fragile, small or even microscopic and that the object may exist only for short periods of time. If any of the new technologies (i.e. sonic, uv, cat, optical) are be more likely to be suitable/unsuitable than others, or if any other idea pops into mind, please let me know. Thanks, --Len USENET: lll-crg!well!lcole Compuserv: 71016,177 (irregular) USPS: 1291 18th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94122 Work: 415-753-2136 Answer: 415-753-2135 Home: 415-564-3082 Computers: SageIV, MacIntosh Plus ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 87 10:22:35 GMT From: nosc!humu!uhmanoa!aloha1!islenet!scott@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Scott Allen) Subject: Re: Historical error In article <563942636.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: > History DOES NOT show that all arms buildups lead to war. History > shows that SOME arms buildups have led to war while others have not. > Interesting papers on the causes of conflict have been written on the > historical backgrounds of the various cases. Do not neglect the for probable truth that tensions which cause arms buildups also lead to war -- or that arms buildups deter war. I recommend Hans Morgenthau's classic text on international power politics. Scott Allen {ihnp4|dual|vortex}!islenet!scott Honolulu, Hawaii 808-941-8500 808-947-3657 808-948-6750 Islenet ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 87 15:07:34 EST From: Al Lester Subject: NASA PROGRAM UPDATE To: Ted Anderson Release 4.1 of CLIPS Adds Windows and Supports Mouse! The C Language Integrated Production System (CLIPS) is a shell for developing expert systems. It is designed to allow artificial intelligence research, development and delivery. Developed at NASA Johnson Space Flight Center the program meets or out-performs most micro and minicomputer based artificial intelligence tools. Version 4.1 includes a completely re-written and expanded Reference Manual and User's Guide; the addition of windows; support for a mouse; and various internal improvements. The size of the code has increased from 11,000 source statements to 34,000 source statements. CLIPS has proven to be a very popular, very portable program. Users report it can easily be imbedded in a larger code and is especially appropriate for applications in machine control and database access. For more information, contact COSMIC, The University of Georgia, 382 East Broad Street, Athens, GA 30602 Phone: 404-542-3265 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1987 18:26:55.12 CST From: (Mike Kent) Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: Calendar from Morton Thiokol To: To anyone interested in getting a GOOD six month calendar: I have been getting 5 copies of an aerospace calendar from Morton Thiokol's public relations department for over a year now. It has a large picture of a launch or some such aerospace thing and a three month calendar next to it. The back holds the same thing. Its free, as is the postage. Just write them and ask for the calendar in the letter. Public Relations Morton Thiokol Inc. Wasatch Operations P.O. Box 524 Brigham City, UT 84302 They will not send you very many calendars. (I asked for 15) I guess the cost is starting to get to them. If you cannot get enough calendars just have a friend write as well. Mike Kent Graduate Computer Science Student Sam Houston State University Huntsville, (the other Huntsville) Texas UCS_MWK@SHSUODIN ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Nov 87 16:09 AST From: Subject: BDB and all the whining... I hate to interupt like this but I am getting feedup with all the whining about NASA and the affiliated company's. Have many of the 12,000 space.nuts (other than I) thought about getting together and by commitie building a demo Little Dumb Booster. Cost is the real factor we would let drive our design. If nothing else I would like to receive information on designing a rocket and what is needed to launch the booster. I have to be honest and say I do not have much time to spare nor the technical background. Robert Jesse Hale III IMPACT University of Alaska Fairbanks 99775 We are not going to do anything intersting if we don't start it ourself. ********************************** * Back to the moon and beyond. * ********************************** FNRJH@ALASKA :Bitnet ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #52 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Nov 87 06:30:48 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00718; Sat, 21 Nov 87 03:15:56 PST id AA00718; Sat, 21 Nov 87 03:15:56 PST Date: Sat, 21 Nov 87 03:15:56 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711211115.AA00718@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #53 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 53 Today's Topics: Re: Do we need a Space Station? More skyhook questions Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! Do we need a Space Station? Re: Historical error Re: Defense is not War Re: Historical error Re: Mini Big Dumb Booster Re: Do we need a Space Station? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Nov 87 20:28:24 GMT From: topaz.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: Re: Do we need a Space Station? Your analysis seems to require making a choice between BDB and a station. Now it may be that as currently proposed, that is so, but I would suggest that you differentiate between (a) a "permanent presence" and (b) the current NASA plan. I imagine that the best program for (a) would involve building BDB. The trick is to develop the booster rather than to found a welfare system for high-tech developers. The whole idea is to make it simple and cheap. It shouldn't take that long to do it. (However, I'm not sure that NASA is capable of doing something that is simple and cheap.) --JoSH ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 87 10:25:00 PST From: "DSS::SINDER" Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: More skyhook questions Reply-To: "DSS::SINDER" Cc: "DSS::SINDER" Has there been talk of how one hooks onto a tether? I sorta thought it would be like flying into an butterfly net. I am still very interested in the dynamics of a skyhook. Would it be like doing a 360 degree circuit on a swing or a Ferris wheel? If swinglike, centrifugal force would keep one in one's seat - eh? - Alan ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 87 14:48:19 GMT From: paul.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) Subject: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! In article <165@datapg.DataPg.MN.ORG> sewilco@datapg.DataPg.MN.ORG (Scot E. Wilcoxon) writes: > In article <1044@crlt.UUCP> russ@crlt.UUCP (Russ Cage) writes: > >No. Clarke orbit is 22,300 miles in altitude, and in the middle of > >the second Van Allen radiation belt. > > Can [superconductor] magnets shield against the radiation? The belt > is created by E-M, so the question probably is how strong the magnets > must be. The magnets couldn't shield against gamma or x-rays, since these are uncharged and wouldn't be sufficiently deflected by magnetic fields. Also, charged particles could enter at the poles of the magnetic field without much resistance. Beside this, even assuming the SS could be built economically in Clarke orbit (presently untrue), and that the radiation problem could be resolved (by means unknown), the SS still has the logistical disadvantage (for communications applications) of occupying only one point in orbit. Coverage would be limited to somewhat less than a full hemisphere, and would be vastly more expensive than an unmanned comsat can already provide. Also, re someone's point on service life of unmanned satellites: Failure by collision is a _very_ rare event. More often, when satellites fail in orbit, they do so because they run out of fuel for stationkeeping, or because batteries or electronics fail. It is conceivable that the SS could be used to service satellites by retrieving them with orbital transfer vehicles, but it seems to me that the satellites would have to be built for this purpose, and you'd have problems if they were tumbling. To do it the smart way, you'd have to consider the amortized cost of building the retrieval system (the SS and OTV's) against the costs of just replacing the failed satellites. If this is favorable (also in light of other direct benefits of building the SS), then it's a good bet. Assuming launch technology gets reliable and loses its gold plating. -..-. Steve -.--. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 87 22:06:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Do we need a Space Station? I'm working on a Special Projects paper entitled "Is there a scientific need for the Space Station?" (or some such). The following are arguments and comments I've gathered in my research. I'd appreciate it if you'd add comments of your own, more subjects, and references. I'll be sure to cite you as a reference if something major is included. (Hmmm -- my English handbook doesn't have the proper format for a reference gained through electronic correspondence. I guess I'll have to wing it.) Thanks for those of you who have contributed already. You'll find things summarized here and sometimes quoted exactly -- I couldn't say it better than you could! If you disagree, please mention it. -- Ken Jenks - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Subject: new technology Pro: The Space Station will cause new technology to be invented. Con: More new technology would be invented by a similar investment in other projects (Big Dumb Booster, Superconducting Super-collider, other boosters, non-rocket launchers, ion engine, Mission to Earth, planetary exploration, etc.). Comments: Will this "new technology" be used only for military (SDI) purposes? A space station would create a different kind of technology. Given that new technology is a Good Thing. Subject: easier access Pro: The Space Station would give us longer durations on orbit for experiments. Con: An extended-duration Shuttle could do the same thing for much less money and give us another Shuttle in the process. Comments: Not the "permanent manned presence" that Reagan asks. Crews and experiments could be rotated on orbit for longer exposure durations. This requires two Shuttles on orbit at once. Subject: on-site supervision, repair of satellites Pro: The Station would allow us to repair satellites on orbit instead of bringing them to the ground for repairs. Con: We can already (supposedly) do this with the Shuttle. Station's orbit can't be altered, so an OMV will have to retrieve the satellites and tow them to the Station. Comments: The Con argument can be negated by co-orbitting the sats with the Station. (q.v.) Subject: consolidation of satellites Pro: We can have many satellites co-orbitting with the Station. This will allow us to put up lots of radiation & micrometeor shielding in one place (saves mass & money), have one power supply instead of many, readily servicable with frequent manned tending, and easy retrieval. Con: Station environment is not ideal for all satellites: thermal radiation, low, non-polar & unchangeable orbit, vibration, and environmental contamination (outgassing, waste products, EM interferance) can make co-orbitting undesirable. Added complexity means more things to go wrong. Comments: Some satellites will require co-orbitting; others will be at a great disadvantage. This calls for a mix of co-orbitting and free-flyers. Subject: Space Station as a assembly/deployment site Pro: SS would provide a clean environment in which to build and deploy satellites in a place easily protected against micrometeors & radiation. Satellites can be unpacked&/manufactured and tested on orbit, thus making it unnecessary to include deployment mechanisms and nine-nines reliability for high-G launch (both expensive). This lowers costs of satellites and increases reliability (tested satellites can wait for replacement parts and be repaired on orbit). Low-acceleration bus can push sat to new orbit. Eventually could have standardized parts (solar panels, attitude control systems, telemetry units) and put them together with custom parts flown up. Con: Contaminents from SS would make the environment "dirty" (see co-orbitting above). Astronauts would have to wear EVA eqpt or use glove boxes to assemble sats. Current sats have little trouble with micrometeors; why worry? NASA's current baseline SS is not configured to handle this. The design is unlikely to be modified after bids are finalized (supposedly 11/87). Using humans to unpack satellites takes away from time they could be using for other experiments. Comments: Con arguments seem weak. Subject: cost Pro: Station can lower costs of satellites (see below) and pay its way in new technology and spin-offs. Certain items produced in space would be far superior to those produced on Earth, and might even be cheaper. Vacuum and cold temperatures are there for the taking; one doesn't have to produce them. Con: Everything on Station will be brought up at ~$4000+ per pound. Money invested first in Big Dumb Booster would lower all costs to orbit and make Station cheaper (we should do BDB first). ---- The space station, as proposed, would give us almost nothing compared to a habitable Shuttle external tank. Not the volume, not the cheapness, not the ease and simplicity of launch. The SS is a program designed to keep the space contractors going, not the space program. --- We've sent probes to almost every planet in the Solar System without a space station. I'm also willing to bet that the total cost for launching _all_ those planetary probes was less than the SS. --- The same money would buy 4-5 new Shuttles. The STS assembly line could be kept permanently open, and new Shuttles could be specialized for particular roles. Comments: Lots of emotion on this one. Subject: propoganda Pro: The Station will re-establish USA as a pre-eminent space power, proving to the world that we still can (and are willing to) have a major space program. Con: The cost of $20-40 G is too high for the propoganda value. The Russians have already done this; all we'd be doing is catching up. We should do something more spectacular, like push to Mars. Comments: This is straying away from my original request for a *scientific* need for the Station. There are many political ones. (Pork barrel comes to mind.) Subject: long-term goals Pro: The Station will help us achieve a long-term commitment to sustained efforts in space. This will be a basis for all our future research efforts. We need a long- term focus like the Station to concentrate our efforts. This is much better than the "one crash program per decade" approach we have been taking since Sputnik. Con: The Station has no long-term focus. We're trying to build the Station that will make everyone happy, and the result is a compromise which pleases almost nobody. We need long-term goals before long-term commitments. Comments: (None) Subject: experiments Pro: Many experiments would benefit from being frequently man-tended. Interactive, serendipitous expts are possible (next expt depends on outcome of previous one). Some expts can only be done with humans doing/overseeing them on-orbit. Con: Most expts would be cheaper on robotic probes. Comments: (None) Subject: men in space Pro: Experiments on how humans live and work in space can only be done on humans living and working in space. We can take advantage of what the Russians have learned. Con: This kind of research will not be applicable until we seriously plan long-termed manned missions (like to Mars). There's no need to invest now; let's wait until we have a cheaper booster. Comments: (None) ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 87 03:44:05 GMT From: uop!robert@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (/dev/null) Subject: Re: Historical error then there are great things like rockefeller selling oil to the germans during the war... why don't we start a conversation about this? i have heard the germans sued an arms company and won the suit (post wwii) for the grenades used in the war? anyone care to confirm or deny the rumour? ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 87 03:49:57 GMT From: uop!robert@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (/dev/null) Subject: Re: Defense is not War In article <2855@megaron.arizona.edu>, mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) writes: > In article <8711121501.AA04832@angband.s1.gov> LEISTI@FINUH.BITNET writes: > > Switzerland spends a lot on defense (a higher proportion of GNP than most > countries, including the USA) and rarely gets into wars. > look who holds all the gold too!! and makes lots of shadey deals, all in the guise of being a peaceful country! ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 87 03:55:14 GMT From: uop!robert@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (/dev/null) Subject: Re: Historical error oh yeah?? well i recommend Carrol Quigley's "Tradgedy and Hope" ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 1987 13:58-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Mini Big Dumb Booster That is pretty much what Phil Salin, Jim Bennet & co at AMROC are up to. If they can ever get through the *&^$#@#(*& red tape and CYA of the USAF at Vandenberg. Talk about beauracratic a******s!!! The current USAF 'requirements' include demands for a type of insurance that doesn't even exist!!! Sounds underhanded enough to me to start me wondering who got paid off. The biggest delay with the AMROC ELV (as I understand it) at this time is the launch site agreement. I personally would not rule out pressure from the big aerospace contractors who will look like fools if AMROC gets a chance to launch. I have no evidence to say this has actually happened. I only have observed patterns of behavior and personal knowledge of other cases of behind the scenes threats to tell me that most of them would cut their mother's throat to keep their overpriced, subsidized vehicles alive. They don't want a competitive america, they just want to keep their hidden subsidies. Maybe some of you who care about the issue could write your DC critters and suggest that simplifying the use of launch facilities would do a great deal for american competitiveness, balance of trade, defense, peace, what ever turns you (or them) on. If some of the CAL5 people are out there, maybe they can pass on the latest scuttlebut on AMROC. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 87 00:11:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Do we need a Space Station? > Your analysis seems to require making a choice between BDB and a > station. [..] > > --JoSH The main reason this seems to be an "either/or" kind of decision is the short-term time frame imposed by Reagan. He, like Kennedy, wanted his project done within a decade. Or at least *started* by the 1990's. Developing BDB is a desperately needed part of getting us off the planet in a big way. So is the Space Station. We don't have time to develop BDB then do the Station in Reagan's time frame. Another reason that BDB will take a back seat is that the funds only go so far, and only one (+/-) company will benefit from BDB -- the developer. This means that the Station will take a front seat -- many companies stand to make a bundle, as opposed to one company getting a bigger bundle. In an ideal world, with unlimited time and unlimited finances backing the space program, we'd build a BDB then the Station. Or better yet, NASP (National AeroSpace Plane) then Station. That promises to be even more cost-effective than BDB. -- Ken Jenks, MS: Aero/Astro Engineering, BS: Computer Science, UIUC Job Search: 6 Plant Trips, 3 Offers so far. Decision date: 7 December 1987 jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #53 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Nov 87 06:31:22 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02274; Sun, 22 Nov 87 03:19:41 PST id AA02274; Sun, 22 Nov 87 03:19:41 PST Date: Sun, 22 Nov 87 03:19:41 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711221119.AA02274@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #54 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 54 Today's Topics: Re: BDB and all the whining... Is Missing Mass a pseudoproblem? Re: Brown Dwarf and media idiocy NAVSTAR (was Re: space news from Oct 5 AW&ST) Progress 32 - some interesting maneuvers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Nov 87 00:23:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: BDB and all the whining... [...] > Have many of the 12,000 space.nuts (other than I) thought about getting > together and by commitie building a demo Little Dumb Booster. Cost is the > real factor we would let drive our design. If nothing else I would like to > receive information on designing a rocket and what is needed to launch the > booster. SSI (Space Studies Institute) does things like this. They are doing necessary research on a shoe-string budget using volunteers and tax-deductible contributions. Their offices, I believe, are in Rocky River, NJ. If you have any interest in contacting them, their phone number is (306) 921-0377. They are a non-profit group. > > I have to be honest and say I do not have much time to spare nor the > technical background. > That is a big problem, but not as big as monetary considerations. You can get the education and find the time, but donating the money might prove to be very difficult. > Robert Jesse Hale III > IMPACT > University of Alaska Fairbanks 99775 > [...] FNRJH@ALASKA :Bitnet -- Ken Jenks, MS: Aero/Astro Engineering, BS: Computer Science, UIUC Job Search So Far: 6 Plant Trips, 3 Offers. Decision date: 7 December 1987 Thanks for your help, everyone! jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 87 16:57:00 PST From: "ZEUS::BOLD" Subject: Is Missing Mass a pseudoproblem? To: "space" Reply-To: "ZEUS::BOLD" I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M Date: 20-Nov-1987 16:19 PST From: Kevin W. Bold BOLD Dept: SD/SCOA -- 2080CS/DOA Tel No: (AV83/213 64)3-2160 TO: _MAILER! ( _DDN[SPACE@ANGBAND.S1.GOV] ) Subject: Is Missing Mass a pseudoproblem? The other night I was rereading Rudy Rucker's *The 4th Dimension* and came across what struck me as information pertaining to the controversy over how the universe may end, oscillation between Big Bangs and Big Crunches versus eternal expansion, forever and ever, ah people! If A Square, the hero in Abbot's *Flatland*, were to see a Sphere from Spaceland travel through his two-dimensional world, it would first appear to him as a small dot, then expand into a circle, and then contract into a dot again just before disappearing. Likewise, if any of us were to experience a hypersphere's visit to our 3-D world, we would see a tiny sphere grow larger, then contract, and finally disappear. The universe could be a hypersphere traveling through an eternal series of three dimensional realms. (Imagine what would happen if we collided with another one coming from a different direction!) On the other hand, if all the matter in the universe is flying away from itself, it will eventually come back together by virtue of moving in a hypersphere. ("[Virtue] had nuthin' to do with it." -- Mae West) The bottom line: if our three dimensional universe is curved around another spacial dimension (Time may be A higher dimension, but if hyperspace is possible, could there not be a hypertime?), the question of "sufficient mass to enable gravitational forces to slow down, stop, and reverse the expansion of the universe" becomes irrelevant. It's going to come back together anyway. ("Om nayam Shiva nam...") (Of course, missing mass is a sizeable problem if you're a devout Catholic, but that's another story...) Kevin Bold (BOLD@AFSC-SD.ARPA) (honk and wave if you see a red 1986 Fiero GT with California license plates reading "4DMNSNS") ------ ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 87 21:10:18 GMT From: pyramid!prls!philabs!ttidca!sorgatz@decwrl.dec.com ( Avatar) Subject: Re: Brown Dwarf and media idiocy In article <2192@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes: >In article <1461@ttidca.TTI.COM>, sorgatz@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar) writes: > >> > [details on an incompetent CNN story on Ben Zuckerman's Brown Dwarf >> > discovery deleted] > > [ my mini-flame on broadcast journalism deleted ] >Please try to refrain from name-calling. I am a broadcast journalist, and I >don't appreciate being called an asshole or a bozo. I am far more educated >than you might imagine, and I don't think it's my nature to be bubble-headed. My sincere apologies, Mr. Trout. One on one, for a moment, don't you think your industry has a great deal to face up to? I have seen so damn little real Science reporting that it's beginning to appear as if the journalism trade is almost completly ignorant of the subject. This is my opinion, of course, but I'd be willing to bet a great number of 'TechFolk' share it. >Criticisms of news media blunders are welcome and essential, but personal >attacks diminish your arguments. This would be a VERY LONG LIST, indeed. The point about "personal" attacks is a bit out of line here, I never mentioned anyone by name, now did I? >Broadcast journalism certainly has its share of incompetents. So does >engineering. Every known human activity is tainted by the foibles and blunders >of Homo sapiens. I could go on and on about technogeeks who speak only >computerese, take a shower once a month, and design bridges that fall into the >Schoharie Creek, but this is sci.space, not talk.politics.misc. Yes, this is true. But most of these people are short-lived, in their professional life span. Bad reporting, inaccurate reporting, sensationalism and the so-called Yellow Journalism, especially about things Tech, seems to be a constant, why? Television and it's bedfellow Mass-marketing, have seemingly created an atmosphere where simplistic Media-mindset have eliminated the hard facts from the reporting. Would you care to address this? >"These people", as you call us, are for the most part highly-educated, >hard-working, dedicated and ethical folk who do the best job we can under >difficult circumstances. We do make mistakes, and some of us aren't up to the >standards of the majority. But that's no reason to stereotype broadcast >journalists--or anyone else, for that matter. > Fine. You work hard. Why not work smart? How about adding some realism to the picture, in the form of accuracy and completeness. Not the same 'ole "Yes! And with *more* on this fast-breaking story, here's Mike with the live Mini-Cam crew, ON THE SCENE!" -- grow up! The press elements that make up a part of the broadcast journalism industry have watered-down and HYPED UP everything to come their way for the last 30 years. A stereotype in this case is not only reasonable, it's it's deserved. Think about it, and while you're at it, think about the misinformation that clouded the TMI incident, the breastbeating that went on with the Challenger, the out-and-out silly nonsense that passed for broadcast journalism during the Chernobyl affair... ..I'm ashamed of our Press, and you should be too. I *KNOW* you guys can do a better job, you've got the best resources available to do so. >Usually, I find sci.space an excellent forum for discussion and enlightenment. >We are blessed with the intelligent and innovative thoughts of posters such as >Henry Spencer and Eugene Miya. Unfortunately, I found this posting to be So do I, but I think it's high-time that the presentation of the Sciences be done in a complete way. We all bitch about the lack of funds, the cuts, the lack of direction in our Space Program and the seeming lack of support; it would seem logical to begin to examine the PR angle and it's mechanisms closely, to try and find a means of reversing the present trends. Accuracy and completeness in broadcast journalism, about things scientific would go a long way towards helping this situation. >nothing more than an emotional and uninformed rant and rave session. If you >have specific criticisms of news media performance, let's see them presented in >a rational and logical context. Keep the screaming diatribes off the net. And >you might brush up on your spelling and grammar, too. Ok. Here I've presented you with some exact criticisms...and yes, I will brush up on my spelling and grammar...maybe you should closely examine the professional behavior of your fellow journalists. My apologies to the newsgroup for this running so long, but when it comes such matters as these, it is clear that the broadcast industry needs some help. Telling half a story, telling a watered-down version, reporting with sensationalism as a blind to the inaccuracy is criminal. Science has long strived for knowledge and understanding, it would be a terrible waste for the message to become lost in a flood of catch-phrases and over simplified sensationalistic reporting techniques. -- -Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY +-------------------------+ Citicorp(+)TTI *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 * 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2973 +-------------------------+ Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun,philabs,randvax,trwrb}!ttidca!ttidcb!sorgatz ** ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 87 17:00:38 GMT From: trwrb!cadovax!gryphon!mhnadel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Miriam Nadel) Subject: NAVSTAR (was Re: space news from Oct 5 AW&ST) In article <8955@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >DoD to seek funds to add three more satellites to the Navstar configuration. >This essentially restores the original 24-satellite configuration, largely >eliminating the reduced-accuracy areas that were a major concern for aviation >use of Navstar. Another issue is that planned monitoring stations might not >detect degradation of a satellite's signals for several hours. This might >be addressed by adding some civil monitoring stations, or by cross-checking >the satellites against each other in each receiver. The latter is possible >a good bit of the time with a 24-satellite configuration, and would work >even better if some civil Navstars in Clarke orbit were added, to increase >redundancy. DoD is suggesting that Europe or Japan might wish to do this, >or perhaps Inmarsat (which is interested in navsats, and might be able to >use its existing satellites to some extent), partly as a way of assuring >international civil access. Reagan's decision to open Navstar to civil use >(1983, after KAL 007) is also causing some worries for the USAF: "Today we >might have a brief outage of one of our early warning satellites or a >communications satellite, and only a handful of people would be aware of >the problem. But with GPS [Navstar], if a couple of satellites `hiccup' >briefly, hundreds or thousands of civil pilots will know and complain." > >[Personal prediction: civil Navstar is not going to take off in a big way >unless/until it is done as a civil system, perhaps in coordination with DoD >but not through them. Too many people, in the US and elsewhere, don't trust >DoD and the USAF in particular (it would be better if Navstar was being run >by the Navy, which has a tradition of supporting civil sea use)... with >considerable justification.] > First of all, it doesn't make sense to say that the 24 satellite constellation was chosen to eliminate areas of reduced accuracy since there are several 21 satellite configurations with constellation values of 1.0. (Constellation value is essentially a measure of what fraction of time the position dilution of precision, PDOP, of a constellation is sufficiently small. PDOP essentially measures how much an error in pseudo range measurement is magnified into a position error. If you want further details about this, send me e-mail and I'll dig up a couple of basic references. The usual source of this sort of information is the IEEE Journal of Navigation.) At any rate, both the Walker 21/7/3 constellation and the 21/21/2 rosette have constellation values of 1 (perfect availability). The problem with these configurations is the lack of on-orbit spares. The baseline 21 satellite constellation is really an 18/6/3 constellation with 3 on-orbit spares. This has some regions of brief outages but they can be moved to areas of little (military) interest. In addition, the three spares are active and can be positioned to minimize the impact of these outages. The Air Force has been looking at 21 satellite constellations but they are unhappy with a lack of spares. (If the 3 spares were going to be active anyway, it seems silly not to use a constellation that really takes advantage of having 21 active birds up there.) Unfortunately, the 21/7/3 is a bit awkward to deal with (not so neatly symmetric) while the 21/21/2 is problematic because nobody knows how to rephase a rosette constellation if a satellite should break down (in rephasing you can only move things in their orbital plane; rephasing is easier the more satellites you have per plane. With only one per plane, life is more complicated.) I worked on the problem of rephasing the 21/21/2 for a while and didn't have any brilliant inspirations before I got too busy with other stuff and had to drop it. As for civil use of NAVSTAR, bear in mind that the receivers for civil use will be significantly less accurate than those for military use. The vulnerability issues for NAVSTAR are more serious than "lots of folks will know when we hiccup". If they don't fix up the other vulnerability issues, the Air Force will have no excuse for denying civil use. There is also considerable pressure on the Navy (and, to a lesser extent, the Army - who are being sold on "man-packs" containing receivers) to rely on NAVSTAR and not develop other navigational satellites. The option of "going with the Navy systems" may disappear. Miriam Nadel -- "Always a godmother - never a God" - Fran Liebowitz mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM {philabs, trwrb}!cadovax!gryphon!mhnadel {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!mhnadel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 87 18:38:09 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Progress 32 - some interesting maneuvers The Soviets finally detached the Progress 32 tanker from their Mir space station on Nov 17, but have not yet launched Progress 33. They however where trying some interesting tests with '32 before they removed. On Nov.11 and again apparently on Nov. 14 they undocked the Progress, moved it away from the station, then redocked it to the Kvant addition (10 tonne module) on the Mir complex. Since the Progress was destroyed in reentry, as usual, after removal it is certain that this was not some failure in the separation - the cosmonauts would not really be able to repair any guidance on it and they accounced this maneuver once on radio Moscow that I heard. They are just practicing this for future missions. Why separate a Progress from the station? First recall that the 7 tonne Progress' contain about 1 Tonne of cargo and 1.5 tonnes of fuel, water and air in tanks. Also before the tanker is dropped, and indeed throughout its attachment to the station complex, the spare fuel in the Progress' own fuel system (separated from that supplied to the station) is used to boost the stations orbit, thus saving both fuel and wear on Mir's rockets. Finally the Progress is also used to dump the solid garbage from the station and burn it up in the atmosphere, rather than just push it out the airlock where it might damage the station. Three possibilities suggest themselves. First is that they can then move a Progress off when they are bringing a new Soyuz crew up. Up to now the Progress must be discarded whether could serve useful purposes or not. Now it can be moved off, a visiting crew brought up for a short stay, and then reattached when they leave. Secondly the Soviets have talked about a new type of Progress derived craft - a free flyer that would be used to run certain very low G experiments (eg crystal growth) away from the station, then return to the station for study of the results before new experiments are added. Finally as they add side modules to Mir's side docking ports for dynamical stability they will want to keep the axis of the station as heavy as possible, and the core station mass nearly constant. That may suggest that keeping a Progress where it can be added to the station within hours of a visiting crew leaving might be useful. The mass of the Progress and Soyuz are nearly the same. Whatever the reason the Russians are clearly finding new ways to use what they have to the best advantage. That only makes good engineering sense. Let us get the shuttle flying again so that we can continue to do the same, as was being done before the Challenger crash. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #54 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Nov 87 11:43:10 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00435; Mon, 23 Nov 87 08:22:11 PST id AA00435; Mon, 23 Nov 87 08:22:11 PST Date: Mon, 23 Nov 87 08:22:11 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711231622.AA00435@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #55 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 55 Today's Topics: Re: Re: Soviet manned missions; records made and future plans WEIGHT LIMIT RAISED FOR SHUTTLE Re: Great Depression II and the space station Curved space Standardized Vehicle Parts error factors Re: Brazil in space (SPACE Digest V8 #52) Desktop Aeronautics software products. Re: WEIGHT LIMIT RAISED FOR SHUTTLE Re: SPICING UP AVIATION TERMINOLGY..... Re: Defense is not War ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 87 18:46:34 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Re: Re: Soviet manned missions; records made and future plans In my posting on the "Great Soviet Space Disasters" TV program the Russians showed I suggested > ... Maybe with this we can finally find out some of the things we have > always suspected about the Soviet program past operations (eg. did > they really have someone ready to beat Apollo 8 to lunar orbit in > 1968). Henry Spencer suggested in a reply on the Nov19th space digest that > ...........................(a) nobody seriously doubts that the Zond > circumlunar missions in 1968 were unmanned Soyuz flights, and (b) the > Soviets openly stated that a manned circumlunar mission was planned for > late 1968. It sure sounds like they meant to do it. Sorry Henry, I have meet a lot of people who do not believe that the Soviets where anywhere near a manned circumlunar mission. As an example look at the article published in the Journal of the Interplanetary Society annual issue on the Soviet program (July?) where the author denies the existence of the Soviet manned lunar program, and the big Saturn class G booster. He goes on to say that suggest that the new statements of a big soviet booster being on the pad will soon give way to statements that it has been been withdrawn due to development problems - that being written just as their new big Energyia booster was being launched, and published 4 months after the flight. I was referring to the more narrow question - was a manned Zond (Soyuz) craft on the launch pad in early Dec. '68 ready to go for a circumlunar launch just before the Apollo 8 mission did the same. In other words did the USSR come within weeks of beating the USA there. There has been much evidence for that but no real Soviet documents on it released to date. Also with respect to the Harry Stine opinion mention by Henry: > .........Harry Stine's opinion, which he says has recently been > confirmed by the Soviets, is that Soyuz 1 went up on a Proton. (For > those who don't remember, Soyuz 1 crashed, killing its pilot; the > official explanation was that the parachute straps tangled.) Stine says > that Proton gives its payloads a very rough ride and that Soyuz 1 was in > trouble from the start because of that. None of the observers of the Soviet Program that I have talked to believe Stine on this. My own arguments are that in 1967 when this happened the Proton had been launched just 4 times (if my memory serves me - I do not have my data book here), the most recent of which had failed. The booster was also being changed from a SL-9 two stage version to the SL-12 3 stage. Also the payload capabilities of the Proton was 2-3 times that needed to send up the Soyuz 1, especially with only one crewman on board. Why send up the first manned test flight of your new capsule on a new booster that was having problems. Especially one that was not in full production and hence of limited supply. Also all their previous unmanned tests of the Soyuz had taken place on their standard A-2 (Sapwood) booster, the launcher that sent up their Vostock missions and has been used on all Soyuz's since then. The Russians have always tended to be very conservative in their manned systems - it would be a real break for them to take such a chance. By comparison the suggested circumlunar flight with a Zond modification of the Soyuz design had been preceded by not only unmanned tests, but even tests with animals. Sorry, until I see real Soviet publications of Salyut 1 being on the Proton, or some of the real acknowledged experts agreeing with this, I remain unconvinced. All of this really indicates the type of problems which the new openess in the Soviet program may answer, if they really do start to reveal what has gone on in the past. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 87 22:47 EST From: Pietro Angelo Francesco Carboni Subject: WEIGHT LIMIT RAISED FOR SHUTTLE In the September '87 issue of Aerospace America magazine pg. 6 there is a paragraph that reads: And NASA has determined that to meet the 100 mission design goal, maximum Shuttle payload mass at launch must be reduced from 65K lb to around 45K lb- to keep the airframe fatigue within limits. In contrast to this a New York Times article of November 11, 1987 (pg A 18 I think it was) reads in exerts: The allowable landing weight for a space shuttle has been increased from 211K lb to 230K lb, ... Rear Adm. Richard H. Truly, ..., said structural analysis and a review of forces encountered by a shuttle in landing showed it could carry the extra weight. The change would allow the shuttle to carry an additional 100K lbs of cargo into space through 1993,... Question: Is it me or are these articles in contridiction? Does the left hand know what the right is doing? Thought: Perchance some people want the shuttle to wear out prematurely so more funds could could be granted for the "Space Plane/Orient Express/ect." on the excuse the the Shuttle fleet is aged and obsolete (if it is not allready so). --- Pietro @ SUNY "Sunny!" Buffalo NY ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 87 13:45:09 GMT From: unc!symon@mcnc.org (James Symon) Subject: Re: Great Depression II and the space station In article <352@gethen.UUCP>, farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) writes: > > This is a singularly shortsighted statement. While the primary product > of the space program is information, that information is used by many > companies in many fields to produce new and useful technology. > . . . The space program, > by any in-depth analysis, has paid back its investment many, many times > over, and to the benefit of all. > This is why I get very tight-lipped whenever I read or hear simplistic cost-benefit arguments for not funding space exploration. Let's all remember this aspect when we have the opportunity to counter anti-space propaganda. Funds shifted to other areas would still get spent but for most alternatives they would not have an equivalent, positive long-term economic impact. Jim Symon UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon Internet:symon@cs.unc.edu Rt 4 Box 443 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 87 23:26:13 GMT From: heurikon!lampman%heurikon.UUCP@speedy.wisc.edu (Ray Lampman) Subject: Curved space If the normal curvature of space within some limited area were disturbed, would it be possible to detect that disturbance at some later time? In other words does an event of this type propagate any information into the future? <------event------> .--- detection? v n ---------. .--------> normal curvature ` ' \ / 0 \ / no curvature \ / \ / -n `.___.' reverse curvature time -------------------------------> I can provide a partial answer in the extreme case: If the curvature of space was altered to approach the extreme curvature near a black hole, I would expect this event to leave evidence even after a normal curvature was restored. But what would this evidence be? And the question remains unanswered in the less extreme cases like those depicted above. A related question: Can the curvature of space be measured at a given location? Has anyone devised a scale of measure for this purpose? If not, may I suggest a value of zero for space with no curvature, and a value of one at the event horizon of a black hole. [Would all event horizons have the same curvature, and therefore the same measure, independent of black hole mass?] For the purpose of answering these questions, please, ignore how one would affect a change in the curvature of space, leaving all other conditions unchanged. Although, this would make an interesting discussion, it may not be appropriate to place it in any of the sci groups. - Ray (lampman@heurikon.UUCP) ------------------------------ Subject: Standardized Vehicle Parts Date: Sat, 21 Nov 87 13:51:21 -0500 From: Fred Baube jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > Eventually could have standardized parts (solar panels, > attitude control systems, telemetry units) and put them > together with custom parts flown up. Yes ! Instead of custom-designing every system (structural, propulsion, comm, energy generation, habitation, etc. etc.) for every vehicle, and instead of custom-building shuttles such as Atlantis to accommodate outsized payloads, why not start now on a line of standard parts optimized for space assembly/testing. A vehicle so assembled need be neither asthetic, nor structurally distorted to fit in a shuttle bay, just functional. Solar panels that were not currently committed to a vehicle-in-assembly could be used to dissassociate water that has been lifted into orbit (no volatile shuttle payloads that way) into LOX and liquid hydrogen to fuel such vehicles. Rush deliveries of smaller parts could be reserved for Scouts or the National Aerospace Plane, but the bulk could travel by whatever is both cheap and ready for launch. If we were still designing and fabricating cars on a individual basis .. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Nov 87 18:39:34 GMT From: uop!robert@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (The litte green man) Subject: error factors spacecraft use intertial guidance? what are the error factors involved for a long journey? that is to say, if we go to another planet, how far "off" will we be? are the errors enough to worry about within our solar system? or just beyond it? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 87 15:11:04 PST From: George Bray Subject: Re: Brazil in space (SPACE Digest V8 #52) This may not be totally germane to space per se, but it is interesting in regards to Brazil. Brazil's economic growth has been fueled by large, government-sponsored project. Examples would include the Itaipu dam, the trans-Brazilian highway, etc. The Brazilian government invests heavily in these, which have been successful, but accompanied by the usual problems of massive government intervention: rapid inflation; excessive borrowing; large bureaucracy. If the Brazilians ever decide to make an assault on space, the rest of the world should join in or step aside. George Bray ------------------------------ Date: 21 Nov 87 19:43:42 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!ICEMAN@princeton.edu (Joakim Karlsson) Subject: Desktop Aeronautics software products. I tried this in rec.aviation without any success...lessee if anyone in sci.space can help me... Does anyone out there have any experiences (postive and/or negative) with the software products of a company called Desktop Aeronautics. In particular I'm interested in two programs for the Macintosh, called LinAir 1.0 and Quickplot that supposedly will do multiple lifting surface analysis? The company is headquarted in California somewhere, I've tried calling them but have only reached an answering machine. Joakim Karlsson iceman @ pucc.Princeton.edu Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering '88 BITNET only: iceman @ pucc Princeton University "You can be my wingman anytime..." ------------------------------ Date: 21 Nov 87 22:03:12 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Re: WEIGHT LIMIT RAISED FOR SHUTTLE ---- In article <8711210348.AA00313@angband.s1.gov> (V041KKEW@UBVMS.BITNET) Pietro Angelo Francesco Carboni writes about an apparent contradiction about the Shuttle masses: 1) NASA determines that max payload decreases from 65Klb to around 45Klb to reduce airframe fatigue. [Aerospace America magazine, Sept '87; secondhand citation by me from Pietro] 2) A top [Air Force?] officer reports that landing weight can be increased from 211Klb to 230Klb, allowing extra cargo to be carried into space [Pietro: 100Klb of cargo by 1993] [New York Times, 11 Nov 1987, pg A 18 ?; secondhand citation by me from Pietro] >Question: Is it me or are these articles in contridiction? Does the > left hand know what the right is doing? As stated in your article, this question cannot be resolved. Did the military man say that the increased landing weight could increase cargo capability to orbit, or did you unintentionally mangle the meaning? If Rear Adm. {whoever} really thinks added landing capability directly translates to cargo capability at launch, I'd think someone handed him a mis- leading or deceitful report. The landing capability is cargo coming down- not up, which is limited by launch weight capacity. If the report on NASA's determination is wrong, then that means that some extra cargo could go up-- but then why didn't the military man report this as LAUNCH weight capability increase? Of course, they both could be right: 1- NASA may have to continue to fly heavier payloads than it would like. 2- 39Klb could be added to the airframe in the form of better bracing, other support equipment, escape systems, etc. This, however, is a shuttle redesign and retrofit. 3- The military may have to allow NASA to fly lighter payloads. Of all these options, 1 forces earlier shuttle retirement, 2 sets the program back at least a few more years, and 3 makes the SDI people and the defense people rather upset. If the NASA determination was wrong, the military is being very strange in presenting their advantage [what can we bring back? If we can bring back more than we take out, this means satellites or materials retrival {ours, a Russian satellite for study,...}]. If the military is wrong, then NASA is trying to keep what equipment they have, running for as long as possible on the money they have. I personally think that, since NASA is the 'owner' and maintainer of the shuttle systems, the military in this instance is daydreaming. {Hm, maybe I should have said "mentally masturbating" :-) } >Thought: Perchance some people want the shuttle to wear out prematurely > so more funds could could be granted for the "Space Plane/Orient > Express/ect." on the excuse the the Shuttle fleet is aged and > obsolete (if it is not allready so). > --- Pietro @ SUNY "Sunny!" Buffalo NY -- -Joe Beckenbach (CS BS '88) Private booster projects may spell the difference between being in space in the next decade and being grounded in the next century. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Nov 87 02:23:15 GMT From: ihnp4!laidbak!spl1!wheaton!coulter@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Scott D. Coulter ) Subject: Re: SPICING UP AVIATION TERMINOLGY..... The aviation terminology is interesting, but do we need it in sci.space AND in sci.space.shuttle? I think perhaps we could limit this a little, since I suspect that most people who read one space group read both (I do anyway . . . ) -- ############################################################################### Scott D. Coulter CPO 462, Wheaton College ihnp4!wheaton!coulter Wheaton, IL 60187 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Nov 87 21:48:33 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!ICEMAN@princeton.edu (Joakim Karlsson) Subject: Re: Defense is not War In article <772@uop.EDU>, robert@uop.EDU (/dev/null) writes: >In article <2855@megaron.arizona.edu>, mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) writes: >> In article <8711121501.AA04832@angband.s1.gov> LEISTI@FINUH.BITNET writes: >> >> Switzerland spends a lot on defense (a higher proportion of GNP than most >> countries, including the USA) and rarely gets into wars. >> > >look who holds all the gold too!! > >and makes lots of shadey deals, all in the guise of being a peaceful >country! Hmph. [1] I wouldn't say Switzerland per se makes shadey deals, but rather people who work through swiss banks (which guarantee anonymity). [2] If you don't like the example of Switzerland, take Sweden as an example. I don't remember the exact figures, but Sweden's defense expenditure per capita is very, very high. Can you name the last war Sweden fought in? Joakim Karlsson iceman @ pucc.Princeton.edu Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering '88 BITNET only: iceman @ pucc Princeton University "You can be my wingman anytime..." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #55 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Nov 87 06:36:01 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01904; Tue, 24 Nov 87 03:16:27 PST id AA01904; Tue, 24 Nov 87 03:16:27 PST Date: Tue, 24 Nov 87 03:16:27 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711241116.AA01904@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #56 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 56 Today's Topics: SURFER: A Stanford University Student Satellite Project wants YOU! December meeting of STEPP Re: BDB and all the whining... More skyhook questions space station Magnetic Radiation Shielding Re: Dyson Sphere Discovered? CCDs and Inverse-square law distance determination Re: Curvature of space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Nov 87 02:41:39 GMT From: scherzo!lyang@sun.com (Larry Yang) Subject: SURFER: A Stanford University Student Satellite Project wants YOU! STUDENT SATELLITE PROJECT SEEKS DONATIONS OF TEST AND DESIGN EQUIPMENT! Graduate and undergraduate students in Stanford University's Small Satellite Program are currently designing and prototyping an experimental scientific satellite called SURFER (Stanford University Radio Frequency Emissions Receiver) to be deployed on the Space Shuttle in 1991 along with the Tethered Satellite System (TSS-1) mission. The project urgently needs development and test equipment of all kinds. Firms, government agencies or individuals with surplus electronic equipment, computers, spacecraft test equipment, relevant software, etc. are encouraged to donate such equipment to the SURFER satellite team at Stanford. We expect that such equipment donations would be eligible for tax benefits. PUBLICITY AND A CHANCE FOR ACCESS TO OUTSTANDING ENGINEERING STUDENTS. Be part of the SURFER team! The satellite will likely fly during Stanford's Centennial Celebration in 1991-92, with much attendant publicity. The students on the SURFER team are Stanford's best engineers, and are pioneering innovative engineering designs as well as gaining extensive teamwork experience. Interested parties are invited to call us or visit our facilities. EQUIPMENT/FACILITIES NEEDED BY THE SURFER SATELLITE PROJECT ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. ELECTRICAL TEST AND DEVELOPMENT EQUIPMENT 8086 Assembler/Development System Audio Waveform Generator Data Books (TI/Intel, etc.) De-soldering equipment Development system IBM-compatible computer Logic analyzer Multimeters Ohm-meter Oscilloscope, analog & digital storage Power Supplies (5V @5Amp, 6V, +/- 12 V @ 5 Amp) PROM programmer Software for digital design (MacIntosh/IBM) VHF field strength meter VHF signal generator 3. MECHANICAL TEST AND DEVELOPMENT EQUIPMENT Shake table Small Thermo-Vac Chamber CAD/CAE equipment Video Camera and ancillary equipment (slow-motion?) Zero-G Simulator 4. SOFTWARE Schematic Capture/Design/Simulation (MacIntosh,IBM,uVAX) CAD, Dynamic & Thermal Analysis software Test bench/experiment-control software Simulation, graphics Other software potentially useful on IBM, Mac, VAX, SUN 5. COMPUTER EQUIPMENT IBM-compatible Microcomputers IBM peripherals (hard-disks,experiment-control cards,etc) IBM software (analysis, lab controllers, simulators) MacIntosh Microcomputers (Plus, 512K, SE, MacII) MacIntosh peripherals (hard-disks, printers, etc.) Any other donations will be gratefully accepted, as well as contributions in the form of on-site access to your facilities/equipment. Please pass this notice on to your colleagues, other departments, and anyone else interested. HOW TO CONTACT THE SURFER SATELLITE TEAM. You may contact the SURFER student team at (415)-723-2945 (SURFER office), or (415)-328-1771 (after hours). Our FAX number is (415)-723-0010 (please be sure to include OUR name and phone number on the FAX cover sheet). Our address is: SURFER Satellite Project c/o STARLab, Durand 202 Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 EMAIL: LYANG@SUN.COM Specialized inquiries may be directed to Burton Lee (Deputy Manager), David Lauben (Electrical Team Leader), or Scott Williams (Mechanical Team Leader). Thank you very much for your interest and help. ----- Postscript: Project Description and work in progress: SURFER and MISSION BACKGROUND. The SURFER satellite project is faculty-advised and student-managed. All research and design (both electrical and mechanical) is being done by undergraduate and graduate students. Total cost of design and construction is estimated at around $1 million. NASA has provided $50,000 support for initial design activities, but to take it to functional prototype level will require much more resources which must come from other organizations. SURFER is a 120 lb., 15" high, 17" diameter passively stabilized satellite designed to measure plasma characteristics and electromagnetic waves radiated from the 20 km Tethered Satellite System (TSS-1). SURFER will be ejected from a Get-Away-Special canister prior to tether deployment and drift from 1 to 100 km behind the Orbiter during the TSS-1 experiment. SURFER has a mission lifetime of about 50 hours and will remain in orbit several months before it enters the Earth's atmosphere and burns up. ELECTRONICS & COMMUNICATIONS SUBSYSTEMS. Items of immediate concern include the telemetry/command and data processing systems. These consist of a VHF (137MHz) radio link and distributed-CPU data processing system on-board the Orbiter. The radio link must support a 20 Hz - 20 kHz analog waveform and 16 kbit/sec digital stream. Once on-board the Orbiter, the data processing system must convert the analog waveform to digital form, and combine it with the 16 kbit/sec stream, MET time code, and free-flyer range data for transfer to a high capacity data storage unit located in the Orbiter bay. A real time two-way command link for Satellite re-configuration is also planned. We intend to adapt terrestrial handheld technology for the short-term space mission, and modify some high-capacity data storage unit to survive the launch loads and mission environment. Additional work is currently being done on the Spacecraft power system, science instrument design, spin-ejector prototype, dynamical simulation, thermal analysis, and mission planning. --Larry Yang [lyang@sun.com,{backbone}!sun!lyang] Sun Microsystems, Inc., Mountain View, CA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Nov 87 16:09:39 EST From: subar%mwcamis@mitre.arpa Subject: December meeting of STEPP The December meeting of the Association for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Public Policy (STEPP) will have Dick Thompson as speaker. Mr. Thompson, _Time_ magazine's Washington correspondent, was the author of the October 5 cover story, "Surging Ahead - The Soviets Overtake the US as a Spacefaring Nation". Mr. Thompson visited the Soviet Flight Control Center at Kalingrad as well as interviewing cosmonauts onboard the Mir as part of his research for the article. Mr.Thompson will discuss "The Soviet Space Program - Are They Really Ahead?". The dinner and discussion will take place Tuesday, December 1 from 6p to 9p. The cost is $13 for members and $15 for non-members. For reservations and information, please contact Marcia Brody @ (202) 659-2040. No e-mail please. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 87 21:36:37 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: BDB and all the whining... > Have many of the 12,000 space.nuts (other than I) thought about > getting together and by commitie building a demo Little Dumb > Booster... By committee, it will never get built. There needs to be someone in charge. And there needs to be money, multiple megabucks. Lots of multiple megabucks unless you are willing to make it a very high-risk venture, in which case most of those 12000 will not support it. > ... what is needed to launch the booster. Considering that you are a US citizen, you need government approval. This translates to $$$ for complex dealings with the government, and a lot of patience. Using existing launch sites will be astronomically expensive, notably for the compulsory insurance coverage, and probably will not be practical at all with a high-risk design built by amateurs. Setting up your own launch site will involve a good many other problems. By the way, doing it outside the US does not get you out from under the US government, since the US government claims authority over its citizens everywhere. Bear in mind that you're going to need enough money to launch several of them, partly because launch failures are moderately likely, and partly because you will not get commercial customers without building a track record first. I don't think it's impossible. If somebody gave me enough money, I would try. But it would take rather a lot of money -- more than I have any hope of getting from the space-enthusiast community -- and it wouldn't be easy. At least I'm not a US citizen, which eliminates one set of obstacles. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Nov 87 12:12:31 EST From: loeb@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU To: sinder%dss.decnet@afsc-sd.arpa Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov, sinder%dss.decnet@afsc-sd.arpa Subject: More skyhook questions While going up a skyhook to geostationary orbit, gravity would dominate, and good ol' Earth would keep you in your seat. However, towards the other end of the hook, your seat better face the other way because centrifugal "force" would be greater than gravitational attraction, and your seat would be pushed in the opposite direction. Danny ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 87 21:17:39 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space station > A space station would create a different kind of technology... People have objected to this on the grounds that technology development can occur independently. In fact, truly useful technologies actually get developed -- as opposed to talked about -- in response to specific projects that need them, by and large. A stronger point against the technology-development argument is that a space station needs no new technology of any significance. (This has nothing to do with what NASA is actually going to do, of course. Since NASA is an R&D-oriented agency, there is going to be lots of unnecessary new technology involved.) > But will the missions be cheaper if started from the SS? I have seen nothing that contradicts Fairchild's "Leasecraft" study. This was a purely commercial venture, not a NASA contract. It concluded that a satellite which is assembled in orbit is cheaper than one assembled on the ground, because assembly can be done after the rough ride to orbit is over. Leasecraft itself got shelved for lack of customers, but as far as I know Fairchild's conclusions remain sound. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Nov 87 15:51:57 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Magnetic Radiation Shielding >>>Clarke orbit is 22,300 miles in altitude, and in the middle of >>>the second Van Allen radiation belt. >> Can [superconductor] magnets shield against the radiation? The belt >> is created by E-M, so the question probably is how strong the magnets >> must be. >The magnets couldn't shield against gamma or x-rays, since these are >uncharged and wouldn't be sufficiently deflected by magnetic fields. Since gammas and x-rays are not deflected by magnetic fields, they are not trapped in the Van Allen Belts either. These consist of protons and electrons (at different places). >Also, charged particles could enter at the poles of the magnetic field >without much resistance. The concept of Magnetic shielding for space habitats was proposed by Arthur Kantrowitz of Avco Everett at least fifteen years ago. Even for habitats ("Space Colonies") in orbits not intersecting the radiation belts, there is a significant problem with radiation exposure due to (a) Solar Flares and (b) Cosmic Rays. Solar Flares can be dealt with by having a "Storm Cellar": a small, highly shielded area that people could cram into and wait out the storm. This is possible since the events are comparatively short and the protons arrive several hours after the flare is detectable from Earth. Cosmic rays cannot be waited out. Electrons can be easily shielded against, the problems come with protons and heavier nuclei. These do not cause short-term death, but in the long term they cause cancer, etc. I think it's not much problem with a low orbit space station, because much of the cosmic radiation is shielded by the Earth's magnetic field, which the space station is lower than most of. It is a significant problem at the Lagrangian points, which is why most colony proposals suggest such massive amounts of slag for shielding. As I recall, the magnetic fields to protect significantly against cosmic rays needed to be huge, although I don't know the numbers. Current "high temperature" superconductors won't allow huge magnetic fields, although the technology may improve soon. There is also a problem that extremely high fields put stress on the current-carrying wires that create them. Anyway, though, I think that using fields to shield a habitat is a much more elegant solution than just surrounding it with slag (why go all the way to space if you're gonna live in a basement with piped-in sunlight?). As far as I know, no work is being done on the subject. --Geoffrey A. Landis, Ph.D BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA Off the subject: Is anybody on the net interested in reading a SF story and critiquing it for scientific details? I have one story that I'd be interested in such comments on. Send a note (don't reply to the net) if interested. --GL ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 87 21:24:04 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Dyson Sphere Discovered? > ... The Dyson sphere--actually he refered to several large collectors > in orbit around the star--was another hypothesis... It is worth noting that the original Dyson sphere *was* a collection of smaller objects, not a monolithic sphere. As I recall the paper I read (which may not have been the idea's very first appearance, mind you), Dyson picked a size of a few thousand kilometers to keep tidal forces within the limits of the strength of known materials. A monolithic sphere needs enormous structural strength, or some other clever trick, to support itself against the star's gravity -- remember that it must rotate on a single axis, and only at the equator can centrifugal force properly balance the star's gravity. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Sender: "David_G._Opstad.osbunorth"@xerox.com Date: 23 Nov 87 08:50:33 PST (Monday) Subject: CCDs and Inverse-square law distance determination From: Opstad.osbunorth@xerox.com Cc: Opstad.osbunorth@xerox.com I was browsing through the latest edition of the late George Abell's "Exploration of the Universe", and was looking through his explanation of the inverse-square law, when something struck me. Given the increasing accuracy of CCDs in counting photons, one might be able to do a decent job of determining the distance to a given light source (say, a star) WITHOUT the use of parallax (either spectoscopic or visual), by simply taking a measuring device of fixed aperture, and counting the number of photons received by it at two different distances from the light source. By the inverse-square law: (L1 / L2) = (D2 / D1) ** 2, where L1 is the luminosity at distance D1, and L2 the luminosity at distance D2. This equation can easily be solved so that the distance to the light source can be expressed in units of the distance between the two measuring points. Does this seem feasible and/or interesting? Or am I making too many assumptions about accuracy, so that results wouldn't be usable? Dave ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 1987 14:51-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Curvature of space Yes such affects are theoretically detectable, and in fact they have a name: gravity waves. Unfortunately, nothing real is yet within the sensitivity range of existing instruments, unless we happen to get a supernova considerable closer than SN1987A. Next generation of detectors should start getting results, if theory is correct. If it isn't, some physicists are going to be very, very busy figuring out why pulsars slow down... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #56 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Nov 87 06:18:38 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03763; Wed, 25 Nov 87 03:17:53 PST id AA03763; Wed, 25 Nov 87 03:17:53 PST Date: Wed, 25 Nov 87 03:17:53 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711251117.AA03763@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #57 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 57 Today's Topics: Mir Elements, 21 November 1987 WEIGHT LIMIT RAISED FOR SHUTTLE Re: Shuttle weights Re: WEIGHT LIMIT RAISED FOR SHUTTLE Re: space station Re: Standardized Vehicle Parts Another Spin-Off Re: Another Spin-Off Re: Brazil in space Re: Brazil and eco-catastrophe Re: Sweden's last war Re: NAVSTAR (was Re: space news from Oct 5 AW&ST) Re: NAVSTAR ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Nov 87 02:09:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir Elements, 21 November 1987 The long-expected reboost has finally been performed; strangely, the Soviets have moved to a much less eccentric orbit. Drag is much lower in the new orbit, with perigee boosted from about 285 to 326 km. The element sets I have give no indication of a launch of P33 yet. Nor do I have elements for P32 less than a week old, to confirm the undock. I will keep you posted. Satellite: MIR Catalog id 16609 Element set 926 Epoch: 87320.97162467 Inclination: 51.6251 degrees RA of node: 86.5865 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0013200 Argument of perigee: 17.4859 degrees Mean anomaly: 342.6256 degrees Mean motion: 15.78403973 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00011771 * 2 revs/day/day Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso of UT-Austin. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Nov 87 12:36:36 est From: Mike Stalnaker Phone: (301)-695-5288 (h) (301)-258-5130(w) Usnail: 127 Willowdale Drive, Apt. 22 Frederick, MD 21701 To: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: WEIGHT LIMIT RAISED FOR SHUTTLE Ummm... You might want to pay attention to who 'Rear Adm. whoever' is. He's Dick Truly, who was the copilot for STS-1. Also, he is now Director of Shuttle Operations for NASA, so I kinda think he knows whereof he speaks. --Mike Stalnaker ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 1987 14:35-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Shuttle weights Both sets of numbers are correct. The larger set are gross landing weight, including the orbiter structure, remaining fuels, return cargo, etc. These numbers affect craft lifetime and fatigue because of the wing loading factors. A higher gross means higher loading and thus more fatigue and reduced structural life. It also goes without saying that loading affects the center of gravity and thus landing can get squirrelly. And of course the landing gear (and tires) hasve to absorb the impact after the flare out. Then the +x energy has to be absorbed by a combination of heating the brakes and of tire friction with the runway. The latter translates into longer rollouts for higher gross landing weights. The other figures are cargo weight TO ORBIT. These numbers have been reduced so that the SSME's need not be run at the outer limits of their performance envelope. Engine derating decreases chances of failure because things like turbine blades, pump motors, throat linings and such are well below their design limits. There may also be some derating of SRB's. I believe the grain density is laid down so that there is a carefully controlled preprogrammed thrust profile during the ascent. I'm sure someone like Dani can correct me on this if I'm wrong. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 87 19:09:29 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Re: WEIGHT LIMIT RAISED FOR SHUTTLE I logged in this morning to find some mail from Mike Stalnaker (some- one in Maryland) along these lines: >In-Reply-To: "beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu"'s message of 21 Nov 87 22:03:12 GMT >Subject: WEIGHT LIMIT RAISED FOR SHUTTLE >Ummm... >You might want to pay attention to who 'Rear Adm. whoever' is. He's >Dick Truly, who was the copilot for STS-1. Also, he is now Director of >Shuttle Operations for NASA, so I kinda think he knows whereof he >speaks. >--Mike Stalnaker I stand very corrected. [Thank you Mike!!] This changes the whole complexion of the issue. I guess I can go back to being confused about it all. Question: Has NASA actually set a change in the cargo capacity allowed at launch? Now that it's had an extra few days to settle in my mind, Pietro's sources never did unequivocally say that the change in policy had actually been implemented. Apology: profusely to Rear Adm. Truly, and to the NASA people concerned. Ah, how fleeting memory. :-) [ I really ought to read more newspapers... ] -Joe Beckenbach (CS BS '88) ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 87 18:44:25 GMT From: byrne@eneevax.umd.edu (Russ Byrne) Subject: Re: space station In article <8967@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >I have seen nothing that contradicts Fairchild's "Leasecraft" study. >This was a purely commercial venture, not a NASA contract. It >concluded that a [...] >Leasecraft itself got shelved for lack of customers, but as far as I >know Fairchild's conclusions remain sound. Actually, our Leasecraft got shelved due to unresolvable difficulties in obtaining "termination liablility" insurance. At least the basic idea of having a reusable platform in orbit is alive and well here at Fairchild Space, under the name of Explorer Platform. We're prime contractors on EP, and are about a year into the contract. The first payload is the Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer (EUVE), and the second will probably be the X-ray Timing Experiment (XTE). Russ Byrne VOICE: (301) 428-6009 [Fairchild Space Co.] ARPA: byrne@eneevax.umd.edu ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 87 18:34:34 GMT From: byrne@eneevax.umd.edu (Russ Byrne) Subject: Re: Standardized Vehicle Parts In article <8711211351.aa08254@note.nsf.gov> fbaube@note.nsf.GOV (Fred Baube) writes: >jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >> Eventually could have standardized parts (solar panels, attitude >> control systems, telemetry units) and put them together with custom >> parts flown up. > >Yes ! Instead of custom-designing every system (structural, >propulsion, comm, energy generation, habitation, etc. etc.) for every >vehicle, and instead of custom-building shuttles such as Atlantis to >accommodate outsized payloads, why not start now on a line of standard >parts optimized for space assembly/testing. A I work for Fairchild Space Company, and with the direction of Goddard Space Flight Center, we've been making standard modules for about 10 years. They're called Multimission Modular Spacecraft (MMS) modules. So far, we've only built the Communications and Data Handling (CADH) modules, but we plan to start making the Modular Attitude Control System (MACS) modules soon. The current MACS contractor is GE Space Systems in Valley Forge. Other Standard MMS modules that have been made are the Modular Power System (MPS), and the Propulsion Module (PM). Nearly every spacecraft needs the CADH, MACS, and MPS modules, with some adding the PM as needed. Spacecraft that have or will employ such standard modules include: Landsat D and D', Solar Max, Gamma Ray Observatory, Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite, Explorer Platform, and TOPEX. The Hubble Space Telescope is using modified (smaller) MMS modules. Granted, these are not "off the shelf" modules -- they have many options and all require some design or re-design, but it's a very good start. Russ Byrne VOICE: (301) 428-6009 [Fairchild Space Co.] ARPA: byrne@eneevax.umd.edu ------------------------------ Date: 21 Nov 87 19:54:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Another Spin-Off I heard about yet another spin-off from the space program that I thought I'd share with you: The astronuts needed a pen which would write in microgravity. One result of this research was a Nitrogen-pressurized pen. Another was a very pervasive item: the felt-tip pen. -- Ken Jenks, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 87 09:33:46 GMT From: unisoft!gethen!farren@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Michael J. Farren) Subject: Re: Another Spin-Off In article <74700068@uiucdcsp> jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >I heard about yet another spin-off from the space program that I >thought I'd share with you: The astronuts needed a pen which would >write in microgravity. One result of this research was a >Nitrogen-pressurized pen. Another was a very pervasive item: the >felt-tip pen. The Space Pen was, indeed, a spin-off, but the felt-tip has been around a lot longer than that. I can remember my third grade teacher using one to write on a big pad of paper. That would have been in 1957, thus considerably predating the space program. Michael J. Farren "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness unisoft!gethen!farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." gethen!farren@lll-winken.arpa Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days" ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 87 05:30:36 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Brazil in space > the chances of Brazil's becoming a space power. His opinion is that > such an idea is by no means out of the question. Yup. Brazil does have a little space program, which is working towards building its own launcher and at least one satellite to launch on it. The schedule must be considered a bit uncertain, given limited experience and financial difficulties, but they're trying. Unlike a certain country we could all name, they *do* have a plan. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 1987 14:55-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Brazil and eco-catastrophe Brazil's government funded development efforts have a few other side effects as well. Like pushing infrastructure and settlement into areas of the Amazon that would have been untouched for decades, if ever. Like displacing the indians (everybody's favorite sport) so that campesinos can rape the land, eat for a year or two and vote for the current government. In the process the Brazilian government is creating what may be a serious ecological disaster for the entire planet. 1) Destruction of biological diversity in one of the most species prolific junges in the world. 2) Turning a large quantity of biomass into CO2. 3) Destroying a major planetary O2 producing area. 4) Possible major changes to climate since the rainforests have very different property from the parched land left behind after peasant slash and burn. I've seen some before and after landsat photos of rainforest areas opened for settlement by government. Anybody who wants to blame a few "ravening western capitalist firms" for what is happening is a fool. They may be there, (at government invitation) and they may indeed be adding to the harm, but what they are doing is only a symptom of a greater malaise. You can see in the before and after pictures the advance of small plot agriculture into thousands of square miles of virgin forest. In one picture you see a few government roads run back into the jungle, visible because of the initial settlements along them. Several years later you see a vast checkerboard, like a growing fractal eating the heart out of the jungles. The Brazilian government may be in a race against poverty, but what they do will affect us all. I do not have much respect for them. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 1987 15:15-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Sweden's last war Hmmm, maybe the 30 year's war? Seriously though, I think it was probably WWII, whether willingly involved or not, I'd have to go check because I don't remember specific incidents as I do for Finland (a brave defense against invasion by the USSR) and Norway (occupied by the Nazis, site of German heavy hydrogen production, home port for the Tirpitz, sinking of the Tirpitz by the RAF Dam Busters Lancasters using the specially designed 'earthquake bomb' etc.) ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 87 03:33:29 GMT From: ulysses!faline!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: NAVSTAR (was Re: space news from Oct 5 AW&ST) > As for civil use of NAVSTAR, bear in mind that the receivers for civil > use will be significantly less accurate than those for military use. Not really. The differences between C/A (Clear Access, the civilian mode) and P (Precision, the military mode) are as follows: 1. The spread spectrum chip rate on the C/A PN sequence is 1.023 megachip/sec. It is ten times that on the P channel. 2. The P sequence is transmitted on both the L1 frequency, 1575.420 MHz, and L2, 1227.6 MHz. [Hams: this is why we lost 1215-1240 Mhz a few years ago]. The C/A sequence is normally transmitted only on the L1 frequency. The correction for ionospheric effects thus possible with the P sequence isn't normally possible with the C/A sequence. Nevertheless, tests with C/A have shown it to be less than 10x worse than with P. Depending on location, integration time, receiver velocity, etc, typical C/A accuracies are well within 30 meters bias, 6 meters noise. This is so much better than anything else that it hardly matters if it's "significantly less accurate" than the P channel (which is typically 3 meters bias, 6 meters noise). (Source: Handbook of Modern Electronics and Electrical Engineering, chapter 54, "Satellite Navigation"). Phil ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 1987 14:22-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: NAVSTAR Personally I recommend that anyone with the power to do so discourage civil use of the NAVSTAR. Go for Geostar instead. Geostar is wholly private and Space Studies Institute is a major stock holder. So what the options boil down to is: A) Buy the NAVSTAR system and help support you know who. B) Buy Geostar and know that money will be plowed back into R&D to open the frontier to people like us instead of fighter jocks. (No offense to fighter jocks) The choice is yours. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #57 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Nov 87 06:14:04 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05915; Thu, 26 Nov 87 03:13:02 PST id AA05915; Thu, 26 Nov 87 03:13:02 PST Date: Thu, 26 Nov 87 03:13:02 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711261113.AA05915@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #58 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 58 Today's Topics: Science Journalism (was RE:...) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Nov 87 11:12:23 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!edson!tic!ruiu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dragos Ruiu) Subject: Science Journalism (was RE:...) [Flaming about responsible journalism back and forth omitted...] In preparing for an interview with CBC (Canadian bradcasting ...substitute cute joke of choice) science journalist David Suzuki, I came across the following paragraph in his auto-biography, that you might find relevant: (excerpted without permission) "Once I went to see a CBC vice-president to plead for more time for science programs. When I told him science is far more important in our lives than business politics or entertainment, he just stares at me incredulously. So I explained that at the heart of the issues of nuclear war, environmental pollution, energy, medical care and computer literacy, were science and technology. He replied "those aren't science stories, they're current affairs!" His reaction reflected the fact that most of the people who rise through the CBC ranks come from a journalism background. To them, news and current affairs are all that matter. Not surprisingly, in all of the position papers written by the CBC, science programming has never been mentioned as a priority area." --- My opinion on the dearth of good science journalism (and the relative abundance of the fluff, "Yes, Entertainment Tonight will look at space shuttle fashions this show...") is that the blame does not lie with the reporters or the media in general. It belongs with the bureaucrats and producers (read, paper-pushers) who control the funding of the media. There are qualified reporters and researchers out there. They are simply not given enough leash to follow up subjects and explain them. The producers are terrified at even the *chance* of alienating any viewers with serious content. They go for the flash, the sensationalism that sells commercial time. TV is that sort of medium, it has to be zippy, you have to have graphics. A pair of talking heads explaining things clearly will just not do. As well you are limited by the packaging to segments lasting a few minutes - and how much depth does that give? Four minutes to explain a technical subject using language free of jargon, or that has all the jargon explained. That is a tough task. But I think it can be done. If one news organization would have the ... (ahem) balls to get a good science team together, fund them, and most importantly, stand behind them - then they would eventually reap the benefits. There would be an initial backlash, (ratings etc...) but I am positive that they would eventually gain the needed reputation. Joe Public, is not a drooling idiot. But you couldn't tell that from today's TV. We now return you to your regularly scheduled Three's Company rerun.... Dragos Ruiu (403) 432-0090 #1705, 8515 112th Street, Edmonton, Alta. Canada T6G 1K7 Never play leapfrog with Unicorns... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #58 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Nov 87 06:22:09 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07114; Fri, 27 Nov 87 03:21:22 PST id AA07114; Fri, 27 Nov 87 03:21:22 PST Date: Fri, 27 Nov 87 03:21:22 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711271121.AA07114@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #59 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 59 Today's Topics: Space Companies List (~600 lines) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Nov 87 20:35:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Space Companies List (~600 lines) Again, I've had 30+ requests for a RE-posting of my list of companies involved in the space program. This newest list includes corrections to phone numbers and addresses since the last one, as well as some general advice on How To Find A Job In Space. I wish I'd known all this when I started. This will be my absolute last posting of this material to the net. I may post a couple of corrections, but this is the last time the complete list will go out to everyone. I will E-mail copies of this on request. Again, I'd like to ask that you who use this list DO NOT MENTION MY NAME. I have a philosophical interest in getting motivated, competent people into the space program, but I don't want to be personally associated with the kind people on this list getting deluged with letters and phone calls. I know, that's their job. But I don't want them to blame me! The University has informed me that my sign-on will be disappearing as of 20 December 1987. When I get going at my new job, I'll try to get back to the net. Thanks to all of you who have helped me with this project, and to all who have participated in these strange discussions we have via computer. I've had a lot of fun here. I hope I can return. -- Ken Jenks, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks "For I dipt into the Future, far as human eye could see Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be; Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails, Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales." -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson - - -- - - - - - - - - - - tear here - - - - - - - - - - - - - - General Aerospace Job Search Stategies: There are many job placement manuals available in the Placement Office of your nearby college or university. Even if you're no longer a student, you can probably still use some of the facilities. I won't cover what those manuals told me, but I will give some suggestions that I would have found helpful at the beginning of my job search in the space industry. As you can see from the following lists, I didn't always follow these suggestions. I wish I had. 1) Start early. Aerospace companies typically spend 2 months thinking about your application before doing anything about it. In your first letter to the company, request that they send you an application. This will help speed things along and let them know that you're interested enough to spend the time filling in the form. 2) Write well. I can't emphasize this enough. People get an impression of you from how you interact with them. If you come across as careless (typos, silly errors) or stupid (poor grammar, bad construction) they won't want to hire you. Period. All your engineering skills can't save you. Have a friend proofread. 3) Keep good records. As you send out letters and resumes, keep a record of the date you sent it and to whom you sent it. This will help you track your resumes and applications when they (inevitably) get lost. 4) Use a telephone. A WATS line is VERY nice. You'll be making many long distance calls (I made over 150). You'll be put on hold and disconnected more times than you can count. But the immediacy of talking to a person instead of writing to a Mail Stop is very important. The people in the Personnel Office (whose names you should always record) will treat you as a person instead of just another applicant. 5) Talk to people, not departments. Always try to find the name of a PERSON to address your letters and phone calls to. This will help you keep track of your correspondence better, and make them treat you better. Names are powerful magic. 6) Know your history. Knowing what the space program has done in the past will aid you in your passge to the future. You'll see trends in the space industry and know a bit more about where things happen and why. It will also give you something to talk about with interviewers. This isn't terribly important, but it helps. 7) Be persistant. The companies aren't out to hire you; they're out to hire somebody. Anybody. You have to stick to your dreams and get those letters out. Follow up with phone calls (2 weeks later minumim). This will remind your contacts in the company that you still exist and are still interested. NASA: The first place to look for a job in the space program is NASA. Not because they have the best jobs (debatable), but beacause it takes them FOREVER to get job applications processed. To apply, submit a resume and a copy of Standard Form 171 to them at least six months (!) before you want to interview, 9 months before you want the job. If I'd known this earlier, I might have have a job there. Instead, NASA and I both lose. SF-171 can be found at any Federal office. You can submit a Xerox of your SF-171 to each place, as long as you SIGN and DATE each individual copy. This will save you mucho time when filling out forms. The best way I've found to get addresses in NASA is to call (xxx) 555-1212 for the NASA Center you're interested in, then asking for the main switchboard. The NASA Centers, their location, area codes, and brief summaries of activity at each follows: Ames Research Center (ARC) Sunnyvale, CA (408) Mostly aeronautical (80%), some space-related (20%). Wind tunnels, VSTOL, 'copters, automation. Highly recommend contacting Eugene Miya (eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa). Dryden Edwards AFB, CA (619?) Land shuttle, flight research. Lotsa history here. Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Greenbelt, MD (301) Unmanned S/C, Earth orbiting satellites. Johnson Space Center (JSC) Houston, TX (713) 483-9591 (Jo Ellen Brown) or -3035 (Susan Braymer) Manned space program, astronaut training. NASA Johnson Space Center Attn: Mail Code AH73 Ms. Susam Braymer Houston, TX 77058 Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Titasville, FL (305) Launch facilities, Shuttle maintenance & repair. Engineering happens here; little or no research. Langley (Langley) Reston?, VA (703 or 804) Structures, aerodynamics, fluid flow, computation. Reston, VA is home of NASA HQ, including Space Station HQ. Lewis Research Center (Lewis) Wright-Patterson AFB, Cleveland, OH (216) 433-4000 (switchboard) Technical support, research. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Huntsville, AL (205) 544-0957 (personnel) Propulsion, rocketry. The following aren't your regular NASA Centers. Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Pasedena, CA (818) Actually a NASA contractor. Non-profit, planetary missions, power systems, bio research, man fingers in many pies. Wallops Flight Center (Wallops) Wallops Island, VA (804?) Sounding rockets; > 11,000 launched. Contractors: This first group of companies was found from a Contractor List supplied by NASA Johnson Space Center's Personnel Dept. Most of the NASA Personnel Depts. have these lists. I've gotten them for JSC, KSC, MSFC, & ARC. JSC is the only list I've put on-line. Barrios Technology Attn: Ronda Monchak 1331 Gemini Houston, TX 77058 Boeing Aerospace Attn: Lois Ramey PO Box 58747 Houston, TX 77058 Computer Sciences Personnel Dept. 16511 Space Center Blvd. Houston, TX 77058 (713) 486-8153 ext 259 Control Data Corp. Attn: Maria Ward 9894 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77036 Ford Aerospace & Communications Attn: Alvin Dailey PO Box 58487 Houston, TX 77258 (713) 280-6236 GE Attn: Imma Lee Ross or Linda Pratt 1820 NASA Road #1 Houston, TX 77058 (713) 333-8605 (Imma Lee Ross) or (713) 333-8604 (Linda Pratt) Grumman Aerospace Personnel Dept. 2800 Space Park Drive Houston, TX 77058 (713) 333-2560 Grumman Houston Corp. Personnel Dept. 12310 Galveston Rd Attn: Freddy-Ann Marcussen Webster, TX 77598 Jefferson Associates, Inc. Attn: Limas Jefferson 1120 NASA Road #1 Suite 100 Houston, TX 77058 (713) 333-3414 Lockheed Engineering & Management Service Attn: Linda Nilsen 2400 NASA Road #1 Houston, TX 77058 (713) 333-6601 McDonnell Douglas Attn: C. D. Price 16055 Space Center Blvd. Houston, TX 77062 (713) 280-1500 ext 1761 --- (714) 952-6797 (Mr. Waller) Northrop Service, Inc. Attn: Carol Alcorta PO Box 34416 Houston, TX 77234 Singer Company Link Division Attn: Patricia Records 2224 Bay Area Blvd. Houston, TX 77058 Sperry Univac Corp. Attn: Modelle Mann 16811 El Camino Real Houston, TX 77058 UNISYS Attn: Frances M. Bond 600 Gemini Houston, TX 77058 Eagle Engineering That mysterious company found at last! P.O. Box 891049 Houston, TX 77289-1049 (713) 338-2682 There are others on the JSC list, but I wasn't interested in them, so I didn't type them in. The following companies were found exclusively from net.pals: Spacehab Seattle based Space Industries Houston based External Tanks, Incorporated Tom Rogers Boulder, CO Third Millennium, Inc. 918 F Street NW, Suite 601 Washington DC 20004 PERMANENT, LTD 114 Westwick Ct #5 Sterling, VA 22170 (703) 444-1560 (voice) (703 or 202)-450-2732 (computer) The next list was found by a lot of hard work and many $ to Ma Bell. I took the list of Space Station contractors and tracked them all down. (Well, all but Analex and Rocketdyne. I'll get Rocketdyne soon, but Analex looks hopeless. Nobody has heard of it!) Alphabetical Listing of Space Station Companies and Segments: Key: #1: Segment I Crew and lab modules #2: Segment II Framework (main boom) #3: Segment III Free-flying platform and research eqpt. #4: Segment IV Power system Analex, #4 Nothing known. Boeing, #1 Also in Seattle, LA (213), Wash. DC, Renton VA. Contact Dani Eder in Seattle (eder@RUTGERS.EDU). He's been very helpful. --- The Boeing Company Employment Office PO Box 1470 Huntsville, AL 35807 (205) 461-2121 (Jeff Prince) Computer Sciences, #3 PO Box 21127 Kennedy Space Ctr, FL 32815 (305) 853-2484 8728 Colesville Rd Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301) 589-1545 304 W Rt 38 / PO Box N Moorestown, NJ 08057 (609) 234-1100 4835 University Sq Ste 8 Huntsville, AL 35816 (205) 830-1000 (Applied Tech Div) 200 Sparkman Dr N W Huntsville, AL 35805 (205) 837-7200 (Defense Sys Div) 6565 Arlington Blvd Falls Church, VA 22046 (703) 237-2000 (Energy Resch Div) 16511 Space Center Blvd. Houston, TX 77058 (713) 486-8153 ext 259 Eagle Engineering, #4 711 Bay Area Blvd, Suite 315 Webster, TX 77598 (713) 338-2682 (Shirley Reynolds) Ford Aerospace & Communications, #4 Attn: Alvin Dailey PO Box 58487 Houston, TX 77258 (713) 335-1714 (Alvin Dailey) (713) 280-6236 (JSC List) (301) 345-0250 (Jim Furilla or Judy Kopetz) --- Western Development Laboratories Attn: Mr. John Clark 3939 Fabian Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 (415) 852-6917 Garrett Fluid Systems, #4 Formerly Garrett Pneumatic Sys Div Garrett Fluid Systems Company 1300 W. Warner Rd, Box 22200 Tempe, AZ 85282 (602) 893-5000 General Dynamics, #4 General Dynamics Bldg Ft. Worth, TX 76101 (817) 777-2000 --- Space Systems Division PO Box 85990, San Diego, CA 92138 (619) 573-8000 --- Data Systems Division PO Box 85808, San Diego, CA 92138 General Electric, Astro Space Division, #1, #3 Subsumed RCA, changed name to just GE. --- Attention: Mike Kavka Mail Stop 101 Astro Space Division East Windsor POB 800 Princeton, NJ 08543-0800 (609) 426-3400 (609) 426-2228 (Personnel) Grumman Aerospace, #1, #2 Large piece of Station awarded in July 2852 Kelvin Ave Irvine, CA 92714 (714) 660-4200 1111 Stuart Ave / Bethpage, NY 11714 (516) 575-3369 (516) 575-6400 Job Line (516) 575-3556 New Grads Grumman Blvd / MS F05-07 / Calverton NY (516) 575-0574 2800 Space Park Drive / Houston, TX 77058 (713) 333-2560 12310 Galveston Rd/Attn:Freddy-Ann Marcussen/Webster, TX 77598 Harris, #2 (303) 727-4000 Ask for GASD Honeywell, #2, #3 W. R. Moore Mail Station 257-5 Honeywell 13350 US Highway 19 Clearwater, FL 34624-7290 (813) 539-3689 (W. R. Moore) (813) 531-4611 (Ann Sherman) --- Defense Sys Div 5700 Smetana Dr M N O2-3380 Minnetonka, MN 55343 (612) 936-3196 --- Aerospace & Defense Grp Honeywell Plaza Minneapolis, MN 55408 (612) 870-5186 (Corporate Human Resources) (612) 870-5998 (Elizabeth Olson, Corporate Human Resources) Hughes Aircraft, #1 Hughes Aircraft Radar Systems Group Engineering Employment POB 92426 Los Angeles, CA 90009 (213) 606-2111 (Lou Hendrick) --- Hughes Aircraft Space Communications Group Attn: Employment Ofc. - College Relations 909 N. Sepulveda El Segundo, CA 90009 (213) 647-7177 IBM, #2, #3 IBM Personnel 3700 Bay Area Bvd. Houston, TX 77058 (713) 282-2300 (Debbie Garcia) Intermetrics, #2 Indl Sys Div 733 Concord Av Cambridge, MA 02138 (800) 325-5235 (617) 661-1840 (Mike Adams) Lockheed Missiles & Space, #1, #2, #3, #4, #4 Lockheed has MANY offices in Sunnyvale, CA. That's where much of the Space Station research is happening. Contact Joe Lodge, Personnel Dept. (800) 851-8045 or (408) 742-7175 (Joe Lodge) --- Lockheed Space Operations Company {Shuttle contract} Attn: Mr. Don Quirk 110 Lockheed Way Titasville, FL 32780 (305) 383-2200 (Titasville switchboard) (305) 867-2765 (Kennedy Space Center) --- Lockheed Engineering & Management Service Attn: Linda Nilsen 2400 NASA Road #1 Houston, TX 77058 (713) 333-6601 (Linda Nilsen, Houston) Martin Marietta, #1 (504) 257-4716 (Sandy) (408) 745-8068 (Rita in Sunnyvale) --- Martin Marietta Denver Aerospace Personnel Dept. 6020 S. Ulster Englewood, CO 80111 McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, #1, #2, #3 Richard B. Rout, Dept. 5900, Mail Code 11-3 McDonnell Douglas Astronautics and Space Division 5301 Bolsa Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (714) 896-5633 --- McDonnell Douglas Attn: C. D. Price (no longer works there) 16055 Space Center Blvd. Houston, TX 77062 (713) 280-1500 ext 1761 Planning Research Corp., #4 (PRC) 1500 Planning Research Dr McLean, VA 22102 (703) 556-1000 (Corporate Offices) RCA, #2, #3, #3 Subsumed by GE/Astro Space Rocketdyne, #4 A subsidiary of Rockwell in LA area. Rockwell, #2 Houston is Shuttle activity, not Station. Station work is being done in Downey, CA, near LA. --- Steve C. Hoefer Supervisor, Crew Activity Planning Rockwell Shuttle Operations Company Rockwell International Corporation 600 Gemini Avenue Houston, TX 77058 (713) 483-4438 --- Electronic Operations Rockwell International Corp. 3370 Miraloma Ave. PO Box 3105 Anaheim, CA 92803-3105 (714) --- North American Space Operations Rockwell International Corp. 12214 Lakewood Bvd. Downey, CA 90241 (213) SRI International, #2 Robotics, AI (maybe more) SRI International Personnel Dept. 333 Ravenswood Ave. Menlo Park, CA 94025 (415) 859-3993 (Elizabeth Brackman) (415) 859-3305 (Janice Adams, Human Resources) (415) 326-6200 (switchboard) Sperry/UNISYS, #2 Changed name from Sperry to UNISYS UNISYS Attn: Modelle Mann 16811 El Camino Real (ADDRESS CORRECTION) Houston, TX 77058 (713)488-3300 (800) 645-3440 (Corporate Offices, Eastern Time Zone) Sunstrand, #4 Sundstrand Energy Systems Unit of Sundstrand Corp. 4747 Harrison Ave, P.O. Box 7002 Rockford, Ill. 61125 (815) 226-6000 TRW, #1, #2, #3, #4 Jack Friedenthal Bldg. 135, Rm. 2823 One Space Park Redondo Beach, CA 90278 --- Penny Burkes Bldg. R2, Rm. 2130 One Space Park Redondo Beach, CA 90278 (213) 532-0845 --- (213) 297-8765 (Irwin Newman) (213) 535-8416 (Arthur Green - best contact) Teledyne Brown Engineering, #1, #4 (Did not actually bid on #4) Teledyne Brown Engineering Attn: Mr. Tom Robinson (corporate hires) Caroline Walker (entry level) Cummings Research Park Huntsville, AL 35807 (800) 633-2090 United Technologies (Hamilton Standard), #1 Phil Beaudoin Hamilton Standard One Hamilton Road Windsor Locks, CT 06096 (203) 654-6000 (203) 654-4601 (Personnel) United Technologies (USBI Booster Production), #1 Also in Slidelle, LA United Space Boosters / BPC 188 Spartman Dr PO Box 1900 Huntsville, AL 35807 (205) 721-2400 Wyle Laboratories, #1 Wyle Laboratories Personnel Department Attn: Mr. Gordon Bakken 7800 Govenor's Drive West Huntsville, AL 35807 (703) 834-1633 (Mr. Gordon Bakken in NJ) The following are other companies not working directly on the Space Station, but related to space nonetheless: Aerospace Corporation non-profit, helps Air Force (213) 336-5000 (switchboard) (213) 336-1614 (college relations -- Walter Caldwell) United Technologies (Research Center) (203) 727-7000 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #59 ******************* From: GOV%"OTA@ANGBAND.S1.GOV" 28-NOV-1987 05:59 To: HIGGINS Subj: SPACE Digest V8 #60 Received: From UIUCVMD(MAILER) by FNALC with RSCS id 0363 for HIGGINS@FNALC; Sat, 28 Nov 87 05:59 CST Received: by UIUCVMD (Mailer X1.25) id 0353; Sat, 28 Nov 87 05:53:59 CST Date: Sat, 28 Nov 87 03:25:47 PST Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Sender: SPACE Digest From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #60 Comments: To: Space@angband.s1.gov To: "(no name)" SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 60 Today's Topics: Eugen Sanger Paper Re: Brown Dwarfs and media idiocy More on Militarism Soviet Science on NOVA Progress 33 docks to USSR's Mir and upcommin cosmonaut change Re: CCDs and Inverse-square law distance determination Re: Sweden's last war Re: WEIGHT LIMIT RAISED FOR SHUTTLE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Nov 87 19:42:09 GMT From: speedy!thurm@speedy.wisc.edu (Matthew J. Thurmaier) Subject: Eugen Sanger Paper In the August/September 1987 issue of "AIR&SPACE Smithsonian" magazine, there is an article on Eugen Sanger & his "Amerika Bomber". In it the author says that "...pirated copies of his top-secret Amerika Bomber thesis can be found in virtually every military establishment..." 1.) Is the material still classified? 2.) If not, does someone out there have a copy that I can read? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Matthew J. Thurmaier U of Wisc - Madison, Computer Systems Lab ..!{allegra,harvard,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!matt matt@rsch.wisc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun 22 Nov 87 13:32:04-PST From: ~ Victor Von Doom ~ Subject: Re: Brown Dwarfs and media idiocy You can't expect an organization such as CNN to do a good job of science reporting unless there's some demand for it, and it doesn't seem to be there for the mass audience. There's a certain market for well-researched, respectable information (e.g. the New York Times), but it seems that there's an even greater market pseudo-science (e.g. the Enquirer). Blaming "the media" is a fun game, but it's at best an over-simplification. By all means though, spread the word if CNN persists in making gross errors. Maybe Time magazine would be interested in an article on the excesses of video journalism? It might put the pressure on for CNN to do a better job. For example, I certainly appreciated the live coverage of the commitee investigating the Challenger accident (Feynman, Ride, etc.). --- Joe Brenner ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 87 16:15 O From: Subject: More on Militarism [Editor's Note: While interesting, these discussions have gotten too far afield from the topic of SPACE. Starting soon, I'm going to start punting these messages from the digest. I recommend they be continued privately or in a more appropriate mailing list. -Ted Anderson] In SPACE Digest #52, Scott Allen writes: >In article <563942636.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >> History DOES NOT show that all arms buildups lead to war. History >> shows that SOME arms buildups have led to war while others have not. >> Interesting papers on the causes of conflict have been written on the >> historical backgrounds of the various cases. >Do not neglect the for probable truth that tensions which cause arms >buildups also lead to war -- or that arms buildups deter war. I suspect that the double-quoted text above may have had something to do with my article attacking military-industrial complexes in Digest #46, but I haven't received the issue in which it appeared. I back down from my statement that arms buildups lead to war (I'm not an expert on history), but will continue my attack from other directions. (Certainly arms buildups may lead to war, and may and probably will increase the likelihood of one.) I'll quote my answer to a private message: We seem to have a basic difference in the way we view questions of war and peace. I say we have to start trying to win our mutual hostility and distrust; you say that groups that completely abandon defense don't survive. I say we have to start viewing the human race as a group with no external enemies. One of the principles of democracy (in my view; your view of democracy may be different, as is the Soviets') is open government; that is, public availability of all policy-influencing information. You are correct in that some secrecy is necessary if one wants an effective military; this just means that the requirements of militaries and democratic governments are at odds in this respect. The fact that famine relief destroys local food production is not a function of trying to help people; it is a function of not helping them enough, or not in the right way. Famine relief is just a band-aid on the symptoms of a sickness that is originally caused by the inequal distribution of food in the world (there is enough food to feed everyone). Those that have money, eat; those that don't, don't. It comes down to economics, and the industrialized countries control the world economy; they set the prices of the raw materials; they give the loans and set the terms; they decide which projects (and countries) get development aid and which don't; and they reap the profits on the cheap labor of the Third World countries, who have to compete for employment-creating foreign capital by giving foreign companies waivers on working-condition and wage laws. Are you implying in your statement "Non-uniform distributions [of wealth and power] indicate differences and most of them result from choices" that poor countries have deliberately decided to be poor and ripped off by industrialized countries? I disagree with you in this, as in many other respects. Some of your statements may be commented by the following answer of mine to another private message: All right, saying that defense is just a nicer word for war is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that they are two sides of the same coin. If all militaries' function was solely defense, there wouldn't be any wars, would there? That's what I meant by my statement. One country's defensive measures may look like preparing for offense to another country. A prime example is the incredible $2*10**12 military buildup of the U.S. in the last seven years; the greatest military buildup of world history, wartime or peacetime. I don't think that looks just like preparing to deter attack to the Soviets (or to others outside the U.S.); more like increasing America's capability of continuing politics by other means. "Defense is the only deterrent to warfare we've found yet", "Disarmament treaties are worthless." So, if you want peace, prepare for war. I have to apologize, but in my view, this attitude is what has brought humankind to the brink of collective suicide. I did not mean that arms manufacturers are the sole reason for international friction. (But if the U.S. wants tanks, and no one is selling, it can't very well go to war with tanks, can it? I disagree with you in that I think weapons manufacturers do have a moral responsibility for the end use of their products.) What I meant was that, to continue to use the U.S. as an example, the people who profit from the huge defense budget have so much combined political power that it may be difficult to start pursuing a more peaceful foreign policy even if the political leadership wanted to, which it certainly doesn't seem to have wanted up to as few months ago. (I am of course referring to the medium-range missile treaty and the possible coming ICBM reduction treaty, which I applaud wholeheartedly.) Arms manufacturers are just one of the pillars supporting militarism. Another is fear, mistrust and hatred among peoples. These elements feed on each other. The military eats up resources vitally needed to prevent war. In other words, money put into weapons and militaries should go to decreasing the inequality of the distribution of wealth and power. "Those that don't have, want, and those that do, won't give it up without a fight." Now I'm not suggesting that industrialized countries just give all their military budgets away as foreign aid (though they could easily put a substantial bite of it for that purpose, and they do have poor of their own, too), but that people should start realizing that in the long run it would benefit all if wars could be prevented by greater solidarity among peoples; by giving before the fighting begins. This, and increased trade among possible enemy countries, and fairer trade practices between industrialized and developing countries, might serve to increase trust and mutual dependency among peoples. I know the U.S. does give a considerable amount of money away as foreign aid (much of it as military aid), but how much of it is purely humanitarian and unselfish aid? (Consider the (many of them fortunately former) Latin American dictatorships propped up with American money.) (What is "humanitarian aid" to the contras? Lots of iron and other minerals and nutrients....) Power should also be parceled out by moving towards a world government with real power to enforce its decisions (the UN is just a discussion forum in questions of war and peace). The military mindset increases the likelihood of war. "When your only tool is a hammer, all the world looks like a nail." The military expenditures of the superpowers are so huge that they threaten and weaken civilian economies (the U.S. budget deficit, much of which is due to the aforementioned arms buildup). I am relieved that there is at least one superpower leader who has realized that his country can't take much longer the load of the arms race (and has subsequently been very active in making arms-control proposals); and neither can the U.S. for an awful lot longer. It is strange, to say the least, to pay hundreds of dollars for state-of-the-art military hammers while one of the freedoms of one's country (which happens to be the world's richest, and could well provide for all its citizens, as the Scandinavian so-called "welfare states" (which happen to work) do) is the freedom to starve if you're dropped out of the game. I fail to see what the Korean and Vietnam wars had to do with America getting to keep its cars, homes and jobs. They look more like outright imperialism to me. (To keep this balanced: I consider Afghanistan imperialism, too.) Unless you mean that the Vietnam war stimulated the American economy, as the brother of an American friend of mine said during that war as a justification for it. Now, I certainly do not consider the world a big, rosey paradise with just a few snakes in it. I think the world is seriously sick and should start doing something to heal itself, quick, before it self-destructs. That is why I'm a pacifist. Militarism is an all-pervading threat to our continuing existence, happiness and freedom. We should start looking for new ways of international cooperation to counter this threat. Have the military blocs really tried to increase peaceful cooperation and mutual dependency in the world? Not awfully hard, I think. I realize that the big boys at the positions of power of this world are cold, cynical and calculating, and are not going to start disarming themselves unilaterally just because weapons can hurt people. Change has to come from below: I feel that people of the world should stop thinking of themselves as primarily the nationals of a certain country, but as world citizens with a common responsibility for each other, the way the people of the different states of the U.S. started thinking of themselves primarily as citizens of U.S. after an initial period of primary loyalty to their particular state. (Because we in the western societies have the freedom of travel that most eastern bloc countries do not have, we have a particular responsibility for making contacts with people on the other side; traveling, giving invitations to visit our countries, etc.) I feel that this kind of qualitative change in our thinking is the only way to get permanent changes in the security situation of the world on the way, to get us out of the rut we're in right now. If this kind of thinking is naive, then I say we need more naive people. We need alternatives to militarism. Teemu Leisti U. of Helsinki, Dept. of Compter Science (LEISTI@FINUH.BITNET) Finland ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Nov 87 10:22:27 EST From: moss!cbrma!c.l.harting@RUTGERS.EDU > Your list of addresses includes Lewis Research as being at > Wright-Patterson AFB. I beg to differ. Wright-Patterson AFB is > outside of Dayton, OH, not in Cleveland. Lewis is in Cleveland. > Please double-check your addresses. > Chris Harting I know better. I was bound to get some of them wrong. If anybody else spots a bug, please let me know. -- Ken Jenks, MS: Aero/Astro Engineering, BS: Computer Science, UIUC ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 87 12:24:00 PST From: "DSS::BOLD" Subject: Soviet Science on NOVA To: "space" Reply-To: "DSS::BOLD" Last week's NOVA episode dealt with the quality of Soviet science. I didn't catch the whole thing, but according the program, the Soviets are claiming credit for the first lasers and the first nuclear power plant (while they *may* have built upon the work of others in these areas, these particular claims are a bit much). The restrictions on what they could film demonstrate, despite the hoopla from the media, that *glasnost* does have limits. (Ah, but what can we expect from people who can't tell a planet from a brown dwarf?) The program also contained the best summary on Lysenkoism since the chapter on it in Martin Gardner's *Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science*. SPACE DIGEST readers who would like to obtain transcripts may do so for $4.00 a copy. Write to: "How Good is Soviet Science?" NOVA P.O. Box 322 Boston MA 02435 Kevin Bold (BOLD@AFSC-SD.ARPA) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Nov 87 13:42:34 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Progress 33 docks to USSR's Mir and upcommin cosmonaut change The USSR launched the Progress 33 cargo craft on Nov 21, and successully docked it to the rear port of the Kvant/Mir space station complex today (Nov. 23). This craft contains about 2.5 Tonnes of fuel, and supplies. Interestly, there was only 6 days elapsed time total between the undocking of Progress 32, and the docking of '33. The Russians are now keeping the rear docking port nearly as fully occupied as possible without having a new Progress launched before the old one renters the earth's atmosphere. Yuri Romanenko, the long duration cosmonaut on Mir, has now achieved 291 days on this mission, and will exceed 300 days on Nov [Dec? -Ed]. 2nd. In mid December he and Alexander Alexandrov (who has been up there since July 29th) are expected to be replaced by a 3 man crew consisting of an unnamed doctor, Alexander Serebrov (a cosmonaut researcher), and Vladimir Titov (mission commander). Serebrov and Titov where both on the Soyuz T-8 unsuccessful docking with Salyut 7 in Apr. '83 caused by the failure of the Soyuz's rader and problems with a manual dock. In addition Titov was on the Soyuz T-10A mission, the Sept. '83 pad fire and aborted flight - not the luckiest cosmonaut. This switchoff crew, the second in a row if they do it, will try for a 1 year mission according to offical Soviet Statements. If they are successful with this then Mir will be well on its way to helping create the perment human habitation of space. Now if only the budget problems will not slow down the NASA/international station. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 87 01:05:09 GMT From: unc!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: CCDs and Inverse-square law distance determination In article <871123-085106-2034@Xerox> Opstad.osbunorth@XEROX.COM writes: >of the inverse-square law, when something struck me. Given the >increasing accuracy of CCDs in counting photons, one might be able to >do a decent job of determining the distance to a given light source >(say, a star) WITHOUT the use of parallax (either spectoscopic or >visual), by simply taking a measuring device of fixed aperture, and >counting the number of photons received by it at two different >distances from the light source. By the inverse-square law: (details >omitted) A little math shows that the distance you can measure to is limited by the product of the separation of the counters and the reciprocal of their accuracy (actually, twice that). So suppose we have a count accurate to 1*10^-6 and separation of 300 million km (Earth orbit diameter), we could measure out to O(1 light year). It appears the method is limited by (i) intrinsic variation in the star's intensity and (ii) limits on integration time since everything is moving. There's a wonderful book by Michael Rowan-Robinson discussing lots of different ways of measuring astronomical distances. I believe it's called ``The Cosmological Distance Constant'' although it's been a few years since I read it. Warning: the book is kind of technical. Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``Thus Mathematics helps / our brains and hands and feet and can make / a race of supermen out of us.'' - The Education of T. C. Mits ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 87 01:22:08 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!ICEMAN@princeton.edu (Joakim Karlsson) Subject: Re: Sweden's last war In article <564696906.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >Hmmm, maybe the 30 year's war? > >Seriously though, I think it was probably WWII, whether willingly >involved or not, I'd have to go check because I don't remember specific Nope. Check your history. It wasn't WWII, nor was it WWI. Does the name "Napoleon" ring a bell? Joakim Karlsson iceman @ pucc.Princeton.edu Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering '88 BITNET only: iceman @ pucc Princeton University "You can be my wingman anytime..." ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 87 01:07:17 GMT From: unc!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: WEIGHT LIMIT RAISED FOR SHUTTLE In article <8711231736.AA13696@nrl-ssd.ARPA> mike@NRL-SSD.ARPA (Mike Stalnaker) writes: >You might want to pay attention to who 'Rear Adm. whoever' is. He's Dick >Truly, who was the copilot for STS-1. Also, he is now Director of Shuttle STS-1 was Young & Crippen, STS-2 was Engle & Truly. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``Thus Mathematics helps / our brains and hands and feet and can make / a race of supermen out of us.'' - The Education of T. C. Mits ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #60 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Nov 87 06:32:49 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09561; Sun, 29 Nov 87 03:17:52 PST id AA09561; Sun, 29 Nov 87 03:17:52 PST Date: Sun, 29 Nov 87 03:17:52 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711291117.AA09561@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #61 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 61 Today's Topics: Re: NAVSTAR (was Re: space news from Oct 5 AW&ST) Re: error factors Space Shuttle Operator's Manual Re: WEIGHT LIMIT RAISED FOR SHUTTLE Re: Space Shuttle Operator's Manual (un-official) Re: Soviet Science on NOVA Re: Sweden's last war Is the universe a hyper-sphere? Re: 3d digitized shuttle data Supernova in Andromeda Re: 3d digitized shuttle data Re: Sweden's last war ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Nov 87 22:33:27 GMT From: sdcrdcf!markb@burdvax.prc.unisys.com (Mark Biggar) Subject: Re: NAVSTAR (was Re: space news from Oct 5 AW&ST) In article <1566@faline.bellcore.com> karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: spacecraft use intertial guidance? Yes, some spacecraft use inertial guidance. > what are the error factors involved for a long journey? The inertial guidance system is recalibrated periodically from star sensors and Earth-based radio (and radar) range finding. The star tracking mechanisms require precise pointing and orientation of the S/C and are only used occasionally. "Occasionally" means "as often as necessary". > that is to say, if we go to another planet, how far "off" will we > be? Due to the periodic resetting, an inertial guidance system is never off very far. We haven't "lost" a S/C for quite a while. (I seem to remember that a Ranger missed Luna back in the '60's, but I was pretty young at the time. I don't recall the cause.) > are the errors enough to worry about within our solar system? > or just beyond it? Beyond our solar system, we've only worried about how to orient the antennae back to Earth. This is pretty simple: point at Sol and Earth isn't far away. In the future, we (hopefully!) will be looking outward as well as inward. Inertial guidance will be useful out there, but it must be periodically corrected to account for the inevitable (?) drift. --- Writing your articles entirely in lower case is a capital offense. -- Ken Jenks, MS: Aero/Astro Engineering, BS: Computer Science, UIUC The University of Illinois will revoke my account on 20 December. It's been fun, folks! I'll be back after I get a job! jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Nov 87 15:28:12 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: Space Shuttle Operator's Manual The discount mail-order book house, Publishers Central Bureau, is selling remaindered copies of the SPACE SHUTTLE OPERATOR'S MANUAL for $9.98. Original price was (I believe) $22.50. The PCB stock number is 649160 Publishers Central Bureau One Champion Avenue Avenel, NJ 07001-2301 (They don't publicize a phone number) They charge a flat $3.50 shipping, so it isn't worthwhile to order just one book, but maybe you would have use for multiple copies of this. Or you may want to ask for their catalog and order a bunch of stuff. (Check your local library; they often have copies of PCB catalogs in their acquisitions departments.) I've seen mention of this book on this list several times, so I bought a copy with my last PCB book order. Have just glanced at it so far, but it does seem fairly interesting. I have one question about it: on the part of the dust jacket that folds over inside the book, it has the comment that this is the "Official" guide to training for would-be shuttle astronauts. (I'm paraphrasing the blurb from memory, but the word "official" is definitely in there.) Now, I looked through the copyright and title pages, and I can't find any mention of NASA or any government organization having anything to do with this book. So just how "official" is this? Or is that use of the word "official" just a lie? Regards, Will Martin wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (on USENET try ...!seismo!wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA ) [I've been told that "...!uunet!almsa-1.arpa!wmartin" may be better now but I can't test it...] ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 87 03:37:04 GMT From: trwrb!cadovax!gryphon!mhnadel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Miriam Nadel) Subject: Re: WEIGHT LIMIT RAISED FOR SHUTTLE In article <4616@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> beckenba@cit-vax.UUCP (Joe Beckenbach) writes: > 3- The military may have to allow NASA to fly lighter payloads. > Of all these options, 1 forces earlier shuttle retirement, 2 sets the >program back at least a few more years, and 3 makes the SDI people and the >defense people rather upset. Not at all - the military is far from convinced that you can retrieve 64K payloads to begin with and is hardly likely to attempt deploying heavier ones from the shuttle. One of the military concerns is the performance of the RMS (remote manipulating system - aka the robot arm) since the mission in which they were supposed to demonstrate the capability to retrieve a heavy payload (and nowhere near the design limit at that) got wiped out by the Challenger disaster. Miriam Nadel -- "Always a godmother - never a God" - Fran Liebowitz mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM {philabs, trwrb}!cadovax!gryphon!mhnadel {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!mhnadel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Nov 87 11:36:46 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Operator's Manual (un-official) Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: >The discount mail-order book house, Publishers Central Bureau, is selling >remaindered copies of the SPACE SHUTTLE OPERATOR'S MANUAL for $9.98. > . . . >and title pages, and I can't find any mention of NASA or any government >organization having anything to do with this book. So just how >"official" is this? Or is that use of the word "official" just a lie? This book, which I've seen in stores is okay for most people. It is not an official document, and it is quite simple. Manuals vary from mission to mission depending on profile, etc. The mass of paper exceeds the mass of a loaded shuttle craft typically by greater than a factor of three. Manuals are typically three-ring binders with appropriate paper insert covers. Revisions make 3-rings pretty obvious. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 87 11:36:10 GMT From: sonia!khayo@locus.ucla.edu (Erazm J. Behr) Subject: Re: Soviet Science on NOVA In article <8711232031.AA01073@angband.s1.gov> "DSS::BOLD" writes: (... header ...) >Subject: Soviet Science on NOVA > >Last week's NOVA episode dealt with the quality of Soviet science. I >didn't catch the whole thing, but according the program, the Soviets are >claiming credit for the first lasers and the first nuclear power plant >(while they *may* have built upon the work of others in these areas, these >particular claims are a bit much). Not exactly - Basov, if I remember correctly, was a co-recipient of the Nobel prize for the theoretical foundations of lasing. There must have been a lot of work done on reactors during & just after WWII, as a prelude to the construction of the A-bomb. Who knows, production of electric energy per capita was always a BIG priority over there - a statistic to be cited as proof of the SU quickly catching up with the West. Do not underestimate Russian & Soviet scientists & inventors! Now, this does not change the fact that there is a book titled "History of Russian priority" (literal transl.) which used to be published every other year or so, which was supposed to counter the "malicious claims of imperialist science". It was a long list of the Russian & Soviet "firsts": airplane, radio, rockets, steam engine, electric lightbulb etc. etc. This was just one of the more ridiculous manifestations of their inferiority complex. It gave rise to a saying: The discoverer of the electric lightbulb is Vladimir Lodygin, [in a lower voice] who discovered it in a trash can behind the American embassy. (I know I should use "invent" above, but then of course the joke falls flat on its face.) I'm sorry if it has nothing to do with space. >Kevin Bold >(BOLD@AFSC-SD.ARPA) Eric Behr ----------------------------------------------------------- >>>>---------------> khayo@MATH.ucla.edu ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 87 17:51:08 GMT From: nysernic!weltyc@rutgers.edu (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Re: Sweden's last war In article <564696906.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >Hmmm, maybe the 30 year's war? > >Seriously though, I think it was probably WWII, whether willingly >involved or not, I'd have to go check because I don't remember specific >incidents as I do for Finland (a brave defense against invasion by the >USSR) and Norway (occupied by the Nazis, site of German heavy hydrogen >production, home port for the Tirpitz, sinking of the Tirpitz by the >RAF Dam Busters Lancasters using the specially designed 'earthquake >bomb' etc.) Leaving myself wide open for flames here... Sweden was neutral (and remained so unlike Belgium, Norway, Holland, and Luxembourg) during WWII. It was also neutral in WWI. It has little strategic value. I'm not sure but I believe the last war Sweden was involved in was againt Napolean, when it was a royalty thing... Sweden begins with an `S' just like space, hence, sci.space.... Christopher Welty --- Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!rutgers!nysernic!weltyc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Nov 87 13:56:48 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu Subject: Is the universe a hyper-sphere? [YES if it's closed, NO if it's open] Kevin Bold: >Is Missing Mass a pseudoproblem? >... if any of us were to >experience a hypersphere's visit to our 3-D world, we would see a tiny >sphere grow larger, then contract, and finally disappear. >The universe could be a hypersphere traveling through an eternal series of >three dimensional realms... >The bottom line: if our three dimensional universe is curved around another >spacial dimension ... the question of "sufficient >mass to enable gravitational forces to slow down, stop, and reverse the >expansion of the universe" becomes irrelevant. In general relativity, (at least as far as I understand it; it's not my field) curvature is a function of mass. What you have just done is rephrase the question to: is the universe highly curved (i.e, a hypersphere?) or somewhat less curved (i.e., a hyperparaboloid?), or even less curved yet (i.e., a hyperhyperboloid?). Cross sections of a hyperspherical universe will look like an expanding and then contracting universe while cross sections of a hyper -paraboloid or -hyperboloid universe will look like one expanding forever. But the answer to the rephrased question "how great us the (hyper)curvature of the universe?" is simply: How much mass does it contain? Whether you call the problem "is there enough mass in the universe to give the universe a (hyper)spherical geometry", or "is there enough mass in the universe to counteract the big bang and make it come together again", it's the same problem, and the same amount of "missing" mass. (In fact, people working in GR don't really think of space as being a whole lot different then time. In four-dimensional spacetime, a universe that expands, reaches a maximum, and then contracts is not *like* a hypersphere. It *is* a hypersphere.) --Geoffrey A. Landis, Ph.D BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 87 00:07:54 GMT From: tektronix!reed!nscpdc!cvedc!billa@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bill Anderson) Subject: Re: 3d digitized shuttle data In article <> apollo@ecf.toronto.edu (Vince Pugliese) writes: > >As well I will be include a very simple C program, hacked together by fellow group member >Darin Graham and myself. The program will work as is on an Apollo, for other machines >you will have to make appropriate changes. These should be easy to spot as all our >graphics calls are preceded by gmr_. If anyone out there in netland converts this C program so that it can be run on suns, please post the results of your work to the net. Thanks. =============================================================== _____ __ Bill Anderson ..tektronix!reed!cvedc!wanderson | __| / / Computervision ..sun!cvbnet!cvedc!wanderson | ( / / 14952 NW Greenbrier Parkway FAX (503) 645-4734 | \_/ / Beaverton, Oregon 97006 Phone (503) 645-2410 \______/ ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 87 04:05:06 GMT From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu (Bill Wyatt) Subject: Supernova in Andromeda A preliminary, sketchy report... Three days ago a Russian astronomer (sorry, can't remember the name) discovered an 11th magnitude SN in M31. If it's a type I, it could reach 4th magnitude. If it's the more likely type II (as was the one in the LMC), it'll reach maybe 6.5. A possible Wolf-Rayet progenitor has been identified, which would indicate it's a type II. Details will follow... -- Bill UUCP: {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!wyatt Wyatt ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu (or) wyatt%cfa@harvard.harvard.edu BITNET: wyatt@cfa2 SPAN: cfa2::wyatt ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 87 03:33:09 GMT From: nrl-cmf!umix!tardis!pepe!shane@AMES.ARPA (Shane Looker) Subject: Re: 3d digitized shuttle data In article <509@otto.cvedc.UUCP> billa@otto.UUCP (Bill Anderson) writes: >In article <> apollo@ecf.toronto.edu (Vince Pugliese) writes: >> >>As well I will be include a very simple C program, hacked together by fellow group member >>Darin Graham and myself. The program will work as is on an Apollo, for other machines >>you will have to make appropriate changes. These should be easy to spot as all our >>graphics calls are preceded by gmr_. > >If anyone out there in netland converts this C program so that it can be >run on suns, please post the results of your work to the net. Not what was asked for, but I've just knocked together a viewer for the shuttle on the Mac. It needs a lot of work, but the guts are fairly simple. Mail me if you want a little more info. My supervisor's going to kill me, but what the heck... Shane Looker | "He's dead Jim, shane@pepe.cc.umich.edu | you grab his tricorder, uunet!umix!pepe.cc.umich.edu!shane | I'll get his wallet." Looker@um.cc.umich.edu ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 87 23:26:55 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!ICEMAN@princeton.edu (Joakim Karlsson) Subject: Re: Sweden's last war In article <567@nysernic>, weltyc@nysernic (Christopher A. Welty) writes: >In article <564696906.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >>Hmmm, maybe the 30 year's war? > > Leaving myself wide open for flames here... Sweden was >neutral (and remained so unlike Belgium, Norway, Holland, and >Luxembourg) during WWII. It was also neutral in WWI. It has little >strategic value. I'm not sure but I believe the last war Sweden was >involved in was againt Napolean, when it was a royalty thing... >Sweden begins with an `S' just like space, hence, sci.space.... Finally someone who's got his Swedish history down right...that's exactly the way it is: Sweden is still neutral of course, and has been ever since WWI. I wouldn't say though that Sweden has little strategic value. Especially during WWII it was deemed important because of its large iron and forest resources. Joakim Karlsson iceman @ pucc.Princeton.edu Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering '88 BITNET only: iceman @ pucc Princeton University "You can be my wingman anytime..." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #61 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Nov 87 06:47:13 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11397; Mon, 30 Nov 87 03:17:31 PST id AA11397; Mon, 30 Nov 87 03:17:31 PST Date: Mon, 30 Nov 87 03:17:31 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8711301117.AA11397@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #62 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 62 Today's Topics: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! Re: Brown Dwarf and media idiocy space news from Oct 12 AW&ST Re: More skyhook questions NAVSTAR vs Geostar? Re: BDB and all the whining... Re: NAVSTAR ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Nov 87 00:02:37 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Commercial plea for space station - effective! > Build the BDB first! Why not do both? -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 87 00:14:33 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Brown Dwarf and media idiocy > ...Telling half a story, telling a watered-down version, reporting with > sensationalism as a blind to the inaccuracy is criminal. Science has long > strived for knowledge and understanding, it would be a terrible waste for > the message to become lost in a flood of catch-phrases and over simplified > sensationalistic reporting techniques. Unfortunately, simple economics dictate that the media are, to put it bluntly, in the business of selling entertainment, sometimes thinly disguised as news. This problem is unfixable, short of establishing a government monopoly (a cure worse than the disease if there ever was one), since that is what the public wants to hear. What is needed is less ranting at the media (clots though many of them are) and more education of the next generation to see through the hype and nonsense. If people come to value getting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, the media will improve. Not otherwise. Don't expect it to happen soon. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 87 23:40:51 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Oct 12 AW&ST [Quote of the week, from Jane's Spaceflight Directory 1987, R. Turnill: "NASA has lost the will to put men into space. Only those emphasizing the conservative approach and `safety must come first' find favour. With 2000 personnel now concerned with `safety, reliability, and quality assurance', and whose own safety is best ensured by saying `No', it is difficult to see how the Launch Team can hope to get flights resumed -- despite the fact that there are many who still think that there never was a need for complete suspension."] Editorial on the International Space Future Forum in Moscow. "Several interesting contrasts emerged from the gathering. The starkest of these was the ease with which Soviet space officials protrayed their space program as both broadly based and energetic, while US space officials, by failing to project a coordinated much less united presence, confirmed the widely accepted impression that the US program is directionless and moribund... Soviet space officials are debating how they are going to carry out their future space plans while in the US committees and panels are being formed to debate whether there will be a concerted future effort in space and, if so, what it might include." The Forum did have some problems, notably some organizational snafus in Moscow. This is hardly surprising, given that it's the first time the Soviets have tried something like this. The US is planning a conference in response: The Impact of Space Sciences on the Human Community. Planned for mid-88, might be postponed if the shuttle recovery effort runs late. Announced by Thomas Rona, highest US official at the Forum. Rona says that the US remains against exchange of hardware with the Soviets in collaborative projects, partly because of technology-transfer paranoia [my word, not his] and partly because "we want to have a basic symmetry -- if both sides have something to offer each other, then the leadership question does not come up. And it is clear that for the moment, we don't have too many opportunities for cooperation to offer from our side." He notes that many of the ambitious Soviet plans are not yet approved projects, and that US involvement is still possible; other US delegates agree but observe that at least the Soviets *have* a plan. MBB ships the liquid boosters for the first Ariane 4. JPL finishes tests using Voyager 1 to check out software improvements for Voyager 2's Neptune encounter, mostly motion control for better imaging. Another big closeup of Energia on the pad (before the May launch). Soviet cosmonauts are doing takeoff and landing tests with a jet-powered version of the Soviet shuttle orbiter. First orbital launch will probably be an unmanned test; this decision is not yet definite, and the cosmonauts don't like it much. First flight may not be until 1989, to allow time for Energia to be checked out thoroughly and forthe shuttle's digital flight control system to be sorted out (the tests are being run with an analog prototype). Energia will not fly again until the problems with the first launch are sorted out completely. Among other things, it was meant to fly in daylight, but last-minute difficulties delayed it. The Soviets say Energia is a recoverable launcher, with both the strap-ons and parts of the core built for recovery and re-use, although no recovery was done on the first flight. The big square bulges on the strap-ons are indeed parachutes. Soviet descriptions of how the core is recovered are conflicting and unclear. They quote launch weight at 2000 metric tons and payload at about 100. Pictures of a model displayed at the Space Future Forum, showing four big engines at the base of the core and four in each strap-on; if this model is accurate, this ends the speculation that the Soviets might be using aerospike nozzles. New module being readied for launch to Mir: an EVA/airlock module, roughly the same size as Kvant. The current Mir crew are doing well and will probably continue for several more weeks. There will be at least one more Progress launch to Mir before their mission ends, since Progress carries about a month's supplies. Yuri Romanenko passed the 240-day mark recently. Soviets preparing for one-year Mir mission, to be carried out by the crew that replaces Romanenko and Alexandrov late this year. Doctors say that exercise remains the best countermeasure against degenerative effects, and that Romanenko in particular goes farther than the assigned routine on this. Glavcosmos offers Getaway Specials! Price about $15k per kilo, to fly on Cosmos unmanned missions or Mir. Also offers Gorizont commercial comsats at $45M for full capacity. India's IRS remote-sensing satellite will fly on a Vostok launcher this year. NASA and CIA preparing studies on international space activities and their effects on US foreign policy. Other nations are effectively using their space programs for various gains; the US is not. CIA says that the Soviets will maintain their conspicuous lead at least through 1995. Recommendations to go to Fletcher, and eventually to Reagan, will include: - Specific long-term goals, to be established at once. - Presidential leadership, in particular in formally giving NASA the lead role in US civil space policy. - Getting DoD and NASA back together. - Fixing space commercialization and involving industry in planning. - Major Presidential statement emphasizing international cooperation, its benefits, and continued US efforts in that direction. Congress warns NASA that space-station money will be postponed unless NASA commits more money for pre-space-station materials-processing work, in particular support for a free-flying module, modification of one orbiter for longer flights, adding two Spacelab materials flights (first no later than 1990), more FY88 research funding, and development of automation and robotics for the space station. [Sounded good until that idiotic last item. The space station needs, and can afford, neither.] DoD says Soviets will "dramatically increase" tonnage into orbit over the next decade or so, and claims again that Mir is mostly military. Of note is DoD's statement that the Soviets could re-launch their entire satellite network in 2-3 months if existing satellites were destroyed. General Dynamics, McDonnell-Douglas, and Rockwell win Aerospace Plane contracts; Boeing and Lockheed lose out. DoD says that the technology appears adequate to get the AP into orbit. British space officials told that no increase in budget is likely. GOES West metsat suffers lamp failure, shortening its expected life. The backup lamp is expected to last 12-18 months and then GOES West's imager dies. Arianespace preparing for bulk order for up to 50 Arianes, in an attempt to reduce costs by streamlining production. This will cover use for the 1990-1997 period. Arianespace now has a 44-satellite backlog, circa $2.5G, over half from outside Europe. Ariane next flies mid-Nov with Germany's TVSat 1, then in December with Spacenet 3 (including a Geostar package) and France's Telecom 1C. Eight launches with 14 payloads schedule for 1988, the first being the initial Ariane 4 with European Meteosat P2, US's Panamsat 1, and the next Amsat amateur-radio satellite, tentatively set for Feb. New studies of Viking-orbiter images may be undertaken in preparation for US 1990s Mars activity. The folks who found the crater of Viking 1's heatshield have sparked more activity, including a study on what the best images can tell about the nature of the surface. Also possible is a study of Viking lander data over a long baseline to separate understood changes from less-understood ones, with an eye in particular on signs of life. "It's ironic that data from the Viking lander 1 automatic mission -- which was some 800-900 days of systematic picture-taking on Mars -- have barely been examined..." Non-aerospace firms like the idea of a lunar base as a new source of pork barrel funding oops excuse me I mean commercial opportunities. White House says that any new US space goals should have greater commercial involvement than, say, Apollo. [We pause to bring you a small editorial. Whether "greater commercial involvement" is a good idea depends on what that ringing phrase means. In particular, if it means a government-funded program that will lean even more heavily on contractors, it is **NOT** a good idea. The only booster NASA ever built that made good on *all* its promises -- the Saturn V -- was virtually hand-built by Wernher von Braun's team at Huntsville, with the contractors taking over only after all the problems had been sorted out. The loss of the capability to do that was one of the greatest mistakes NASA has made since its founding, and can credibly be given partial blame for the Challenger disaster. Back to our program...] There is already interest from a number of companies, including some large Japanese firms. (Predictably, the latter are raising hackles among the technology-transfer paranoids.) One area of long-term commercial interest in the Moon is as a source of helium 3 for clean-burning fusion power. Helium 3 is essentially nonexistent on Earth, but there is a noticeable amount in the lunar soil, where it has been left by the solar wind. Extraction would be simple, and the stuff's commercial value could be hundreds of thousands of dollars per kilogram. A whole bunch of small secondary shuttle payloads have been scrubbed from the near-term manifests, due to reduced flight rates and massive backlog. About 90 such payloads will fly through mission 43 in late 1990, including a few on mission 26. Notable on STS-26 will be a 3M experiment meant to fly late last year. Letter of the week, from Larry Evans of California: "Doesn't anyone learn anything from history any more? The Challenger accident had its roots firmly planted in the decisions made early in the program to compromise the design in favor of meeting a specific budget. "A proper shuttle system would have cost twice as much as it did, and we now must admit that we definitely got what we paid for. Unfortunately, seven people paid more dearly than the rest of us. "So now we're out to do it all over again with the space station... It is high time to put the mission in the forefront again. I think we'd all find it would be much less expensive in the long run." -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Nov 87 12:31:19 MST From: sreddy <@RELAY.CS.NET,@asu.csnet:sreddy@localhost.arpa (Srinath K. Reddy)> Apparently-To: space@angband.s1.gov sir i am agrad. stiODudent at Arizona St. U. and would like to be placed on your mailing list. ODODl ing list. please send meODODse do the needful. truly Srinath Reddy (sreddy @ enuxha) ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 87 18:05:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: More skyhook questions > While going up a skyhook to geostationary orbit, gravity > would dominate, and good ol' Earth would keep you in your > seat. However, towards the other end of the hook, your seat > better face the other way because centrifugal "force" would > be greater than gravitational attraction, and your seat > would be pushed in the opposite direction. > > Danny Well, yes and no. YES: An orbit, by definition, is the curve on which gravity exactly balances centripedal acceleration. As you approach Clarke orbit, you would become "weightless". NO: However, a skyhook will likely extend beyond Clarke orbit a ways. This would mean that you would have negative "weight" beyond that orbit. -- Ken Jenks, MS: Aero/Astro Engineering, BS: Computer Science, UIUC The University of Illinois will revoke my account on 20 December. It's been fun, folks! I'll be back after I get a job! jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Nov 87 09:47:30 est From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) Subject: NAVSTAR vs Geostar? Cc: I understand from previous postings that NAVSTAR is a 24 satellite system (with some being spares) for navigation. Accuracy is reputed to be 30m bias with 6m noise for the civilian system and 3m bias 6m noise for the military receivers. Several people have also mentioned Geostar, a commercial venture with a similar aim. What is the positional accuracy for Geostar (predicted)? How many nodes in orbit? How many spares? And very importantly, what will the relative costs be for a NAVSTAR civilian receiver versus a Geostar receiver? I'm curious as to how the government and civilian systems compare. kwr "Smile, you're on Orbital Camera!" ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 87 18:38:33 GMT From: umix!umich!mibte!gamma!pyuxp!rruxa!rruxg!rruxjj!ddavey@NRL-CMF.ARPA (Douglas A Davey) Subject: Re: BDB and all the whining... In article <74700067@uiucdcsp> jenks@uiucdcsp.UUCP writes: > > SSI (Space Studies Institute) does things like this. They are doing > necessary research on a shoe-string budget using volunteers and > tax-deductible contributions. Their offices, I believe, are in Rocky River, > NJ. If you have any interest in contacting them, their phone number is > (306) 921-0377. They are a non-profit group. > Whoa! Before everybody calls some poor person who never heard of SSI, SSI is based in NJ (Rocky Hill I believe), BUT 306 is NOT a New Jersey area code. The correct number is (609) 921-0377. Doug Davey Bell Communications Research rruxjj!ddavey ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 87 16:06:43 GMT From: umix!umich!mibte!gamma!pyuxp!pyuxww!sabre!faline!karn@nrl-cmf.arpa (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: NAVSTAR > Personally I recommend that anyone with the power to do so discourage > civil use of the NAVSTAR. Go for Geostar instead. Actually, I could never understand why Geostar was started in the first place, if it is supposed to be a direct competitor to Navstar. That's all we need, redundant, incompatible services placing additional demands on RF spectrum and launch capability. I don't particularly like or trust the military, but I don't have any problems with accepting the occasional technological bone they toss at us civilians from time to time (TCP/IP, space launchers, and navigation systems like Loran-C and Navstar). They're going to spend billions of your tax dollars anyway, you might as well salvage something useful from them. I thought the Navstar specs were public. Since the system is receive-only, how could they enforce user fees? If Geostar can provide services that Navstar cannot, it should compete on that basis alone. Phil ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #62 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 1 Dec 87 06:23:05 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14326; Tue, 1 Dec 87 03:22:21 PST id AA14326; Tue, 1 Dec 87 03:22:21 PST Date: Tue, 1 Dec 87 03:22:21 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712011122.AA14326@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #63 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 63 Today's Topics: NO Supernova in Andromeda NOAA orbital predict data help Info on Swedish history Re: Space Companies List Re: hiring at aerospace cos. Re: Soviet Science on NOVA Soviet Science on NOVA Re: Mini Big Dumb Booster solar energy Re: solar energy Re: solar energy Dollars per Watt Re: solar energy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Nov 87 14:42:27 GMT From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu (Bill Wyatt) Subject: NO Supernova in Andromeda Well, apparently it was a false alarm. Got a lot of people around here all excited, too. Anyway, there's been a mistake somewhere. No evidence of any SN on plates taken last night (~0h UT 11/25) from Oak Ridge Observatory, and (second-hand report) an observatory in England. Sigh. -- Bill UUCP: {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!wyatt Wyatt ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu (or) wyatt%cfa@harvard.harvard.edu BITNET: wyatt@cfa2 SPAN: cfa2::wyatt [Also: Date: Mon 30 Nov 87 18:09:39-PST From: josh zucker Subject: Supernova in M31 To: ota@angband.s1.gov Message-Id: <12354870322.110.P.PHRED@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU> I recently received a message from Charles Lawrence, an astronomer at CalTech, stating that attempts at confirming the 11th magnitude supernova had failed and the astronomers who had announced the sighting were "feeling pretty silly" --Josh Zucker ] ------------------------------ Date: 30 Nov 87 07:16:42 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: NOAA orbital predict data Can someone please email me or post orbital predict data for NOAA-9 or NOAA-10 for December? -- Doug Reeder USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!douglas Box 502 Reed College 3203 S.E. Woodstock 122 38' W 45 28' N Portland, OR 97202 planet earth,sol system ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Nov 87 10:39 CST From: Subject: help In Vol 8 #39 Paul Dietz writes: > I've just read that someone has come up with a chemically fueled laser > amplifier that operates in the visible spectrum. Previously, chemical > lasers have operated in the infrared. SDI would be very interested in > a short wavelength chemical laser, since smaller mirrors could be > used. The new system uses thallium excited by the reaction of silicon > and ozone. Silicon and oxygen, at least, are ubiquitous on the moon. > The report I read didn't indicate what were the efficiency or power > output of the experiment. I would be interested in reading the original article on the laser discussed above. If someone could tell me who it's by and where it can be found it would be appreciated. I'm also interested in finding the source of the FTL superconductor paper mentioned in previous digest discussions. Can anyone help? Rick R. Johnson - TESLA@FNAL - Fermi National Accelerator ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 1987 23:01-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Info on Swedish history I received many informative replies on Swedish history, and I'd like to thank all of the numerous people who responded for helping fill in the glaring gap in my historical knowledge of the area from about the 16th century to the 1950's. The net once again proves it's value as a means of sharing knowledge. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 87 19:06:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Space Companies List Another couple of corrections to that list of space companies: Northrop Services' Houston branch has been shut down. Another address you might try is Margaret James Northrop Services, Inc. 108 Powers Court Sterling, VA 22170 (703) 450-6500 The other correction is that TRW dropped out of the bidding for the Space Station power systems. TRW is a strange place. Although I interviewed with them at on-campus interviews, their personnel department had never heard of me. They are more a collection of little, independent companies than one big one. It would be worthwhile to send your resume to as many places inside TRW as you can find. Another suggestion is to find their company newsletter. This has a list of all the positions available for people who want to transfer within the company. Most major aerospace companies (Boeing, Rockwell, TRW at least) have these things. It is worth finding out which divisions exsist and which are looking for people. -- Ken Jenks ------------------------------ Date: 27 Nov 87 17:15:01 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: hiring at aerospace cos. > TRW is a strange place. Although I interviewed with them at on-campus > interviews, their personnel department had never heard of me. They are > > -- Ken Jenks Having observed a number of new hires coming into the Boeing Company (including myself), I have decided that 'we lost your application' or 'we didn't get your application' is a convenient lie in the same category as 'the check is in the mail'. It would be reasonable for the personnel department to lose an application once in a while, but one third of them? This is the proportion reported by people actually hired, who thus pursued their jobs in spite of that problem. I hypothesize that, given the fact that Boeing's personnel dept receives 600 applications a day, and hires about 600 people a month, that they intentionally use ploys like 'losing' applications to weed out the less determined applicants, and thus cut down the amount of real choosing among people they have to do. Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 87 16:16:55 GMT From: umix!umich!mibte!gamma!pyuxp!pyuxww!sabre!faline!karn@nrl-cmf.arpa (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Soviet Science on NOVA > Now, this does not change the fact that there is a book titled > "History of Russian priority" (literal transl.) which used to be > published every other year or so, which was supposed to counter the > "malicious claims of imperialist science". It was a long list of the > Russian & Soviet "firsts": airplane, radio, rockets, steam engine, > electric lightbulb etc. etc. This was just one of the more ridiculous > manifestations of their inferiority complex. Or take the Radio Moscow segment I heard a few months ago. They must have gone on for 15 minutes extolling the virtues of the "small independent enterprises" that have recently been permitted in Moscow, and how even though they compete directly with some big State-owned businesses it is a good idea because it makes everyone work harder, increasing customer satisfaction and economic output. Next thing we know, Radio Moscow will be claiming that Free Enterprise was a Russian invention. We can call this the "Ensign Chekov syndrome". :-) Phil ------------------------------ Date: 27 Nov 87 20:02:48 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!ers!pma@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Paul Martin) Subject: Soviet Science on NOVA An article I read in Discover Magazine left me with the impression that when it comes to Soviet Science there is plenty of money and co_operation to develop new theories. But, when it comes to doing anything practical with the theory - forget it. A personal observation: Maybe they think its simpler to wait till we (the western world) steal the theory and develop practical uses which they can steal back than it is to do the actual development. :-) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 87 20:31:19 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Mini Big Dumb Booster Space Research Associates, of which I am a principal, is also working on an inexpensive launcher in the 300 kg to orbit size class (equivalent to Scout). Partly because of an awareness of problems in working with the government, we are designing to launch from a civil or private airport, using an airplane to haul the rocket out over the ocean, where the rocket is ignited. We presently are looking for customers for our initial (test) flights, and venture-type investors for the several (on the order of 5) million in acquisition cost for the system. We will have almost no development cost by using existing harware in a new way. Dani Eder/SRA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Nov 87 09:11 CST From: Subject: solar energy Original_To: SPACE In Vol 8 #39 Geoffrey A. Landis writes: (Herman Rubin): > After all, hasn't practical solar energy on a basis which would make > all other types [of energy] obsolete been just around the corner > thirty years ago? :-) > I rather resent the tone of this comment. Thirty years ago would have > been just three years after the *invention* of the silicon solar cell > [ref. 1], long before any details of manufacturing, economics, or > distribution could have been worked out... . . AND: > Nevertheless, some of us are still working on photovoltaics research, > ... and costs have dropped from > hundreds of dollars per watt to $2 (1987 dollars) per watt for large > concentration systems, very close to the value of about $1/watt where > arrays would become economical for large-scale utility power > generation applications. > (1) D.M. Chapin et. al., _J. Applied Physics_, 25, p. 676 (1954). > >--Geoffrey A. Landis, Ph.D BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM > Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA Obviously Mr. Landis is not very informed on the history of modern technology. The first photovoltaic materials were discovered over a century ago, and as many are aware, A. Einstein's Nobel prize was for his work on photo-electric effect (not relativity). My point here is that solar energy has been under consideration for a very long time, and for anyone who doubts that, spend some time reading IEEE abstracts and papers from the turn of the century. Unfortunately, Mr. Landis is correct in stating that no MAJOR effort has been made to make solar energy practical. Additionally, the costs per unit energy he quoted are nowhere close to accurate. I currently pay about 12 cents/kilowatt-hr for my electricity. The $1/watt figure he quotes in stating that solar energy is coming close to being practical for large utility power generation is ridiculous. I certainly would not be willing to pay Com Ed. $100 per hour to light my living room with a 100 Watt bulb. The accurate figures are $1-$2 per kilowatt/hr, which unfortunately still puts solar power an order of magnitude away from being practical for the large utilities to use. Rick R. Johnson - TESLA@FNAL - Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 87 21:14:49 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: solar energy In article <8711251658.AA04790@angband.s1.gov>, TESLA@FNALC.BITNET writes: > Unfortunately, Mr. Landis is correct in stating that no MAJOR effort > has been made to make solar energy practical. Additionally, the costs per > unit energy he quoted are nowhere close to accurate. I currently pay about > 12 cents/kilowatt-hr for my electricity. The $1/watt figure he quotes in > stating that solar energy is coming close to being practical for large > utility power generation is ridiculus. I certainly would not be willing to > pay Com Ed. $100 per hour to light my living room with a 100 Watt bulb. > The accurate figures are $1-$2 per kilowatt/hr, which unfortunately still > puts solar power an order of magnitude away from being practical for the > large utilities to use. Maybe there's some confusion here on terminology? I believe that Mr. Landis was talking about acquisition cost/watt of large concentration systems (would that photovoltaic arrays were so cheap!), rather than the cost/watt of electricity produced by such systems. Personally, I wouldn't pay $1/hr for current (unless, of course, it were the only game in town...) from anybody. But I'd go for $2/watt photovoltaics next week. My check would bounce today, unfortunately. Then again, maybe they're talking about the same thing and *I'm* wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Sigh. seh ------------------------------ Date: 27 Nov 87 20:44:45 GMT From: K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU!lindsay@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) Subject: Re: solar energy He was referring to the capital cost of installing a generation facility that puts out one watt. It puts out that watt for years, not for one hour. At $1/watt, an awful lot more solar cells will get sold. The problem of storing the energy until night is still nowhere near as well solved as I'd like. Don lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu CMU Computer Science ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Nov 87 02:06 CST From: Subject: Dollars per Watt I would like to apologize to the net, and to Mr. Geoffrey Landis in particular, for falling prey to something I accused him of doing - shooting my mouth off on the net before I had my facts straight. I realized shortly after I sent my message that perhaps he was referring to the costs of developing solar energy, rather than the ongoing costs of producing and delivering it. This was not clear in his original message however, and if solar energy is to be made practical, BOTH of these issues are of concern. I do however, stand by my statements on the time period that solar energy was first being researched, and would be glad to offer substantiation of them to anyone that is seriously interested in the subject. Rick R. Johnson TESLA@FNAL ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 87 16:55:29 GMT From: nuchat!sugar!peter@uunet.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: solar energy In article <8711251658.AA04790@angband.s1.gov>, TESLA@FNALC.BITNET writes: > In Vol 8 #39 Geoffrey A. Landis writes: > > Nevertheless, some of us are still working on photovoltaics research, > > ... and costs have dropped from > > hundreds of dollars per watt to $2 (1987 dollars) per watt for large > > concentration systems, very close to the value of about $1/watt where ^^^^ > > arrays would become economical for large-scale utility power generation > > applications. Here Geoffry Landis is talking about the capital costs for the solar cells themselves. > The accurate figures are $1-$2 per kilowatt/hr, which unfortunately still ^^^^^^^^^^^ > puts solar power an order of magnitude away from being practical for the > large utilities to use. Here Rick Johnson is talking about the operating costs, including depreciated capital costs, of running a power grid and providing power to consumers. Let's get our units in order before we start flaming people, shall we? -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #63 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 2 Dec 87 06:17:50 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA16843; Wed, 2 Dec 87 03:17:26 PST id AA16843; Wed, 2 Dec 87 03:17:26 PST Date: Wed, 2 Dec 87 03:17:26 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712021117.AA16843@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #64 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 64 Today's Topics: Re: Big Dumb Booster A little test of readership space news from Oct 19 AW&ST BDB and common sense (was Commercial plea for space station) Re: Do we need a Space Station? Re: Dyson Sphere Discovered? Re: Brazil and eco-catastrophe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Nov 87 22:36:15 GMT From: hplabsz!kempf@hplabs.hp.com (Jim Kempf) Subject: Re: Big Dumb Booster In article <565235064.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: > Just in case it isn't posted here, I just rcvd info that AMROC is on > track, but with about a 2 month delay. The info is from the OASIS and > is probably about 4-6 weeks 'fresher' than my most recent information > on the subject, so I will bow to this source. My guess is that the Is it any newer than the report in Nov. 23 AW&ST that they had laid off all their employees due to the pullout of some backers? I sure hope so! Jim Kempf kempf@hplabs.hp.com Usual disclaimer ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 87 16:13:58 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: A little test of readership I plan to post the yearly announcement for next summer's positions in NASA. I am doing something a little different this year, but before I post, I want to gauge readership "get off your duffness." This is a simple little test of motivation, regardless of whether you want to work for NASA. I tried this test on another newsgroup with surprisingly disappointing results. The test question: Determine the main telephone number to NASA Headquarters. DO NOT POST THE ANSWER. SEND MAIL. I will check and count respondents and compare to group size. Telephone information is typically free. You do not have call NASA HQ. Just determine the number, I will verify, and count heads. I won't even tell you the area code or the city, you can either guess, or ask around (let me know number of people to talk to in a chain, BTW). Just send the phone number (and any chain size if you ask more than the telephone operator). Added note to the guys at CMU and MIT: I might be visiting you Pitt and Boston in January. Send response to the address below. Supposedly 7,000 people read this group, so the final count will be interesting (how low or high it should be). From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 87 01:06:57 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Oct 19 AW&ST [Aviation Week & Space Technology subscription address is PO Box 1505, Neptune NJ 07754 USA. Rates depend on whether you are an "unqualified" or "qualified" subscriber, which basically means whether you look at the ads for cruise missiles out of curiosity, or out of genuine commercial or military interest. Best write for a "qualification card" and try to get the cheap rate. US rates are $55 qualified, $70 unqualified at present. It's weekly, it's thicker than Time or Newsweek, and most of it has nothing to do with space, so consider whether the price is worth it to you. -- HS] Editorial quoting chunks from a NASA Advisory Council task force on international cooperation/competition. "`US leadership in important space areas is eroding in both absolute and relative terms...' [The Soviets] are in a position to offer exciting cooperative possibilities to nations that once had little choice but to deal with thh US, too often on whatever terms the US chose to dictate... A recitation of opportunities frittered away while other nations have moved steadily into the vacuum left by the US's inaction runs through the report... Potential partners around the world view the US as less than dependable over the long term, and this has stimulated numerous multinational space projects that specifically exclude the US." Recommendations include clear leadership from above, long-term plans with broad support, and an absence of infighting and off-again-on-again funding. ESA looking at sites for a fourth pad at Kourou, not because of immediate need but to ensure that room is available when the time comes. USN is looking at launching small satellites from submarines, given that subs would be expected to survive the early stages of a nuclear war while land facilities probably would not. NASA asks Interior Dept to remove 13 NASA facilities from the official list of National Historic Landmarks; while they are indeed historic, official NHL status makes it illegal to modify them without elaborate review, and this is decidedly painful for still-operational facilities. SDI negotiating with Amroc to supply payloads for Amroc's first suborbital launches. [It has been obvious for quite a while that Amroc is in bed with DoD.] First launch tentatively Feb. The suborbital launcher will be one of Amroc's motor modules. Amroc's latest orbital launcher looks a bit like a Titan 3, with a main unit and two big strap-ons. Payload is 600 lbs to low orbit. Amroc is now giving this configuration priority over its earlier bigger designs. The motor modules are identical except that the main unit has a higher-expansion-ratio nozzle. The modules are bigger than Amroc's original designs, mostly because Amroc has had trouble getting the desired mass ratio with the smaller units. [It has been reported that Amroc is in deep financial trouble, so these plans must be considered uncertain.] Post-firing checks of an SSME have revealed a possible heat-exchanger leak. This is one of the engines meant for STS-26; if the leak is confirmed, this will mean replacing the engine with a backup (tearing down an SSME for repairs to such problems takes months), which may mean a schedule slip due to the need to test the backup. SDI Starlab shuttle mission, tentatively April 1990, will use a low-powered laser to track various objects, ultimately including sounding rockets. DoD astronauts LaCombe and Puz will fly with it. British government officially repeats its refusal to increase its space budget, on the grounds that ESA's Ariane-5/Hermes/Columbus plans are too ambitious. Other European representatives tend to agree with the latter, but say that British handling of the issue has been heavy-handed at best. British Aerospace is looking at bidding its multirole recoverable capsule design as a crew-escape vehicle for the space station. Martin Marietta picks Dornier to supply the satellite-carrier unit for commercial Titan; it will be based on the one Dornier is doing for Ariane 5. Soviets to launch replacement for malfunctioning ice-monitoring radar satellite early next year. Cosmos 1869's antenna failed to deploy properly. The USSR ultimately wants three of them in orbit simultaneously (currently the operational total is one, Cosmos 1766) as an operational system. Tight budgets threaten the lightweight-satellite programs. Lightsat conference nevertheless raises some interesting issues, including the high relative cost of launch vehicles and ground terminals, the "chicken or egg" problem of no customers because of no satellites and launchers because of no customers, and the problem of limited power sources (of significance to materials-processing work in particular). Globesat Inc designing small-satellite system for Unisys Corp, aimed at experiments in store-and-forward data collection from remote sites. Unisys has a modest government contract for this. The plan is to launch Globesat's GS-100 satellite bus, with a suitable payload, on an Amroc launcher in mid-89. USAF Consolidated Space Test Center in Sunnyvale considers commercial marketing of its satellite-control facilities. Of particular note is the CSTC's ability to do timely radar tracking, since NASA typically has a turnaround time of a week on such things. Hughes to announce development of a new three-axis-stabilized comsat design, optimized for launch on expendables (Hughes now builds spin-stabilized comsats designed with a strong eye on Shuttle launch). Soviet biosat lands 2000 miles off target, cause not entirely clear. Result is some delay in analysis of its payload. Mir crew's workload reduced a bit; the crew is tired. They are finishing unloading of Progress 32, doing work with new materials-processing equipment, and observing the LMC supernova with Kvant's gamma-ray instruments. Ball Aerospace is developing a relay-mirror satellite for launch next August on an SDI Delta. It will examine accuracy and stability of reflecting a laser beam from one ground station to another. Pictures of Soviet cosmonaut-training facilities in Star City. USSR considers setting up international advisory committee to help select experiments for its 1990s Mars missions; there has been extensive interest from outside the Soviet Union, and it is felt that outside advice could be helpful in selection. The first of the missions will probably slip from 1992 to 1994 to give more time for payload development. It will include an orbiter, an atmospheric balloon, and a small rover. "Our resolve is to go to Mars in a big way, and we are working very hard to bring this to reality." "It's not too late for the US to join... Some of our American friends say it's too early for them. But if they wait much longer, then they may find that it is too late." Pictures of Soviet spacesuits, displayed at Star City. Unlike the complex assembly procedure for donning a US suit, in the Soviet suits the backpack simply hinges to one side and the cosmonaut slides in from the rear. They have the same problems with stiff gloves as the US designs. Soviets confident that one-year manned missions are practical, given routine measures to counteract free-fall effects. Romanenko is still doing well, partly because he is firm about his exercise routine; he is at 245 days now. Laveikin, who was brought down early because of heart irregularities, is in good health but is still under observation. USAF Astronautics Lab is looking again at the idea of a solar-powered rocket, using large mirrors to heat liquid hydrogen. Space demonstration possible in mid-90s. Off-axis collectors, permitting pointing the rocket in any direction, are crucial. A demonstration inflatable collector will fly as a Getaway Special payload in about 1991. The solar rocket potentially has double the performance of an oxyhydrogen rocket. Also being looked at is a flat reflector using a holographic film to make it act (optically) like a curved surface; the basic idea works, but the necessary concentration ratio has not yet been demonstrated. One interesting aspect is that the holographic reflector focuses different wavelengths at different points, which might be used to focus infrared on the engine and ultraviolet on solar panels. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 87 16:57:27 GMT From: paul.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) Subject: BDB and common sense (was Commercial plea for space station) > > Build the BDB first! > > Why not do both? Why not? I didn't imply that we shouldn't - just that it would make a lot more economic sense to have the BDB in place before we went ahead with a space station. Would you rather pay $300/lb or $5000/lb to launch something the size of the SS into orbit? By developing BDB technology first, the budgeteers won't have to simultaneously budget support for the SS. It would be more likely the BDB would get the support it deserves, rather than just what's left over after NASA has paid for the Space Station (at Shuttle cost-to-orbit prices). Also, I know of no project flying on the SS that couldn't be delayed for a few years without excessive harm. If anyone knows of a _specific_ project that must fly on the Space Station and can't be postponed a few years, post and I'll stand corrected. My previous postings on this subject mostly concerned the usefulness of the Space Station. I've never doubted that it should be built if it can be proved worthwhile. But if I were running the show, I'd certainly want that proof first. - Steve Masticola. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Nov 87 18:00:09 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Do we need a Space Station? > ... Or better yet, NASP (National AeroSpace Plane) then Station. That > promises to be even more cost-effective than BDB. Ho ho. Ha ha. Hee hee. Chortle, guffaw. No hope. "The aerospace plane is going to be a cross between the Concorde and the Space Shuttle; is *that* really going to be cheap?" This is aside from the fact that an operational aerospace-plane freighter (not the strictly-experimental X-30) is at least twenty years away, assuming that the X-30 stays on schedule, which I wouldn't bet on. Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 87 09:00:52 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Re: Dyson Sphere Discovered? Dyson's original idea was that a society might want to use as much sunlight as possible, and so might have so many satelites orbiting the sun that its output would be dimmed. The idea of a SOLID dyson sphere came later. -- Doug Reeder USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!douglas Box 502 Reed College 3203 S.E. Woodstock 122 38' W 45 28' N Portland, OR 97202 planet earth,sol system ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 87 16:21:55 GMT From: hao!noao!stsci!zeller@ames.arpa (Steve Zeller) Subject: Re: Brazil and eco-catastrophe Since I missed the initial article that resulted in the comments on the eco-catastrophe in Brazil, I can only assume that it must have been pointed at the World Bank. (re: Anybody who wants to blame a few ravening western capitalist firms is a fool). Since I am not currently living in Brazil and can't attest to the level or poverty which they have to overcome, I will address comments only to the World Bank and its part in the destruction of rain forests world wide. The World Bank has been a source of investment capital for underdeveloped nations. The main members of the Bank are such banks as Chase Manahatten, Citicorp and the other top ten in the Banking industry. They within their contracts which specify the terms detailing the type of projects a receipient third world country can use it for, have been a major contributor to the destruction of the world's major rain forests. I take this fact from the many environmental organizations which have done more research into the topic about which we are discussing than I have. In the country of Peru for example, the World Bank funded the development of the rains forest lands into cattle grazing land. This led over a period starting in the 70's until present day to the reduction in Peru of total land rain forest to 30% of what existed originally. The result of which is a current environmental disaster as the land cannot support the number of cattle projected because all the nutrients necessary ( and supposed because of the rich tropical rain forests) was lost when the forests were slash/burned. The nutrients are held for the most part in the upper cannopy of the rain forests, so the under lying soil is actually nutrient poor and acidic. In Brazil the money for large scale projects such as those in Peru (cattle grazing and mineral mining ) were funded entirely by the World Bank. They are always looking for a return on investment since the shareholders would by no means settle for a long term potential profit as would be the case if the money went to education and labor intensive jobs not to capitol intensive investments. As a final note: the recent court victory by several majjor envoronmental groups( Natural Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife Fund etc..) forced the World Bank to rewrite its contracts to third world countries to support the development of equal amounts of land set aside for envoronmental protection, equivalent to amounts used for capitol investment. Also, all future land use must take into account the environmental impact of the particular project, review is by a group of enviromental representatives (third world representatives). One last note: Peru currently has a major problem with its rivers and streams being over run with Silt and most of the land slash/burned is now flowing out to sea because of these policies. Peru is cutting down on the amount of land being developed by its people but you can't overcome the already lost land and money which was invested in the country for short term gains and nno long term profits. ( teaching the prople to perform a trade themselves, based upon their current resources, not adversly affecting their environment) Each year an area the size of Rhode Island or Kentucky (depending upon which source you want to believe) disappears in rain forests.... By 2000 they may all be gone... As for the comment on the Government of Brazil and its current land distribution policy, my opinion is also that this is a truly sensless waste of one of the greatest natural resources that we have on this planet. I hope that education can slow the destruction in Brazil. But for years most of the money invested in Brazil has been for short term capitol intensive projects owned by firms outside of the country. Its a two-fold effort to save the rsin forests: Brazil to try to teach the potential utilization of the rainforests as a food supply without its immediate destruction ( the Mayans did it and supported by some estimates about 500 people per acre up to 1000 ((this is far better than even our super-farms can provide today)) . they did all of this using the idea of floating farms and other old agricultural techniques which are trying to reestablish themselves in these countries through government funding and education) The second part lies on our shoulders to push our firms through the indirect efforts of groups like the NRDC (natural resource defense council, sierra club, etc..) or directly by supporting legistlators who are pro-environment to at least try to slow this development type mind set which is short term at best in the eyes of the environment and leverage their power to control these firms in the US and abroad who don't feel the environment is a factor when considering the return on investment. steve zeller arpa: zeller@stsci.edu SPAN: scivax::zeller "all things are possible once human beings realize that the whole of the human future is at stake" norman cousins ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #64 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 3 Dec 87 06:15:51 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA18917; Thu, 3 Dec 87 03:18:07 PST id AA18917; Thu, 3 Dec 87 03:18:07 PST Date: Thu, 3 Dec 87 03:18:07 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712031118.AA18917@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #65 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 65 Today's Topics: Mir-Watch software Re: Space Shuttle Operator's Manual Re: WEIGHT LIMIT RAISED FOR SHUTTLE Re: Big Dumb Booster Excellent series of articles in Sacramento Bee Re: Laser Disks and Slides Re: Space Shuttle Operator's Manual Address for WSN WSN address Space Funding ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 2 Dec 87 18:00:53 PST From: ota@galileo.s1.gov Cc: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: Mir-Watch software Does anyone have the mir-watch software from NSS available on the network? I'd be especially interested if it is in the form of C or Pascal source code. Thanks, Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 87 22:25:27 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Operator's Manual Many of the illustrations and some of the text is copied directly from the NASA source documents (which I have). the source doucments are: Shuttle Operational Data Book (Document #JSC-08934) Space Shuttle Systems Handbook (JSC-11174) Shuttle Flight Operations Manual (JSC-12770, vols 1-19) Satellite Services Catalog (JSC-19211) Space Transportation System User Handbook (no number, available from STS Utilization Office, Mail Code OT, NASA, Washington DC 20546) Space Shuttle News Reference (no number, available from any public information officer at any NASA center) Space Shuttle Level II Program Definition and Requirements (NSTS-07700, vols 1-10,12-15,18) Flight Data File (various numbers) particularly 'Crew Activity Plan' for each mission, and various checklists. Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 87 21:57:41 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: WEIGHT LIMIT RAISED FOR SHUTTLE In article <4635@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, beckenba@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Joe Beckenbach) writes: > I stand very corrected. [Thank you Mike!!] This changes the whole > complexion of the issue. I guess I can go back to being confused about > it all. > Question: Has NASA actually set a change in the cargo capacity allowed > at launch? Now that it's had an extra few days to settle in my mind, > Pietro's sources never did unequivocally say that the change in policy > had actually been implemented. The following text is copied from a photocopy of a NASA memorandum, it may help shed some light on the STS performance Question: ------ NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington D C 20546 Dec 22 1986 To: S/Associate Administrator for Space Station From: M/Associate Administrator for Space Flight Subject:Space Shuttle Support Commitments for Space Station Missions Ref: 1. Memorandum to S dated Dec 11, 1985, Subject: Space Shuttle Performance for Space Station Orbital Activities 2. Memorandum to S dated Apr 14, 1985, Subject: Space Station Manifest Users This memorandum sets forth Space Shuttle capabilities estimates for use in Space Station program planning. Specifically, the capabilities defined are: performance to orbit, cargo return weight, flight rate, crew size, and extravehicular activities estimates for Space Station missions beginning in 1993. PERFORMANCE TO ORBIT. The performance commitment contained in our Reference 1 memorandum is last year's projection of Space Shuttle capabilities in the mid-1990's. Since the Challenger accident, we have reexamined that commitment and its underlying assumptions. The review has led to a revised performance projection for Space Station with allowances for post-accident modifications and with more modest assumptions regarding enhancements. The revised projection now represents a lower limit of capability that is subject to some potential improvement. The baseline due-east payload delivery capability for Space Station is based on OV-103 [ed: Discovery] with a crew of five, a mission duration of seven days, 104 percent of rated power level on the main engines, mixed weight steel case solid rocket boosters, three full sets of cryogenic tanks (one empty set) for electrical power and potable water, orbital maneuvering system tankage of 19,900 lbs. (40 fps Delta-v for rendezvous), and a maximum certified performance ascent profile. The resulting estimate of payload plus attach hardware weight to a 220-nautical miles (nmi) altitude orbit at 28.5 degrees inclination with full rendezvous capability is 39,530 lbs. This number is somewhat optimistic in that no allowance has been made for continued weight growth in the Orbiter fleet for the period of the mid to late 1990's. For this reason, Space Station proposed Orbiter modifications will have to be carefully reviewed for performance accountability. Orbiters OV-104 and the new vehicle [ed: Challenger replacement] will deliver the same performance as above; OV-102 [ed: Columbia] will deliver up to 8500 lbs. less. The baseline payload delivery capability for a Space Station polar- platform mission is based on launching from Vandenberg on an OV-103 class vehicle with a five person crew, a seven day mission duration, payload delivery (no retrieval), 104 percent of rated power level on the main engines, filament-wound solid rocket booster cases, three sets of cryogenic tanks, and maximum certified performance ascent trajectory. The resulting estimate of payload plus attach hardware weight to a 140 nmi altitude orbit at a 98 degrees inclination is 14,000 lbs. CARGO RETURN WEIGHT. The downweight restrictions on the Shuttle are associated with vehicle dynamic loads certification that currently limits the total vehicle and cargo landed weights to 211,000 lbs. for a nominal end of mission and 240,000 lbs. for abort. Using Space Station design mission requirements, the maximum allowable landed Space Station payload plus attach hardware weights on an OV-103 class vehicle are 24,000 lbs. for the nominal end of mission case and 48,000 lbs. for the abort case. These weight estimates include 1,000 lbs. allowance for a crew escape system and 2,000 lbs. margin for vehicle weight growth. The Orbiter project is conducting a vehicle loads reassessment that is planned to certify up to 214,000 lbs. at a nominal end of mission landing. Results of that analysis will be available in early 1988 and could add 3,000 lbs. to the end of mission cargo weight. FLIGHT RATE. Regarding Space Shuttle flight rate and its effect on the Space Station, the loss of Challenger has caused us to re-evaluate both the STS capabilities and requirements. While the reassessment is not yet finished, our policy as stated in Reference 2 remains to support the STS customers in accordance with their relative priorities. With a four-orbiter fleet, we expect three vehicles to be available for east coast launches resulting in 11-12 flights per year at KSC. Assuming three to five DOD flights and another one to two high-priority missions, the minimum number of flights available for Space Station is four per year, and the maximum is expected to be eight per year on a sustained basis. CREW SIZE. Our current maximum crew size is seven people, and we are willing to fly certain high priority missions with as few as four Shuttle crewmembers. This would normally restrict us to only three Space Station crewmembers per flight. However, we have flown one mission with an eight-person total crew, and there may be some potential for cross training or otherwise reducing the required crew complememnt during entry. Based on these two factors we are willing to commit up to four Space Station crewmembers per flight. EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY (EVA). The baseline STS capability is 24 EVA manhours per flight. The Space Station program had originally requested up to 48 EVA manhours for selected assembly missions. We have not yet completed studies to determine the maximum Orbiter-based EVA capability that might be achieved, however, we believe 48 EVA manhours per flight can nominally be delivered with some harware augmentation. It is expected that the 48 hours would consist of four EVA's of six hours duration each with two crewmen. The added weight associated with that capability would be approximately 1900 lbs. If you have any questions regarding any of the above, please let us know. (original signed by:) Richard H. Truly cc: A/ Dr. Fletcher AD/Mr. Myers JSC/AA/Mr. Cohen JSC/GA/Mr. Kohrs MSFC/DA01/Mr. Thompson KSC/CD/Gen. McCartney ----- Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 1987 20:44-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Big Dumb Booster Just in case it isn't posted here, I just rcvd info that AMROC is on track, but with about a 2 month delay. The info is from the OASIS and is probably about 4-6 weeks 'fresher' than my most recent information on the subject, so I will bow to this source. My guess is that the ridiculousness of the situation was so apparent to all involved that a quick settlement was forced. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Nov 87 09:11:38 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Excellent series of articles in Sacramento Bee Newsgroups: sci.space Over a week ago, Nov. 15, the Sacramento Bee had an excellent front page series of articles on the relationship of the military and NASA. The issue started off with the motivations of the X-29A forward swept wing planes, and some discussion about the coming X-30 vehicle. There were other articles in the series. I recommend this series from what I read, but I will neither confirm nor deny the truth of details.... ;-) >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 30 Nov 87 04:12:29 GMT From: bbn!lf-server-2.bbn.com!jr@husc6.harvard.edu (John Robinson) Subject: Re: Laser Disks and Slides The Center for Aerospace Education, Drew University, and Video Vision Associates have (so far) produced 6 discs of a projected 7-disc set, culled primarlily from the archives of NASA but including much from other sources as well. I can provide informatio nabout these discs if anyone is interested. They are available from: Video Vision Associates, Ltd. 66 Hanover Road Florham Park, NJ 07932 201-377-0302 I also have one of the Space Archives discs (#6) from Optical Data Corporation. In the back of my mind, it seems that I once knew that this is the new name for Video Vision. At any rate, all of these can be mail-ordered from Instant Replay in Waltham, MA: The Instant Replay 479 Winter St. Waltham, MA 02154 617-890-9262, 800-VHS-BETA (MA), 800-VHS-DISC (US) -- /jr jr@bbn.com or jr@bbn.uucp ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 87 00:14:37 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Operator's Manual > Many of the illustrations and some of the text is copied directly > from the NASA source documents (which I have)... People who are interested might want to dig out the address of World Spaceflight News from one of my AW&ST summaries a while ago: WSN's latest "special report" series is reproductions of NASA's own astronaut-training manuals. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 87 04:40:35 GMT From: pyrdc!mike@uunet.uu.net (Mike Whitman) Subject: Address for WSN >People who are interested might want to dig out the address of World >Spaceflight News from one of my AW&ST summaries a while ago: WSN's >latest "special report" series is reproductions of NASA's own >astronaut-training manuals. Help, Henry I greped through all the back articles of sci.space and couldn't find the address. Please post/send if possible. Thanks, Mike Whitman ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 87 11:33:34 PST From: ota@galileo.s1.gov Cc: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, pyrdc!mike@uunet.uu.net Subject: WSN address Here is the beginning of the note Henry sent: Date: 7 Oct 87 21:59:32 GMT From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Aug 24 AW&ST [Next in the multi-way tie for third place in space-related periodicals is a pair: Planetary Encounter and World Spaceflight News. These are for people who want the nitty-gritty details. No glossy color photos or quotations from Chairman Carl to be found here, just page after page of real hard solid information. PE covers planetary missions, WSN covers near-Earth spaceflight. Aviation Leak spent one paragraph discussing Joe Kerwin's medical report on the deaths of the Challenger crew; WSN printed the whole thing. The NRC report on shuttle flight frequencies etc. got about one column in AW&ST; WSN printed the whole thing. The so-called International Comet Explorer got some polite coverage in various journals (no exciting photos to be had, since it had no camera); PE spent an entire issue on it, with diagrams, lists of experiments, an interview with the mission director, etc. When the shuttle was flying regularly, WSN printed things like payload manifests, activity schedules, and post-mission assessment reports for EVERY mission. The same crew also puts out a succession of extra-cost "special reports", containing things like NASA technical documents on related topics. (Example: although I think they may have had second thoughts due to poor sales on this, at one point they were going to put out a multi-volume special report reprinting the entire Critical Items List from the shuttle.) Highly recommended if you are tired of the babytalk in newsstand magazines and want to know the gory details. PE and WSN are at Box 98, Sewell NJ 08080. Each is nominally monthly, although in fact they've been coming out less frequently for the last year or so due to lack of news. Each is $30 for 12 issues sent First Class to the US or Canada, elsewhere $45 for 12 issues sent Air Mail.] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Nov 87 05:00 CST From: Subject: Space Funding In many postings on the net over the last few months, I have seen the topic of funding for our space efforts tossed around quite a bit. Additionally, the issue of what practical benefits the various space projects have for society as a whole has been constantly controversial. A major topic of discussions of late has been whether we should cut defense and increase space funding, or cut something else, etc, etc, etc... One subject that doesn't seem to have gotten into this discussion though, is how other scientific budgets might affect the space budget. Most notably how the proposed SSC - Superconducting Super Collider - that the Reagan administration has given a tentative go-ahead on could affect the space budget, and if its practical benefits to society are comparable to the space program. (and I use the term program loosely - the word 'program' implies to me a series of projects directed towards a particular goal - something I'm not sure we have in regard to our space efforts. The SSC as it is currently proposed would be the world's largest particle accelerator - roughly a 50 mile circumference ring - with the potential for providing particles with energies of 20-40 TeV. It would, in theory, give high energy physicists a whole new view of the sub-atomic world, and hopefully push us farther along the path towards a unification theory of the fundamental forces. The cost of these new insights is estimated to be anywhere from 6-20 billion dollars over the period of the SSC construction and initial operation. As an insider (although not to the inner clique) of the high energy physics world, I personally have seen very little viable technology transfer to industry or society as a result of the high energy physics programs that are currently being pursued during my involvement with them. This may be due to the fact that very little state-of-the-art technology is actually in use in the HEP (high energy physics) community, and as such, there is very little to improve upon. The equipment used for observing particle interactions and performing particle beam transport, in my opinion. does not seemed to have changed appreciably in the last several years - mostly because I don't think it really needed to - and where there is no need for change, there is no innovation. The only really notable contribution to come from HEP that affects the average guy on the street is probably the improved cryogenics technology now commonplace in medical imaging with nuclear magnetic resonance sacnners, and even that hasn't changed much over the few years it's been in use. Furthermore, excepting the philosophical and mentally pleasing value of knowing you have an understanding of what makes the universe tick, what is the real value of continued HEP research? Will our understanding of fundamental forces or the structure of matter lead to an improvement in the human condition? Will it give us the ability to construct an FTL drive, or some other radically new technology that will benefit us all? If not, then I say continued research in this direction is valueless, because in my opinion the bottom line of any research is that it should benefit humanity and aid in removing the poverty and misery so commonplace on this planet at this time. (As a side subject to this, I should state that SDI development doesn't disturb me too much, simply because I think it could never be made reliable. The particle beamlines here at Fermilab are in fixed positions under reasonably controlled conditions, and very seldom function reliably for more than several hours at one time. Expecting the same sort of thing to be reliable under extremely hostile conditions for even a very short period is merely amusing) In comparison I fully believe that during the same period our space efforts have had a much greater impact on the average Joe whose tax dollars support both efforts. What I see in a single issue of NASA Tech Briefs is probably more than I have seen collectively out of HEP. The point I am trying to make here is whether it is logical for the taxpayers to provide funding for something as comparatively esoteric as the SSC, which carries little promise of actually discovering ANYTHING new, and even less promise of anything USEFUL, as opposed to the exploration and settlement of space which, in my opinion, has the potential for dragging humanity out of the gutter. (I suppose I should add, as a disclaimer to avoid some flame that perhaps the contributions of HEP are much more subtle than I am aware of, and if that is true, I would be happy to be enlightened. It may help me justify my current occupation) It is obvious that if the SSC gains a final approval, that the money for it is going to come from other scientific budgets, and considering the budget hacks over the last decade, I think it's obvious where most of it would come from. For those that are seriously interested in a continued space effort, (and/or HEP) I think it would be wise to at least give this matter some thought. Note: The opinions expressed are my own, and should in no way be construed as reflecting those of my employer. Rick Johnson Fermi National Accelerator Lab TESLA@FNAL ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #65 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 4 Dec 87 06:28:52 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA20970; Fri, 4 Dec 87 03:20:30 PST id AA20970; Fri, 4 Dec 87 03:20:30 PST Date: Fri, 4 Dec 87 03:20:30 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712041120.AA20970@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #66 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 66 Today's Topics: Re: phone number Planetary Vacuum-Cleaners Sweep Up Dust, says Kitt Peak Re: Big Dumb Booster: AMROC status Re: NAVSTAR (was Re: space news from Oct 5 AW&ST) Re: NAVSTAR Re: NAVSTAR Re: NAVSTAR (was Re: space news from Oct 5 AW&ST) Re: Mini Big Dumb Booster Shuttle C ? Re: BDB and all the whining... Re: Mini Big Dumb Booster Power Systems Re: solar cells solar energy saved until night ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 3 Dec 87 11:33:46 PST From: Eugene miya To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Re: phone number Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Dr. Geoffrey-- Oh come on, you can guess the AC. (Having suggested it should be (987)-654-3210 ;-) JPL's and TRW's are 4321 and 54321 for the main extensions, so some people are having fun. People should ignore Mike's mistake. It's no problem. It's an exercise to the reader. It also gave me a chance to talk to old friends, too. Most readers would be surprised at who the network lazies are. Now, if we could only get people to use libraries..... 8-) Turn out is surprisingly good. P.S. Don't send mail to "pioneer." We are in the middle of upgrading Ultrix, it's a development machine and mail is unreliable. --eugene ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 87 14:47:02 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Planetary Vacuum-Cleaners Sweep Up Dust, says Kitt Peak The "Science Times" section of the Tuesday _New York Times_ had an article about possible planets around Vega, Formalhaut, and Beta Pictoris. These stars all have detectable dust clouds (more like disks actually) surrounding them, and astronomers from Kitt Peak National Observatory report that observations show the existance of regions in the disks which are depleted of dust. They attribute one explanation of this to the existance of "Earth-sized objects" or larger sweeping clear zones. The astronomers quoted were Dana Beckman (Kitt Peak) and Frederick Gillett (now at NASA). Article is on page C7 of the 12/1 NYT. In other news in the Science Times, along with a report that for the first time the Soviets have allowed American citizens to look at a rocket before launch (but not photograph it; a Proton), they quoted a superconductor reported by Georgia Tech (Ahmet Erbil) at 440 F!! This is probably a misprint; maybe they mean 440 Farehneit degrees above absolute zero ("Rankine"--the Times seems to have problems dealing with Celsius degrees). Material composition is still held confidential, although they quoted Erbil as saying that the result was reproducable on 6 different samples. All reports about superconductivity at near room temperature should be taken with a grain of salt. There was a whole flurry of such reports about six months ago, none of which seemed to be reproducable, and which (as far as I know) are now pretty much considered to be measurement anomalies. --Geoffrey A. Landis, Ph.D BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu (until WISCVM stops being an ARPAnet gateway on Dec. 15) P.S. (Off the subject): Several people volunteered to critique a SF short-story for me; but I seem to accidentally have erased the file containing the names, so except for a few people whose names I remembered I haven't sent it out. Sorry--If you're still interested, send me another note. --GL ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 87 17:02:53 GMT From: idacrd!mac@princeton.edu (Bob McGwier) Subject: Re: Big Dumb Booster: AMROC status in article <1131@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM>, kempf@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Jim Kempf) says: > In article <565235064.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: > Is it any newer than the report in Nov. 23 AW&ST that they had laid off > all their employees due to the pullout of some backers? In fact, mommy lost her bundle on the stock market and decided not to fund Jr.'s toys any more (literally). Maybe they found other investors, as their concept is sound and the tests have been good. The restrictions being placed seem ludricous at best and down right nasty at worst. Bob ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 87 16:27:25 GMT From: umix!umich!mibte!gamma!pyuxp!pyuxww!sabre!faline!karn@nrl-cmf.arpa (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: NAVSTAR (was Re: space news from Oct 5 AW&ST) > I read an article somewhere (popular science i think) the given 2 C/A > boxes placed a known distance apart and using some math similar to > long line interferometer radio telescope you can get accuraces better > then the military version. Yes. The technique is Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI). It uses the Navstar satellites as simple noise sources that can be simultaneously observed by each station. Ordinarily, natural objects such as quasars are used. But this technique only measures the BASELINE (i.e., distance) between the two stations to a very high degree of accuracy, it doesn't necessarily give your position on an absolute coordinate system. I know a NASA radio astronomer who has made a career out of VLBI. He has a T-shirt from Fairbanks, Alaska (site of a radio observatory) depicting a post carrying distance/city measurements (a la M*A*S*H or most movies of WWII military camps far from home). Except that each of these measurements are in CENTIMETERS, and are accurate to that level. Of course, his shirt is probably out of date by now, since the whole purpose of his work is to measure changes in these distances due to continental drift. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 87 16:40:42 GMT From: nuchat!sugar!peter@uunet.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: NAVSTAR In article <564693757.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: > Personally I recommend that anyone with the power to do so discourage > civil use of the NAVSTAR. Go for Geostar instead. Geostar is wholly > private and Space Studies Institute is a major stock holder. Personally, I'd recommend the third choice: > A) Buy the NAVSTAR system and help support you know who. > B) Buy Geostar and know that money will be plowed back into > R&D to open the frontier to people like us instead of > fighter jocks. (No offense to fighter jocks) C) Put them both up and use whichever gives the best cost/benefit ratio. Let the market decide (I know the market is sadly atrophied these days, but every little bit helps). -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 87 21:59:00 -0500 (EST) From: gf08+@andrew.cmu.edu (George H. Feil) Subject: Re: NAVSTAR Phil R. Karn (Message-Id: <8711301117.AA11400@angband.s1.gov>) writes: >Actually, I could never understand why Geostar was started in the first >place, if it is supposed to be a direct competitor to Navstar. That's >all we need, redundant, incompatible services pl}cing additional demands >on RF spectrum and launch capability. My understanding on GEOSTAR is that it will offer two-way communication as well as navigation information. I don't remember the stats on GEOSTAR's accuracy, but from what I recall attending the Northeast Regional Space Conference in 1985, GEOSTAR would be accurate enough to pinpoint one's position on a detailed city road map. As far as cost, I've heard GEOSTAR could be implemented as an add-on to a multipurpose communications satellite. That would make it relatively inexpensive as opposed to having it as a standalone unit(s) in orbit (two are necessary, I think), not to mention reducing the clutter of hardware already in geosynchronous orbit. Perhaps someone who was at that conference remembers more details, and could post them. -HAL (gf08+@andrew.cmu.edu) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Dec 87 04:14:17 GMT From: palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu (David Palmer) Subject: Re: NAVSTAR (was Re: space news from Oct 5 AW&ST) In article <1566@faline.bellcore.com> karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: >> As for civil use of NAVSTAR, bear in mind that the receivers for >> civil use will be significantly less accurate than those for military >> use. > >Not really. The differences between C/A (Clear Access, the civilian >mode) and P (Precision, the military mode) are as follows: .... >Nevertheless, tests with C/A have shown it to be less than 10x worse >than with P. Depending on location, integration time, receiver >velocity, etc, typical C/A accuracies are well within 30 meters bias, 6 >meters noise. This is so much better than anything else that it hardly >matters if it's "significantly less accurate" than the P channel (which >is typically 3 meters bias, 6 meters noise). I heard from a geologist that the military has several times down-graded the civilian mode's accuracy, to prevent the public from taking full advantage of it. (After all, if people find out where they are, there's no telling what mischief they can get into) Is this true? And if so (or if not) do they have any plans to do this again in the future? Glonass (sp, the Russian version) is starting to look better. The geologist I talked to said that they could get improved accuracy by using multiple receivers, some in fixed locations, some on the vehicle being tracked. David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer The opinions expressed are those of an 8000 year old Atlantuan priestess named Mrla, and not necessarily those of her channel. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Nov 87 17:07:06 GMT From: pyramid!nsc!taux01!amos@lll-lcc.arpa (Amos Shapir) Subject: Re: Mini Big Dumb Booster What about all those Pershing (sp?) missiles which have to be taken out of comission now? Strapped together they can make a VERY big DB! -- Amos Shapir (My other cpu is a NS32532) National Semiconductor (Israel) 6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel Tel. +972 52 522261 amos%taux01@nsc.com (used to be amos%nsta@nsc.com) 34 48 E / 32 10 N ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 87 18:40:24 GMT From: gaserre@athena.mit.edu (Glenn A. Serre) Subject: Shuttle C ? Does anyone out there know what the status is on the Shuttle C? If work is being done on it, what division of NASA is doing the work? Also, does anyone have names for private U.S. companies who are working on building expendable launch vehicles (besides Titan, Atlas, Delta, ALS, and the Amroc vehicle.)? Thanks in advance. --Glenn Serre *Looking for a job making gaserre@athena.mit.edu *Launch vehicles. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 87 08:40:41 GMT From: pyramid!weitek!sci!daver@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Dave Rickel) Subject: Re: BDB and all the whining... Henry is almost certainly right--it would be next to impossible for a small group of US citizens to build a rocket capable of launching something into orbit, even given the money and the talent. Says nice things about our government, doesn't it? Harry Stein has been writing a bunch of pessimistic articles about the meaning of some of the recent space regulations--in one of them he mentioned that the Estes rockets, and even the silly little compressed air-and-water rockets according to the regulations now require a DoT approval to launch. Interesting. Unworkable, of course. I was thinking that it might be amusing to try and snow them under through strict compliance with the law, but they'd only use it as an excuse to hire more bean counters. I'm not certain if the situation is too much better in other countries-- I've got this vague recollection (from another Stein article) that there is now an international law that holds a country responsible for damages caused from anything that country (or one of its citizens) launches into space. This might seem pretty reasonable, but Stein was saying that this was open-ended enough that a country would be very leery of having anything launched that the country didn't have absolute control over, which kind of ruled out private enterprise. I went to a con a few years ago, and picked up a flyer about a group that was building a real liquid-fuel rocket (somewhere between 10 and 20 feet long, payload in the pounds range). I don't remember the name of the group. Anyway, they were launching from Nevada. Apparently, Nevada has (had?) a fairly loose interpretation of what constituted fireworks, and the rocket was categorized as a firework. It might be possible, if you keep things short range and quiet, to do quite a bit of development without having to waste too much money and time on the government. david rickel decwrl!sci!daver ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 87 20:12:20 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. Starr) Subject: Re: Mini Big Dumb Booster In article <406@taux01.UUCP>, amos@taux01.UUCP (Amos Shapir) writes: > > What about all those Pershing (sp?) missiles which have to be taken > out of comission now? Strapped together they can make a VERY big DB! Nothing, in theory. However, solid rocket motors have a certain rate of catastrophic failure, so the more you strap together the less the chance of a successful flight. I vaguely recall that in the days following the Challenger accident the newspapers quoted an Air Force study as saying that about one SRM in 70 can be expected to fail (it's been a while, so that might not be the right number--anybody else know anything about this?). Assuming that number's correct , and you want at least a 90% chance of success, you can only have a total of 7 SRMs between all stages of your booster, since a failure of any SRM in any stage is catastrophic to the entire flight. Note that the situation with liquid-fueled engines is somewhat the reverse--as long as you can sense an impending failure and shut the engine off, more engines lead to increased reliability. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 87 7:29:05 MST From: John Shaver Modernization Office Subject: Power Systems With regard to running power systems, I serve on a small rural electric coop board. Our major costs are energy 60%, Interest on debt 15%, and taxes 10%. Our current coal plant installed in 1982 had an investment cost of $750/KW of generating capacity. I underestand the current cost of generating capacity is around $2000/KW. Currently, (no pun intended) those people who co-generate, offset our power cost by generating their own and even selling some back to us, are using solar / wind sources. Their systems cost have not been accurately determined, but even with the tax breaks, they would have done better with CD's in return on investment. John ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 87 10:21:26 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Re: solar cells Questions concerning the economics of photovoltaic cells: 1) How long may crystalline or polycrystalline cells be expected to last in "typical" terrestrial applications? 2) How long do they generally last in space-based applications? 3) A few weeks ago, NOVA showed a man who had worked on the development of flexible, amorphous cells, and was trying to market them in various countries. (I did not receive this list at the time.) About how much do these cells cost in relation to crystalline or polycrystalline cells? Can they be used in outdoor terrestrial applications? What kind of protection do they need, and how long do they last? Can they be used in space? 4) Does this company have a marketing organization that individuals can get in touch with? (I would appreciate an address and/or telephone number, if possible.) Thanks in advance for any information. John W. Roberts roberts@icst-cmr.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 87 10:28:27 GMT From: tektronix!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60aC) Subject: solar energy saved until night Donald Lindsay writes: >The problem of storing the energy until night is still nowhere near as >well solved as I'd like. Check out the Nov 21 Science News. It seems that some reseachers in Israel have incorporated a sort of storage cell directly into a solar cell. The device operates at 11.8 % efficiency during the day while part of its generated current is saved up in the storage part of the cell. When the light level falls below a certain threshold, it releases the energy that was stored. Its overall efficiency is 11.3%. This article was based in part on a paper in the Nov 12 NATURE. There was also an article on NASA's future plans in this Science News. Dan Tilque dant@tekla.tek.com or dant@tekla.UUCP ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #66 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 5 Dec 87 06:12:51 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA23370; Sat, 5 Dec 87 03:19:59 PST id AA23370; Sat, 5 Dec 87 03:19:59 PST Date: Sat, 5 Dec 87 03:19:59 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712051119.AA23370@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #67 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 67 Today's Topics: Space Station robotics/automation More lights in the sky... Re: A little test of readership NASA tours Re: Geostar Re: NASA tours Solar Cells: Answers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Dec 87 03:01:29 GMT From: super.upenn.edu!grasp.cis.upenn.edu!ulrich@rutgers.edu (Nathan Ulrich) Subject: Space Station robotics/automation In article <8986@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >Congress warns NASA that space-station money will be postponed unless >NASA commits more money for pre-space-station materials-processing >work, in particular support for a free-flying module, modification of >one orbiter for longer flights, adding two Spacelab materials flights >(first no later than 1990), more FY88 research funding, and development >of automation and robotics for the space station. [Sounded good until >that idiotic last item. The space station needs, and can afford, >neither.] I generally agree, or at least laugh at, Henry Spencer's editorial comments in these summaries, and I do appreciate his posting the information. However, I have to ask him to elucidate his comment here. Why does the space station neither need nor can it afford automation and robotics? From my point of view, it seems that automated systems for assembly are essential, and, furthermore, that the judicious use of robot arms is necessary when you consider the constraints imposed upon an astronaut working in a space environment. I am a researcher in robotics, so I fully appreciate the limitations of the current technology, but at the same time I see specific applications where automation can help. I do not necessarily agree with the current planned uses of robots on the space station, but these are gripes with specific areas, not the concept. Can you give me any good reason why automation and robotics should be excluded from the space station plan? If you are interested, I could spend a few hours telling you why they should be _included_. Nathan Ulrich ulrich@grasp.cis.upenn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Dec 87 16:07:50 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: More lights in the sky... Reference our discussion a few months back on orbiting artworks and the interference with ground-based astronomical observations: On the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour on 1 Dec 87, there was a segment on the Soviet marketing of their booster capability in the commercial arena, including some interviews with Soviets selling this service worldwide, their US representative, and various potential customers. One of the latter was a British person whose name was "Chris" something; can't recall the last name. He was involved with a project to orbit a set of clock arms, which would travel in a polar orbit, and show GMT to the world every night. They showed a painting of the expected result, which displayed these clock arms as having the minute hand appear about as long as the diameter of the full moon. Their orbit was supposed to make them appear in the same relative position in the sky each night at every location. Their brightness was supposed to be such that they were easily visible in a lighted urban area. The Soviets were quite happy to sell him the launch capability; I wonder if they had checked yet with the Soviet astronomical community about this wonderful idea? "Chris" seemed to be in the process of collecting money (Lord knows from where or whom) to fund this thing. Personally, I say this sounds to be just about the flakiest idea yet. If these are actual objects moving around to be the hands of a clock, the speed at which the minute hand would have to move, coupled with the size it would have to be to appear that large and bright to naked-eye observation, seems completely unrealistic to me. Mayhap instead this is supposed to be some sort of giant disk on which the "hand" would be an illuminated or reflecing strip which didn't really rotate... There was no detail on this project; it was just a few seconds as part of a several-minute segment on the Soviet effort. Besides, who wants an *analog* orbiting clock in these days of digital watches? :-) (A tip of the hat to _Hitchiker's Guide_...) Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Dec 87 09:56:34 PST From: Eugene miya To: ames!uunet.UU.NET!kitty!larry@ames-aurora.arpa Subject: Re: A little test of readership Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Re: Joy rides on Ames One fine day, at JPL, we were walking to lunch at the cafeteria. Kobrick (future shuttle alternate material, ex-USAF, etc.) backgammon game under arm, saw a tour group and bluttered out: "Gee, I wonder if Brucie [Murray, then director] would let me take the space ship to Venus this weekend?" Those kids were probably damaged for life..... --eugene ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Dec 87 09:27:58 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: NASA tours Asked about tours: Ames-Dryden is located at Edwards AFB. Not much to see as a civilian, but a nice gift shop (2 hours drive from Downtown LA, 3 from Anaheim). Located in the "High desert of California....." JPL is in Pasadena, about 30-45 minutes. Has a mission control facility, and grants tours to groups. If you have friends there, they can show you around except the new closed areas (they are starting to do classified work). Ames is located at Moffett Field (with USN (and MC), USAF, USDA, some USGS), next to the Silicon Valley. We are the smallest Center, but the fastest growing center (has other mission oriented problems). No mission control type facility, but computers and wind tunnels, a modest flightline. Group tours arranged up to 3 months in advance (I scheduled one for my ACM/SIGGRAPH chapter: Jan. 26, but you have to be a chapter member). Groups just ask for the Tours office and schedule: restrictions (Foreign nationals must be cleared a month in advance for tours, Eastern Bloc requires White House approval. Other Centers: Goddard has a modest tour including their MC. Johnson is pretty interesting, especially if you can get into the weighless tank. Lewis (sorry not much, some interesting researchy things) Langley -- not much to see more tunnels, some test facilities, the USAF base has more interesting things. ;-) Marshall -- haven't been there yet (big test facilities) Kennedy -- haven't been there yet, see the boosters, MC, other parts of the base (read interesting) are off limits due to environmental hazards (alligators, explosives, etc.) HQ -- Go to the Air and Space Museum across the street, much more interesting. There are other locations, but NASA gives tours as a courtesy, this isn't Universal studios. People don't want to be disturbed in their research, and I don't blame most. --eugene ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 1987 01:53-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu To: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan), space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Geostar Kevin asked some questions whose answers might be of general interest. I'm not sure I can anser your questions precisely, but I'll give you the best I can. Geostar recievers will cost a few hundreds of dollars. NAVSTAR a few thousands. THe difference is that A NAVSTAR rcvr must have a ultra high precision time base in each unit. The Geostar unit is little more than a transciever. A central base station with redundant computers polls and tells it where it is (a very unmilitary thing to do, but much cheaper for the end user) The system has been tested with mountaintop transmitters, and I have seen the film of the position outputs in the cockpit of a light plan running an instrument approach. The data is accurate enough for that. It may even be good enough for Class I (I think that's the nomenclature) approach gear used for landing in 0-0 conditions. It is superior to the ELT/SARSAT combination now in use for search and rescue of downed aircraft, because there is no false alarm problem. Even in conjucntion with the ELT, Geostar could poll the aricraft and let the Civil Air Patrol know that the aircraft emitting the alert is sitting on the parking ramp... In a real emergency, it could supply coordinates precise enough to send the CAP directly to within meters of the crash site. The aircraft rated rcvr would certainly cost more than the one intended for hikers, for trucking firm fleet locating, for parcel location, etc. Unlike NAVSTAR, Geostar also has the capacity to transmit short text messages, so it can act as a smart beeper anywhere within it's service range. If you happen to be a stock broker your company let you know you needn't bother coming home from hiking in the Canadian Rockies... Geostar will start small, because it will be building on it's own profits, and because there will probably be a necessity of doing licensing to foreign governments over land. SHould be no problem over international waters, so it would help shipping and aircraft that fly near our trigger happy russian friends... The initial constellation would be something like 3-5 geosynchrnous units serving the continental USA. I don't remember the exact number. They already had a redundant unit launched piggy back to a comsat on an Ariane in March 86, but both failed. RCA believes that fuel may have been spilled on a common point between the xmtrs and the power supply. (An approximate description of the failure from a 2 year old memory of a conversation) The will be launching a replacement on one of the upcoming Ariane (May 88) - In terms of rcvr cost, it beats NAVSTAR to hell and back. - In terms of simplicity, it beats NAVSTAR to hell and back. - In terms of additional services, NAVSTAR isn't even in the running. - In terms of trusting who you are dealing with, who would want NAVSTAR? (we're so sorry your 747 crashed on approach, but we just had a mistaken red alert in Cheyenne Mtn...) - In terms of industrializing space, guess which entity will plow it back into commercial development? I WISH I owned stock in them. Unfortuneatly, I could not meet the *&^(*%$#@ government Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) requirements as a 'qualified investor' for the initial placement. Which is basically the SEC's way of saying, "you're not allowed to get rich unless you're rich" (May the SEC staff and all their replacements unto the nth generation rot and burn in the deepest pits of hell. And may they never freeze over...) The only real competition to Geostar is another company that is going to send up some small cheap sats on one of the private launch company vehicles. I don't know a great deal about them, and at 2am I ain't gonna go look it up! Hope this helps answer your questions. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 87 06:15:36 GMT From: terra!brent@sun.com (Brent Callaghan) Subject: Re: NASA tours In article <8712032357.AA09380@galileo.s1.gov>, eugene@PIONEER.ARC.NASA.GOV (Eugene Miya N.) writes: > Ames is located at Moffett Field (with USN (and MC), USAF, USDA, some > USGS), next to the Silicon Valley. > restrictions (Foreign nationals must be cleared a month in advance for > tours, Eastern Bloc requires White House approval. Hmmm.. I've been through there twice now with foreign nationals (I'm one myself) and no questions were asked. I just called a couple of weeks in advance and organised a day and time. We had a look at the wind tunnels, centrifuge and flight line complete with U2, Chinook, Tilt-rotor, Harrier Jump jets and QRSA. On my last visit they said that they were going to make self-guided tours available soon. "Hmmm this looks like the entrance t o a w i n d t u n ..... Made in New Zealand --> Brent Callaghan @ Sun Microsystems uucp: sun!bcallaghan phone: (415) 691 6188 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Dec 87 13:44:54 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Solar Cells: Answers >1) How long may crystalline or polycrystalline cells be expected to last > in "typical" terrestrial applications? Crystalline silicon cells are speced for a 30 year lifetime. Most companies these days give (I believe) a five year guarantee. There is enough data on reliability now to believe that 30 yrs is quite reasonable on glass-encapsulated modules (in the early seventies several people tried modules potted in silicone, epoxy, etc. These turned out to be lousy in terms of resistance to humidity, hail, etc.) The newer thin-film solar cells don't have enough data to say lifetime, but the target is also thirty years. These have some new failure modes in addition to the crystalline ones, but I expect that (as long as Staebler-Wronski degradation is solved) these can all be ironed out. >2) How long do they generally last in space-based applications? Depends on a lot of things. Number one is radiation damage, which depends on how much you protect it and what orbit you're in. (The worst orbit is 3000 [nautical] miles). Also what type of cell you use. Almost all existing satellites use crystalline silicon cells with BOL ("Beginning Of Life") efficiencies at AMO ("Air Mass Zero"--i.e., space conditions) of about 15%. End of Life (due to radiation, in geosynchronous orbit) is typically 84% (from the data for the Hughes SBS-BF1 satellite, which has a spec of 10 year lifetime). The solar arrays are oversized at BOL to give specified power at EOL. Currently, production space cells are moving to gallium-arsenide cells (manufactured by Hughes) which are very expensive, but more efficient than production silicon cells. In space efficiency, not cost, is the name of the game. Next generation silicon cells (which are also very expensive) are at least as efficient as gallium arsenide (actually slightly more efficient), but it looks now like Indium Phosphide will take over, due to breakthroughs in InP by Spire Corporation in the last year. InP is apparently significantly more resistant to radiation damage. I've seen radiation damage studies on CuInSe(2) cells which show virtually zero damage. Copper indium diselenide cells are currently not extremely efficient (ten percent for the best cells, which are currently being made by Boeing--for research, not production). This is a moderately hot research topic, but in the last three years virtually no increases in CuInSe(2) efficiency have been made, although production technology is getting better. >3) A few weeks ago, NOVA showed a man who had worked on the development > of flexible, amorphous cells. Many companies are working on amorphous thin-film cells. Since they can be put down on almost any substrate (that will take the production temperatures, which aren't that high), you can, if you want, put them down on flexible plastic substrates. Probably the company being touted was ECD/Sovonics, since they're the only ones who seem to be making a point of emphasizing flexability; or possibly 3M, who have been developing cells on very thin plastic to be possibly incorporated in toys. Other companies heavily into amorphous silicon solar cells are Solarex, Glasstech, Arco Solar, and Chronar. > ...and was trying to market them in various countries. Chronar has sold amorphous silicon solar-cell FACTORIES to several countries. Glasstech just sold a plant to India. Both these plants produce about a megawatt per year per shift. I think Solarex has a division in France as well. >how much do these (amorphous Si) cells cost in relation to crystalline >polycrystalline cells? Numbers from a study by RTI for current technology extrapolated to large production volume (baseline, optimistic, conservative): Advanced-Single-Crystal Silicon: $1.90/Watt ($1.20 to $3.45) Dendritic Web (Silicon Ribbon) : $1.20/Watt ($0.90 to $4.05) 500x concentration silicon : $1.33/Watt ($0.95 to $2.20) Amorphous silicon : $1.15/Watt ($0.75 to $4.50) Amorphous cascade (note--technology doesn't exist. Yet.) $1.05/Watt As I pointed out in a (as yet unpublished) SERI report, these numbers depend a whole lot on the input assumptions. For example, the silicon cells are based on existing efficiencies, but the amorphous cells are based on extrapolating the best large-area efficiencies of about 6.5% up to the lab efficiencies of 10%. (not to mention finding a solution to Staebler-Wronski degradation, which cuts power down to 60-80% of initial after a month or so of light exposure). > Can [amorphous silicon] be used in outdoor terrestrial applications? Yes. Alabama Power has the largest existing experimental array, about 20 kilowatts. > What kind of protection do they [a-Si] need, and how long do they last? Same as crystalline silicon, which is usually a glass front surface, EVA/Tedlar back lamination, and some kind of edge seal. > Can [amorphous silicon cells] be used in space? Yes, but existing efficiencies are very low, so you probably wouldn't want to. You do have the advantage that a-Si cells could be made on very low-weight substrates, but it turns out that the mass of structural material which holds arrays stiff is also important, and you don't gain as much as you'd think by making lighter cells. I would expect the structural mass could also be made lighter for a lighter array, but I don't know by how much. I also don't know how amorphous silicon fares in a radiation environment--I'd guess pretty well. > Do [a-Si] companies have marketing organizations that individuals can > get in touch with? The Solar Energy Research Institute, Golden Colorado: (303) 231-1000 has a library with a reference desk that answers public inquiries. There also exists an organization called the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA--I may have it slightly wrong) which I don't know the number for. --Geoffrey A. Landis, Ph.D BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ARPA: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu (until WISCVM stops being an ARPAnet gateway on Dec. 15) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #67 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 6 Dec 87 06:09:22 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA24521; Sun, 6 Dec 87 03:19:21 PST id AA24521; Sun, 6 Dec 87 03:19:21 PST Date: Sun, 6 Dec 87 03:19:21 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712061119.AA24521@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #68 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 68 Today's Topics: Graphics Software Failing memory => 2 questions Re: Close up stereo photos of the moon. Re: Info on Swedish history Re: Mini Big Dumb Booster Close up stereo photos of the moon. Fact Sheet on Space Station ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 4 Dec 87 11:52:43 MST From: John Shaver Modernization Office Subject: Graphics Software Does anyone know of software for the IBM PC/PC Clones which will graphically display satellite ground tracks and which will calculate the earth observers azimuth and elevation angles? Are there astronomy programs which might relate? Would appreciate any responses. Contact me by email or AV 879/7622 or COM 602 538 -7622. Thanks John ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Dec 87 11:48:30 PST From: John Sotos Subject: Failing memory => 2 questions (1) I was really surprised a couple nights ago to see on late night TV a commercial (featuring Helen Hayes and Whoopi Goldberg) plugging the benefits of the US space program. They were talking about some spinoff device, but I can't remember what it was or who the organization was that put the message on. (This was *real* late; it was a San Francisco or San Jose non- network channel.) (2) Awhile back I enquired re a last-quarter 1986 article in Science chronicling the post-NASA careers of the first group of scientist astronauts. I checked the last half of the 1986 science issues, with negative results. Could it have been a different journal? Pointers, anyone? (Pat Reiff: my mailer can't find "spacvax.rice.edu") John Sotos "Take care of your Betz cells: you don't want to become dependent on AI." ------- ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 87 22:54:53 GMT From: ecsvax!dgary@mcnc.org (D Gary Grady) Subject: Re: Close up stereo photos of the moon. In article <4834@sol.ARPA> fowler@cs.rochester.edu (Rob Fowler) writes: >Purcell had a set of the slides. They are amazing. Just the idea that >you're seeing what you would if you had your nose 6 in from the moon >is pretty staggering. The geology is amazing too. Some slides show > .... >Do any of you know how one could track these down and have a set of >copies made up? I wonder if it would be possible to get NASA's PR people and the Viewmaster people together. That would require NASA getting only ONE set of copies made, presumably paid for by an outside source, and then anyone could buy the Viewmaster slide set. (Of course, that would only be useful for goshwow purposes; serious geologists would presumably prefer something a bit more high-tech.) -- D Gary Grady (919) 286-4296 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary BITNET: dgary@ecsvax.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 87 23:41:46 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!ICEMAN@princeton.edu (Joakim Karlsson) Subject: Re: Info on Swedish history In article <1426@carthage.swatsun.UUCP>, leif@swatsun (Leif Kirschenbaum) writes: >Since I have a Swedish mother I can't help but insert a small comment here. >Sweden's army was the best in the world before America came into being, and was >hired by other countries. It crossed the sea and fought its way into Europe >in some religious wars, and did quite well. Moreover, it was a Swede who >invented the submarine (Ericsson designed the Monitor) and several other > military devices. Today there is a mandatory 18 month term of service for all >Swedish men, which tops America and many European countries which only require a > year of service. And Swedes have to train in the ice and snow. Since I *am* a swede, I can't help but insert some corrections here to your article: The mandatory military service in Sweden is 9-15 months, not 18, and it's much much shorter than that required for most Eastern European countries. Also, your assessment of Sweden's army seems highly subjective: Yes, it was/is better than many European countries, but the world's best army? I don't know about that one... Joakim Karlsson iceman @ pucc.Princeton.edu Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering '88 BITNET only: iceman @ pucc Princeton University "You can be my wingman anytime..." ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 87 17:19:56 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Mini Big Dumb Booster > What about all those Pershing (sp?) missiles which have to be taken > out of comission now? Strapped together they can make a VERY big DB! There has been interest in using those Pershings for various things. However, I believe the latest version of the treaty requires that the decommissioned missiles be explicitly destroyed, not just put into storage pending other uses, and sets a deadline. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 87 18:31:11 GMT From: rochester!fowler@bbn.com (Rob Fowler) Subject: Close up stereo photos of the moon. When the Apollo moon missions were being planned, Edward Land and Edwin Purcell (Nobel prize winning physicist at Harvard) were part of a NASA advisory committee on the scientific experiments that were going to be done. Shortly before the first landing they learned that NASA had had a "NASA grade" lightmeter made up to go with their ruggedized Haselblad. The meter wound up weighing a couple pounds. The two Eds said, "Why are you taking a meter to the moon? We can tell you right now what exposure to use. After all, we can see the moon from here and there ain't going to be any clouds moving in before you get there". The meter got left on Earth and there was an opportunity to add a new experiment if one could be designed quickly. The two Eds seized the opportunity and devised a closeup stereo camera to take 35mm color stereo slides of what you would see if you got down on you knees and looked at the undisturbed surface of the moon from about 6 in away. Part of the motivation was to examine the texture of the surface to answer questions about moon's albedo, e.g. why does the full moon look like a disk and not like a sphere? Anyway, the prototype was an open bottomed cereal box on the end of a broomstick and the final version was a NASA grade open bottomed box containing a big roll of film, a couple of cheap f11 plastic lenses, and an electric system driving a couple of lightbulbs (exposure was by artificial light only), shutters, and film advance. All this was mounted on a NASA grade broomstick so the astronaut only had to put the box down on the surface and push a button on the end of the stick. Purcell had a set of the slides. They are amazing. Just the idea that you're seeing what you would if you had your nose 6 in from the moon is pretty staggering. The geology is amazing too. Some slides show pyrite crystals that must have been sitting undisturbed for billions of years. The bottoms of the crystals are still sharp but the top edges have been fused by some kind of cataclysmic event. The event that melted them had no blast to disturb the surface, just enough radiative energy to melt the edges of the rocks. Anyway, I've been trying (low intensity effort) for a couple of years to get a set of these slides. Usually I spend about a half day or so on the problem during Christmas shopping season and then let it slide for another year. The government printing office knows nothing about this stuff. The person I called at NASA HQ was no help at all. Do any of you know how one could track these down and have a set of copies made up? I figure that by putting this out on the net that there might be enough interest stirred up to motivate NASA to distribute this stuff. -- Rob Fowler ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 87 20:34:42 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Fact Sheet on Space Station [The following is an unabridged press release from NASA HQ.] Posted: Tue Dec 1, 1987 8:00 AM PST Msg: TJIH-2718-1328 SPACE STATION WORK PACKAGE FACT SHEET WORK PACKAGE 1 Dominic Amatore Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., 35812 (Phone: 205/544-6533) Marshall Space Flight Center is responsible for Space Station Program Work Package 1, including responsibility for the laboratory module, habitation module, logistics elements and fabrication of the primary structure for the resource nodes. Marshall also is responsible for development of the environmental control and life support system, internal components of the audio/visual and thermal control systems, as well as for operational capability development for users in the laboratory module. The Johnson Space Center, through special provisions within the Work Package 1 contact, will exercise technical direction for the manned space subsystems. LABORATORY MODULE The U.S. laboratory module will be cylindrical, measuring approximately 44 feet long and 14 feet in diameter and will provide a shirt-sleeve environment for performing laboratory functions. The laboratory module will be capable of supporting multi-discipline payloads including materials research and development activities, materials processing demonstrations, life sciences research and other space science investigations requiring a pressurized area. User-provided equipment that can be housed in the laboratory module include furnaces for growing semiconductor crystals, electrokinetic devices for separating pharmaceuticals, support equipment needed to carry out a wide spectrum of low-gravity experiments and applications, and a centrifuge for variable gravity experiments in life sciences. HABITATION MODULE Facilities for eating, sleeping, personal hygiene, waste management, recreation, health maintenance and other functions requiring pressurized space will be provided in the habitation module. The module will be the same size as the laboratory module and will accommodate up to 8 astronauts. Using the health maintenance facility, astronauts will be able to monitor their health through vital signs, X-rays and blood samples. There also will be exercise equipment for daily physical conditioning. LOGISTICS ELEMENTS These include elements required for transporting cargo to or from the Space Station for the resupply of items required for the crew, station, and payloads; and for on-orbit storage of these cargos. A key element will be the pressurized logistics carrier, which will carry items used inside the Space Station modules. The other elements include unpressurized logistics carriers used for transporting spares used external to the Space Station modules, fluids and propellants. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM (ECLSS) The ECLSS will provide a shirt-sleeve environment for the astronauts in all pressurized modules on the Space Station. A key feature is the regenerative design employed in the air revitalization and water reclamation systems. RESOURCE NODE STRUCTURE The resource nodes are required to interconnect the primary pressurized elements of the manned portion of the Space Station and also will house certain key control functions. The equipment provided by Work Package 1 consists of the resource node structures, berthing mechanisms, racks, ECLSS, internal thermal control, and internal audio and video communication systems. WORK PACKAGE 2 Billie Deason NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, 77058 (Phone: 713/483-5111) NASA's Johnson Space Center is responsible for the design, development, verification, assembly and delivery of the Work Package 2 Space Station flight elements and systems, which include the integrated truss assembly, propulsion assembly, mobile servicing system transporter, resource node design and outfitting, external thermal control, data management, operations management, communication and tracking, extravehicular systems and guidance, navigation and control systems, and the airlocks. JSC also is responsible for the attachment systems to the STS for its periodic visits. Additionally, JSC is responsible for flight crews, crew training and crew emergency return definition, and for operational capability development associated with operations planning. JSC will provide technical direction to the contractor for the design and development of all manned space subsystems. INTEGRATED TRUSS ASSEMBLY The integrated truss assembly is the Space Station structural framework to which the modules, solar power arrays, external experiments, Earth- and astronomical-viewing instruments, and mobile transporter will be attached. PROPULSION ASSEMBLY The propulsion assembly will be used to adjust or maintain the orbit of the Space Station to keep it at the required altitude. Work package 2 has responsibility for the overall propulsion system. Technical direction for the thruster assembly elements of the propulsion system will be provided by MSFC. MOBILE TRANSPORTER SYSTEM The mobile servicing system will be a multi-purpose mechanism equipped with robotic arms to help assemble and maintain the Space Station. The contractor will build the mobile base; Canada will provide the mobile servicing system which includes robotic arms and special purpose dextrous manipulators. RESOURCE NODES The resource nodes house most of the command and control systems for the Space Station as well as being the connecting passageways for the habitation and laboratory modules. Work Package 2 will outfit the node structures provided by Work Package 1 to accomplish the objectives of each node. EVA SYSTEMS Extravehicular activity (EVA) systems includes equipment such as the extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) or spacesuit, provisions for communication, physiological monitoring, and data transmission, EVA crew rescue and equipment retrieval provision, and EVA procedures. Airlocks for crewmember extravehicular activity also will be designed as part of Work Package 2. EXTERNAL THERMAL CONTROL The external thermal system provides cooling and heat rejection to control temperatures of electronics and other Space Station hardware located outside the modules and nodes. ATTACHMENT SYSTEMS In addition to devices permitting Space Station docking by the Space Shuttle and logistics resupply modules, this includes systems for attaching experiment packages and other external hardware to the truss structure. GUIDANCE, NAVIGATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM (GN&C) The guidance, navigation and control system is composed of a core system and traffic management functions. The core system function provides attitude and orbital state maintenance, supports the pointing of the power system and thermal radiators, accomplishes periodic reboost maneuvers, and provides Space Station attitude information to other systems and users. The traffic management function provides for controlling all traffic in the area around the Space Station, including docking and berthing operations and trajectories determination of vehicles and objects which may intersect the orbit of the Space Station. COMMUNICATIONS AND TRACKING SYSTEM (C&T) The communications and tracking system is composed of six subsystems: space-to-space communications with crew members during extravehicular activity, aboard the Space Shuttle, and with the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle; space-to-ground communications through the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System to ground data networks; internal and external voice communication through the audio subsystem; internal and external video requirements through the video subsystem; management of C&T resources and data distribution through the control and monitor subsystem; and navigation data through the tracking subsystem. DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (DMS) The data management system provides the hardware and software resources that interconnect onboard systems, payloads, and operations to perform data and information management. Functional services provided by DMS include data processing, data acquistion and distribution, data storage, and the user interface to permit control and monitoring of systems and experiments. Crew safety is an essential consideration in the development of the Space Station. A major system failure aboard the Space Station, injuries or illness may require the return of crew members to Earth during a period when the Space Shuttle is unavailable. NASA's Johnson Space Center has responsibility for conducting definition-phase studies of a Crew Emergency Return Vehicle which could be used to supplement the Shuttle in such circumstances. WORK PACKAGE 3 Michael Braukus Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. 20771 (Phone: 301/286-5565) NASA'S Goddard Space Flight Center is responsible for development of several of the Station's elements including the free-flying platforms and attached payload accommodations, and for planning NASA's role in satellite servicing. Goddard also has responsibility for developing the Flight Telerobotic Servicer which is being procured through a separate competition. FREE-FLYING PLATFORMS Goddard will manage the detailed design, development, test and evaluation of the automated free-flying polar platform. This unmanned platform will feature modular construction to permit on- orbit ease of serviceability and flexibility for accommodating a variety of scientific observations. ATTACHED PAYLOAD ACCOMMODATIONS The Space Station attached payloads are the instruments and experiments designed to gather scientific data while attached directly to the truss framework of the Space Station. Goddard is responsible for providing utilities such as power, thermal control, data handling, pointing stability and other equipment needed to operate the payloads and for insuring that the instruments are pointed at the intended targets. Two attachment points are provided, one of the attach points is fixed and the other has an articulated pointing system. FLIGHT TELEROBOTIC SERVICER Goddard is responsible for building the Flight Telerobotic Servicer. This system will be capable of in-space assembly of Station elements and payload servicing. As the system is evolved, it will perform telerobotic servicing and repair of spacecraft visiting the Space Station. In the future, a telerobotic servicer-equipped Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle could retrieve, as well as service, spacecraft beyond the Space Station's orbit. WORK PACKAGE 4 Mary Ann Peto Lewis Research Center, 2l000 Brookpark Road, Cleveland, Ohio, 44l35 (Phone: 216/433-2902) Lewis Research Center is responsible for the end-to-end electric power system architecture for the Space Station and for providing the solar arrays, batteries, and common power distribution components to the platforms. The power system includes power generation and storage, and the management and distribution of power to the final user interface. The electric power system is required to have the capability to deliver 75 kW of electric power with a growth potential to 300 kW. POWER GENERATION Initially, Space Station power will be provided by eight flexible, deployable solar array wings. This configuration minimizes the complexity of the assembly process by taking advantage of the technology demonstrated on Space Shuttle flights. Each 32- by 96-foot wing consists of two blanket assemblies covered with solar cells. These are stowed in blanket boxes which are attached to a deployment canister. Each pair of blankets is to be deployed and supported on a coilable, continuous longeron mast. A tension mechanism will supply tension to the blanket as it reaches complete extension. The entire wing will be tied structurally to the transverse boom by means of the beta gimbal assembly. To provide the power needed during the period of Space Station assembly, two solar wings and other elements of the power system are scheduled to be carried up on each of the first two Space Station assembly flights. These four wings will provide 37.5 kw of power. The remaining four panels will be delivered on orbit after the permanently-manned configuration is reached. Lewis also is responsible for developing and testing proof of concept hardware for the solar dynamic power module to prepare for the growth phase of the Station. In addition, sufficient preliminary design efforts will be performed to insure that the Space Station can accommodate the solar dynamic modules. POWER STORAGE Ni-H2 batteries will store the energy produced by the solar arrays. A battery pack is made up of 23 Ni-H2 cells, wiring harness and mechanical/thermal support components. On discharge, this operates near 28 v which allows the flexibility to connect several packs in series to obtain a high voltage system for the Space Station and platforms or use of single packs as a candidate for other low voltage applications. Ni-H2 batteries offer minimum weight and high reliability with minimum redundancy required for the polar platform. During the eclipse periods, power is supplied by the energy storage systems. POWER MANAGEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION (PMAD) The 20 kHz PMAD system is designed specifically to meet aerospace requirements. It is based upon rapid semiconductor switching, low stored reactive energy, and cycle-by-cycle control of energy flow, allowing tailoring of voltage levels. It is user friendly and can easily accommodate all types of user loads. The PMAD system will deliver controlled power to many scattered loads. The high frequency ac power system was selected to provide higher efficiency, lower cost and improved safety. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #68 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 7 Dec 87 06:04:47 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA25938; Mon, 7 Dec 87 03:17:25 PST id AA25938; Mon, 7 Dec 87 03:17:25 PST Date: Mon, 7 Dec 87 03:17:25 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712071117.AA25938@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #69 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 69 Today's Topics: Chicago presentation: The Year in Space Space Station contract awards Re: space news from Oct 12 AW&ST Stereo Views of the Moon Re: NASA Tours ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 6 Dec 87 06:04 CST From: Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey Subject: Chicago presentation: The Year in Space Original_To: SPACE Ordinarily I don't post items of purely local interest, but I see that people in California keep doing it, so I'll try it. Please e-mail me if you have objections. Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET SPAN/HEPnet: 43011::HIGGINS ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chicago Space Frontier Society and Chicago Society for Space Studies present THE YEAR IN SPACE: 1987 Sunday, December 13, 1987 1:00 PM Adler Planetarium Auditorium 1300 South Lake Shore Drive ADMISSION FREE TO THE PUBLIC 1987 has been a year of triumph for the Soviet space program, while for Western nations it has been a year of slow recovery from the failures of 1986. Space expert Larry Boyle will discuss such Soviet milestones as the first launch of Energia, the largest booster now flying, and the record of over 300 days in space set by a cosmonaut aboard the new Mir space station. Meanwhile, the U. S. Shuttle program has been working toward resuming flights in the wake of the Challenger disaster. Both Americans and Europeans have begun launching unmanned rockets again after distressing failures last year. Japan, China, and India have progressed during 1987 in developing independent space capabilities. Larry Boyle, President of the Chicago Society for Space Studies, has taught courses in space flight at the Adler Planetarium and frequently lectures on space topics in the Chicago area. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This lecture is a joint meeting of the Chicago Space Frontier Society (a chapter of the National Space Society) and the Chicago Society for Space Studies. Monthly meetings of both groups feature presentations on some aspect of space development, and are open to the public. For more information on these groups, contact Bill Higgins at (312)293-1050 or Larry Ahearn at (312)373-0349, or send mail to HIGGINS@FNALC.BITNET. Meetings of CSFS are held on the third Monday of each month (but not December 1987!) at 7:00 PM at the Chicago Academy of Sciences, 2001 N. Clark Street, in Chicago. Meetings of CSSS are held on the second Sunday of each month at 1:00 PM in the auditorium of the Adler Planetarium, 1300 South Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. (The catch: If the Bears are playing at home, parking is hopeless, so the meeting is postponed to the third Sunday. Clear?) ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 87 20:52:52 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Space Station contract awards [Following is a press release from NASA HQ. It is unabridged except that I have omitted some boilerplate reminding the editors what the space station is. I have somehow resisted the nearly overwhelming urge to comment on parts of the release. Others should feel free to do so, but please don't attribute any of the material below to me.] Mark Hess Headquarters, Washington, D.C. December 1, 1987 (Phone: 202/453-1175) EMBARGOED Until 2 p.m. EST RELEASE: 87-177 NASA SELECTS AEROSPACE FIRMS TO DESIGN AND DEVELOP SPACE STATION NASA today announced selection of four aerospace firms for final negotiations leading to award of cost-plus-award-fee contracts to design, develop, test and evaluate and deliver the components and systems comprising the permanently manned Space Station to be placed into Earth orbit in the mid-1990's. The work to be performed is broken down into four packages each containing a unique but interdependent portion of the Space Station. Each work package is divided into 2 phases. Phase I covers the currently approved elements of the Space Station program. Phase II is an option for possible future enhancement of the Space Station's capabilities. The four companies selected for the Phase I effort are: o Work Package 1 Boeing Aerospace Company, Huntsville, Ala. o Work Package 2 McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co., with locations in Huntington Beach, Calif., and Houston o Work Package 3 General Electric Company, Astro-Space Division, with locations in Valley Forge, Pa., and East Windsor, N.J. o Work Package 4 Rocketdyne Division, Rockwell International, Canoga Park, Calif. Total cost proposed by the four companies is approximately $5 billion for the Phase I effort and approximately $1.5 billion for the Phase II priced-option effort. The combined work package prime contractor cost, should the Phase II option be exercised, would be approximately $6.5 billion. All selected offerors had technically superior proposals and proposed the lowest cost for their work package. The total cost proposed by all four proposers is within NASA's cost estimate for the Space Station program. The critical interdependency of the work packages creates an unusual situation where, because of the unique interrelationships and interfaces between the work packages and the need for intercenter equipment deliveries, significant cost negotiations and adjustments are expected as part of contract negotiation. Each firm was selected after an exhaustive review of their technical and cost proposals received in response to the four Space Station request for proposals. Aproximately 300 people participated in each work package review. Together, the contractors will work closely, under the direction of the Space Station program office, in designing, building and integrating the Space Station. The contracts include two program phases. Phase I will cover the approximate 10-year period from contract start through 1 year after assembly of the Space Station is completed. Phase II is a priced option which, if exercised, will enhance the capabilities of the Space Station configuration by addition, in the 1991-1999 time frame, of an upper and lower truss structure, additional external payload attachment points, a solar dynamic power system, a free-flying co-orbiting platform and a servicing facility. Phase I of the Work Package 1 contract, managed by the Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., calls for Boeing to provide the U.S. laboratory and habitation modules, logistics elements, resource node structures, airlock systems, environmental control and life support system, internal thermal, audio and video systems and associated software. Overall management, systems engineering and integration, and operations and logistics support of these elements also will be performed by Boeing. Boeing's proposed cost for performance of the Work Package 1, Phase I effort is approximately $750 million. Boeing's proposed cost for the Work Package 1, Phase II priced option is approximately $25 million. Major Boeing subcontractors and their places of performance are: Teledyne Brown Engineering, Huntsville, Ala.; Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Calif.; Hamilton Standard, Windsor Locks, Conn.; Garrett Airesearch, Torrance, Calif.; Grumman Aerospace Corp., Houston; ILC Space Systems, Houston; and Fairchild-Weston Systems Inc., Syossett, N.Y. The unsuccessful offeror is Martin Marietta Corp., New Orleans, with major subcontractors McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co., Huntsville, Ala.; Hamilton Standard, Windsor Locks, Conn.; General Electric, Valley Forge, Penn.; Honeywell, Inc., Clearwater, Fla.; Wyle Laboratories, Huntsville, Ala.; United Space Boosters Inc., Huntsville, Ala.; and Hughes Aircraft Co., Irvine, Calif. Phase I of the Work Package 2 contract, managed by Johnson Space Center, Houston, calls for McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co. to provide the integrated truss structure, mobile servicing system transporter, airlocks, resource node outfitting, hardware and software for data management system, the communications and tracking system, the guidance, navigation and control system, extravehicular activity systems, the propulsion system, the thermal control system and associated software. McDonnell Douglas' proposed cost for performance of the Work Package 2, Phase I effort is approximately $1.9 billion. McDonnell Douglas' proposed cost for the Work Package 2, Phase II priced option is approximately $140 million. Major McDonnell Douglas subcontractors and their place of performance are: IBM, Houston and Owego, N.Y.; Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Houston and Sunnyvale, Calif.; RCA Corp., Camden, N.J.; Honeywell, Clearwater, Fla.; and Astro, Carpinteria, Calif. The unsuccessful offeror was Rockwell International Corp., Downey, Calif., with major subcontractors Grumman Corp., Bethpage, N.Y. and Houston; TRW, Redondo Beach, Calif.; Intermetrics, Huntington Beach, Calif.; Sperry Corp., Phoenix, Ariz.; Harris, Melbourne, Fla., and UTC, Arlington, Va. Phase I of the Work Package 3 contract, managed by Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., calls for General Electric (GE) to provide a free-flying, unmanned, polar-orbiting platform which will carry scientific experiments in sun-synchronous or other near-polar inclination orbits, and two attach points, including a pointing system, for accommodating scientific instruments on the manned base. GE also is responsible for integration of the flight telerobotic servicer to the Space Station, appropriate Space Station information system activities, associated software and for planning NASA's role in satellite servicing. Additionally, GE is responsible for defining requirements and interfaces for a satellite servicing facility. GE's proposed cost for performance of the Work Package 3, Phase I effort is approximately $800 million. Included in the Phase II option is a free-flying unmanned co-orbiting platform, three additional attach points including another pointing system and a satellite servicing facility. GE's proposed cost of the Work Package 3, Phase II priced option is approximately $570 million. GE was the sole offeror on Work Package 3. GE's team member is TRW Corp., Redondo Beach, Calif. Phase I of the Work Package 4 contract, managed by the Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, calls for Rocketdyne to design and fabricate the Space Station electric power system. This system includes power generation and storage, management and distribution of electrical power and associated software. The electric power system, using photovoltaic solar arrays and batteries, is required to have the capability to deliver 75 kw of electric power. In Phase I, Rocketdyne also is responsible for providing solar arrays, battery assemblies and common power management and distribution components for the polar platform and for performing a proof-of-concept test for a possible future solar dynamic power system utilizing the Brayton cycle system. Rocketdyne's proposed cost for performance of the Work Package 4, Phase I effort, utilizing the Brayton cycle proof-of-concept test, is approximately $1.6 billion. Included in the Phase II option is a 50 kw solar dynamic power system. Rocketdyne's proposed cost for the Work Package 4, Phase II priced option is approximately $740 million. Rocketdyne was the sole offeror on Work Package 4. The Rocketdyne team members and their places of performance are: Ford Aerospace and Communications Corp., Palo Alto, Calif.; Harris Corporation, Melbourne, Fla.; The Garrett Corporation, Tempe, Ariz.; General Dynamics Corp., San Diego, Calif.; and Lockheed Missiles and Space Inc., Sunnyvale, Calif. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 87 19:28:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: space news from Oct 12 AW&ST > Why does the space station neither need nor can it afford automation > and robotics? From my point of view, it seems that automated systems > for assembly are essential, and, furthermore, that the judicious use > of robot arms is necessary when you consider the constraints imposed > upon an astronaut working in a space environment. It has to do with the reason we are putting a Space Station up to begin with. As Henry once pointed out, if our only reason to go there were to take pictures, we'd send a camera. A big part of the reason the Station is needed is to study how people work in space. This means that we not only have to put people in space, we have to give them some work to do. Robotics have proved their worth on all the planetary missions so far. JPL has built and launched some truly fantastic robotic spacecraft, and they're not the only ones. We need to learn more about robotics, but putting an experimental system aboard the Station is not the way to ensure our country's future success in space. The key word you used was "judicious". We don't need new technology for the Station; we need to impliment what we know NOW. > I am a researcher in robotics, so I fully appreciate the limitations > of the current technology, but at the same time I see specific > applications where automation can help. I do not necessarily agree > with the current planned uses of robots on the space station, but > these are gripes with specific areas, not the concept. I'm sure that you realize, then, how experimental robots are. There are applications where robots can do better than a man in a suit, but not enough of them to justify the use of untried technology in a hostile environment. And while using robots in space will tell us much about how robots work in space, it will tell us little about how men work in space. > Can you give me any good reason why automation and robotics should be > excluded from the space station plan? If you are interested, I could > spend a few hours telling you why they should be _included_. I can see several advantages to the blooming science of robotics, but few real advantaged to the space program. Congress is trying to keep all its constituents happy -- including robotics people like yourself. I would rather see the money spent on Station design, hardware, and experiments than on developing robots to do work that men can do. I would like to see robotics get more attention -- seperate from the Space Station. We need robots, true, but I don't want to see the money to research them come from the limited Space Station budget. Keep the robots on Earth until we can guarantee that an errant arm won't puncture a cabin wall! That would ruin my day. > Nathan Ulrich > ulrich@grasp.cis.upenn.edu -- Ken Jenks ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1987 10:49 EST From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Stereo Views of the Moon Subject: Close up stereo photos of the moon. I think that Thomas Gold of Cornell may have developed that stereo camera. I know that he has the slides and that they were on exhibit at the Cornell Radiophysics laboratory for a long time and, probably, still. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: NASA Tours From: judice%unxa.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (Louis J. Judice) Sender: ota@because.s1.gov Date: Sun, 6 Dec 87 13:42:51 PST Late this past week I was lucky to be in the Orlando area on business and decided to visit the Kennedy center - not knowing what to expect. I was quite impressed. There is a visitor's center, a museum (with Gemini and Apollo capsules, mockups of Soyuz, etc), a really HUGE gift shop and a large outdoor display of boosters, engines and radio tracking equipment. Most spectacular is the IMAX theater, which presents "The Dream is Alive" a 20 minute film dedicated to the Challenger crew. It is presented on a massive 5 1/2 story screen. I believe the film credits Lockheed with funding. All is free except the IMAX film, which was about $3.00. There is also a bus tour around the launch facilities (operations permitting) - unfortunately we missed the last tour. I suggest anyone visiting the area call ahead for information. NASA is definitely doing a good job of welcoming visitors - even providing LOANER CAMERAS! Lou Judice Digital Equipment Corp. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #69 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 8 Dec 87 06:23:33 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA28342; Tue, 8 Dec 87 03:23:50 PST id AA28342; Tue, 8 Dec 87 03:23:50 PST Date: Tue, 8 Dec 87 03:23:50 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712081123.AA28342@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #70 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 70 Today's Topics: Recycling Pershing-II's (long) Presidential candidates & House space subcommittee Re: Whoopi Goldberg, et al Geostar Re: NAVSTAR (was Re: space news from Oct 5 AW&ST) Re: Geostar ANALOG SF MAGAZINE VOTING Re: A little test of readership Re: space news from Oct 12 AW&ST Re: BDB and all the whining... SPS and Advances in Thin Film Solar Cells RE: solar cells Miscellany Re: NASA tours ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Recycling Pershing-II's (long) Date: Mon, 07 Dec 87 13:21:21 -0500 From: Fred Baube Today's Washington Post [Monday] discusses INF missile disposal. Excerpted without permission. "One of the INF treaty's most unorthodox provisions will unfold at [Kapustin Yar], 660 miles SE of Moscos, within a few days after the pact takes effect, when the Soviets begin launching unarmed SS12 and SS20 missiles eastward virtually around-the-clock just to get rid of them. "Similar launches of .. Pershing II missiles .. over the Atlantic are contemplated if studies show this is the cheapest, safest way to destroy the $6M rockets within the treaty's three-year deadline. [..] "The treaty allows up to 100 rockets to be destroyed this way, falling harmlessly back to Earth. But all launches must be completed within 60 days .." This will leave about a thousand missiles. Certain other INF components are being recycled. "The Army decided it wanted to keep the tractors used tp pull the Pershing II's thru German forests, and the Soviets decided they wanted to give their SS20 flatbeds to civilians. The two sides then entered protracted negotiations over how much of the flatbeds must be lopped off to make them too short and too weak to carry an SS20, finally settling on one meter. "US inspectors will be watching to ensure that the pieces are 39 inches long, not 38. When Soviet SS12 and SS20 missiles are launched from Kapustin Yar, US officials will be there to inspect them beforehand and observe them arcing high above the Kazakh plain." It appears that recycling the launchers is a possibility. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 87 03:35 CST From: Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey Subject: Presidential candidates & House space subcommittee Original_To: SPACE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES TO DISCUSS SPACE ISSUES Democratic presidential candidates will explain their positions on space policy to the House Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications on Friday, December 18th in Iowa City, Iowa. The all-day hearings, to be held at the Iowa Memorial Union, will also include testimony by prominent space scientists. Republican candidates will be invited to speak at a similar event in New Hampshire sometime in January. EDITORIAL COMMENTS: Okay, these are all the facts I have now. We in the Chicago chapter of the National Space Society are trying to find out more details; when we do, I'll post them. I've heard quite a few people express the wish that What To Do In Space could be made a significant issue in the 1988 campaign. Clearly somebody on Capitol Hill has had the same thought. If you share these feelings, you might tip off your local press about this event and tell them you'd like to see it covered. There *might* be a chance for represenatives of citizens' groups, such as the NSS and the Planetary Society, to testify-- we don't know yet. Note that Iowa is the home turf of Dr. James Van Allen, the most prominent opponent of the elaborate manned spaceflight programs NASA holds dear. Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET SPAN/HEPnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: 6 Dec 1987 18:44-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Whoopi Goldberg, et al Ad is part of an 'odd couple' series by USSF, United States Space Foundation, HQ in Colorado. I've personally only seen one, with Willie Nelson. Gary Oleson told me that Rev. Jessie Jackson was in one also. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Dec 87 09:09 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Geostar Another comment on Geostar: Because the Geostar satellites are in GSO, the system should have lousy accuracy near the equator (since any north-south displacement of the receiver will be perpendicular to the line connecting the receiver to the satellites and so causes, to first order, no change in the time delay). I suppose they're targeting the US market first, so that's ok. Eventually they'll have to go to satellites in inclined orbits. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 87 03:36:09 GMT From: karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: NAVSTAR (was Re: space news from Oct 5 AW&ST) Actually, there may well be a less sinister reason for giving civilians a different mode than the military reserves for itself. It is pretty much a fact of life in communications that any signal you can receive, you can jam. This goes for spread spectrum just as for conventional narrowband modes. The fact that the C/A (clear access) code on GPS is a simple length 1023 linear polynomial that is public knowledge also makes it possible to jam the system. The military channel of GPS is spread with a different code that is the product of two very long, relatively prime PN sequences. One has length 15,345,000 and the other 15,345,037. At 10.23 million chips/sec, this code would take 38 weeks to repeat, but it is instead restarted every week at 0000 UTC Sunday. By keeping this sequence secret, it becomes much harder to jam the signal. Of course, because the sequence repeats each week, it is at least theoretically possible to record the entire spread signal for later use -- if you have a receiver with enough extra performance to make up for the lack of coding gain, and if you have a place to put all those bits. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 87 17:42:45 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Geostar > The only real competition to Geostar is another company that is going > to send up some small cheap sats on one of the private launch company > vehicles. I don't know a great deal about them, and at 2am I ain't > gonna go look it up! Starfind. From what I've seen of their scheme, I have my doubts about whether they can deliver on their promises. Given the choice, I'd invest in Geostar. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 87 23:21:28 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (A Andrews) Subject: ANALOG SF MAGAZINE VOTING ANALOG AWARDS: Want to influence SF trends? Those who read ANALOG SF magazine may be interested in the AN LAB ratings that are now being voted upon by the readership. ANALOG editor Dr. Stanley Schmidt tabulates votes for the best NOVELLA/NOVELETTE, SHORT STORY, FACT ARTICLE and COVER ART and presents the results next year. Submission date presumably is end of year. The address is: Dr. Stanley Schmidt, Editor ANALOG SF Magazine Davis Publications, Inc. 380 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Attn: ANLAB voting (ASIMOV'S SF magazine is at the same address and has a similar contest. Gardner Dozois is editor there.) A complete index of ANALOG for 1987 is available in the January 1988 issue that is currently on the stands. Enjoy. --Arlan Andrews ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 87 23:14:00 GMT From: irwin@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: A little test of readership Bill, maybe Eugene's test was to see who can read, obviously, Mike can not. :-) (They don't want HIM at NASA) :-) ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 87 19:30:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: space news from Oct 12 AW&ST I'd like to give a public thank-you to Henry for these summaries. I don't have the money to subscribe to Aviation Leak, nor the time to sift throught all the airplanes to get to the good stuff. I appreciate the condensed news. Thanks, Henry! -- Ken Jenks, MS: Aero/Astro Engineering, BS: Computer Science, UIUC The University of Illinois will revoke my account on 20 December. It's been fun, folks! I'll be back after I get a job! jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks ------------------------------ Date: 6 Dec 87 05:10:23 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: BDB and all the whining... > ... the Estes rockets, and even the silly little compressed > air-and-water rockets according to the regulations now require a DoT > approval to launch. Interesting... Technically they did, under the legislation that created the Office of Commercial Space Transportation [I think that's the correct name]. At the NASFiC this year, Stine said that the OCST people were horrified when this was pointed out, and some revised regulations have been issued that exempt (effectively) anything that can't reach an altitude of 100 km. It is not phrased that way, however, because 100 km is the Soviet proposal for an official definition of the edge of space, and since the Soviets suggested it, the State Dept. is dead-set against any official US support for it. So the regulations actually talk about things like total impulse, but 100 km is what the numbers work out to. > I've got this vague recollection (from another Stein article) that > there is now an international law that holds a country responsible for > damages caused from anything that country (or one of its citizens) > launches into space... Yes. This has been in effect for some time, and it is indeed strong enough to make governments distinctly wary of permitting private launch activities. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Dec 87 15:00:55 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: SPS and Advances in Thin Film Solar Cells The recent issue of _Space World_ had an interesting, although non-technical, retrospective on the concept of the Solar Power Satellite. As I recall the results of the original SPS economic studies, the result was that they would not be economically competitive because of the costs to launch the materials from Earth (the original studies did not consider use of lunar material). I wonder what the economics of an SPS would be like if, instead of the crystalline silicon cells that the baseline studies assumed, the satellite used thin-film cells on thin plastic substrates? A typical Copper Indium Selenide cell is only 3 microns thick, compared to (I think) 50 micron thick silicon cells used for the baseline study. CuInSe(2) cells are currently only about 10% efficient. (11.9 percent has been achieved in the lab). The baseline study assumed 18% efficient silicon cells. Assume a 1 mil (25 micron) plastic substrate at a density of 1 (compared to 4.5 for Si) and the solar cell portion of the satellite should be roughly 1/6th as massive as the baseline, but produce about 66% as much electricity. We could quickly estimate that the cost of launching the solar cells is then reduced by a factor of 3! (depending somewhat on the relative mass of the protective coverslips on the cells). I don't know how much of the mass of a SPS is that of the solar array, but I would expect it to be a large fraction, since the antenna could be a very thin mesh reflector. A very clever design would use the solar panels themselves as a reflector; this would be tricky, since one needs to be able to aim the cells at the sun and the antenna at the receiver on the ground. The Boeing process for producing copper indium selenide is a vacuum-evaporation process, which would be cheap to adapt to space manufacture. Ten percent is not by any means the maximum possible achievable efficiency in thin films. 15% is considered a reasonable target in the near term for CuInSe2, and a copper GALLIUM selenide cell based on the same structure as copper indium selenide should be capable of 15-18% efficiency. Cascade cell structures (cells sensitive to short wavelength light but transparent to long wavelength light fabricated on top of cells sensitive to long wavelengths) could also boost the efficiency. An 8% (very conservative estimate) amorphous silicon cell cascaded on a 10% CuInSe2 cell would give 13% efficiency; and a CuGaSe2 (or CdTe variant) cell on a CuInSe2 cell should be able to reach 19-24% efficiency. So maybe Space Solar Power *isn't* dead, it may just need a little more development on thin-film solar cells. Important references for SPS include the journal _Space Power Review_ (formerly, I think, _Space Solar Power Review_) and the _Proceedings of the IEEE Photovoltaics Specialists Conferences_, which cover all the recent advances in the solar cell field every 18 months. --Geoffrey A. Landis, Ph.D BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Dec 87 15:01 EST From: GODDEN%gmr.com@relay.cs.net Subject: RE: solar cells >From: John Roberts >Subject: Re: solar cells > >3) A few weeks ago, NOVA showed a man who had worked on the development > of flexible, amorphous cells, and was trying to market them in > various countries. (I did not receive this list at the time.) > >4) Does this company have a marketing organization that individuals can > get in touch with? (I would appreciate an address and/or telephone > number, if possible.) The man's name is Stan Ovshinsky, and his company is: Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. 1675 W. Maple Troy, MI 48084 tel: 313-280-1900 -Kurt Godden (godden@gmr.com) ------------------------------ Subject: Miscellany Date: Mon, 07 Dec 87 10:58:10 -0500 From: Fred Baube Brent Chapman writes: > If you mean the "decent alarm" that occurred in the Lunar Module > moments before lunar touchdown .. I distinctly remember that a "descent alarm", maybe the same flight, maybe not, was caused by the crew having a manual whose display of switch settings was just plain wrong; the crew had frantic moments trying to find the correct settings, and nearly aborted. (At least, this is what Frank McGee of NBC said.) umix!oxtrap!rich@RUTGERS.EDU (K. Richard Magill) writes: > .. the Bricklin was sold with entirely electronic locks. When the > battery died or shorted you were entirely locked out. The Bricklin > had gull wing doors. At a lower level of technology, its doors had to be opened sequentially, not simultaneously, or else the motor in question burned out, immobilizing the doors. Does anyone have one of those cardboard punch-out-and-assemble Lunar Module models that Gulf gave away ? I wonder what they're worth now. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 87 17:40:40 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: NASA tours > Marshall -- haven't been there yet (big test facilities) The tour there is so-so. You don't get much of a look at the big stuff. They do give you a closeup look / photo opportunity at the oldest test stand there, used for the Redstone. There is a Skylab mockup that is worth a look. The most interesting thing (to my mind) was a close look at a prototype shuttle external tank, which they've got on display. Otherwise the tour is unimpressive. The museum is worth some time, though. They also have a centrifugal simulator/ride that is thoroughly weird and quite interesting. > Kennedy -- haven't been there yet, see the boosters, MC, other parts > of the base (read interesting) are off limits due to environmental > hazards (alligators, explosives, etc.) KSC was probably a better place to see back in Apollo days. I went there a couple of years ago with NSI to see the 41C launch. Mission Control was off-limits due to military work. The VAB is very firmly off limits due to the presence of fuel (the SRBs) in it, something that was never allowed in Apollo days but which they have no choice about now. The ex-flight-ready Saturn V with birds nesting in it is depressing. You can't get a terribly close look at a shuttle on the pad due to both security restrictions (they have started to take this seriously in recent years) and safety restrictions (yes, Virginia, there really are alligators in there). Going with a known pro-space group may get you a slightly better look at some things; I don't think we got the standard-Joe-Public tour. There is also a tour of the USAF base (essentially, the older launch facilities) that I didn't catch. It is worth going to watch a launch, at such time as they start again; it's not the same as watching it on TV! -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #70 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 9 Dec 87 06:14:51 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00242; Wed, 9 Dec 87 03:16:44 PST id AA00242; Wed, 9 Dec 87 03:16:44 PST Date: Wed, 9 Dec 87 03:16:44 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712091116.AA00242@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #71 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 71 Today's Topics: Mir elements, 5 December 1987 space news from Nov 2 AW&ST Cashew nut heat shield Re: Cashew nut heat shield Re: NAVSTAR (was Re: space news from Oct 5 AW&ST) "Final Frontier" -- new space mag Re: Recycling Pershing-II's (long) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Dec 87 20:30:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements, 5 December 1987 Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 953 Epoch: 87336.98605706 Inclination: 51.6288 degrees RA of node: 3.7520 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0012358 Argument of perigee: 79.1413 degrees Mean anomaly: 281.1023 degrees Mean motion: 15.79146397 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00025156 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 10272 For those who are interested, the latest object (most likely a Progress supply vehicle) docked to the Mir/Kvant complex is NORAD catalog 18658, international ID 1982.094.A. Good viewing opportunities this weekend through much of the Midwest. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 87 00:20:27 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Nov 2 AW&ST [The summaries for the next little while are going to be especially terse. I am taking an extended Christmas vacation this year, and want to get as caught-up as possible, so I have to emphasize quantity over quality for a little while.] ESA's Eureca reusable platform has been booked on the 18th post-resumption shuttle flight. Japan runs glide tests on spaceplane models. [Remember how NASA was going to ask for both CRAF and AXAF as new starts this year?] Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting says it will approve *no* new starts in FY89 budget, due to the deficit. NASA will appeal the decision. Space station delays also threatened. Air&Space Museum and Imax ask USSR to fly an Imax camera on one of their manned missions, to contribute to an Imax film on world space activities. Titan 34D launch Oct 26 successful, carrying KH-11 spysat into polar orbit from Vandenberg. Just in time, the only other KH-11 in orbit is getting very near the end of its life. Another Titan is on the pad at the Cape, for launch soon; payload is probably an early-warning satellite (here too there is an urgent need to replace aging birds) but might be a pair of military comsats. Eosat is actively marketing a 5-m-resolution imaging capability for media use, to fly in 1994 on Landsat 7. This is half the informal lower limit on US civilian imaging set some years ago. Trouble is predicted when Eosat applies for a formal license for the system, perhaps two years from now. Eosat has also decided to add an ocean sensor on Landsat 6 (1991). USAF Space Command boss says Soviet antisatellite lasers are capable of damaging sensors and solar panels on Clarke-orbit satellites, and could destroy low-orbit satellites. Caution: he said this while appealing for more in-space tests of the US antisatellite system, still banned by Congress. NASA acts to improve its space-commercialization image, notably lifting the moratorium on new joint NASA-industry agreements. Commercial payloads have 28% of shuttle secondary-payload capacity on non-DoD flights. Shuttle managers expected to boost allowable landing weights for shuttle, which will also boost launch weight. NASA is interested in industrial "payloads of opportunity", to be available as last-minute additions to missions. A possible reason for all this is that a DoC policy review has suggested radical changes in policy, including limiting NASA's role in commercial space activities and shifting space-station operations responsibility from NASA to industry. General Dynamics signs with USAF to use the Cape for up to eight commercial Atlas launches per year, plus some degree of activity from Vandenberg. Gerry O'Neill tells Eascon (Electronics & Aerospace Systems Conference) that getting commercial space activity going is far more important than boosting NASA's budget slightly. NASA Advisory Council task force on commercialization says likewise. "Those who make US policy need to understand that its inability to win a competition for a $100M launch contract is equivalent in economic terms to the import of 10,000 Toyotas or the loss of 5000 jobs..." Task force team visiting Soviet space facilities says that Soviet program's decision- making is much more centralized, a major improvement on the US's "relatively cumbersome interagency process that tends to blunt creativity and initiative." NASA, under Congressional pressure, is looking much harder at using Space Industries' Industrial Space Facility as a space-station precursor. Also, SII and Westinghouse will jointly acquire the Astrotech facilities at KSC for use as ground control and payload processing center for ISF. Geostar awards $100M contract to GE for two commercial navsats, options on two more. Pictures of CRESS (Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite), being modified for launch on Atlas instead of shuttle. The mission is being cut back a bit as a result. TVSat 1, Europe's first direct-broadcast comsat, is in final preparation for launch on Ariane. It has been in storage for over a year. Arianespace training additional launch teams to cover increased flight rate scheduled for next year. Mir is now using new momentum wheels for precision pointing, reducing thruster fuel consumption and environment contamination. The system came up as part of Kvant because there was not room on Mir itself. Momentum offloading is done by occasional use of gravity-gradient stabilization (or thruster firings, if in a hurry). Mir is using an electrolytic-decomposition system for oxygen supply, replacing the bulky chemical cartridges used on Salyut, and some sort of new system for carbon-dioxide removal that expels the CO2 into space instead of absorbing it in chemicals that need regular replacement. The propulsion system for the Soviet Phobos probes is the first use of a new modular propulsion system intended for a wide variety of uses. "Aerospace Forum" contribution by Roy Gibson, ex-head of British National Space Center (also ex-director-general of ESA). Actually light on content, but pushes for more commercial involvement. "National and international space agencies will need to overcome an understandable wish to keep control of the action and to break off pieces to throw to the private sector when they are ready, rather than involving them in a definition of a joint operation." -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Sender: "Christopher_Thompson.SBDERX"@xerox.com Date: 8 Dec 87 06:23:24 PST (Tuesday) Subject: Cashew nut heat shield From: "Chris_Thompson.SBDERX"@xerox.com Cc: Chris.SBDERX@xerox.com Reply-To: Chris.SBDERX@xerox.com Taken from the London Daily Telegraph 8/12/87 "SPACECRAFT HEAT SHIELD IS NUTS India is to be the first nation to launch a spaceship composed partly of vegetable matter. The heat shields of future spacecraft, which prevent the vehicle from burning up when it re-enters the atmosphere, are to be made from cashew nuts, Mr Karthik Narayanan, Minister for Science and Technology, told Parliament. He said a heat-resistant resin based on liquid extracted from cashew nut shells had been developed by the Regional Research Laboratory in Kerala, the country's largest cashew nut producer. It was well suited for heat shields. The evergreen cashew trees, already used for making hard wood products like crates, grow in profusion on India's coastlines, although they are not native to the country. They were brought there from South America in the 15th century by missionaries. Scientists in Britain said yesterday that the idea was not as eccentric as it might sound. Wood can be hardened until it is strong as steel. A Kew Gardens spokesman said 'This particular resin is very tough. It is used for such things as tanning and preserving fishing nets and preserving wood from termite attacks.' This is the first time vegetable matter has been used for the exterior of a spaceship. All American and Russian spacecraft (as far as it is known) use exotic metals and ceramics. Only in the interior, in furniture fittings and in spacesuits is 'natural' material used" Anyone care to comment? Is this the answer to all the heat tile problems of the shuttle?! Chris Thompson, SBD-E, Rank Xerox Answer to: Chris.sbderx@xerox.com ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 87 19:37:11 GMT From: palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu (David Palmer) Subject: Re: Cashew nut heat shield In article <871208-062406-4560@Xerox> Chris.SBDERX@xerox.com writes: >"SPACECRAFT HEAT SHIELD IS NUTS >India is to be the first nation to launch a spaceship composed partly >of vegetable matter. According to an Aviation Leak of ~3 months ago, China is using oak wood for a heat shield for some of its spacecraft. I don't know whether any of these have been launched. David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 87 02:14:27 GMT From: cos!akt@uunet.uu.net (Amit Thakur) Subject: Re: NAVSTAR (was Re: space news from Oct 5 AW&ST) In article <1595@faline.bellcore.com>, karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > Actually, there may well be a less sinister reason for giving civilians > a different mode than the military reserves for itself. > > It is pretty much a fact of life in communications that any signal you > can receive, you can jam. This goes for spread spectrum just as for > conventional narrowband modes. The fact that the C/A (clear access) code > on GPS is a simple length 1023 linear polynomial that is public > knowledge also makes it possible to jam the system. The military > channel of GPS is spread with a different code that is the product of > two very long, relatively prime PN sequences. One has length 15,345,000 > and the other 15,345,037. At 10.23 million chips/sec, this code would > take 38 weeks to repeat, but it is instead restarted every week at 0000 > UTC Sunday. By keeping this sequence secret, it becomes much harder to > jam the signal. > > Of course, because the sequence repeats each week, it is at least > theoretically possible to record the entire spread signal for later use > -- if you have a receiver with enough extra performance to make up for > the lack of coding gain, and if you have a place to put all those bits. > > Phil According to my calculator, 10.23 * 10^6 * 3600 * 24 * 7 = 6.187104 * 10 ^ 12 bits = 773.388 Gigabytes. Even double that figure wouldn't be too much for a determined adversary. Just go out and buy a few thousand Gigabyte disk drives.... But, I presume in time of war, the code would be changed? (I presume the sequences can be changed. Which brings up an interesting question: Can a satellite be "captured" and a given sequence up-loaded? Then, *you* could use the satellite, and deny its use to the enemy, at least until the enemy captured the satellite back from you. Or perhaps, one could jam the satellite control frequencies by intense (microwave) beams. Or are the uplink channels spread spectrum also? Why not just fry the satellite with microwaves? (Have I just stepped into an SDI discussion? OH NO) ) Cheers, akt akt@cos.com ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 87 18:20:31 GMT From: nisc.nyser.net!weltyc@nisc.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: "Final Frontier" -- new space mag I just got an offer to be a charter subsciber to "Space Frontiers", a new magazine devoted to space. "At last a magazine that promises you the stars, and delivers". Well, since they haven't published anything yet, and there is no list of who is involved, I think I'm gonna sign up. I'll volunteer to provide this list with a critique of this magazine - and even (on the off chance it prints anything worthwhile) summarize interesting articles, following Henry's lead. The address, for anyone interested in finding out for themselves (and hasn't already gotten an offer), is Final Frontier Suite 115, 6800 France Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55435 Christopher Welty --- Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!rutgers!nysernic!weltyc ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 87 03:58:26 GMT From: rochester!kodak!ornitz@louie.udel.edu (barry ornitz) Subject: Re: Recycling Pershing-II's (long) In article <8712071321.aa27796@note.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube) writes: >Today's Washington Post [Monday] discusses INF missile disposal. > >"One of the INF treaty's most unorthodox provisions will > . . . It is sad to see the waste of perfect usable (with warhead removed :-) ) high altitude launch vehicles. A number of Nike-Zeus, Hercules, etc. missiles of the fifties and sixties were sold or donated to research organizations for high altitude research studies. It is too bad the same could not be done with these. Such missiles would be ideal to study ozone depletion, for example, if fitted with the proper instrumentation for a payload. Perhaps a number of such missiles could be donated to the international research community as an alternate (and beneficial) means of destruction. I am sure that both sides do not want to give out secrets of their guidance systems, however. I feel that this is a minor problem that could be resolved easily with a little diplomacy. If you agree, call your representatives in Washington. Why waste many millions in a big fireworks display when you can find a good peaceful use? Barry Dr. Barry L. Ornitz UUCP:...!rochester!kodak!ornitz ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #71 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Dec 87 06:16:07 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02273; Thu, 10 Dec 87 03:21:39 PST id AA02273; Thu, 10 Dec 87 03:21:39 PST Date: Thu, 10 Dec 87 03:21:39 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712101121.AA02273@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #72 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 72 Today's Topics: Large spinning objects in orbit More on Pershing-II's Re: solar cells Consequences of Space Station Contractual Obligations SS & LISP automation/robotics on space station, why not Re: Graphics Software Re: Brown Dwarf and media idiocy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 08 Dec 87 12:26:25 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Subject: Large spinning objects in orbit The following is commentary by Keith F. Lynch on some of the details of a SF story he critiqued for me. The background is a large space station "Oberon"* in Earth orbit, consisting of several modules on the ends of long (order of 20 kilometers) cables, spun relatively slowly (1/5 of a RPM) to produce roughly 1 gee of centrifugal "gravity". The question involves, what orbits can you reach by being "flung" off of the end of the arms? In particular, can you re-enter (i.e., reach an orbit that intersects the Earth). ____________________________ *Gotta think of a better name of the space station for the second draft--this name is quite confusing since it is also a moon. From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: story Assuming that the three hour orbit of Oberon is circular, and assuming that its rotation axis equator is parallel to its plane of its orbit around the Earth, then the lowest you can get by letting go is 1660 kilometers. You can't hit the Earth. I tried adding extra velocity, [but you need] an extra 370 meters per second to get to within 40 kilometers of Earth's surface. If you multiply the radius of Oberon four-fold [to 80 kilometers] and double its rotation period [to 1/10 RPM] you will get the same apparent gravity, and you can hit the Earth by letting go. Alternatively, change the three hour orbit to a two hour orbit. Or simply assert that the three hour orbit is not circular. It is not true in any case that you can get almost anywhere in Earth orbit by letting go. Any such orbit will return to its starting point. In general, any orbit will return to the point at which thrust was last applied. This is not to say Oberon will be there, unless the periods are in the ratio of small integers, but it will pass through that altitude. To get a circular orbit you have to do a circularizing burn. Unless, of course, Oberon is in an elliptical orbit. This could get interesting, if you have several such stations, etc. I worked out the tidal effect on Oberon. It is very small, but things do weigh a little more when Earth is straight down or straight up. It is possible to gain energy from this effect, for instance by attaching a generator to a weight on a spring scale. I spent several hours trying to figure out just where this energy is coming from, and I think it comes from the spin of the station. Then I spent a few more hours trying to figure out where the angular momentum goes if you spin down the station in this way. As far as I can see, it goes to alter the orbit. I think this is the same effect as makes the moon recede from the Earth over the ages. I will have to think about this some more, as there seems to be a lot of potential there (no pun intended). It's pretty late, so I hope you will excuse me for not proofreading this. Enclosed is a Pascal program I used to work this stuff out. I hope you know Pascal. The equations are all my own derivation, and are open to criticism, though I would be extremely surprised if any are wrong. The function names should be clear, even if you don't know Pascal. Sqr for square. Sqrt for square root. Ln is natural log, and Exp is e to the x. ...Keith Program GL; { Test Geoffrey Landis's space station dynamics } Const { Program by Keith Lynch, December 1987 } Re = 6.371E+6; { Radius of Earth } { All units are MKS } Ae = 9.80; { Acceleration at Earth's surface } Ro = 20000.0; { Oberon arm length, given as 20 kilometers } Po = 291.0; { Oberon rotation period, given as thrice 97 sec } Pe = 10800.0; { Oberon revolution period, given as 3 hours } Vx = 0.0; { Extra velocity} Var Ra: Real; { Altitude, from Earth's center, of Oberon } Vo: Real; { Velocity of Oberon's arms, relative to center } As: Real; { Acceleration at end of Oberon's Arm } Va: Real; { Orbital velocity of Oberon } Vm: Real; { Velocity leaving Oberon } Rp: Real; { Perigee altitude, from Earth's Center  Begin Vo := 2.0 * Pi * Ro / Po; As := Sqr(Vo) / Ro; WriteLn('Acceleration in Oberon is ',As); Ra := Exp((2.0/3.0) * Ln(Pe*Re*Sqrt(Ae)/(2.0*Pi))); WriteLn('Altitude of station from Earth''s surface is ',Ra-Re); Va := 2.0 * Pi * Ra / Pe; WriteLn('Orbital velocity of Oberon is ',Va); Vm := Va - Vo; WriteLn('Orbital velocity of resultant orbit is ',Vm); Vm := Vm - Vx; Rp := Sqr(Vm) * Sqr(Ra) / (2.0 * Ae * Sqr(Re) - Sqr(Vm) * Ra); WriteLn('Perigee alt. from Earth''s surface, is ',Rp-Re) End. P.S. Have fun with it. Note that you can replace Va - Vo with Va + Vo to see how HIGH you can get, if you let go when going FASTEST relative to Earth. If you get a negative answer, you have exceeded escape velocity. ...Keith [I estimated about a half percent variation in apparent weight due to tidal effects. The idea of getting energy out of the orbit from the "tidal" force is new to me. The version of Pascal that I have access to requires a line saying that "Pi = 3.14159;". --GL] --Geoffrey A. Landis, Ph.D BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University new net address: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU ------------------------------ Subject: More on Pershing-II's Date: Wed, 09 Dec 87 14:37:43 -0500 From: Fred Baube >From the Wednesday Washington Post, excerpted without permission. "[The treaty documents] spell out detailed procedures for exploding, burning, crushing, flattening all Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) within three years." The key word would seem to be "all". "[T]he treaty will eliminate 926 shorter-range Soviet missiles, .. and 170 shorter-range US missiles, which are all in storage in the United States. "The treaty will also eliminate 826 medium-range Soviet missiles, .. and 689 US medium-range missiles, 429 of which are at missile bases in Western Europe. "A treaty protocol requires that the missiles be destroyed at designated sites. Each side may destroy up to 100 medium-range missiles within the first six months by launching them from existing missile test ranges." It would appear that the only way a recycling initiative will make headway is thru the Senate; such amendments would have to be agreed to by the Supreme Soviet. The Senate switchboard is at (202) 224-3121, open 24 hours although they suggest calling between 9 and 5. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 87 16:53:27 GMT From: K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU!lindsay@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) Subject: Re: solar cells Since Ovshinsky's name has been mentioned, I think I should post a warning. Not to lay it on too thick.. and not to get myself sued .. but: His company has a looong tradition of not delivering. They get in bed with some corporate giant, the giant gets unhappy, they part. The giant cuts losses by letting Ovshinsky keep everything. The TV show was hilarious to me, since I've been following his progress for years. The voiceover kept skirting the failures and putting a good face on things. Nice balancing act. When Ovshinsky announced a breakthrough in the new-type superconductors, the general reaction was that he (more than others) would have to prove his claims. That said, amorphous silicon should be a good way to make cheap solar cells. Ovshinsky's company has more background in amorphous silicon than anyone else. I very much want him to make it on this one. It could happen, and the sooner the better. -- Don lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu CMU Computer Science ------------------------------ Reply-To: lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov Date: Mon, 7 Dec 87 19:53:24 PST From: lll-crg!ames!scubed!sdcsvax!pnet01.cts.com!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Consequences of Space Station Contractual Obligations We've heard a lot about how development/operation of the space station by NASA will not be allowed to "steal" funding from projects which are more directly in line with NASA's scientific charter. By creating substantial contractual obligations in the face of unprecedented pressure to cut government spending, how are we to believe that NASA is going to protect these scientific projects? A contract is a contract -- if/when Congress refuses to increase NASA funding enough to cover all the bases, what gives? UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Subject: SS & LISP Date: Tue, 08 Dec 87 13:40:18 -0500 From: Fred Baube I recall someone in the group saying that LISP had been disapproved as a development language for Space Station software. Can anyone supply information and/or speculation on why this was done ? Is NASA planning on making any push in AI ? In the past, the DoD seems to have succeeded at putting basic research on paths that also encompassed development, prototyping, and acquisition. It seems obvious that for NASA to emulate this, they would want to permit LISP in SS development, even if there is no "one tried and true" LISP dialect. Is AI being left to the Star Warriors and the endo-atmospheric services ? EE Times quotes a Defense Science Advisory Board as saying that Battle Mgmt is a shambles and there is *NO* coherent software plan for SDI. The FAA ATC computer acquisition (another distributed real-time system) is a mess (good article in Monday's Washington Post). Black Monday exhibited problems of feedback and instability when humans are taken out of the decision-making loop. If these items are any guide, SDI software is *not* going to set the world on fire. [No pun intended!]. Could it be that Gorby is relaxing demands re. SDI because they have judged that either .. (1) they may actually beat us to the punch in testing a *system* (not just a collection of killer vehicles), or at least that (2) there is *no way* we can have a working *system* in the near term (5-8 years) ? ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 87 18:22:06 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: automation/robotics on space station, why not > Why does the space station neither need nor can it afford automation > and robotics? I could rant on this at some length, but I lack the time right now, so I'll just hit the three high points: 1. It will be very expensive. The research needed to bring the state of the art up to a useful level actually probably won't be overly costly in relation to the benefits gained, unless an attempt is made to hurry it along -- and that might be necessary, given the schedule. (I note, however, that "the benefits gained" do not necessarily relate to the space station, and hence it is not clear that it should pay for them.) However, development of actual flight hardware will be *massively* expensive unless it is done very differently from the way NASA does everything else these days. Leading-edge technology developed on government contract by aerospace contractors costs a bundle. 2. It probably will not work very well. NASA's history of automated space systems may seem good; look at Voyager and such. However, all Voyager did was take pictures. Interacting with one's environment is much trickier. In that area, NASA's experience has been less successful. A major example is shuttle-based satellite retrieval/repair: Solar Max, Palapa/Westar, Leasat. The Solar Max repair relied heavily on an automated docking system, in which NASA placed such confidence that there wasn't even a manual override; the result was nearly a disaster, saved more by luck than by good management. The Palapa/Westar retrieval again was set up with fancy custom-built equipment, but this time there was a manual backup, which was just as well because the equipment once again did not work. The Leasat repair went as planned, partly because it relied entirely on human beings plus a few simple tools. On both the earlier missions, the problem was not bad equipment but an environment that was not quite what the designers had expected. Complex automated systems seldom work well until after lengthy testing under operational conditions; the immense cost of access to space guarantees that such testing will not be available. Claims of how robotics are essential because of the difficulties involved in human work assume that the robotic equipment will *work* the first time. Not likely, at least not without a lot of human intervention and troubleshooting -- precisely what we were trying to avoid! 3. It is not necessary. None of the nine space stations launched to date have made any significant use of automation and robotics. Interestingly enough, they seem to have been successful nevertheless. The US needs a working space station in orbit much more badly than it needs truly wondrous capabilities which will be ready Real Soon Now. I agree, actually, that *affordable*, *working* automation and robotics could be a significant asset to a space station. In the real world, however, it would be far more cost-effective to spend a much smaller amount of money making *humans* more effective: things like better spacesuits and easier access to equipment would help a lot. If you add up the probable long-term costs of developing automation and robotics, and debugging them *in orbit*, I suspect you will find that it's cheaper to add one or two extra crewmen dedicated to housekeeping chores. Yes, it costs a lot to add more crew; it will cost *more* to add automation and robotics. And the single biggest danger to the space station is not space debris or air drag or equipment failure, but its stupefying and still-rising price tag. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 87 20:43:59 GMT From: idacrd!mac@princeton.edu (Bob McGwier) Subject: Re: Graphics Software in article <8712041352.aa26474@FHP2.HUACHUCA-EM.ARPA>, steep-mo-m@HUACHUCA-EM.ARPA (John Shaver Modernization Office) says: > Does anyone know of software for the IBM PC/PC Clones which will > graphically display satellite ground tracks and which will calculate > the earth observers azimuth and elevation angles? Are there astronomy > programs which might relate? Would appreciate any responses. Contact > me by email or AV 879/7622 or COM 602 538 -7622. Thanks John I wrote a program for the IBM PC and clones that does all that you have asked. It is available from AMSAT (the Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation) Software Exchange, (301)-589-6062. It is called Quiktrak 3.1 Bob McGwier (N4HY) ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 87 14:31:16 GMT From: steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@uunet.uu.net (Mike Trout) Subject: Re: Brown Dwarf and media idiocy For those who thought I was ignoring the valid points raised by media critics, not true. As this is an argument that goes back to ancient Greece and really does not need to be posted in sci.space, I planned to reply by e-mail. I was also waiting for an article to appear that I was going to use in my discussion. The article is now available and I'm ready to answer my critic. Unfortunately, our *$@#!#$ system has erased the text and path of the person that answered my posting on this subject. I must confess that I don't even remember the name of the person that I was arguing with. Would whoever it was please e-mail me your name and path? Thanks, and don't worry; this will be an intelligent discussion, not a flaming diatribe. Most of the points you raised were quite valid; my problem is with your focus. Those of us that are responsible broadcast journalists are becoming increasingly handicapped by producers, bean-counters, consultants, "analysts", and other non-news types that are interested in only one thing: ratings. Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) =-=-=-=-=-=-= UUCP:brspyr1!miket BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #72 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Dec 87 06:18:23 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04465; Fri, 11 Dec 87 03:18:31 PST id AA04465; Fri, 11 Dec 87 03:18:31 PST Date: Fri, 11 Dec 87 03:18:31 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712111118.AA04465@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #73 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 73 Today's Topics: Re: Recycling Pershing-II's (long) Shuttle Operator's Manual Re: Mini Big Dumb Booster Planetary B Re: Pro-space commercials (was: Failing memory => 2 questions) *Final Frontier* Magazine Vegetable Spaceships Re: Cashew nut heat shield - India was not the first Remote Sensing Fascism Treaties with the Russians Re:Cashew nut heat shield - India was not the first 2001 N. Clark St. Re: Cashew nut heat shield ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Dec 87 14:55:30 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI To: rochester!kodak!ornitz@louie.udel.edu Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Recycling Pershing-II's (long) I wonder if one of the pro-space organizations could have its lawyers file for an injunction against the destruction of any usable missles? The government has a long history of wanton destruction of surplus material, most notably under the guise of "de-militarization", which instead should have been donated or sold via normal property-disposal channels. (These procedures provide enough already-built-in safeguards to prevent such missles from getting to "incorrect" destinations, like middle-east states or whatever.) I'm sure there are existing stautes against waste of government-owned materials that would be violated by the actual destruction of these missles. (Of course, government organizations conveniently ignore such regulations for "policy" reasons, when they would enforce them with great zeal against some low-level property-disposal officer who screwed up!) Also, if they are destroyed by firing, as a previous posting mentioned, won't they have to have dummy warheads installed to make their weight-and-balance parameters be correct? And won't the government have to go out and procure sizable numbers of such dummy warheads, at some vast defense-contractor-sole-source contract price, because they don't have enough to use up this way? (I'm sure they have some, for training and test flights, but nowhere near enough to immediately replace all the real warheads of the decommissioned missles!) It seems, therefore, that the best route to prevent the shameful waste of valuable research vehicles would be the judicial route, not contacting legislators. Legislation would take too long to be useful, and enough laws exist already that could be used in this context to achieve worthwhile ends. Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 87 04:32 O From: Subject: Shuttle Operator's Manual There was some talk on "the Space Shuttle Operator's Manual"... I've had the book for quite a while and in spite of noting a couple of errors in it, it seems a pretty nice reference book for shuttle dimensions etc. The most glaring error was in a illustration titled something like: "Shuttle pilot & co-pilot launch position" - the pictures looked more like landing position, since the shuttle was horizontal ! This brings up an interesting question: since the shuttle is vertical when attached to the ET and SRB's for launch, how do the astronauts manage themselves to their seats and do their jobs in an environment designed (mostly) for micro- gravity or with the other orientation of 1G in mind ? I've never seen this "properly" explained, though this would seem to pose a pretty elaborate problem with handholds, ladders and seating in 1G- environment. I'm not an expert on ergonomics, but to me the pilot's positions look like they could be somewhat tiring if one had to sit there for several hours, clicking switches and turning knobs, in the shuttle launch position. (about Swedish history: the Swedes were *real* good only when Finland was still a part of Sweden. After that - well... there are *still* areas in the Balkans where the kids are told to eat their dinners nice, or the Finnish "hakkapeliitta" [name for Finnish top-notch batallions] will come and take them :-) Otto J. Makela, U of Jyvaskyla Mail: Kauppakatu 1 B 18, SF-40100 Jyvaskyla, Finland Phone: +358 41 613 847 BBS: +358 41 211 562 (V.22bis/V.22/Bell 212A/V.21) BitNet: MAKELA_OTTO_@FINJYU.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 87 18:04:56 GMT From: tikal!sigma!uw-nsr!brett@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Brett Van Steenwyk) Subject: Re: Mini Big Dumb Booster I think I remember something of this 1 in 70 statistic too. Before the Space Shuttle, solid-fueled rocket boosters were not put on manned flights for something of this reason. Why this rule happened to be broken in the case of the shuttle may be found in the context of all the other violations of common sense that went on in the design. Usually a solid rocket failure comes from an aberrant change in the internal geometry of the fuel. The axis hole MUST have a consistent cross-sectional area and the surface of this hole must have a constant area all the way through the rocket. This is difficult to maintain, however as the visco- elastic properties of the fuel leads to slumping. Sometimes the fuel slumps and cracks, leading to a runaway burn and an explosion, sometimes the fuel slumps and blocks the axis hole, leading to an explosion. There's a whole procedure in storing solid-fueled rockets--tilting them this way and that every several months--to minimize this slumping. Inspection of the SRB's is easy--the axis hole is large enough for an engineer to crawl up inside and gouge out any cracks (what is his insurance like?:-). Several years ago the employees of Morton Thiokol got a variation on the paint jobs on their cars when an explosion on one of the test stands about a mile away sent a shower of burning solid fuel debris down on the main parking lot--that's what a solid rocket failure normally means to me. The whole segmented casing design, unless done gingerly, I would think would invite a runaway burn, but that does not seem to be the major problem in this case. I wonder how common a failure mode the Challenger "accident" was--for that kind of failure, what are the chances of it blowing up way out over the Atlantic (as it did), versus blowing up (with an actual solid booster blowing up) near the ground. The latter mode would, of course, endanger many more people. --Brett Van Steenwyk ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 87 17:15:36 GMT From: unc!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Planetary B The December Space World has an ELV manifest for 1988-1991. It includes a listing for 'Planetary B/U', to be launched 5/91 on a Titan IV/IUS. I've never heard of a mission by this name. Does B/U mean something obvious? The time frame is about right for Mars Observer but presumably this is something else. Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 87 22:39:32 GMT From: ems!rosevax!kksys!bird@UMN-CS.ARPA (0000-Mike Bird) Subject: Re: Pro-space commercials (was: Failing memory => 2 questions) In article <12355849513.64.SOTOS@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU> SOTOS@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU (John Sotos) writes: >(1) I was really surprised a couple nights ago to see on late night TV >a commercial (featuring Helen Hayes and Whoopi Goldberg) plugging the I haven't seen the Helen Hayes and Whoopi Goldberg, But I've seen one done by "old blue eyes" Frank Sinatra and Willie Nelson. I don't remember that any organization claimed credit for the commercials, but I suppose it could have been NASA. Or else the new combined National Space Institute/L-5 society organization, the National Space Society (I believe) are doing them. I dropped out of both organizations just before they merged, so I don't know what they've been up to lately. Whoever's doing them, let's hope they keep up the good work! ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 87 08:04:00 PST From: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" Subject: *Final Frontier* Magazine To: "space" Reply-To: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" The rumor I heard at OASIS (the Los Angeles NSS chapter) is *Final Frontier* is "undercapitalized," and will probably not last a year. I already get *Space World* by being a NSS member, NASA's *Tech Briefs*, and several other freebies which occasionally have articles on space. I, for one, will hold off on getting *Final Frontier* until I've seen a few issues. Unlike my creditors, *Final Frontier* will not send anyone to my apartment and harass me if I don't subscribe. I look forward to Chris Welty's review of the first issue, and I hope those of you who join him in subscribing also send in your comments. Kevin "Mad Max" Bold | Honk and wave at the bright red Fiero GT (BOLD@AFSC-SD.ARPA) | with California plates reading 4DMNSNS ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Dec 87 00:26:52 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu Subject: Vegetable Spaceships >India is to be the first nation to launch a spaceship composed partly >of vegetable matter. I know that some of the early test versions for Mars probes used balsa wood for some applications. Balsa is a really amazing material, extremely light and strong. (It is also an extremely *variable* material. I've seen balsa as light as 3 pounds/cubic foot and heavier than 40. Pardon the antique density units.) Balsa was picked, I believe, because it had excellent impact-absorbant properties. I think none of the designs using balsa ended up on the final version, though. --Geoffrey A. Landis, Ph.D BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Brown University Other news: Well, looks like I'll probably be doing a postdoc at NASA Lewis in Cleveland (still working on solar cells, though), starting either late January or beginning of Feb. Gosh, I'll be a colleague of Eugene Miya! Can't wait. --GL ------------------------------ Date: 10 Dec 87 21:26:33 GMT From: sunybcs!kitty!larry@ames.arpa (Larry Lippman) Subject: Re: Cashew nut heat shield - India was not the first In article <385@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM>, freeman@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM (Jay Freeman) writes: > I seem to recall that wood was occasionally used for structure in some > of the early (pre-Sputnik) research rockets. I believe that the U. S. > "Viking" (single-stage, vintage early 1950's, antecedent of the first > stage of the Vanguard satellite launch vehicle) was one such. Perhaps > the first stage of Vanguard also used wood. Speaking as both an engineer and chemist, the use of organic material for a heat shield does not surprise me. Such organic material would provide ablative shielding. As it was heated and underwent combustion, it would form carbon (i.e., like charcoal); such carbon has great insulating capabilitity before it, too would undergo complete combustion. Heat energy as produced by air friction can be prevented from entering the interior of a space vehicle through: (1) insulation, (2) absorption by physical means, or (3) consumption through chemical reaction. It would appear that the use of an organic heat shield is somewhat unusual in that it combines all three of the above. There may even be a fourth method involving heat reflection as caused by the formation of an intermediate carbon layer during what is a "layered" combustion process, but I don't know enough about the mechanisms involved to speculate in more detail. I have no idea what the practical design trade-offs are with respect to the above three methods. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 1987 16:34-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Remote Sensing Fascism Anyone interested in the issues surrounding the DOD's unconstitutional and idiotic repression of American private remote sensing should read the article, "A Spy Satellite for the Press?", Science Magazine, 4-Dec-87, pg 1346. If it weren't so sad, it would be comedic. The only question all this leaves me with is, when did we start training our people with the KGB? 'Our' (I use the term VERY loosely since I'm not really sure which side they are on) people have obviously learned how to lie about the existance of things which are common knowledge, a tactic that I used to think was purely russian. I once again applaud our overseas friends in the various foreign public (commercial/civil) remote sensing programs that are embarrassing the hell out of people who deserve far worse. Keep up the good work. PS: Is it now appropriate to address members of the DOD and the various spook agencies as Comrade? ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 87 21:40:42 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!codas!ablnc!rcpilz@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Robert C. Pilz) Subject: Treaties with the Russians I recently heard that we can verify missles from space with spy satellites so powerful that they can track the movement of a puck on the ice of a hockey game in Moscow. Mind boggling. If that makes us willing to go into the treaty, the Soviets must have a similar device. This I believe because they trust us as much as we do they. An interesting aside on this. Three or four times this Summer, a salvo of Pershing II missles were fired from Cape Canaveral. In retrospect, I believe this was done for the benefit of Soviet tracking devices. I'm fairly sure that as a result of the Cuban missle crisis, the US has an undocumented agreement with the USSR to announce the type of launch and time of launch of any missle going up from the Cape. This is logical since it is so close in distance to Cuba. A promise of this type would assure them that we will not attack Cuba from this point. Most launches are public knowledge anyway. But, I believe that the Pershing launchings were done preannounced to them so that they could track them with their devices and we are then on equal footing for the mutual signing of the treaty. I think a similar thing happened in the 70's prior to the SALT I signing. This time it was the ABM system at Kwajalein Island of the Marshalls in the Pacific. We have a system of Nike X and Sprint missles designed to knock out ICBM's. This non-nuclear weapon system, purely a defensive system was deamed "provocative" by the Soviets so their ABM system and ours were torn down. We each have one left. Ours is in Grand Forks ND (we have to keep Canada safe for Democracy, don't we?). I think that prior to that treaty we put on a show for their trawlers off of Kwaj. I think a lot of these kinds of background negotiations go on so that we are on equal footing when one of us does not have the hardware to verify the other's capabilities. I think it is healthy and a step in the right direction. This is a generic disclaimer. R.C. Pilz AT&T ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Dec 87 10:11:01 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Re:Cashew nut heat shield - India was not the first In SPACE digest v8, no. 71 Chris Thompson quoted the London Daily Telegraph's story about the use by India of cashew nuts in heat shields. The article contained the quote: >This is the first time vegetable matter has been used for the exterior >of a spaceship. All American and Russian spacecraft (as far as it is >known) use exotic metals and ceramics. While the Indians are to be complemented on their innovative use of materials at hand, unfortunately the press report could not be more wrong. The USSR's original Vostok 1 craft that launched Yuri Gagarin in April 1961 used a heat shield made from hard wood particles (Oak if I recall correctly) in an composite epoxy. The spherical surface was tiled in hexagonal shaped patterns with this. Since several test craft preceded this, flights with wood based shields probably go back to 1959-60. Indeed several of their photo return craft and other short duration vehicles still use the Vostok capsule design. I do not know if the heat shield has stayed the same, but if so that means plant mater based heat shields have been used for about 29 years in space. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Dec 87 16:46 EST From: GODDEN%gmr.com@relay.cs.net Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: 2001 N. Clark St. In vol.8 no.69 Bill Higgins wrote about a space meeting in Chicago and buried in his msg was a reference to the Chicago Academy of Sciences, which has its office on 2001 N. Clark St. in Chicago. What I'm interested in is HOW was this organization able to obtain that particular address, since I'm sure it's deliberate. Is there some interesting story that you might share on the net? -Kurt Godden godden@gmr.com ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 87 17:50:36 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (John Pantone) Subject: Re: Cashew nut heat shield Chris_Thompson writes: >"SPACECRAFT HEAT SHIELD IS NUTS Didn't(don't) the Japanese use Oak re-entry shields on their recoverable satellites? It may not be the Japaneese, but I did hear of such a thing recently on the net. The only reason I can think of for NOT using wood and/or organics is that they "seem low-tech" and we tend not to want to use anything but the newest high-tech stuff. (Even to the extent that we re-invent technology over and over again - instead of (like the Russians) using previously developed systems in new and innovative ways :-( ) John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, Data Management Group, San Diego ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.GE.COM ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #73 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Dec 87 06:16:19 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06496; Sat, 12 Dec 87 03:16:33 PST id AA06496; Sat, 12 Dec 87 03:16:33 PST Date: Sat, 12 Dec 87 03:16:33 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712121116.AA06496@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #74 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 74 Today's Topics: Condensed CANOPUS - November 1987 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Dec 87 12:16:34 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Condensed CANOPUS - November 1987 Here is the condensed CANOPUS for November 1987. There were 9 articles; two are given by title only, five are condensed, and two short ones are unabridged. Material in {braces} is from me and is signed {--SW} if wholly new or different from the original. I have omitted ellipses (...) at many places where material was removed, since putting them in everywhere was just too awkward. The unabridged CANOPUS was sent to the mailing list over a week ago, but there were some invalid paths. Send e-mail with the current path if your copy didn't arrive. CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Send correspondence about its contents to the executive editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded). Send correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA, 1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019. Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS widely, either electronically or as printout copies. If you do, however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many others receive copies. CANOPUS is partially supported by the National Space Science Data Center. {2 articles by title only} OTHER ITEMS FROM THE ESA BULLETIN -can871103.txt - 10/31/87 ELACHI PROMOTED - can871107.txt - 1/17/87 {at JPL} {7 articles} WATCHING 1987a DOWN UNDER - can871105.txt - 11/17/87 A NASA-Lockheed gamma ray package made its second flight from Alice Springs, Australia, in an effort to observe emissions from supernova 1987a. The package was launched Oct. 29 and coasted at 130,000 feet for 38 hours. ...two prototype models of the Burst and Transient Source Experiment that will fly on the Gamma Ray Observatory. Other balloon packages will be launched by the University of California at Riverside, the California Institute of Technology, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. At least one X-ray telescope has been launched atop a sounding rocket, and the Kuiper Airborne Observatory (with an infrared telescope).... {KAO flew from New Zealand in November. I have heard oral reports of successful observations but no details. --SW} SECONDARY PAYLOADS FOR SHUTTLE - can871106.txt - 11/17/87 {unabridged} Eleven secondary payloads have been announced for the STS-26 mission when the Shuttle resumes operations. Included are mesoscale lightning photography and Earth-limb radiance observations. Six deal with materials sciences while weightless, one is an infrared communications technology test, and two are student experiments. 25 FOR 25 - can871108.txt - 1/17/87 {condensed} NASA scored a string of 25 straight sounding rocket successes during March 21-Nov. 4, according to NASA's Wallops Flight Center. This includes five launches to support a plasma physics campaign at Sondre Stromfjord, Greenland, and six in the Middle Atmosphere Cooperation International Science Program (MAC Epsilon) in Andenes, Norway. About 2,500 sounding rockets have been launched since 1959 by NASA with an 86 percent success rate. The rate is 89 percent for the past five years. COMET PENETRATOR TESTED - can871109.txt - 11/17/87 {unabridged} Prototype of the penetrator for the Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby mission was tested in October at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuqueque, N.M. The 1.5-meter probe was dropped into hard ice at shallow angles to prove that penetrations could be made under the worst terrain conditions. Early tests in 1985 were performed by Principal Investigator William Boynton of the University of Arizona with a model dropped 150 feet off the university football stadium into a 55-gallon drum of ice. The current design of the penetrator includes a small tooth that will scrape off an ice sample for melting and gas analysis within the probe body. Additional tests will be conducted with higher-fidelity models of the proposed probe and with weak ice to understand the chances of firing the probe straight through the comet nucleus. CRAF tentatively is scheduled for launch in 1993. {Based on 1989 new start, which I understand OMB has now refused but NASA has appealed the refusal --SW} SOLAR TERRESTRIAL COOPERATION DETAILED - can871102.txt - 10/31/87 {condensed} Continuation of the Inter-Agency Consultative Group for Space Science (IACG). It was formed in 1981 to coordinate the international activities keyed to flyby of Halley's comet. Solar-terrestrial science was selected in November 1986 as the IACG's next project. 20 planned solar-terrestrial spacecraft including the International Solar Terrestrial Physics Program (NASA/ESA,ISAS), Ulysses (ESA/NASA), Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite (NASA/USAF), Interball (USSR), Relict 2 (USSR), Solar A (ISAS), the Upper Atmosphere Research satellite (NASA), and IKI-1 and 2 (USSR). NASA RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENTS - can871104.txt - 11/17/87 {condensed} Small Bodies Data Analysis Program (NRA 87-OSSA-9) and Pioneer Venus Data Analysis and Guest Investigator Program (NRA 87-OSSA-10). ESA BULLETIN DETAILS NEW ASTRONOMY MISSIONS - can871101.txt - 10/31/87 {condensed but long - last article} Three astrophysics missions under study as new start candidates. Selection is to be made by the end of 1988. The winner will undergo a Phase B study, followed by Phase C/D development in 1990-95, and launch by 1997. Latter pair {of missions} started as NASA-ESA missions, but have become ESA-led programs with possible Canadian and Australian participation as a result of the Challenger accident and NASA's leadership crisis. Gamma Ray Astronomy with Spectroscopy and Positioning (GRASP) High-resolution spectral imager covering the 15-100,000 keV spectral range. Spectroscopy in the 15-1,000 keV range with a resolution of 1/1,000 at 1,000 keV. Spatial resolution of about 1 arc-min in a 50-deg. field of view. Scientific goals for GRASP include observations of active galaxies, and locating and mapping point and extended sources in our own galaxy. LYMAN Ultravioled spectra {at shorter wavelengths than} the Lyman-alpha line (121.5 nm) Studies of stellar and interstellar atomic and molecular species. 80 cm f/10 grazing incidence telescope feeds spectrograph with spectral resolution about R=30,000. One or two secondary spectrographs may be added for shorter or longer wavelengths or both. Quasar Satellite (QUASAT) Quasat would deploy a 10-meter inflatable Kevlar radio telescope (down from 15 meters when it was a NASA-ESA mission). {Use with ground based radio telescopes for Very Long Baseline Interferometry to get very high spatial resolution. Advantages over purely ground-based system include higher spatial resolution and better images.} Recent tests using the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) have validated the concept. {Resolution may be as good as} 0.0003 arc-sec. Primary observing frequencies would be 22 GHz (water) and 1.6 GHz (hydroxyl) with 5 GHz added as a gap-filler. {for observing quasars, I presume --SW} A fourth frequency, 0.327 GHz, may be added for pulsar observations. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #74 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Dec 87 06:31:29 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08387; Sun, 13 Dec 87 03:21:35 PST id AA08387; Sun, 13 Dec 87 03:21:35 PST Date: Sun, 13 Dec 87 03:21:35 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712131121.AA08387@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #75 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 75 Today's Topics: Absolutely the last time ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Dec 87 00:01:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Absolutely the last time All right! I give up! I'll post it again! I've had so many more requests by E-mail for this list of companies to contact and hints for finding a job in the space industry that I'll post it *one*more*time*. Just once. This version contains over a dozen corrections and a few new addresses since the last one, so I feel a little bit justified in posting this much redundant information. Those of you who have copies of this, the text below supercedes all previous versions. (Gosh, I sound like a computer manual.) As usual, if you don't want to read this, just say "n". (Actually, it's "l" on our PLATO-like note reading system, but you know what I mean.) If you are very observant, you'll notice that I no longer am asking users of this list not to mention my name. I'm done with my job search now, so I don't mind if the people I've contacted in the various employment offices are deluged with letters saying "Ken Jenks told me to contact you...." After all, it *is* their job. -- Ken Jenks, Rockwell Shuttle Operations Co., as of 1/11/88! The University of Illinois will revoke my account on 20 December. It's been fun, folks! I'll be back in January! jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tear here - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This is a summary of my experiences while looking for a job in the space industry. I hope it will help someone else; I wish I had known all this when *I* started. May the future be as kind to you as it is to me. -- Ken Jenks, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks "For I dipt into the Future, far as human eye could see Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be; Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails, Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales." -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tear here - - - - - - - - - - - - - - General Aerospace Job Search Stategies: There are many job placement manuals available in the Placement Office of your nearby college or university. Even if you're no longer a student, you can probably still use some of the facilities. I won't cover what those manuals told me, but I will give some suggestions that I would have found helpful at the beginning of my job search in the space industry. As you can see from the following lists, I didn't always follow these suggestions. I wish I had. Note that US citizenship is required by almost all of the companies listed in this paper. 1) Start early. Aerospace companies typically spend 2 months thinking about your application before doing anything about it. In your first letter to the company, request that they send you an application. This will help speed things along and let them know that you're interested enough to spend the time filling in the form. NASA takes up to 9 months to process applications (see below). 2) Write well. I can't emphasize this enough. People get an impression of you from how you interact with them. If you come across as careless (typos, silly errors) or stupid (poor grammar, bad construction) they won't want to hire you. Period. All your engineering skills can't save you. Have a friend proofread. 3) Keep good records. As you send out letters and resumes, keep a record of the date you sent it and to whom you sent it. This will help you track your resumes and applications when they (inevitably) get lost. Also keep track of the dates of phone calls. 4) Use a telephone. A WATS line is VERY nice. You'll be making many long distance calls (I made over 150). You'll be put on hold and disconnected more times than you can count. But the immediacy of talking to a person instead of writing to a Mail Stop is very important. The people in the Personnel Office (whose names you should always record) will treat you as a person instead of just another applicant. 5) Talk to people, not departments. Always try to find the name of a PERSON to address your letters and phone calls to. This will help you keep track of your correspondence better, and make them treat you better. Names are powerful magic. 6) Know your history. Knowing what the space program has done in the past will aid you in your passage to the future. You'll see trends in the space industry and know a bit more about where things happen and why. It will also give you something to talk about with interviewers. This isn't terribly important, but it helps. 7) Be persistant. The companies aren't out to hire you; they're out to hire somebody. Anybody. You have to stick to your dreams and get those letters out. Follow up with phone calls (2 weeks later minumim). This will remind your contacts in the company that you still exist and are still interested. 8) Try to get ahold of the in-house newsletter from the company. Big aerospace firms like TRW, Boeing, and Rockwell all have a periodic circular which gives listings of positions available in the company. You might not be qualified for any of them, but it will tell you what divisions exist and are looking for people. NASA: The first place to look for a job in the space program is NASA. Not because they have the best jobs (debatable), but beacause it takes them FOREVER to get job applications processed. To apply, submit a resume and a copy of Standard Form 171 to them at least six months (!) before you want to interview, 9 months before you want the job. If I'd known this earlier, I might have have a job there. Instead, NASA and I both lose. SF-171 can be found at any Federal office. You can submit a Xerox of your SF-171 to each place, as long as you SIGN and DATE each individual copy. This will save you mucho time when filling out forms. The best way I've found to get addresses in NASA is to call (xxx) 555-1212 for the NASA Center you're interested in, then asking for the main switchboard. The NASA Centers, their location, area codes, and brief summaries of activity at each follows: Ames Research Center (ARC) Sunnyvale, CA (408) Mostly aeronautical (80%), some space-related (20%). Wind tunnels, VSTOL, 'copters, automation. Highly recommend contacting Eugene Miya (eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa). Dryden Edwards AFB, CA (619?) Land shuttle, flight research. Lotsa history here. Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Greenbelt, MD (301) Unmanned S/C, Earth orbiting satellites. Johnson Space Center (JSC) Houston, TX (713) 483-9591 (Jo Ellen Brown) or -3035 (Susan Braymer) Manned space program, astronaut training. NASA Johnson Space Center Attn: Mail Code AH73 Ms. Susam Braymer Houston, TX 77058 Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Titasville, FL (305) Launch facilities, Shuttle maintenance & repair. Engineering happens here; little or no research. Langley (Langley) Reston?, VA (703 or 804) Structures, aerodynamics, fluid flow, computation. Reston, VA is home of NASA HQ, including Space Station HQ. Lewis Research Center (Lewis) Cleveland, OH (216) 433-4000 (switchboard) Technical support, research. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Huntsville, AL (205) 544-0957 (personnel) Propulsion, rocketry. Speaking of NASA HQ, the best person to contact there seems to be Jack Garman Information Systems (703) 487-7100 -or- Ms. Debbie Fields Code SSI, Bldg. 3 10701 Park Ridge Blvd. Reston, VA 22091 She handles employment for Jack Garman. The following seem to be working for both General Dynamics and Boeing at NASA HQ. (I didn't quite understand the working arrangement.) Peter Dube (703) 648-0685 or (703) 827-7200 Susie Stuart (703) 648-0650 Human Resources Dept. 1801 Alexander Bell Dr. Reston, VA 22091 The following aren't your regular NASA Centers. Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) California Institute of Technology Attn: Recruitment & Placement 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasedena, CA 91109 (818) Actually a NASA contractor. Non-profit, planetary missions, power systems, bio research, many fingers in many pies, but almost no manned space activity. Wallops Flight Center (Wallops) Wallops Island, VA (804) Sounding rockets; > 11,000 launched. Contractors: This first group of companies was found from a Contractor List supplied by NASA Johnson Space Center's Personnel Dept. Most of the NASA Personnel Depts. have these lists. I've gotten them for JSC, KSC, MSFC, & ARC. JSC is the only list I've put on-line. Barrios Technology Attn: Ronda Monchak 1331 Gemini Houston, TX 77058 Boeing Aerospace Attn: Lois Ramey PO Box 58747 Houston, TX 77058 Computer Sciences Personnel Dept. 16511 Space Center Blvd. Houston, TX 77058 (713) 486-8153 ext 259 Control Data Corp. Attn: Maria Ward 9894 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77036 Ford Aerospace & Communications Attn: Alvin Dailey PO Box 58487 Houston, TX 77258 (713) 280-6236 GE Attn: Imma Lee Ross or Linda Pratt 1820 NASA Road #1 Houston, TX 77058 (713) 333-8605 (Imma Lee Ross) or (713) 333-8604 (Linda Pratt) Grumman Aerospace Personnel Dept. 2800 Space Park Drive Houston, TX 77058 (713) 333-2560 Grumman Houston Corp. Personnel Dept. 12310 Galveston Rd Attn: Freddy-Ann Marcussen Webster, TX 77598 Jefferson Associates, Inc. Attn: Limas Jefferson 1120 NASA Road #1 Suite 100 Houston, TX 77058 (713) 333-3414 Lockheed Engineering & Management Service Attn: Linda Nilsen 2400 NASA Road #1 Houston, TX 77058 (713) 333-6601 McDonnell Douglas Attn: C. D. Price 16055 Space Center Blvd. Houston, TX 77062 (713) 280-1500 ext 1761 --- (714) 952-6797 (Mr. Waller) Northrop Service, Inc. This plant closed 10/87. Attn: Carol Alcorta PO Box 34416 Houston, TX 77234 Singer Company Link Division Attn: Patricia Records 2224 Bay Area Blvd. Houston, TX 77058 Sperry Univac Corp. Attn: Modelle Mann 16811 El Camino Real Houston, TX 77058 UNISYS Attn: Frances M. Bond 600 Gemini Houston, TX 77058 Eagle Engineering That mysterious company found at last! P.O. Box 891049 Houston, TX 77289-1049 (713) 338-2682 (Shirley Reynolds) There are others on the JSC list, but I wasn't interested in them, so I didn't type them in. The following companies were found exclusively from net.pals: Spacehab Seattle based Space Industries Houston based External Tanks, Incorporated Tom Rogers Boulder, CO Third Millennium, Inc. 918 F Street NW, Suite 601 Washington DC 20004 PERMANENT, LTD 114 Westwick Ct #5 Sterling, VA 22170 (703) 444-1560 (voice) (703 or 202)-450-2732 (computer) The next list was found by a lot of hard work and many $ to Ma Bell. I took the list of Space Station contractors and tracked them all down. (Well, all but Analex and Rocketdyne. I'll get Rocketdyne soon, but Analex looks hopeless. Nobody has heard of it!) Alphabetical Listing of Space Station Companies and Segments: Key: #1: Segment I Crew and lab modules #2: Segment II Framework (main boom) #3: Segment III Free-flying platform and research eqpt. #4: Segment IV Power system Analex, #4 Nothing known. Boeing, #1 Also in Seattle, LA (213), Wash. DC, Renton VA. Contact Dani Eder in Seattle (eder@RUTGERS.EDU). He's been very helpful. --- The Boeing Company Employment Office PO Box 1470 Huntsville, AL 35807 (205) 461-2121 (Jeff Prince) Computer Sciences, #3 PO Box 21127 Kennedy Space Ctr, FL 32815 (305) 853-2484 8728 Colesville Rd Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301) 589-1545 304 W Rt 38 / PO Box N Moorestown, NJ 08057 (609) 234-1100 4835 University Sq Ste 8 Huntsville, AL 35816 (205) 830-1000 (Applied Tech Div) 200 Sparkman Dr N W Huntsville, AL 35805 (205) 837-7200 (Defense Sys Div) 6565 Arlington Blvd Falls Church, VA 22046 (703) 237-2000 (Energy Resch Div) 16511 Space Center Blvd. Houston, TX 77058 (713) 486-8153 ext 259 Eagle Engineering, #4 711 Bay Area Blvd, Suite 315 Webster, TX 77598 (713) 338-2682 (Shirley Reynolds) Ford Aerospace & Communications, #4 Attn: Alvin Dailey PO Box 58487 Houston, TX 77258 (713) 335-1714 (Alvin Dailey) (713) 280-6236 (JSC List) (301) 345-0250 (Jim Furilla or Judy Kopetz) --- Western Development Laboratories Attn: Mr. John Clark 3939 Fabian Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 (415) 852-6917 Garrett Fluid Systems, #4 Formerly Garrett Pneumatic Sys Div Garrett Fluid Systems Company 1300 W. Warner Rd, Box 22200 Tempe, AZ 85282 (602) 893-5000 General Dynamics, #4 General Dynamics Bldg Ft. Worth, TX 76101 (817) 777-2000 --- Space Systems Division PO Box 85990, San Diego, CA 92138 (619) 573-8000 --- Data Systems Division PO Box 85808, San Diego, CA 92138 General Electric, Astro Space Division, #1, #3 Subsumed RCA, changed name to just GE. --- Attention: Mike Kavka Mail Stop 101 Astro Space Division East Windsor POB 800 Princeton, NJ 08543-0800 (609) 426-3400 (609) 426-2228 (Personnel) --- Aerospace Division (215) 823-2000 (Philadelphia) Grumman Aerospace, #1, #2 Large piece of Station awarded in July 2852 Kelvin Ave Irvine, CA 92714 (714) 660-4200 1111 Stuart Ave / Bethpage, NY 11714 (516) 575-3369 (516) 575-6400 Job Line (516) 575-3556 New Grads Grumman Blvd / MS F05-07 / Calverton NY (516) 575-0574 2800 Space Park Drive / Houston, TX 77058 (713) 333-2560 12310 Galveston Rd/Attn:Freddy-Ann Marcussen/Webster, TX 77598 Harris, #2 (303) 727-4000 Ask for GASD Honeywell, #2, #3 W. R. Moore Mail Station 257-5 Honeywell 13350 US Highway 19 Clearwater, FL 34624-7290 (813) 539-3689 (W. R. Moore) (813) 531-4611 (Ann Sherman) --- Defense Sys Div 5700 Smetana Dr M N O2-3380 Minnetonka, MN 55343 (612) 936-3196 --- Aerospace & Defense Grp Honeywell Plaza Minneapolis, MN 55408 (612) 870-5186 (Corporate Human Resources) (612) 870-5998 (Elizabeth Olson, Corporate Human Resources) Hughes Aircraft, #1 Hughes Aircraft Radar Systems Group Engineering Employment POB 92426 Los Angeles, CA 90009 (213) 606-2111 (Lou Hendrick) --- Hughes Aircraft Space Communications Group Attn: Employment Ofc. - College Relations 909 N. Sepulveda El Segundo, CA 90009 (213) 647-7177 IBM, #2, #3 IBM Personnel 3700 Bay Area Bvd. Houston, TX 77058 (713) 282-2300 (Debbie Garcia) Intermetrics, #2 Indl Sys Div 733 Concord Av Cambridge, MA 02138 (800) 325-5235 (617) 661-1840 (Mike Adams) Lockheed Missiles & Space, #1, #2, #3, #4, #4 Lockheed has MANY offices in Sunnyvale, CA. That's where much of the Space Station research is happening. Contact Joe Lodge, Personnel Dept. (800) 851-8045 or (408) 742-7175 (Joe Lodge) --- Lockheed Space Operations Company {Shuttle contract} Attn: Mr. Don Quirk 110 Lockheed Way Titasville, FL 32780 (305) 383-2200 (Titasville switchboard) (305) 867-2765 (Kennedy Space Center) --- Lockheed Engineering & Management Service Attn: Linda Nilsen 2400 NASA Road #1 Houston, TX 77058 (713) 333-6601 (Linda Nilsen, Houston) Martin Marietta, #1 (504) 257-4716 (Sandy) (408) 745-8068 (Rita in Sunnyvale) --- Martin Marietta Denver Aerospace Personnel Dept. 6020 S. Ulster Englewood, CO 80111 McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, #1, #2, #3 Richard B. Rout, Dept. 5900, Mail Code 11-3 McDonnell Douglas Astronautics and Space Division 5301 Bolsa Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (714) 896-5633 (714) 952-6797 (Mr. Waller) --- McDonnell Douglas Attn: C. D. Price (no longer works there) 16055 Space Center Blvd. Houston, TX 77062 (713) 280-1500 ext 1761 Planning Research Corp., #4 (PRC) 1500 Planning Research Dr McLean, VA 22102 (703) 556-1000 (Corporate Offices) RCA, #2, #3, #3 Subsumed by GE/Astro Space Rocketdyne, #4 A subsidiary of Rockwell in LA area. Canoga Park, CA Rockwell, #2 Houston is Shuttle activity, not Station. Station work is being done in Downey, CA, near LA. --- Steve C. Hoefer Supervisor, Crew Activity Planning Rockwell Shuttle Operations Company Rockwell International Corporation 600 Gemini Avenue Houston, TX 77058 (713) 483-4438 --- Electronic Operations Rockwell International Corp. 3370 Miraloma Ave. PO Box 3105 Anaheim, CA 92803-3105 (714) --- North American Space Operations Rockwell International Corp. 12214 Lakewood Bvd. Downey, CA 90241 (213) SRI International, #2 Robotics, AI (maybe more) SRI International Personnel Dept. 333 Ravenswood Ave. Menlo Park, CA 94025 (415) 859-3993 (Elizabeth Brackman) (415) 859-3305 (Janice Adams, Human Resources) (415) 326-6200 (switchboard) Sperry/UNISYS, #2 Changed name from Sperry to UNISYS UNISYS Attn: Modelle Mann 16811 El Camino Real (ADDRESS CORRECTION) Houston, TX 77058 (713)488-3300 (800) 645-3440 (Corporate Offices, Eastern Time Zone) Sunstrand, #4 Sundstrand Energy Systems Unit of Sundstrand Corp. 4747 Harrison Ave, P.O. Box 7002 Rockford, Ill. 61125 (815) 226-6000 TRW, #1, #2, #3, #4 Send resumes to ALL of them! Jack Friedenthal Bldg. 135, Rm. 2823 One Space Park Redondo Beach, CA 90278 --- Penny Burkes Bldg. R2, Rm. 2130 One Space Park Redondo Beach, CA 90278 (213) 532-0845 --- (213) 297-8765 (Irwin Newman) (213) 535-8416 (Arthur Green) (213) 535-4321 (switchboard) (213) 536-1726 (Gene Goodban - best contact - Systems Development Division placement officer) (213) 535-8920 (RD Wood - Lab Mgr, SW Dev & CS) --- Pearl Cadwell TRW Applied Tech emplmt ofc Bldg. R11, Rm. 2359 One Space Park Redondo Beach, CA 90278 (213) 812-4533 --- Jeff Jensen TRW Bldg. R02, Rm. 1374 One Space Park Redondo Beach, CA 90278 (213) 535-3125 Teledyne Brown Engineering, #1, #4 (Did not actually bid on #4) Teledyne Brown Engineering Attn: Mr. Tom Robinson (corporate hires) Caroline Walker (entry level) Cummings Research Park Huntsville, AL 35807 (800) 633-2090 United Technologies (Hamilton Standard), #1 Phil Beaudoin Hamilton Standard One Hamilton Road Windsor Locks, CT 06096 (203) 654-6000 (203) 654-4601 (Personnel) United Technologies (USBI Booster Production), #1 Also in Slidelle, LA United Space Boosters / BPC 188 Spartman Dr PO Box 1900 Huntsville, AL 35807 (205) 721-2400 Wyle Laboratories, #1 Wyle Laboratories Personnel Department Attn: Mr. Gordon Bakken 7800 Govenor's Drive West Huntsville, AL 35807 (205) 837-4411 (David Brown) (703) 834-1633 (Mr. Gordon Bakken in NJ) The following are other companies not working directly on the Space Station, but related to space nonetheless: Aerospace Corporation non-profit, helps Air Force (213) 336-5000 (switchboard) (213) 336-1614 (college relations -- Walter Caldwell) United Technologies (Research Center) (203) 727-7000 Fairchild Space Co. (301) 428-6009 (Russ Byrne -- a net.person) The United States Air Force has a division called Space Division, formerly Western Development Division. From a fact sheet I picked up in LA, CA, comes the following blurb: "Air Force Space Division, part ot the Air Force Systems Command, is responsible for research, development, acquisition, launch and on-orbit command and control of military space systems. Space Division is also the focal point within the Department of Defense for plans and activities associated with military use of NASA's Space Transportation System (Shuttle)." The people I talked to there thought that civilian engineers were being hired. If you are not queasy about weapons technology (I'm not), and you don't mind SDI research, this might be the way to go. USAF has a very strong interest in space. They are working on ASAT, SDI, MILSTAR, FLTSATCOM, AFSATCOM, NAVSTAR, GPS, ELV, and other arcane acromyns. Headquarters Space Division (AFSC) Los Angeles AFS PO Box 92960, Worldway Postal Center Los Angeles, CA 90009 (213) 643-0254 (AV 933-0254) Otherwise, there's your local USAF recruiter: you don't HAVE to be a civilian. Note that most astronauts have come either from NASA or the military. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #75 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Dec 87 13:36:15 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09742; Mon, 14 Dec 87 03:23:08 PST id AA09742; Mon, 14 Dec 87 03:23:08 PST Date: Mon, 14 Dec 87 03:23:08 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712141123.AA09742@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #76 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 76 Today's Topics: Re: Cashew nut heat shield Re: Exact Time (help please) Space in Presidents Speech Re: Treaties with the Russians Re: 2001 N. Clark St. Re: Re:Cashew nut heat shield - And other vegetable ideas! New cosmonaut crew for Soviet Mir and long duration men coming down Recycling Pershing-II's (long) Re: Recycling Pershing-II's Re: BDB and all the whining... Re: Recycling Pershing-II's (short and sweet) The Incredible History of Stanley Ovshinsky Re: automation/robotics on space station, why not ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Dec 87 15:27:35 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!db.toronto.edu!hogg@rutgers.edu (John Hogg) Subject: Re: Cashew nut heat shield In article <871208-062406-4560@Xerox> Chris.SBDERX@xerox.com writes: >Taken from the London Daily Telegraph 8/12/87 > >"SPACECRAFT HEAT SHIELD IS NUTS >India is to be the first nation to launch a spaceship composed partly >of vegetable matter. > ... >...a heat-resistant resin based on liquid extracted from cashew >nut shells had been developed by the Regional Research Laboratory in >Kerala, the country's largest cashew nut producer. It was well suited >for heat shields. >... >This is the first time vegetable matter has been used for the exterior >of a spaceship. All American and Russian spacecraft (as far as it is >known) use exotic metals and ceramics." > >Anyone care to comment? Is this the answer to all the heat tile >problems of the shuttle?! Judging by the dearth of other followups, this is a fine example of both (a) either the short net memory or message propagation delay problems, and (b) a journalist with a tight deadline and no interest in research. A couple of months ago, Aviation Week published a series of articles on the Chinese space program. Their film-return capsules use some variety of oak as a heatshield material. While the Indian ``resin based on liquid extracted from cashew nut shells'' is arguably not ``vegetable matter'', there is no question that the Chinese heat shields fit that description. And as others have pointed out, they were far from the first to use wood in spacecraft. Answering the last facetious question seriously, the key to cost-effectiveness of a reuseable craft is to keep turnaround time and manpower to a minimum, so the shuttle heatshield pretty much has to be ``maintenance free'' (note those quotes!). On the other hand, the Chinese are extremely sensible in using a cheap, effective, throw-away material for their non-reusable capsules, and other space programs should take note. John Hogg | Computer Systems Research Institute ...!uunet!csri.toronto.edu!hogg | University of Toronto ------------------------------ Date: 11 Dec 87 15:52:56 GMT From: pyr!iadt3tb@gatech.edu (T. Terrell Banks) Subject: Re: Exact Time (help please) In article <4890@nsc.nsc.com> ken@nsc.nsc.com (Ken Trant) writes: >I have been asked by my Young Astronauts group to find out how the >correct time is determined. Try calling WWV (National Bureau of Standards) in Fort Collins. I think the number is (303) 499-7111. T. Terrell Banks Georgia Insitute of Technology Internet: iadt3tb@pyr.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 11 Dec 87 15:14:58 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!rolls!doug!tim@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Tim J Ihde) Subject: Space in Presidents Speech When I was driving home last night (12/10), the radio newscaster was talking about the President's upcoming speech about the summit, due at 9:00 that night. He said that he expected some mention about a joint US/Soviet venture in space. This got me interested, but then I missed the speech itself and none of the news commentators after the fact are talking about anything like this. Does anybody know if 1) such things were discussed at the summit (Mars mission??) 2) Ronnie said anything about this in his speach I would think that this would be at least as important as a 4% reduction in nuclear weapons, if not quite as flashy from a network news point of view. tim -- Tim J. Ihde ihnp4!ctsmain!doug!tim (201) 535-9897 ------------------------------ Date: 12 Dec 87 01:45:34 GMT From: kevin@csvax.caltech.edu (Kevin Van Horn) Subject: Re: Treaties with the Russians In article <384@ablnc.ATT.COM> rcpilz@ablnc.ATT.COM (Robert C. Pilz) writes: >We each [the Soviets and us] have one [ABM system] left. Ours is in Grand >Forks ND... Sorry, but the U.S. has no ABM system of any kind; the one you mentioned was dismantled. The Soviets do still have their one ABM system allowed by treaty, and it protects Moscow. Kevin S. Van Horn ------------------------------ Date: 11 Dec 87 22:55:48 GMT From: ihnp4!aicchi!dbb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Burch) Subject: Re: 2001 N. Clark St. The CAS is a lovely neo-classical building on the edge of Linclon Park. It has been there for quite some time, and predates Mr. Clarke's writing career... -David B. (Ben) Burch ------------------------------ Date: 10 Dec 87 13:59:17 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!codas!novavax!augusta!bs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Burch Seymour) Subject: Re: Re:Cashew nut heat shield - And other vegetable ideas! I've always thought the definition of a heat shield is something that can dissapate heat rapidly. That is, once it's hot, it can get rid of the heat and become cold again in a very short amount of time. If that's true then the best material choice is obvious - Take out pizza :-) Sorry, but that had to be said..... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 87 10:34:37 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: New cosmonaut crew for Soviet Mir and long duration men coming down The long space flight of Yuri Romanenko aboard the Mir space station is finally coming to a close. After a continuous 308 days to date he has already exceeded the previous record of 237 days (set by the Soyuz T-10B crew on Salyut 7 in 1984) by more than 30%. His lifetime total is now 412 days (10% longer than Leoid Kizim's previous record). Even Alexander Alexandrov, the "short term" replacement for Alexander Laveikin done July 29th, has now spent 142 days on Mir and has a lifetime total of 291 days (149 from Soyuz T-9/Salyut 7 in 1983). There is however some peculiarities with the upcoming replacement cosmonauts that will fly to Mir at the end of this month. Previously the Soviets have announced the crew for that flight, but now they are not giving out the names for the Soyuz TM-4 mission. Instead they have simply stated that two flight crews have left for the Baikonour Cosmodrome today (Dec. 10) to prepare for a mission by one set of them. This suggests that the takeoff will be sometime after Dec. 17th, with the Romanenko and Alexandrov returning by the end of the month. The mystery about the replacement crew may come from one of them having a cold or the like, so that whether the prime or backup crew will fly is not yet certain. One thing is obvious, crew switchoffs have now become a standard procedure in the Russian space station program. They do not even make a big thing about them any more. Let us work for the day when the same is true for the USA. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 87 14:27:38 EST From: loeb@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU To: wmartin@almsa-1.arpa Cc: rochester!kodak!ornitz@louie.udel.edu, space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Recycling Pershing-II's (long) I'm afraid your case won't hold up in court. According to the Constitution, treaties have higher status than law (but lower than the Constitution). Thus, when Congress ratifies a treaty which appears to contradict some laws (such as wasting useful missles), they are inherently allowing these laws to be broken. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but I do know a thing or two. Danny ------------------------------ Sender: LBennett.es@xerox.com Date: 11 Dec 87 13:36:26 PST (Friday) Subject: Re: Recycling Pershing-II's To: Physics@unix.sri.com, Space@angband.s1.gov From: LBennett.es@xerox.com Cc: LBennett.es@xerox.com It should be possible to get the Soviets to agree to let us use the Pershing missiles as boosters. There are ways to ensure that a missile cannot be used militarily, other than destroying it. For example, we choose an island, say, off the coast of Virginia, or in the Pacific. We store all the decommissioned Pershing missiles there, without payload. We allow the Soviets to control our access to them, perhaps by letting them put a small military garrison on the island; both sides are allowed to inspect the missiles at any time. Whenever we wish to use the missiles, we tell the Soviets and they give us the appropriate number of missiles. We allow them to verify that the missiles were launched. That way, the Soviets should be reasonably secure that the missiles are no longer a military threat, and we still can have the use of them for launching payloads. Most researchers would be able to tolerate a Russian inspector, if it gets them a launch vehicle. I don't know if the Pershing-II missiles would be useful as boosters, but if they are, we shold be able to think of a way to get the use of them. Leif Bennett ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 87 11:43:35 GMT From: eecae!crlt!russ@super.upenn.edu (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: BDB and all the whining... In article <8711180113.AA16278@angband.s1.gov>, FNRJH@ALASKA.BITNET writes: >Have many of the 12,000 space.nuts (other than I) thought about getting >together and by commitie building a demo Little Dumb Booster. Cost is >the real factor we would let drive our design. If nothing else I would >like to receive information on designing a rocket and what is needed to >launch the booster. I've been doing something of the sort (I wonder how many others are doing the same?). I'll post something when I get the docs into a semi-presentable form (the concept has gone through a couple of revisions and the descriptions are a mish-mash of versions). But, so far as I can tell, it looks like a booster capable of lofting ~1500 pounds to LEO could be built in your average machine shop, and fueled with materials that are delivered to farms and hospitals on a daily basis (propane, LOX). Promising! However, I never did complete my BSME (BSEE was enough work), and may have missed a show-stopper. We shall see. Russ Cage rsi@m-net ------------------------------ Date: 12 Dec 87 10:46:09 GMT From: tektronix!reed!psu-cs!mmason@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark C. Mason) Subject: Re: Recycling Pershing-II's (short and sweet) I disagree with the idea that we should "recycle" the pershings which will be destroyed under the INF treaty. It would be too easy for a superpower (US, or the Russians with their SS's) to commandeer such hardware during times of high-tension world events. It follows that destruction of said hardware is a key ingredient of the INF treaty. Look, we're getting rid of ten years of nulear arms buildup. Leave well enough alone. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Dec 87 15:12:28 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu Subject: The Incredible History of Stanley Ovshinsky Commentary on amorphous solar cells and Energy Conversion Devices (ECD): > [ECD] has a long tradition of not delivering. This quite true. I believe that the company has never showed a profit in its 18 year history, which I've heard is some kind of a record. Despite having never made a profit, however, the company has grown from a garage operation into an eight-digit operation. Ovshinsky appears to be, above anything else, a consummate salesman and has in the past made outrageous claims that somehow never quite materialized. >When Ovshinsky announced a breakthrough in the new-type >superconductors, the general reaction was that he (more than others) >would have to prove his claims. Among the people who didn't laugh, that is. >That said, amorphous silicon should be a good way to make cheap solar >cells. Ovshinsky's company has more background in amorphous silicon >than anyone else. Not true. A short history: The electronic properties of hydrogenated amorphous silicon (if you don't hydrogenate it 2-10%, it isn't worth anything) were discovered by Spear and Lecomber at Newcastle Polytechnic in Britain around 1976; the first a-Si solar cells were made by Carlson and Wronski at RCA a little later, most of the pioneering work not done by RCA in the late seventies was done by several japanese firms and universities. RCA's operation was bought by Solarex a few years ago. ECD came into the amorphous silicon field quite late. As typical with Ovshhinsky, he started by announcing a "breakthrough" in a-Si formulation that would "revolutionize" the field, virtually implying that nothing important had been discovered before ECD entered. The "breakthrough" turned out to be adding small amounts of Fluorine to improve the a-Si properties on a process that in every other respect was identical to all the other companies'. And, as far as I know, it has yet to be proven adding fluorine has any beneficial effects at all on the solar cell performance. They conglomerated their operation with Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio) in the usual ECD way: Sohio provides the money, ECD the "know-how". Sohio pulled out a year or so back when it appeared that they weren't going to make megabucks in a year or two. The production company is still around; it's called Sovonics. Which is not to say that Sovonics is *not* one of the major players in the field. But there are many players, and it is not at all clear they're in the lead position. Myself, if I had to bet on an American firm, I would bet on Solarex--they have a lot of good people, and know what they're doing--or on Arco Solar. With that said, I would like to add that I have a hell of a lot of respect for Stanley Ovshinsky as a scientist. Ovshinksy damn-near single-handedly *invented* the whole field of amorphous electronics, back in the fifties when anybody who said that amorphous materials could be semiconductors was laughed at... if they could even get anybody to listen. A main reason that ECD's pioneer amorphous devices didn't make it in the market is not that they couldn't do what was promised, but because of the almost incredible growth in the capability of silicon switches. (Another reason they didn't make it is that Ovshinski has a history of promising the most optimistic possible results.) (The amorphous devices that Ovshinski pioneered weren't silicon, though--they were these bizarre compositions of Tellurium, Arsenic, Selenium and whatever. I once heard Dave Adler say that he thought that Ovshinski came up with his compositions by throwing darts at a list of all the poisonous elements in the periodic table.) He had the prescience, back in the mid sixties, to name his company Energy Conversion Devices, in the totally unfounded belief that one day amorphous devices would be able to convert solar energy to electricity, and that this would become the most important use. This, without any evidence that amorphous materials could make solar cells, and a decade before hydrogenated amorphous silicon was discovered. But he was right. Without Ovshinsky's vigorous support of studies of amorphous electronics, it is very unlikely that the current amorphous silicon solar cells could ever have been invented. Still, *Ovshinski* didn't invent them. He got in on the business after the inventing was mostly done. >I very much want him to make it on this one. It could happen, and the >sooner the better. Yes, me too. "Always a Godfather, never a God." --Geoffrey A. Landis, Ph.D Brown University BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM ------------------------------ Date: 10 Dec 87 09:47:34 GMT From: karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: automation/robotics on space station, why not > ...All Voyager did was take pictures. Henry, sometimes you surprise me. Try saying that to the people who designed and now operate the Voyager magnetometers, low frequency radio receivers, cosmic ray detectors, plasma detectors and particle detectors, not to mention those who designed and carried out radio science experiments with the Voyagers' own telemetry downlinks. Even the imaging system does far more than just "take pictures". Two focal lengths and a variety of filters are available. Spectrographs may be taken at infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths. Imaging contributes only a small fraction of the scientific return, at least in proportion to the downlink bandwidth it consumes. The real insights into the nature and composition of interplanetary space, planetary ring systems, surfaces, atmospheres and interiors have come mostly from these less glamorous instruments the public ignores because they don't return any pretty pictures. Almost like the manned-vs-unmanned debate in miniature, eh? Phil ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #76 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Dec 87 06:22:24 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11829; Tue, 15 Dec 87 03:22:36 PST id AA11829; Tue, 15 Dec 87 03:22:36 PST Date: Tue, 15 Dec 87 03:22:36 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712151122.AA11829@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #77 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 77 Today's Topics: Re: SS & LISP Re: Ada (was SS & LISP) Re: SS & LISP re: automation/robotics on space station, why not SS and Lisp Re: SS and Lisp Robotic devices in space Re: Shuttle Operator's Manual A correction Re: Remote Sensing Fascism Re: Remote Sensing Fascism Re: Remote Sensing Fascism ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Dec 87 04:59:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: SS & LISP > I recall someone in the group saying that LISP had been dis- approved > as a development language for Space Station software. Can anyone > supply information and/or speculation on why this was done ? Is NASA > planning on making any push in AI ? Eugene Miya at Ames (eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa) said that LISP is indeed outlawed for the Station. It was probably done because LISP is provably unverifiable (in a software verification sense). Several contractors (SRI International, for one) are working on AI for the Station. I don't know the details; the address and phone number of SRI are in that obnoxiously long list of companies I posted today. ** * ** **** * **** -- Ken Jenks ***** * ***** **** *** **** Rockwell Shuttle Operations Company ** ***** ** ******* as of 1/11/88! The University of Illinois will revoke my account on 20 December. It's been fun, folks! I'll be back in January! jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks ------------------------------ Date: 10 Dec 87 18:20:52 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@AMES.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Re: Ada (was SS & LISP) In article <74700080@uiucdcsp> jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >It was probably done because LISP is provably unverifiable (in a >software verification sense). The edict was not against LISP specifically, but FOR support of Ada. The DOD was no real pressure; it was an acknowledgement within NASA to try and get its software act together in stride with the rest of the real-time world. NASA do software verification? 8-) LISP is not specifically mentioned. As langauges go, Ada is not all that bad, especially compared to HAL/S (which will always be the Shuttle language), but I could easily see that NASA could have stripped important features from Ada until DOD said, "No subsets." Not a comment on SS, but my favorite memory of early Ada Days: Reliable software must kill people reliably. -- Andy Mickel >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: ++eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 10 Dec 87 22:16:39 GMT From: orstcs!ruffwork@rutgers.edu (Ritchey Ruff) Subject: Re: SS & LISP One of the main reasons lisp never makes it into things like control and critical applications is it can go into a garbage collect at any time. Imagine the following - "Mission Control, we are go for touchdown in t-30 seconds. over." "Roger, Columbia." Then the landing control program goes into a 30 second garbage collect! --ritchey ruffwork%oregon-state@relay.cs.net -or- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Dec 87 19:34:10 EST From: Lee Brotzman Subject: re: automation/robotics on space station, why not This is my first attempt to send mail to SPACE, so I trust that it will reach its intended audience, especially the subject of the reply, Dr. Henry Spencer, U. of Toronto. Henry Spencer, U. of Toronto Zoology, writes: > NASA's history of automated space systems may seem good; look at > Voyager and such. However, all Voyager did was take pictures. > Interacting with one's environment is much trickier. In that > area, NASA's experience has been less successful. A major > example is shuttle-based satellite retrieval/repair: Solar Max, > Palapa/Westar, Leasat. The Solar Max repair relied heavily on > an automated docking system, in which NASA placed such > confidence that there wasn't even a manual override; the result > was nearly a disaster, saved more by luck than by good > management. The Palapa/Westar retrieval again was set up with I am by no means an expert on the subject of robotics, but I do have a problem with this portion of Dr. Spencer's argument. The Solar Max automated docking system was a rather simple mechanical device, the "automatic" feature being a trip-released spring. The device had worked successfully on several mockups of the Solar Max trunion pin, including a mockup in the Shuttle bay tested in orbit immediately before the rescue attempt. The thing just did not work on the one on Solar Max! The device was placed in front of the astronaut using the Manned Manuevering Unit. There were no robotics involved in the planned mission to retrieve Solar Max. The device had no manual overide because NASA believed that it would be too dangerous to have the astronaut remove his hands from the MMU controls when he was just inches from a large, spinning satellite. When the first attempt at docking with Solar Max failed, the astronaut decided to try to stabilize the satellite by grabbing one of the solar-cell wings, which only served to make things much worse. The astronaut was forced to return to the Shuttle empty-handed. A long, hard, and ultimately successful attempt was made by ground-based technicians at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) to stabilize the satellite. The next day, the satellite was captured on the first try by the Canadian remote manipulator arm. In other words, a robot did what a human could not. I'm not sure what Dr. Spencer thinks of when he hears the word "robot", but judging from his arguments, it appears that he is thinking of autonomous intelligent machinery working without human intervention. On the other hand, I think of practically any piece of machinery with a computer between it and its human operator, whether the human operator is working in real time or not. From what I have seen here at GSFC, the emphasis on robotics for the Space Station is machines to perform routine tasks for unloading supplies, "catching" satellites for repair, and construction. Most designs have human operators in the loop, controlling the robot in real time, just like the robot arm on the Shuttle (which to date has performed almost flawlessly). I was present at a demonstration of some of the systems under development. One was an enhancement of the "waldoes" used for years by the nuclear energy industry. The robot arms provided tactile feedback to the operator. In a sense, he could "feel" some of what the robot was doing. Another was a system designed to unload cargo. This system had hard information about where a specific piece of hardware was placed, and where it should be moved to. The third, and more advanced, system was a payload loader and unloader commanded by voice control. In the NASA PR films promoting the Space Station, the most prominent robot is some variation of the proven remote manipulator arm already in use on the Shuttle. The arm usually has more degrees of freedom and different end effectors, but the principle is the same. These types of robots have already been developed to a "useful level". Robots designed to aid in construction have already been developed, as evidenced by the auto industry. I realize that systems designed to operate under space conditions still need work, but the technology is here. The Shuttle provides a good working environment for "debugging" the systems without presenting danger to the crew. Indeed, much of the Space Station construction will take place from the Shuttle or from ground-based control centers long before the Station is permanently manned. Lee E. Brotzman Astronomical Data Center NASA Goddard Space Flight Centter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Dec 87 17:19:41 EST From: subar%mwcamis@mitre.arpa Subject: SS and Lisp In a recent posting Fred Baube said: > I recall someone in the group saying that LISP had been disapproved as > a development language for Space Station software. Can anyone supply > information and/or speculation on why this was done ? Lisp is being used for the SS. There are people in Houston working on a prototype written in Lisp to find SS faults. > Is NASA planning on making any push in AI ? This is a different issue than the use of Lisp, but NASA is using some AI techniques. There was an expert system developed at MITRE that is used for LOX loading. (If you are interested, I could possibly get more info.) > They [NASA] would want to permit LISP in SS development, even if > there is no "one tried and true" LISP dialect. Sorry to disagree, but Common Lisp is both tried and true. > Is AI being left to the Star Warriors and the endo-atmospheric > services ? Not left to, but dominated by, in the gov't at least. David Subar subar@mitre.arpa ------------------------------ Date: 12 Dec 87 07:15:24 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@AMES.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Re: SS and Lisp In article <8712112219.AA09029@mitre.arpa> subar%mwcamis@MITRE.ARPA writes: >> there is no "one tried and true" LISP dialect. >Sorry to disagree, but Common Lisp is both tried and true. I enjoy reading about the notes of garbage collection (HAL/S is mathematized PL/1 without dynamic memory) and the like, and I know the LOX systems. LISP is being used in the Expert Systems area, we have a good chunk of it here, but I would question whether I regard it as "tried and true." I would apply Shore's new code of software Hamurabi in the latest issue of the CPSR newsletter. If you want to write a piece of code, you stake life on it, please be my guest. You kill someone, then you deserve to die. P.S. added note about Ken Jenks's garbage collection joke (har har!), such as the tale if Tim Standish's Data Structures book in a footnote about inappropriate GC. Needless to say Hamurabi is not an opinion of the Agency. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 12 Dec 87 01:40:18 GMT From: tektronix!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60aC) Subject: Robotic devices in space Henry Spencer: ...All Voyager did was take pictures. Phil R. Karn writes: >Henry, sometimes you surprise me. Try saying that to the people who >designed and now operate the Voyager magnetometers, low frequency radio >receivers, cosmic ray detectors, plasma detectors and particle >detectors, not to mention those who designed and carried out radio >science experiments with the Voyagers' own telemetry downlinks. etc. I think that what Henry really meant was that Voyager was a passive data gathering device and not an active environment manipulator. I don't think he meant to denigrate the outstanding efforts of the Voyager teams. Except for the Viking shovel and the Shuttle arm, we haven't used any manipulating robotic devices in space (if I'm wrong someone will surely correct me). That only counts NASA-launched devices. I'm not that familiar with what the Soviets have launched. They did have a lunar "rover" and material return device (name forgotten). Any others? Dan Tilque dant@tekla.tek.com or dant@tekla.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 12 Dec 87 08:05:06 GMT From: mike@ames.arpa (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Shuttle Operator's Manual In article <8712080406.AA27378@angband.s1.gov> MAKELA_O@FINJYU.BITNET writes: >interesting question: since the shuttle is vertical when attached to >the ET and SRB's for launch, how do the astronauts manage themselves to >their seats and do their jobs in an environment designed (mostly) for >micro- gravity or with the other orientation of 1G in mind ? I've >never seen this "properly" explained, though this would seem to pose a >pretty elaborate problem with handholds, ladders and seating in 1G- >environment. I'm not an expert on ergonomics, but to me the pilot's >positions look like they could be somewhat tiring if one had to sit >there for several hours, clicking switches and turning knobs, in the >shuttle launch position. There are some small stools placed around in the cabin on top of the panels wherever the crew may step. You can see the ground-support guys remove them during launch prep on the TV broadcasts. Since the crew ingress the cabin only about 2 hours before launch, they don't spend all that much time (as compared to the apollo/gemini/mercury guys). Plus the seats themselves are adjusted so the backs bend forward about 5 or 10 degrees from what would be a "normal" position when horizontal. When laying on your back it is quite comfortable. Now, if there is a 4 hour hold. . . *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick *** ------------------------------ Date: 11 Dec 87 21:05:45 GMT From: pitstop!sundc!netxcom!rkolker@sun.com (rich kolker) Subject: A correction Thanks Ken, for doing a lot of legwork that should help the rest of us. Now... NASA HQ is at 400 Maryland Ave SW, Washington, DC 20546 Space Station HQ is in Reston, VA (west of DC) Langley Research Center is in Hampton, VA 23665 (in the Norfolk/Tidewater area) A good document to have in your library( and the source of all this) is the NASA Media Guide and Public Affairs Contacts, published annually. Convince NASA you're a reporter and they'll send you one. ++rich ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Remote Sensing Fascism Date: Fri, 11 Dec 87 10:11:42 -0500 From: Fred Baube Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu wites: > 'Our' .. people have obviously learned how to lie about the existance > of things which are common knowledge, a tactic that I used to think > was purely russian. The uses of classification: Confidential to keep something from the public and press, Secret to keep it from the Congress, and Top Secret to keep it from the President [;-)]. Whether the Soviets know about something is not relevant; remote sensing is just one case in point. #include ------------------------------ Date: 12 Dec 87 05:45:54 GMT From: hanauma.stanford.edu!joe@labrea.stanford.edu (Joe Dellinger,ESMB 471,7230463,4153244824) Subject: Re: Remote Sensing Fascism I find it interesting that the US government tries to limit the resolution people may get from satellites. A problem I haven't heard mentioned yet is how to stop people from getting around this limitation by data-processing means. It turns out that many of the "good old" techniques of Geophysicists are brand new to Synthetic Aperture Radar people. Geophysicists here at Stanford are getting higher than the allowed resolution off of vintage Seasat data, simply by using better processing techniques. If you use multiple images of the same scene from different orbits, you can do even better (MUCH better, I've been told). How does this square with regulations? I've heard rumors that the untimely death of Seasat was "not an accident". Anybody else hear anything like that? Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu decvax!hanauma!joe ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 87 01:39:25 GMT From: ecsvax!dgary@mcnc.org (D Gary Grady) Subject: Re: Remote Sensing Fascism In article <34@canopus.UUCP> joe@canopus.UUCP () writes: > I find it interesting that the US government tries to limit the >resolution people may get from satellites.... I don't particularly like the idea of the government keeping all the high-res satellite technology for itself, but I can see some reason for favoring that. I can see it being used for industrial espionage, and at high enough resolution I can see it being used to invade individual privacy. Tabloids running satellite pictures of celebrity beach parties? Why not? By the way, Joe makes an excellent point about the use of multiple low-resolution images to get a high-resolution result. This doesn't even necessarily require much technology. A movie looks much sharper than a projected single frame, and work is now underway to stream film at a much higher rate and produce an astonishing bright and sharp screen image. I've seen this myself on a Kodak 8mm projector with an unusual 54 fps "fast forward" mode; the image looked sharper than one in a theater! -- D Gary Grady (919) 286-4296 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary BITNET: dgary@ecsvax.bitnet ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #77 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Dec 87 06:16:46 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14036; Wed, 16 Dec 87 03:16:54 PST id AA14036; Wed, 16 Dec 87 03:16:54 PST Date: Wed, 16 Dec 87 03:16:54 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712161116.AA14036@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #78 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 78 Today's Topics: space news from Nov 9 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Dec 87 02:50:19 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Nov 9 AW&ST [Anyone who is wondering what happened to the Oct 26 AW&ST: I seem to have missed it. Either I didn't get it or it got mislaid. Stay tuned.] Martin Marietta picks Dornier to build payload carrier for commercial Titan, based on Dornier's design for Ariane. NASA completes improvements to the infrared camera system used to view Columbia's topside during reentry. GAO clears Fletcher of wrongdoing in original SRB contract award some years ago. NASA to start major new program to get advanced space technology development going again. Includes the Pathfinder program. NASA starts series of sounding-rocket launches, balloon flights, and Kuiper Airborne Observatory flights for supernova observations. Tests of a prototype comet penetrator at Sandia are successful. Space station contract awards delayed to late November by Fletcher, pending further assessment of bids and word on the deficit situation. Andrew Stofan, NASA AssocAdmin for it, says he would rather recommend cancellation than accept cuts that would reduce it to little more than Mir or Skylab. [It would seem he hasn't noticed that that would be considerably better than what the US has today!] NASA is looking hard at using Space Industries's ISF to get early payloads up before the station is ready. Westinghouse's ISF people say that commercial interest in ISF has been much poorer than expected, but DoD is very interested and that plus NASA should make the project a commercial success. There is interest in putting a high-resolution radar system on the polar platform. "There is significant concern that before the US gets any commercial radar operational, Japanese, Canadian, Soviet, and possibly West German radars with commercial application will already be in orbit." Shuttle managers are close to approving a 19,000 lb [!!] increase in allowable shuttle payload weight. [Flight International has suggested that one reason for interest in this is that it could make Columbia, the older heavyweight orbiter, capable of flying most Spacelab missions. Columbia could then be modified to become the long-mission orbiter, while the newer, lighter orbiters do the brief, heavy-payload missions.] Britain signs with Martin Marietta for half of the first commercial Titan launch (Aug 1989) for a military comsat. Letter from S.W. Stagg commenting on Paine's Aerospace Forum piece in Sept: "Mr. Paine speaks eloquently of the 21st century and how Americans will lead in space and technology. Does this mean that the US is written off for the remaining years of this century? "This, Mr. Paine, is how it is in the 20th century: - The Russians have a manned space station. - The Russians have a heavy-lift vehicle based on "obsolete technology". - The French are #1 in commercial space operations. - The Japanese are starting their own launch capabilities. - The Chinese have their own launch capabilities. - The English, French, and Germans are developing their own single-stage-to-orbit vehicle. "Other countries... are not resting on their laurels, holding meetings, making glowing predictions, or asking for more money. Other countries are in the space business... NASA and the bureaucrats are fighting it out for last place in the space race." Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #78 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Dec 87 06:26:33 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17257; Thu, 17 Dec 87 03:26:43 PST id AA17257; Thu, 17 Dec 87 03:26:43 PST Date: Thu, 17 Dec 87 03:26:43 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712171126.AA17257@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #79 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 79 Today's Topics: Do We Need A Space Station? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Dec 87 20:01:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Do We Need A Space Station? This is a research paper for a Special Problems course with Dr. Bruce A. Conway, Aero/Astro Engineering, University of Illinois. I've prepared this paper with the help of several people on this network. I appreciate your help; you'll recognize a few of your thoughts here. I'd like to see any comments or criticisms you may have on this paper. It is due on Friday, 18 December, 1987. Thanks for your help! ## * ## #### * #### -- Ken Jenks ##### * ##### #### *** #### Rockwell Shuttle Operations Company ## ***** ## ******* as of 1/11/88! The University of Illinois will revoke my account on 20 December. It's been fun, folks! I'll be back in January! jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks Do we need a permanently manned Space Station? NASA is building a permanently manned platform in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) that will cost $15 - $30 billion dollars. Do we need to spend this money on a Space Station, or is there a better way to achieve our goals in space? What are our goals in space? What is the role of humans in space? What should it be? Will the Space Station give us useful new technology? Enough to justify the expense? These questions have been largely by-passed in the limited public debate about the capabilities and configuration of the Space Station. The press has largely ignored the Space Station, even when there is news about which companies are awarded contracts. We've all seen examples in the press[1] bemoaning the high price tag of this advance in our moribund space program, but little debate has been presented about the real need for such a system. This might be because the press, in general, does not think that the general public is intellectually capable of dealing with the issues involved. Another problem is that many reporters, even science reporters, do not have a good grasp of issues involving space. This paper will attempt to deal with these issues by discussing both sides of several arguments for and against the Space Station. The topics we will discuss are: the creation of new technology, easier (or better) access to space, on-site supervision and repair of satellites, consolidation of satellites, the Space Station as a assembly/deployment site, costs, propaganda value, long-term goals, experiments, and the roles of humans in space. Each section will be organized into three parts: a "Pro" paragraph, introducing the topic and outlining how the Space Station will be beneficial in this aspect, a "Con" paragraph, rebutting the arguments in the "Pro" paragraph and outlining alternatives, and a "Comments" paragraph summarizing any extra comments which are neither for nor against the Space Station, but which shed some additional light on the arguments. The conclusion of this paper will not give a final recommendation as to whether a Space Station is necessary; that is left up to the reader. (The point is moot anyway; NASA is building the Station regardless of whether it is truly needed.) The conclusion will simply serve to summarize salient points of the arguments presented in the paper. NEW TECHNOLOGY Pro: The Space Station will cause new technology to be invented. Our understanding of medicine, basic science and engineering will be increased as we look at the new technology needed to design, construct, and use the Space Station. This new technology will have several sources within the Space Station project. Experiments at NASA-Ames Research Center into CELSS, a closed environment life support system, will help us understand the basic needs of human sustenance. We know that people need food, oxygen, light, and water, but there are other needs, such as trace elements and the rhythms imposed by day and night, that need to be researched. The isolation from gravity imposed by extended stays in orbit will require new techniques of retaining muscle tone and bone-calcium levels which will help us aid injured and handicapped people here on Earth. We understand remarkably little about how fluids, chemicals, and mechanical systems behave in microgravity. Experiments in these areas are sure to give us new insight into these areas and new technology for handling them. If our space program is ever to expand, we will need to know more about engineering and construction in microgravity. There has never been a large-scale construction project on-orbit. The experience and technology we gain in constructing the Space Station will be invaluable in future space constructions. Con: The Space Station is possible with technology we know how to use today. In fact, we could have built the Space Station immediately after Skylab, our first space station. So no new technology is really required. Any new technology which does get invented is incidental to the construction of the Space Station, not the direct goal of the program. If the creation of new technology is the goal, there are much more efficient ways of creating it than construction of a Space Station. For example, we could invest directly in the new technologies themselves, not depend on NASA for spin-offs of somewhat-applicable methods for accomplishing things in an environment we never encounter on Earth. More new technology might be invented by a similar investment in other projects ("Big Dumb Booster", Superconducting Super-collider, non-rocket launchers, ion engines, Mission to Earth, planetary exploration, etc.). If we want to improve health care for handicapped people, the most efficient way to help them is NOT to invest in a system which will orbit the Earth; it is to put money into research programs specifically designed to help them. Experiments in microgravity have been going on in the Space Shuttle for years. If longer duration experiments are needed, a longer duration on-orbit for the Shuttle would certainly be easier than building an entire Space Station. (See next section.) The need to build a large structure in space in order to know how to construct large structures in space is simply begging the question: do we need to have ANY large space structures? If there is no need for the structures, there is no need to know how to build them. Comments: Will this "new technology" be used only for military (SDI) purposes? If this is the case, shouldn't the Department of Defense (DoD) pick up a part of the cost for the Station, or should they build their own, non-international Station for military purposes? As to the question of the creation of new technology, a space station would create a different kind of technology. It would not always be directly applicable to life on Earth; it would be specific to the project. NASA has an office for disseminating information on the new technology developed in-house. There is a magazine, NASA Tech Briefs, devoted to public awareness of spin-offs from the space program. In fact, NASA's charter specifically declares that one of NASA's primary purposes is to create new technology and disseminate it to the public. This will continue regardless of whether a Station is built or not. All these arguments presuppose the concept that new technology is a good, desirable thing. This idea is itself debatable, but beyond the scope of this paper. LONGER DURATIONS ON-ORBIT Pro: The Space Station would give us longer durations on-orbit for experiments. Months-long experiments on plant and animal growth, slow crystal growth, material exposure to the space enviromnent (including atomic oxygen flow), and other projects vital to our long-term understanding of space are just not possible, even on an extended duration Shuttle. We need the permanence of the Station to achieve the necessary duration on these experiments. A smaller, occasionally-manned Station might be able to support some of these experiments, as men are brought up periodically with the Shuttle. But this would not allow constant supervision in this unusual environment, a factor many experiments will need. Con: An extended-duration Shuttle orbiter could do the same thing for much less money and give us another orbiter in the process. Experiments could be constantly tended on-orbit if each orbiter had a turn-around time less than the flight duration of the previous one. This way, a crew could "hand off" the experiments requiring continuity to the next crew. The new extended-duration orbiter could stay on-orbit, having its consumable resources replenished by the other orbiter. This could extend the duration of the new orbiter even more. The very concept of a "permanent" Space Station needs to be examined closely. The projected life time of the Station is 30 years -- hardly permanent. This assumes that the Station hasn't outlived its usefulness in this time, and accidents during resupply missions do not cost us too much of our very limited orbiter fleet. Comments: The use of extended-duration Shuttles is not the "permanent manned presence" that Reagan asks for. This also requires two Shuttles on-orbit at once. Orbiter turn-around time is unlikely to be reduced to the 45-day projected maximum flight duration for an orbiter, rendering the point moot. REPAIR AND SUPERVISION OF SATELLITES Pro: The Station would allow us to repair satellites on-orbit instead of bringing them to the ground for repairs. Currently, if a satellite breaks down or runs out of fuel on-orbit, it is considered "space junk" and tracked as an orbital menace to navigation. In combination with the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (OMV) being designed by McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company, the Space Station will be able to retrieve disfunctional satellites, repair them at the Space Station, and return them to their previous (probably geosynchronous) orbits. An even easier method of repair for dead satellites, or a means for providing preventative mantenance, would be to have the satellites reside in the same general orbit as the Station, maybe 2 or 3 degrees ahead or behind. This would require only a simple manned "space skateboard" to send a repairman or scientist out the the satellite to fix it or maintain it. This could be used to replace empty fuel cannisters for maneuvering thrusters, to exchange film packs, or to retrieve data from long-duration experiments which must be kept away from the Space Station for whatever reason. Con: We can already (supposedly) repair satellites with the Shuttle. A longer duration orbiter, as described above, would be able to do this and more. The Shuttle has, so far, repaired exactly two satellites in its 24 successful flights. This does not look like an effective justification based on past experience. Most of the satellites already on-orbit are built to be throw-aways. They have no readily replacable components or exchangable fuel cells. New satellites would have to be launched if this scheme were to have any validity; the old ones are not readily amenable to easy fixes. The Space Station's orbit can't be altered significantly, so an OMV will have to retrieve the satellites and tow them to the Station. This may not seem significant until we actually think about the mechanics of catching a tumbling satellite far from human operators. The inevitable round-trip lightspeed lag of any human teleoperator is one-quarter of a second -- already too slow for delicate maneuvering. The current plan is for the OMV to grab the satellite with an oversized pair of tweezers. This is sure to break off fragile antennae and solar panels, which would then have to be repaired as well. And there's no guarantee that the satellite, once retrieved, could be repaired at all. Each time a satellite is repaired or maintained, there must be an EVA to service it. And although EVA has not resulted in an accident yet, it is potentially dangerous and very time consuming (endless check-outs, decompression and pre-breathing). (For further arguments specifically against the co-orbiting satellites, see next section.) Comments: EVA would probably be necessary in any case; current plans do not call for a large, enclosed "shirt sleeve" satellite repair facility. CONSOLIDATION OF SATELLITES (Co-orbiting platform(s)) Pro: We can consolidate satellites co-orbiting with the Station. This will allow us to put up as much radiation & micrometeor shielding in one place as we need to protect the satellites. This will save on the mass that need to be brought up (at great expense) from Earth. We can also consolidate basic utilities such as power supply, waste heat disposal, station keeping and pointing, and communications. The consolidated platform would be readily serviceable with frequent manned tending, and easy retrieval of experiments, film, and data. Con: Radiation and micrometeor shielding have not been necessary on past unmanned missions; why should they be needed on this consolidated platform? Very few of the satellite failures which have occurred so far have been attributed to either radiation or micrometeors. This makes the need for consolidated protection of this kind questionable. Any co-orbiting satellite would have several inherent problems. First, the area around the Station would be so contaminated by exhaust and waste gasses, accidental leakage, out-gassing of Station components, electromagnetic interference (EMI), and even liquid leaks and stray tools that anything requiring a clear view or a clean environment must be kept far away from the Station. Second, satellites must be kept far away from the station for the safety of its delicate, human crew. The total effects of upper atmospheric drag and solar radiation pressures on satellites are not completely understood. All bodies involved would have to be kept at a large distance to decrease the probability of collision to an acceptable level. All these reasons for keeping co-orbiting satellites at a distance add up to one conclusion: the orbits can't be too close. Since this is evident, the idea of simply "bopping on over" to an errant satellite becomes a little more difficult than hopping on your rocket powered skate board and steering there manually. (This brings up the same arguments against EVA as in the previous section.) If the co-orbiting satellites are consolidated to provide a common bus structure for common power, waste heat disposal, communications, and basic station-keeping functions, we have, in effect, built ourselves an unmanned Space Station. Why not simply build one of those to begin with? Finally, co-orbiting satellites are stuck in the Space Station's low, unchangeable, low-inclination orbit which is far from ideal for Earth observations. The current plan is to orbit the Station with the 28.5 degree inclination imposed by the latitude of Kennedy Space Center in Florida. This would give a very limited view of the Earth from the 100-200 mile altitude orbit imposed by maximum Shuttle altitude. Comments: Although there are many disadvantages of co-orbiting satellites, there are enough advantages that some experiments will probably be flown this way. SPACE STATION AS A ASSEMBLY/DEPLOYMENT SITE Pro: The Space Station would provide a clean environment in which to build and deploy satellites. Satellites can be unpacked and/or assembled and tested on orbit, thus making it unnecessary to include deployment mechanisms and 99.99999% reliability for high-G launch (both are expensive and massy). This lowers costs of satellites (by decreasing both complexity and launch mass) and increases operational reliability (assembled satellites can be tested, and, if faulty, wait for replacement parts and be repaired on-orbit). A low-acceleration bus can then push the satellite to their final orbit. Eventually, the Station assembly shop could have standardized parts (chassis, solar panels, attitude control systems, telemetry units) and put them together with custom parts flown up. Con: The same space environment contaminants noted above (gasses, liquids, stray tools, EMI, etc.) from Space Station would make the environment "dirty" (see CONSOLIDATION above). Astronauts would have to wear EVA eqpt or use glove boxes to assemble sats. NASA's current baseline Space Station is not configured to handle this. The design is unlikely to be modified after bids are finalized (12/87). Using humans to unpack, assemble, and test satellites takes away from time they could be using for other experiments. Comments: Nobody is presently exploring this use for the Space Station. (At least, there isn't anything in public literature.) COST Pro: The Space Station can lower costs of satellites (see above) and pay its way in new technology and spin-offs. Oft-quoted references appear in almost every pro-space argument stating that the Apollo program payed for itself more than 7 times over in spin-offs alone. (See NEW TECHNOLOGY above.) Certain items produced in space would be far superior to those produced on Earth, and might even be cheaper. Vacuum and cold temperatures are there for the taking; one doesn't have to produce them. Con: Every part of the Space Station will have to be brought up at ~$4000+ per pound. Money invested first in an advanced launch system or Big Dumb Booster would lower all costs to orbit and make Station cheaper; we should do BDB first. The space station, as proposed, would give us almost nothing compared to a habitable Shuttle external tank. Not the volume, not the cheapness, not the ease and simplicity of launch. If cost is a factor, other areas need to be explored first. There are probably ways to reduce the overall cost, even of the present NASA design. The same money would buy 4-5 new Shuttles. The STS assembly line could be kept permanently open, and new Shuttles could be specialized for particular roles (i.e., a long duration orbiter, a low-payload, high-altitude orbiter, etc.). Comments: Each time the topic of the Space Station is brought up in public, the price tag is mentioned without saying what that price will give. A cost-benefit analysis is a tedious, complex, subjective thing that can be interpretted in many ways. What the final price tag will be for the Space Station can only be known in the future. Whether it was worth the cost can only be known in the more distant future, and even then will be subject to debate. Looking at the issue from our current vantage point, we really don't have enough information to assess the economic impact of the Space Station's design, launch, and construction costs, the income to be gained from new technology and spin-offs, and the benefits in spirit and exploration which cannot be quantified. As we've seen with the deaths of ten astronauts (three in Apollo, seven in the STS) there are costs that can't be counted monetarily. But we can't decide a priori whether those costs are worth the advances we will achieve. Only the future can tell. PROPAGANDA Pro: The Space Station will re-establish the USA as a pre-eminent space power, proving to the world that we still can (and are willing to) have a strong space program. Con: The monetary cost is too high for the propaganda value. The Russians have already built and operated a space station (Mir, Salyut); all we'd be doing is catching up. In fact, we've already done this, too, with Skylab. For pure propaganda value, we should do something more spectacular, like a push to Mars. If propaganda value is an issue, money could be better spent by getting a better Public Relations department for NASA. We have had some major successes in the past which have been poorly presented to the public. A major public awareness and education campaign would do more good to foster the view of a strong space program than a huge, expensive program which the public does not understand. Comments: (None) LONG-TERM GOALS Pro: The Station will help us achieve a long-term commitment to sustained efforts in space. This will be a basis for all our future research efforts. We need a long-term focus like the Station to concentrate our efforts. This is much better than the "one crash program per decade" approach we have been taking since Sputnik. Con: The Station has no long-term focus. We're trying to build the Station that will make everyone happy, and the result is a compromise which pleases almost nobody. We need long-term goals before long-term commitments. Comments: Our country desperately need to define our long-term goals, in space as well as in other areas. Since this is apparently too complex or too politically difficult for the President to do, I suggest that the Director of NASA set forth a well-defined set of goals and objectives similar to Dr. Sally Ride's recent report, along with a schedule of methods of achieving these goals. There would, of course, be a thick and furious debate after such a presentation, but that kind of debate and attention would be much preferable to the floundering our space program is currently doing. One way to promote a longer view in NASA, and to give the scientist in NASA some time away from politics, would be for Congress to give NASA a five-year budget. NASA would propose a budget for the next five years, including all "new starts", and Congress would vote YES or NO. When the budget is eventually approved, NASA does not need to justify its decisions every year, only every five. This budget would set forth the minimum amount that NASA would receive for each of these five years. Unexpected costs (like the loss of another orbiter) could be negotiate as they arise, but the budget ought to provide for emergency funding to cover unexpected costs or new directions in research. This would actually be cheaper in the long run, as less time would be spent away from the serious scientific pursuits of NASA (i.e. in appropriations commitees, trying to justify every penny of next year's entertainment account) and more time would be spent on NASA's basic mission. Unfortunately, this is probably too reasonable for Congress to consider seriously. It would give each Congressman less of a chance of being personally involved with the yearly budget process. EXPERIMENTS Pro: There are many theories about how materials and mechanical systems behave in microgravity, but we have little experience in experimentation in these conditions. The Space Station will provide us with long-term experience in dealing with fluid flow, material handling, and mechanical systems which cannot be gained from the shorter-duration Shuttle flights. The limited experience we have with space-borne experiments on the Space Shuttle simply underscores how little we actually know about how things behave in microgravity. Interactive, serendipitous experiments are possible (next experiment depends on outcome of previous one). Scientists need the time to experiment and examine the data, then re-design the experiments based on the results of these data. Many experiments would benefit from being frequently man-tended. Some experiments can only be done with humans doing or overseeing them on-orbit, especially experiments dealing with men in space (see HUMANS IN SPACE below). Con: Most experiments would be cheaper on robotic probes. Man-tended experiments are currently being carried out on the Shuttle; the Space Station would simply be a more expensive place to carry out the same kinds of experiments. Shuttle launch capacity currently manifested for the Space Station could contain experimental packages instead. The Space Station is directly competing with space science experiments in this way in addition to the inevitable competition for funds. Experiments using the Space Station obviously will be delayed until the Space Station is built. This delays research by years and loses many researchers who will look for more interesting and/or profitable lines of work in the mean time. Comments: A compromise would help. Some unmanned experiments could be launched RIGHT NOW, some could be launched from the Space Station, and some concurrent with but separate from the Space Station. A larger space budget would certainly help ease budget conflicts. HUMANS IN SPACE Pro: Experiments on how humans live and work in space can only be done on humans living and working in space. We desperately need to know more about the long-term effects of microgravity on humans before we start to plan for any future manned space ventures. The only way we can get this data and experience is to gather it ourselves, on-orbit. As stated above in NEW TECHNOLOGY, this knowledge will also be applicable here on Earth. We also have a human need to explore frontiers. The Space Station, unlike our first explorations with Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, will be the Pilgrims' homestead, where the others were Columbus' ships. We need to expand our human spirit, and only the remotest places of Earth (undersea, the Poles) are unexplored. Outer space fills a place in our souls that has been missing for many years. Con: Microgravity research will not really be applicable until we seriously plan long-termed manned missions (like to Mars). There's no need to invest now; let's wait until we have a cheaper booster. This will allow us to have similar long-term missions to the Soviet's, without the dozens of billions needed by the Space Station. In addition, there's no denying that a cheaper booster is in itself a desirable thing. A journey of the human spirit is a lofty, desireable goal, but does that really justify the expense of the Space Station? There are other ways to improve the human condition which would be much less costly, and much more immediately rewarding in spiritual advancement. Music, arts, and freedom from hunger and oppression can all be helped by sufficiently large investments. Is the money for the Space Station better spent by social programs, or by giving money to needy multi-billion dollar aerospace companies? Comments: The dollar value of esthetic principals is particularly difficult to pin down. [1] NBC's Nightline News "900" survey, 2 December 1987. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #79 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Dec 87 06:22:14 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00836; Fri, 18 Dec 87 03:17:31 PST id AA00836; Fri, 18 Dec 87 03:17:31 PST Date: Fri, 18 Dec 87 03:17:31 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712181117.AA00836@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #80 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 80 Today's Topics: Mir elements, 12 December 1987 space news from Nov 16 AW&ST Robotics and Automation on the Space Station Re: automation/robotics on space statio Re: SS and Lisp Robotics vs. Telemanipulation and the Proper Use of Each Re: Space Station Contractual Obligations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Dec 87 23:43:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements, 12 December 1987 Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 959 Epoch: 87341.85844159 Inclination: 51.6286 degrees RA of node: 338.5311 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0012450 Argument of perigee: 97.4000 degrees Mean anomaly: 262.8788 degrees Mean motion: 15.79382634 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00015594 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 10349 Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso This will be my last posting of the elements until after the first of the year, as I shall be out of town most of the rest of 1987. Happy holidays to the MIR watchers, and see you again in 1988. Good luck in observing the apparitions Christmas week. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 87 23:57:37 GMT From: cbosgd!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Nov 16 AW&ST [The Oct 26 issue got overlooked in the mess of my in-box. It will appear sometime soon.] First refurbished-ICBM Titan 2 booster rolled out to the pad at Vandenberg. Launch set for April, the early rollout is mostly for pad checkout. ESA will send letter to White House affirming intent to continue space station negotiations but outlining four major issues still unresolved. It will also say that ESA's Columbus project could go ahead independently if agreement is not reached. NSC staffer says that the new national space policy will be ready in about a month. Some skepticism has been expressed about its impact, given the coming change in administrations. ESA announces go-ahead on Ariane 5, Hermes, and Columbus, despite vocal opposition from Britain. A number of ESA delegates agree that there is some point to Britain's objections, but they were presented in such a ham-handed and undiplomatic way that their impact was much reduced. Spending increases for ESA's science directorate and general budget have been blocked by British abstention on the budget vote; they are part of the mandatory budget (to which all members must contribute -- projects like Hermes are optional), which requires unanimous approval. Britain may go along with the general budget's increase but is firmly opposed to the increased science funding, on the grounds that it has already had several increases and there is no clear justification for continuing automatic increases. There is disagreement about how much effect a freeze on the science budget would have. Planned December launch of Ariane V21 postponed about six weeks due to some overheating in the third-stage hydrogen turbopump during testing. A replacement engine is being readied in case it turns out to be needed. V20, set for this week, will not slip. The first Ariane 4 flight, set to follow V21 in March, may or may not slip slightly. Administration-Congress compromise on SDI tests permits space-based tests only if they are on a list agreed by both sides not to violate the ABM treaty, but continues to ban ASAT tests despite USAF lobbying. Mir crew tests new rendezvous and docking procedures by undocking Progress 32 freighter and then bringing it back. Oct 29th: 2000th Soviet space launch. (US: 870; all others combined: 91) Number 2000 was a Clarke-orbit Proton launch, probably some sort of comsat. Tests of the "file pole" shuttle escape idea to begin from aircraft Nov 30. Japanese H-2 booster schedule tightens as design changes are made, notably to improve reliability of engine restart in second stage. First flight is still planned for early 1992, officially. Aerojet is working on a new "emulsion" solid propellant that could increase solid-fuel performance and reduce exhaust pollution. [Near as I can tell from the description,] the basic concept is a solid with liquid droplets imbedded in it. Soviets plan heavy Mir module dedicated to biomedical work for launch in 1990, including both plant and animal facilities. The module will be able to undock and return to Earth. Two letters with interesting comments: "Regarding... the Vandenberg shuttle launch site, I find it absolutely incredible that a nation that could, within the space of 10 years, put its first man in space, develop and execute three separate manned space programs, and land a man on the Moon, would require four years to reactivate an existing, almost new, launch facility. "Pardon my French, but what the hell has happened? "Paul A Jones, California" "[re space station funding] Sometimes I wonder how we ever got to the Moon on the backs of the lowest bidder. "Stephen R Sexsmith, NY" Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 87 22:31:30 GMT From: grasp.cis.upenn.edu!ulrich@super.upenn.edu (Nathan Ulrich) Subject: Robotics and Automation on the Space Station Several individuals have contributed their opinions regarding the use of robotics and automation on the space station. I would like to add my two cents worth. First, though, I must admit to some bias in this subject: I am a research fellow in robotics, so this is my area and my source of support, and I also work with the robotics lab at GSFC on the space station robotics. I would like to propose a distinction between robotics and automation: A true robotic system is flexible enough to handle surprises, changes in routine, new tasks, etc. without reprogramming or restructuring. They do not really exist, to date, even in the laboratory. Automation, on the other hand, is a system which is designed for a specific set of tasks to be performed over and over again. It is used extensively, and with great success, in a wide range of applications from factories to outer space. The degree of flexibility in the automation is a consideration, since some systems can handle disruptions in their routine and adjust accordingly (as long as the change is not too drastic). Further complicating the picture are so-called tele-operated "robots" (I don't consider them robots because they require human control). I do not advocate the use of true robots on the space station. I am all too aware of the limitations of current technology; real robots could not be built in time. I don't feel there is any question as to whether teleoperated devices will be used on the space station--they are reliable, though tough to operate, and already exist on the space shuttle. In essence, teleoperated devices are really just tools, albeit complicated tools (of which there are many, in use and proposed, in space). I feel automation could be valuable on the construction of the space station. One reason is that the actual structure of the space station is modular in nature, and many of the operations needed to put the thing together are to be performed over and over again in exactly the same way--exactly the forte of automation. Now the system would have to be flexible enough to perform many different types of tasks (over and over), but this is possible utilizing current technology. Current plans call for most of the crucial positioning to be performed via teleoperation (the system moves under computer control except when a delicate positioning operation is to be performed, then becomes teleoperated). I must admit that I feel most of the applications where tele-operation is planned could be replaced by appropriate mechanism design, but I can do only so much. (Designing machines for specific operations is easy, designing a machine for many specific operations is harder). I agree with the many people (Henry Spencer, and others) who said that we cannot afford unproven technology on the space station. I must admit to some disgust at their expression of fear regarding robots. The thought of a robot going crazy and punching a hole in a pressurized module is ludicrous, not only because there will be many machines up there capable of the same thing, but because I believe the devices that make it into space will have more safety overrides than the astronauts, and I would trust them more :-) *None* of the eventual devices sent up will be unproven....they will all have been tested extensively and will have proved their usefulness. I do not agree that we cannot afford *new* technology--I don't think the space station will work without new technology, after all, I thought that was the idea.... Nathan Ulrich University of Pennsylvania ulrich@grasp.cis.upenn.edu ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 87 22:48:40 GMT From: karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: automation/robotics on space statio Nobody seems to remember (or is willing to admit) that there really is, and is likely to remain, only ONE economically viable space application for the forseeable future. Communications satellites, earth observation satellites, unmanned science missions and yes, even manned missions all return one thing: INFORMATION. Information about what's going on elsewhere on the earth: military, meteorological, geological, earth resources, etc. Scientific information about other objects in the solar system or the universe. Engineering information about the performance of machines. Yes, even medical and scientific information about how humans perform in space. There is no technical limit to how many people may potentially benefit from this information; it can be cheaply copied and redistributed once it is on the earth. With the exception of manned missions and film return spy satellites, the entire yield of these missions consists of electromagnetic radiation that carry information as easily as a Star Trek transporter carries matter. On the other hand, those who propose space applications based on moving physical materials between earth and space (e.g., space mining and/or manufacturing) have their work cut out for them. They will have to find some way to reduce transportation costs by several orders of magnitude to even begin to make their applications viable. Even then they would still be far from approaching the utter ease with which information can be moved between earth and space. Given that the space station is ill-suited for almost all information- generating applications (with the possible exception of scientific information in the life sciences) I have a hard time supporting it with much enthusiam, especially since its enormous budget could have been spent on many other projects having much better cost/benefit (i.e., cost/information) ratios. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 87 11:41:48 EST From: subar%mwcamis@mitre.arpa Subject: Re: SS and Lisp In a previous posting orstcs!ruffwork@rutgers.edu (Ritchey Ruff) writes: > One of the main reasons lisp never makes it into things like control > and critical applications is it can go into a garbage collect at any > time. Imagine the following - > "Mission Control, we are go for touchdown in t-30 seconds. over." > "Roger, Columbia." Then the landing control program goes into a 30 > second garbage collect! Garbage collection can be controlled (not meaning to be punny). When it turns on and off (ephemeral GC) and how it affects other processes (background GC) are important issues to consider. Not all GCs make you wait (See Symbolics and other Lisp Machines, also Lisp on a chip). On the same subject pioneer!eugene@AMES.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) replies to my previous where I said: >Sorry to disagree, but Common Lisp is both tried and true. To which he responds: > I would question whether I regard it as "tried and true." If you want > to write a piece of code, you stake life on it, please be my guest. > You kill someone, then you deserve to die. I would have to say that the Common Lisp the Language as specified by Steele's book is tried and true and nearly bugless by design (or as much as any other language is). I can't say so much for Common Lisp your Compiler or Common Lisp your Code. There are certainly compilers and sets of code out there that are reliable. As for the death sentence that you relegated me to, thanks for the sensitivity. David Subar subar@mitre.arpa ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 87 21:40:24 GMT From: marque!gryphon!mhnadel@csd1.milw.wisc.edu (Miriam Nadel) Subject: Robotics vs. Telemanipulation and the Proper Use of Each Gee, I love it when subjects come up related to projects I've worked on :-) I think that some people are misguided about what a robot is. The mere fact that a machine is manipulated by a computer in some way does *not* make it a robot. It could indeed be a robot but it might also be a telemanipulator or an n-c machine tool (n-c = numerically controlled) depending on the level of autonomy in operation and whether or not it can be reprogrammed. By the commonly used definitions (from the *robotics* industry - the aerospace community does not have the right to define these), the shuttle RMS (remote manipulator system - i.e. the Canadian arm) is a telemanipulator, not a robot. The reason for this is that the RMS has *no* feedback. In fact, this is viewed as one of the most serious deficiencies in its design. There are 6 automatic trajectories which are preprogrammed (and would cause the RMS to operate as a robot) but they are not generally used. Except for experiments to test these autosequences, the RMS has always been used in manual or manual-assisted mode. Basically this means that feedback is provided by the operator based on the images from the elbow and wrist cameras. The reason this is problematic is that the geometry is such that the arm *could* hit the orbiter - and the field of view provided by the cameras is insufficient for the operator to avoid this (s/he cannot see the part of the arm that would impact the orbiter if the arm is in one of the configurations where this danger exists). Now, what about the autosequences? First off, they don't really permit the arm to be maneuvered between any two arbitrary positions because there are a large number of arm configurations which result in gimbal lock (essentially this means that the kinematics cause the loss of a degree of freedom in the motion. It is also true of the human arm, by the way, though caused by somewhat different conditions in that case.) In addition, the danger of the arm impacting the orbiter (or itself) is considered more severe for autosequences than for manual or manual-assisted operations because of the time involved in overriding the sequence and because of position overshoots when an autosequence is stopped. Finally, the autosequences have never been fully tested. At least 2 of the trajectories have *never* been run and there is a disagreement between 2 of the contractors involved regarding exactly which of the others have been run. (I will not discuss that point further because of potential problems with the confidentiality of the data I've seen.) Incidentally, it is somewhat misleading to say that the RMS has performed "flawlessly." There have been some large unexpected motor oscillations, as well as larger than anticipated bending mode oscillations. These have not been serious problems but are signs that the arm may have trouble with larger payloads (e.g. the motors may stall or there may be fatigue induced breakage). This is in addition to the problems encountered during the autosequences experiments. What is the proper use of robotics vs. telemanipulation? It seems to be a generally accepted tenet in the robotics industry that true robots (reprogrammable, some means of feedback, relatively autonomous) are best used in hazardous environments or for repetitive tasks which can endanger humans because of their boredom potential. (For example, spot welding, which meets both of these criteria, is the single largest use of robotics both in the U.S. and Japan. The most talked about other use among roboticists is clean up of nuclear accidents.) If manpower is available and the environment is relatively benign, telemanipulation is the way to go. This may no longer be true but at least until a few years ago most research in telemanipulation was geared to the underseas environment. I think that in the long term there may be some justification for robotics on the space station, but in the short term (the next 10 years, say) we should probably continue with telemanipulation. Miriam Nadel mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 87 00:16:04 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Space Station Contractual Obligations In article <8712080356.AA22904@crash.cts.com>, jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) writes: > By creating substantial contractual obligations in the face of > unprecedented pressure to cut government spending, how are we to > believe that NASA is going to protect these scientific projects? A > contract is a contract -- if/when Congress refuses to increase NASA > funding enough to cover all the bases, what gives? According to our Contracts office (who should have some idea, since we just got one of those contracts here at Boeing) the government has no real obligation to pay us to complete the contract. The reason is this: NASA operates under the 'Federal Acquisition Regulations' which can also be found as volume 48 of the 'Code of Federal Regulations' within which is a series of contract clauses which are incorporated by reference in nearly all contracts, and certainly all of the large ones. One of these, 48 CFR chapter 1, paragraph 52.249, is called "Termination for Convenience of the Government". While I don't have the text before me, I am told that it essentially allows the government to terminate the contract for whatever reason it wants, an they have to pay only for the work and expenses we have done to date. In normal, non-government terms, this contract, plus 95 cents, will buy you a cup of coffee. Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced SPace Transportation, soon to be Space Station (if it's funded) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #80 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Dec 87 06:16:04 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02815; Sat, 19 Dec 87 03:16:51 PST id AA02815; Sat, 19 Dec 87 03:16:51 PST Date: Sat, 19 Dec 87 03:16:51 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712191116.AA02815@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #81 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 81 Today's Topics: space news from Oct 26 AW&ST space news from Nov 23 AW&ST Re: Do we need a Space Station? Re: Do We Need A Space Station? Re: Robotics and Automation on the Space Station Re: space news from Oct 26 AW&ST Re: rewriting history Re: 3d digitized shuttle data Re: rewriting history Re: rewriting history ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Dec 87 03:17:33 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Oct 26 AW&ST [Here's the missing issue. If it occurs to you that I'm posting stuff at a rather high rate, it's because I'll be away from next week to mid-Jan.] NASA says space station will be operational 30 years. The standard crew of 4 will be a commander, two career astronauts, and one non-career astro. Japan's National Aerospace Lab orders a light transport aircraft to be turned into a computer-controlled spaceplane flight-characteristics testbed. Spot photos [oh hush up Eugene, I know they're technically "images"] of Soviet antisatellite-laser installations at Nurek and Sary Shagan. New NASA launch manifest including both shuttle and expendables. OMB is not entirely happy with it because there is no funding approval for the expendables. There has been some negotiation with the USAF over DoD payload scheduling. The latest move to shift more DoD missions off the shuttle isn't reflected in this manifest yet. Notable in the new manifest are one or more TDRS launches on Titans, and a possible "ColdSat" (storage and transfer of cryogenic propellants in space) mission also on an expendable. Truly says NASA FY89 budget will start including major funding for expendables. "You can make speeches all day about space leadership, but what you fund is where the leadership is..." He also says that the shuttle is still on track for June, although there is little slack and some problems, notably the heat-exchanger leak in one of the engines. Atlas-Centaur selected to launch three metsats in early 1990s, first US government purchase of private launchers. Hercules gets contract for uprated Titan 4 SRBs. (United Technologies builds the current ones.) OMB warns that deficit crisis may delay space station. Impasse over international participation in space station remains. Oct 13-16 meeting made no real progress, although nobody is yet willing to admit the possibility that negotiations will fail. Canada and Japan are not happy with the current draft agreement, and the less said about Europe the better. European delegate says that a major reason for the protracted and unproductive negotiations is that nobody attending the meetings has any authority to decide anything. Small study contracts for Shuttle-C unmanned cargo booster awarded. Large writeup on "Starlab", SDI Spacelab mission set for 1990. Basically a test of laser tracking and pointing systems. NASA planning to fight what it sees as threats to its role in the space program: possible restrictions against NASA involvement in operational and commercial programs, excessive Commerce and Transport intervention in shuttle manifesting, definition of manned spaceflight as a "service function" rather than a goal in its own right. [I agree with NASA that the latter two are bad ideas, but the first sounds like a fine concept that would go a long way to curing some of the damage NASA has done.] Small study contracts for Mars rover/sample-return missions awarded. Article on Hughes's new big three-axis-stabilized comsat design. US and Japan exploring a joint radarsat mission, launched by Japanese H-2 with spacecraft integration, some of the instruments, and possible later attachment to the space station done by the US. 1993? General Dynamics is proposing an Atlas-Centaur aerobraking test mission, could be flown as early as 1992. Proposal deadline for Queensland spaceport nears. Although Queensland will provide support with things like roads, the actual spaceport would be entirely a private venture. An open issue is insurance coverage for such launches; neither Queensland nor Australia plans to accept the responsibility, on the grounds that this is the customer's business. [This could be what shoots the concept down. More and more, the treaty that makes nations directly responsible for anything their citizens launch is looking like a major disaster for private spaceflight.] Soviet Union moving into detailed planning for its balloon/rover Mars mission. Final decision on date (1992 vs 1994) early next year. They are looking at the possibility of using aerobraking. [This could be humiliating for the US, if the Soviets are using aerobraking in real, operational missions before the US gets around to even testing it. A real possibility.] One idea being looked at is that the rover might carry the return vehicle rather than returning to it; this means a heavier rover, but eliminates the requirement for the rover to find its way back. Drawings of Soviet next-generation space station plans, notably with free-flying platforms for things like materials work and science and a central assembly/operations center with up to 20 cosmonauts. [Once again the Soviets do the right thing; wanna bet they're well on their way to this before the US launches the first part of its space station?] Soviets studying emergency-return vehicles for Mir and future stations. Picture of British Aerospace's design for a multipurpose reentry capsule, being proposed both as an unmanned materials-processing vehicle and as a space-station rescue capsule. International Astronautical Federation meeting shows both US and Europe uncertain over space goals: US doesn't know what it wants to do, Europe doesn't know whether its nations will put up the money for its ideas. JPL wants to orbit experimental 32-GHz communications system to test this frequency for future deep-space use; it yields tighter beams and higher data rates, but at the expense of more interference from Earth weather and tighter antenna construction and pointing tolerances. Europe looking to expand its astronaut corps, since manned-space prospects are looking up. One open question is where activities will be centered: "Many countries want to have astronauts living and working within their borders..." Thoughtful letter from Daniel P Byrnes (California) pointing out that the space industry, given the current legal situation, badly needs government help with insurance, and suggesting the model of the Price-Anderson act that got commercial nuclear power going: government-guaranteed coverage for risks in excess of privately-available insurance. Letter of the month, perhaps the year, from Frank M. Clark (California): "...Asking NASA to assist and solve commercial space problems is a bit like asking the Air Force to launch spy satellites on Russian boosters because of availability. Commercial space should be solved by commercial expertise and not bureaucraticese." Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 18 Dec 87 05:12:58 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Nov 23 AW&ST ESA suspects its Infrared Space Observatory project will hit cost overruns, is looking at ways of lowering cost. Aerospace plane threatened with major budget cuts due to deficit crisis. Rep. George Brown resigns from House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee after government criticism of his go-public attitude on spysat pictures. In particular, he was criticized for alluding openly to the existence of the KH-11 spysat. The Soviets have had the KH-11 operator's manual for nearly a decade now. "I would guess they have read that manual by now, but as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I'm not supposed to mention the KH-11's existence. This is ridiculous and I'm tired of it." Latest House/Senate defense budget compromise continues to ban ASAT tests, also terminates ASAT production work. Bad News of the Month [already discussed in the newsgroup, actually]: Amroc furloughs most of its employees as investors withdraw after stock-market crash. Many employees continue to work without pay, though. Amroc had a good prospect of an SDI contract for two suborbital launches in the near future, but no deal was signed and it looks iffy now. Amroc Pres. George Koopman is still hopeful. Analysts say it is too early to write off Amroc, because their technology clearly works and the customers are there. Article detailing Delta 181, the next SDI test, set for early 1988. It is basically a sensor and tracking test, carrying its own supply of test targets. No violence this time. Big special feature, multiple articles, on the current state of SDI. Mostly pretty boring except to SDI junkies. Ill-advised ad of the year: Morton Thiokol ad headlined "Technological barriers are for people without imagination"! [I am not making this up! Page 120 if you don't believe me.] Letter of the week, from Probal Sanyal in Syracuse: "...In a recent article comparing the state of the art in US and Russian space technology, the author made a very perceptive (I think) comment that the greatest sophistication achieved by the Russians in this area was their ability to restrain sophistication." [Amen!] Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 87 19:33:24 EST From: Castell%UMASS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Chip Olson@somewhere.out.there) Subject: Re: Do we need a Space Station? Ken Jenks' paper on the pros and cons of the Space Station is without a doubt the most complete and comprehensive summation of the topic I have ever seen. I think the Cost and Long-Term Goals sections should be at the end, but that's the only possible problem I can see. Excellent work. -Chip Olson. BITNet: Castell@UMass Internet: Castell%UMass.BITNet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 87 17:09:38 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Do We Need A Space Station? Mostly a good paper; I have one objection: > The total effects of upper atmospheric drag and solar radiation > pressures on satellites are not completely understood. All bodies > involved would have to be kept at a large distance to decrease the > probability of collision to an acceptable level. This is like arguing that we need a 100-mile separation between aircraft because we can't predict the effects of weather. The answer for satellites is the same as for aircraft: of course you need wide separations if you make no attempt to track them, monitor their positions and motions, and take corrective action when a collision appears possible. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 87 17:22:09 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Robotics and Automation on the Space Station > ... I must admit to some disgust at their expression of fear regarding > robots... Fear? Please point to where that was expressed. Speaking for myself, I didn't say they were going to run amuck and wreck the place, I said they weren't going to work and many man-hours would be wasted trying to make them work. > ... *None* of the eventual devices sent up will be unproven.... they > will all have been tested extensively and will have proved their > usefulness. Tested on the ground, i.e. in an environment that is not representative of the environment they will have to work in for many years. If you think this is a trivial issue, please explain to me *exactly* how Skylab's momentum wheels failed -- they were thoroughly tested on the ground! And they were just spinning wheels, not complex mechanisms. (For those who hate mysteries, the failures were thought to be some kind of lubrication problem; we do *not* understand long-term lubricant behavior in free-fall very well.) > I do not agree that we cannot afford *new* technology--I don't think > the space station will work with- out new technology... The Mir astronauts would get a good laugh out of that. A carefully-designed space station works just fine without new technology. Pretty well the only thing wrong with Skylab was that it wasn't built for in-space resupply and maintenance... and Skylab was built with mid-60s technology. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 18 Dec 87 19:37:02 GMT From: paulf%umunhum@labrea.stanford.edu Subject: Re: space news from Oct 26 AW&ST In article <1987Dec16.221739.1524@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >NASA says space station will be operational 30 years. The standard >crew of 4 will be a commander, two career astronauts, and one >non-career astro. No, no, you've got it all wrong, Henry. It should be "NASA says space station will be operational IN 30 years." :-) -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 87 23:07:11 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Re: rewriting history In article <8712141811.AA01413@hypatia.mit.edu> loeb@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU writes: >Heat shields (basically correct >rapidly. I saw someone hold a Shuttle tile in his bare hand [edges] >that had been heated to 10000 degrees, but he wasn't burnt >since the tile was hardly dissapating any heat. The people here in the Thermal Protection Branch find this a surprise. 10000 degrees eh? That's the best figure we've seen ;-). >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 87 09:49:43 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!reading!onion!bru-me!ralph@uunet.uu.net (Ralph Mitchell) Subject: Re: 3d digitized shuttle data In article <509@otto.cvedc.UUCP> billa@otto.UUCP (Bill Anderson) writes: >In article <> apollo@ecf.toronto.edu (Vince Pugliese) writes: >> >>As well I will be include a very simple C program, hacked together by fellow group member >> [...] > >If anyone out there in netland converts this C program so that it can be >run on suns, please post the results of your work to the net. It has already been done. The program should be in /usr/demo/SRC/shaded.c, the shuttle data is in /usr/demo/DATA/space.dat. There are notes on running it in /usr/demo/README. The program displays 2 windows with cursor lines, to enable you to select the 3d viewpoint, and there's a pop-up menu for setting fill style and colour, &c. For monochrome you need to select the "edges" (I think) fill style or it'll look pretty wierd. Also, if your display surface doesn't support hidden surface removal, you'll get a wireframe effect that can be confusing to the eye. /usr/demo/DATA also contains data files for an icosahedron, a pyramid, a ball and a Klein bottle. From: Ralph Mitchell at Brunel University, Uxbridge, UB8, 3PH, UK JANET: ralph@uk.ac.brunel.cc ARPA: ralph%cc.brunel.ac.uk@cwi.nl UUCP: ...ukc!cc.brunel!ralph PHONE: +44 895 74000 x2561 "There's so many different worlds, so many different Suns" -- Dire Straits ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 87 23:34:12 GMT From: uop!robert@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (Hi how ya doin) Subject: Re: rewriting history In article <3656@ames.arpa>, eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) writes: > In article <8712141811.AA01413@hypatia.mit.edu> loeb@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU writes: > >Heat shields (basically correct rapidly. I saw someone hold a Shuttle > >tile in his bare hand [edges] that had been heated to 10000 degrees, > >but he wasn't burnt since the tile was hardly dissapating any heat. > > The people here in the Thermal Protection Branch find this a surprise. > 10000 degrees eh? That's the best figure we've seen ;-). I remember that demo, the guy who did it at our school held the cool side of the tile to his face, after making it orange with a blow-torch. he also had some unique foam padding that you could drop to your knees on, and not get hurt, it had a good shock absorbing ability. anyone know where i can get some? who makes it for NASA? ------------------------------ Date: 18 Dec 87 07:14:15 GMT From: ihnp4!upba!eecae!crlt!russ@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: rewriting history In article <849@uop.edu>, robert@uop.edu (Hi how ya doin) writes: [speaking of thermal tile material] >I remember that demo, the guy who did it at our school held the cool >side of the tile to his face, after making it orange with a blow-torch. There's also the classic photo of a tech, holding a cube of thermal tile material which is still glowing orange-hot seconds after coming out of a furnace. No, those fingers weren't prosthetic. But there is a trick. If you grab the *sides* of the cube, you *will* be burned. The corners, on the other hand, cool very rapidly, and you can grasp the cube by them even while the rest of the cube is hot. (Info courtesy Jim Loudon and the _Astrofest_ lecture series.) Russ Cage ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #81 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Dec 87 06:19:35 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04638; Sun, 20 Dec 87 03:20:19 PST id AA04638; Sun, 20 Dec 87 03:20:19 PST Date: Sun, 20 Dec 87 03:20:19 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712201120.AA04638@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #82 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 82 Today's Topics: Re: Planetary B Six year trip for Galileo Re: heat-shield tiles Space in Presidents Speech joint ventures in space Candiates' space forum cancelled Candidate Re:Cashew nut heat shield - And other vegetable ideas! automation/robotics on space station, why not Re: Condensed CANOPUS - November 1987 Re: Cashew nut heat shield Re: Cashew nut heat shield Re: Cashew nut heat shield Biological substance in spacecraft Re: Cashew nut heat shield Re: Remote Sensing Fascism ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Dec 87 01:29:11 GMT From: cbosgd!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Planetary B > ... a listing for 'Planetary B/U', to be launched 5/91 on a Titan > IV/IUS. I've never heard of a mission by this name. Does B/U mean > something obvious? ... I would guess it means "backup", and that this is a launch slot reserved against the possibility of trouble in an earlier planetary launch. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 87 09:28:23 GMT From: tektronix!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60aC) Subject: Six year trip for Galileo The Dec 12 issue of Science News had an article about NASA's plans for the Galileo mission to Jupiter. [All the quantities in the article are in English units, which gives me the idea that they are just rehashing a NASA press release. SN usually uses the units of its source.] Here is a summary: The launch date is now set for Oct 1989 on the Space Shuttle Discovery. I will now use a less powerful booster than the originally scheduled Centaur (the article did not say which booster was going to be used) because the Centaur is considered too dangerous to be launched aboard the shuttle. Because of the less powerful booster, Galileo will have to make three planetary flybys in the inner solar system to gain the necessary velocity to make it to Jupiter. There will also be two asteroid flybys. Flyby 1 is to Venus in Feb 1990, closest approach 9300 miles. Some follow up work to Pioneer 12 will be done at Venus. Flyby 2 is Earth at 620 miles in Dec 1990. Infrared mapping of the far side of the moon will be done on this flyby. Flyby 3 is asteroid Gaspra at 620 miles in Oct 1991. First look at an asteroid. Flyby 4 is Earth (again) at 200 miles in Dec 1992. Again mapping of moon in infrared. Flyby 5 is asteroid Ida. Date and distance were not given. In July 1995 the atmospheric probe will be released. Insertion into Jovian orbit will be in Dec 1995, six years after launch. What the article left out: anything about possible problems. For example, it did not give the launch window (I would expect it to be narrow to make all the flybys) and what happens if there is a delay in the shuttle schedule which makes it impossible to make the window. Dan Tilque dant@tekla.tek.com or dant@tekla.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 18 Dec 87 03:09:10 GMT From: thurm@speedy.wisc.edu (Matthew J. Thurmaier) Subject: Re: heat-shield tiles As long as people are looking for other things that nasa uses, I would really like to find out how to get my hands on some of the heat-shield tiles that the shuttle uses. Any one have any ideas? Matthew J. Thurmaier U of Wisc - Madison, Computer Systems Lab matt@rsch.wisc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 87 13:08:20 EST From: loeb@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU To: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!rolls!doug!tim@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Space in Presidents Speech The Russians wanted to plan a special meeting between Gorbachev and Reagan to discuss joint ventures in space, but the Americans quashed the idea. ------------------------------ Date: 14 DEC 87 11:37-PST From: clopez%UCIVMSA.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu Subject: joint ventures in space X-Original_To: space%ANGBAND.S1.GOV@orion X-Routing: SMTP @ INTERBIT I don't believe anything was said about space (except SDI) at the summit. But on ABC News ``Capital to Capital'' which linked Congresspeople in Washington D.C. to Supreme Soviet members in Moscow, a New Jersey Senator proposed a joint US/Soviet Manned Mars Landing by the 100th anniversity of the soviet revolution (2017). This was applaued by the members of the Supreme Soviet present. This was about 2-3 weeks ago. Also, last night (12/13) on CBS News Nightwatch, former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance (Carter Admin.) said the Soviets are looking into joint ventures of all kinds because they need capital dollars and western technology to improve their economy the way Gorby wants to. They are recognizing the western need for profits as part of the deal. Carlos A. Lopez (clopez@ucivmsa) University of California at Irvine ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Dec 87 18:14 CST From: Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey Subject: Candiates' space forum cancelled The House Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications hearings on space policy, which were scheduled for December 18th in Iowa City, have been postponed. The forum is now scheduled for Friday, February 5th. It was to include testimony on space policy by Democratic presidential candidates, leading space scientists, educators, and represenatives of the National Space Society and other citizens' groups. As far as I know, another forum will be held for Republican candidates in New Hampshire, but information about the date of that event hasn't reached me. The HSSSA is a subcommittee of the House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology. It is chaired by Rep. Bill Nelson (D, Florida), and its Minority Leader is Rep. Robert S. Walker (R, Pennsylvania). Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET SPAN/HEPnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 87 09:00:33 EST From: loeb@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU To: cbosgd!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Candidate I have written to the candidates for Presidency for their policy sheets including the ones on the Space Program. If any one is interested I can post the results. So far, only Bush has replied. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 87 13:11:48 EST From: loeb@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU To: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!codas!novavax!augusta!bs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re:Cashew nut heat shield - And other vegetable ideas! I've always thought the definition of a heat shield is something that can dissapate heat rapidly. That is, once it's hot, it can get rid of Nope. A heat shield is something which heat has trouble getting through. In other words, it doesn't transmit heat well. Therefore, it can not (by definition) dissapate heat rapidly. I saw someone hold a Shuttle tile in his bare hand that had been heated to 10000 degrees, but he wasn't burnt since the tile was hardly dissapating any heat. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Dec 87 13:16:41 EST From: loeb@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU To: karn@faline.bellcore.com Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: automation/robotics on space station, why not Date: 10 Dec 87 09:47:34 GMT From: karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) > ...All Voyager did was take pictures. In fact, even PUTTING a camera on the Voyagers was a last minute decision resulting from the cancellation of another payload. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 87 17:03:45 GMT From: steinmetz!brspyr1!miket@itsgw.rpi.edu (Mike Trout) Subject: Re: Condensed CANOPUS - November 1987 In article <836@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU>, willner@cfa.harvard.EDU (Steve Willner) writes: > COMET PENETRATOR TESTED - can871109.txt - 11/17/87 > Prototype of the penetrator for the Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby > mission was tested in October at Sandia National Laboratories in > Albuqueque, N.M. The 1.5-meter probe was dropped into hard ice at > shallow angles to prove that penetrations could be made under the > worst terrain conditions. Early tests in 1985 were performed by > Principal Investigator William Boynton of the University of Arizona > with a model dropped 150 feet off the university football stadium > into a 55-gallon drum of ice. Hmmm. Interesting experiment. In May of 1974 a similar experiment was conducted at the same location. At approximately 2 a.m., a number of residents of Papago Lodge (one of the men's dorms adjacent to the University of Arizona Football Stadium) gained access to the locked stadium through devious means. I accompanied this stalwart team of investigators, serving as technical advisor; I had also supplied the test probe. The test probe was an unopened one-gallon can of fire engine red oil-based paint. The probe was carefully dropped in an upright condition into the (mostly deserted) parking lot below. We estimated the time to impact as a bit over two seconds. The impact noise was similar to that of a 155 mm hozitzer letting loose; the echo reverberations around the various campus buildings was most gratifying. The impact pattern was a red disk approximately 15 feet in diameter with the telescoped paint can resting neatly in the center; the lid was still partially attached. Some paint spatters travelled an impressive distance; two droplets were found on a Jeep's bumper over 25 feet away. Unfortunately, further observations were impossible, due to the intervention of a team of campus police and dormitory directors. I am told that to this day there is a slight pinkish tint to the parking lot in that area. I am most grateful that William Boynton has continued the proud tradition of dropping things off the U of A football stadium. All hail to scientific experimentation. -- Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) =-=-=-=-=-=-= UUCP:brspyr1!miket ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 87 19:06:49 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Cashew nut heat shield > India is to be the first nation to launch a spaceship composed partly of > vegetable matter. Sorry, the Daily Telegraph is misinformed. The Chinese routinely use wooden heatshields. Oak may be a bit heavier than the sexy high-tech materials, but it works fine, and is a whole lot cheaper. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 87 13:13:06 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!stc!pete@uunet.uu.net (Peter Kendell) Subject: Re: Cashew nut heat shield I'm sure someone (Henry?) will set me straight but I seem to remember that the Surveyor Moon landers were encased in a balsa wood outer shell to cushion the impact of a (not very) soft landing. Peter Kendell ...{uunet!}mcvax!ukc!stc!pete ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 87 01:56:51 GMT From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com (Jay Freeman) Subject: Re: Cashew nut heat shield In article <489@stc-f.tcom.stc.co.uk> pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) writes: > I'm sure someone (Henry?) will set me straight but I seem to > remember that the Surveyor Moon landers were encased in a balsa > wood outer shell to cushion the impact of a (not very) soft > landing. I'm not Henry, but what I seem to remember is that a few of the latter Ranger probes (which did not soft-land, but took pictures all the way till impact) had a detachable capsule that was supposed to be braked by rocket till it was falling sufficiently slowly that it could survive impact. If memory serves, the capsule was roughly spherical and featured a balsa shell. I do not remember whether (a) this was a proposed enhancement to Ranger that never flew or (b) was an actual enhancement that never worked. I am pretty sure that no such capsule actually soft-landed (should we say "firm-landed"?) on the Moon. It would have been big news. -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 87 02:10:00 EST From: Kenneth Ng Subject: Biological substance in spacecraft >Date: Thu, 10 Dec 87 00:26:52 EST >From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu >Subject: Vegetable Spaceships > . . . > I think none of the designs using balsa ended up on the final >version, though. > >--Geoffrey A. Landis, Ph.D BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Didn't some of the Ranger series space craft that landed (or rather collided) with the moon carry a sphere of balsa wood with a transmitter inside? This I'm very unsure of because I don't remember if I read it in an account of the Ranger series or a proposal for the Ranger series. Kenneth Ng: ken@orion.bitnet, ken@argus.uucp, ken@mars.uucp ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 87 17:33:59 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Cashew nut heat shield > I'm sure someone (Henry?) will set me straight but I seem to > remember that the Surveyor Moon landers were encased in a balsa > wood outer shell to cushion the impact of a (not very) soft > landing. No, the Surveyors made soft landings on rockets. You are thinking of some of the early Rangers, which carried a small hard-landing capsule in a balsawood casing. Those early Ranger missions were all dismal failures, for a variety of reasons, so the landing capsules never got a chance to work. The earlier Luna missions apparently were hard-landers using a vaguely similar scheme, although later on the Soviets did succeed with soft-landers. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 87 17:47:24 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Re: Remote Sensing Fascism Geez, I guess I should comment on this. In article <34@canopus.UUCP> joe@canopus.UUCP () writes: > I find it interesting that the US government tries to limit the Clarification: Not the US Government: the US DOD. >resolution people may get from satellites. A problem I haven't heard >mentioned yet is how to stop people from getting around this limitation >by data-processing means. It turns out that many of the "good old" >techniques of Geophysicists are brand new to Synthetic Aperture Radar >people. Geophysicists here at Stanford are getting higher than the >allowed resolution off of vintage Seasat data, simply by using better >processing techniques. If you use multiple images of the same scene >from different orbits, you can do even better (MUCH better, I've been >told). This depends. Vintage? That sounds weird. Never compared the data to a fine wine, but then I don't drink. Back to multiple looks. That might be the case with the land, but it was an oceanographic satellite, and there are limitations when dealing with the sea. P.S. They just made Charles E. a Lab ALD (Assist. Lab Director). Anyway, it depends on a lot to look better. If we only really knew "how radar worked..." [Ref: Skolnik] Another postered noted multiple looks akin to animation (looking better). Again, this is not necessary the case. As Rob Cook was fond of pointing out, the blurr of Andre in The Adventures of Andre and Wally B. doesn't look well in a single still, and single stills are very important in analysis. > How does this square with regulations? I've heard rumors that >the untimely death of Seasat was "not an accident". Anybody else hear >anything like that? Since our Section at JPL was one of those investigated by Congress, I think I can safely say it was an accident, but we had other fears that things would not work. Fewer mechanical things work in 0-G than you might believe. There are more important things to worry about. Also, don't forget that SIR (Shuttle Imaging Radar, basically a Seasat clone) has also flown twice and will fly again (so one friend hopes, she will fly with it) and again. Argh! I don't have time for this. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #82 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Dec 87 06:17:25 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06084; Mon, 21 Dec 87 03:18:17 PST id AA06084; Mon, 21 Dec 87 03:18:17 PST Date: Mon, 21 Dec 87 03:18:17 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712211118.AA06084@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #83 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 83 Today's Topics: Re: Remote Sensing Fascism Re: Remote Sensing Resolution (was Fascism) Remote Sensing Fascism & AMROC Update Re: 2001 N. Clark St. ABM History Re: Robotic devices in space Re: Exact Time (help please) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Dec 87 19:49:22 GMT From: mcvax!enea!luth!cad!sow@uunet.uu.net (Sven-Ove Westberg) Subject: Re: Remote Sensing Fascism In article <34@canopus.UUCP> joe@canopus.UUCP () writes: >I find it interesting that the US government tries to limit the >resolution people may get from satellites. A problem I haven't heard >mentioned yet is how to stop people from getting around this limitation >by data-processing means. Or buy them outside US. In fact it is possible to buy a 6m resolution images from Soviet today. Soviet needs $$$. The French Spot satellite produce 10m images. I can only see one reason for the government to limit the resolution. It would be very inconvenient if everyone knows the real truth. I don't belive that ANY government cares about personal integrity. Free information will strengthen the democracy. We have seen some affairs the "Iran-Contras" in the US. In Sweden everyone is wondering why our marine never hits the alien (read Soviet) submarines in our archipelago. This was just two examples. I hope that all of us want to reduce this type of affairs. By the way has anyone in the states heard about the "peace angel :-)" Gorbatjovs space wapons. It was a good article on it in a Swedish paper some month ago. Soviet is doing research with big laser guns. The article was based on satellite images from the French spot satellite. Sven-Ove Westberg, CAD, University of Lulea, S-951 87 Lulea, Sweden. UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!enea!cad.luth.se!sow Internet: sow@cad.luth.se The first and second law for great men. - Get reelected. - Create a monument with your name on. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 87 18:55:48 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Re: Remote Sensing Resolution (was Fascism) There is an excellent article on this issue including a SPOT image of Karg (sp?) island in the current Science. In article <905@luth.luth.se> sow@cad.luth.se (Sven-Ove Westberg) writes: >I can only see one reason for the government to limit the resolution. There are many good technical reasons to limit resolution. It depends on the scale of the phenomena you are trying to observe. It also means the bulk of the magnetic tape or disk you are willing to store. Consider that a building to house tapes of a X resolution satellite requires 4 times the storage for a .5X resolution resolution satellite (O(n^2) right?) assuming constant tape density. Care to guess the data volume of Landsat? (SPOT?) It gets to nano-seconds of data collection and multi-million dollar instruments which we only have the vaguest idea of how to design [``Professional Science!'' say it in a Steve Martin stretched out kind of voice] . The problem non-serious users of imagery have is the cost. You (generic) want nice false color pictures of the topography around your home. A one time purchase, meanwhile the satellite is still flying overhead. You just LOOK at the data. You might take in 500 MBs of data in a single frame. Serious users of imagery need time dependent data. It requires alignment, synchronization, and other tricks (See Deep Black). It must be rectified, bit errors require correction, etc. This are expensive and not relevant to solving end-user problems. Frequently, you don't `look' at an image. You might convolute it, look at the frequency domain of the image, etc. This relates to Henry Spencer's comments about cameras on Voyager for instance (another visual data bias). Serious users also require an understanding of spectra. IR, UV and radar don't behave like visible light. Sensor geometries differ and sub-pixel resolution is sometimes obtainable. Resolution involves trade offs, and they are not all geo-political. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 87 21:13:46 PST From: ota@mariner.s1.gov Subject: Remote Sensing Fascism & AMROC Update The Dec 14 issue of AW&ST on pg 30 says that Amroc is recalling most of its layed off workers. They have found a new (unnamed) private investor. Following Dale Amon's original diatribe about remote sensing fascism and a story called "Russians' Pictures of Earth Stir U.S." in the 27 September New York Times, I motivated myself to send a letter to all the usual suspects (my Representatives, Senators, and the President). A few weeks ago I received a clearly personalized response from California Senator Cranston, who basically said he was forwarding my note to someone in DoD for comment. Today I received the DoD response from one, Thomas P. Quinn, Principal Deputy, Asst Secty Defense, Command, Control, Communication and Intelligence. It was quite a detailed denial of all charges (mostly those included in the NYT story) at least on behalf of DoD: "The Defense Department has, to date, posed no objections ...", etc, etc for two full pages. Somewhere I've seen a note that some company was approached to handle US distribution of Soviet Images but was holding back because they were worried that their government contracts would be jepordized. Anyway I thought the last paragraph of the letter addressed this question nicely. 'Please be assured there is no truth in the comments in Mr. Anderson's letter that "the Defense Department is discouraging companies from marketing Soviet satellite images," and the Defense Department is not involved in any effort to use national security "as an argument to prevent U.S. comapnies from entering the potentially lucrative business of providing pictures from space."' Best response from an elected rep I've ever gotten! Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 87 08:33:59 GMT From: ihnp4!chinet!editor@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Alex Zell) Subject: Re: 2001 N. Clark St. In article <8712100004.AA00500@galileo.s1.gov> GODDEN@gmr.COM writes: >In vol.8 no.69 Bill Higgins wrote about a space meeting in Chicago and >buried in his msg was a reference to the Chicago Academy of Sciences, >which has its office on 2001 N. Clark St. in Chicago. What I'm >interested in is HOW was this organization able to obtain that >particular address, since I'm sure it's deliberate. Is there some >interesting story that you might share on the net? > >-Kurt Godden > godden@gmr.com It is with great regret that I must report that there was no hanky-panky, Chicago-style, or other venal machinations that caused the little museum known as the Chicago Academy of Sciences to be given the address of 2001 N. Clark St. I do indeed admit that it had never occurred to me to notice the symbolism about which the author of the original query asked. Belay your suspicions, my friend. The museum comes by its address honestly and forthrightly, without the assistance of apostate judges and lawyers (so prominently displayed in the world press in recent months), nor of politicians (doesn't it sound like a dirty word when properly pronounced?) but as the result of a plan espoused by the great architect and city planner, Daniel Burnham, who, upon presenting a master plan for the city, cautioned its people to "make no small plans." (Poor memory prevents me from quoting more of his adjuration.) In short, Chicago streets and house numbers are created by the location of the property on a rectangular (Cartesian) grid, with its center at State and Madison streets. Angular, diagonal and curved or circular streets are fitted into the pattern in logical fashion. The museum happens to be located in Lincoln Park, on the east side of Clark st., and at 2000 North. Addresses on the east side of streets running in a north-south direction and on the south side of streets running east-west receive odd numbers. The museum, because of its location, was provided with with its proper address: 2001 N. Clark, willy-nilly. That occurred before the idiotic practice being perpetrated these days of each owner designating his property as #1 Something Plaza. (It gives me some pleasure, whenever someone gives me his address as "One Magnificent Mile" (yeah, there is such a place) I reject it and tell the caller, "Sorry, never heard of such a street. Give me your street address." I get it, too. (Something on Michigan avenue.) While the original reference to this subject may have had some tenuous connection with space interests, I believe any further discussion, which I doubt would have any value, should be directed to alt.flame. Incidentally, a reading of the original inquiry suggests that the author thinks the academy is a collegium of great scientists. While its membership may include a number of persons qualified to be called "scientists" the organization is merely a museum, a very small one indeed, that has some very fine exhibits dealing primarily with Chicago's environs. The museum for many years was the fiefdom of Dr. Beecher, who was eased out under circumstances that escape me. During his tenure the museum housed the Chicago Microscopical Society which conducted classes for school children interested in microscopy. A number of students went on to win national science fair awards. The classes are now conducted at McCrone Co. labs. The Chicago Astronomical Society also used to meet there. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 87 17:41:37 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu Subject: ABM History Some recent comments by Robert C. Pilz on ABM related issues contained so many incorrect and misleading statements that I felt compelled to correct them, despite the fact that I feel very leary of putting anything vaguely political on the net for fear of a flame-fight. >This time it was the ABM system at Kwajalein Island of the >Marshalls in the Pacific. We have a system of Nike X and Sprint missles >designed to knock out ICBM's. "Nike X" (a Western-Electric product, by the way) was never built. The later version, tested but never made operational, was Sprint. >This non-nuclear weapon system, Safeguard was INDEED nuclear. This was a good part of the reason people protested against it so loudly. >purely a defensive system was deamed "provocative" by the Soviets The problem was that it was destabilizing, not that it was "provocative", and it was American scientists that worked hard to convince the Soviet ones that the ABM was destabilizing. >so their ABM system and ours were torn down. We each have one left. >Ours is in Grand Forks ND The ABM treaty indeed allows each country to retain one ABM installation, and the US specified that ours was to be in ND, BUT as installation was coming in way over budget, and it was pretty much conceded by that time that it would not be very effective, it was scrapped. The US has no operational ABMs, although we are allowed one. The Russians still have the system that the treaty permits them, about 200 missiles, which defend Moscow. Of course, to destroy Moscow, all we need to do is send 201 warheads. (Or send ten, and figure that their system is unlikely to be more than 90% effective.) >(we have to keep Canada safe for Democracy, don't we?). Protecting Canada has little to do with it. Since Canada is north of ND and Russian missiles would come over the pole, Canada isn't defended by emplacements in Grand Forks anyway. The real reason for the Grand Forks emplacement was to protect the ICBM fields in ND and Nebraska, to maintain our deterrant. Now, a *very* brief capsule history of the great ABM debate of 1968-74. ABM's ("Anti Ballistic Missiles; previously referred to as "Anti-Missile Missiles") were a technology first pioneered by the US. The US announced that they would be setting up an ABM system in the late '60's (this eventually evolved into Safeguard, a system of nuclear-tipped ABM's of which "Sprint" was one of the components). The Soviets soon followed with their own system. This Soviet "threat" scared the hell out of the Pentagon, who figured that a Soviet missile defense would make the American deterrant obsolete. After a considerably amount of study of ways of penetrating the Soviet defense, the proposal was made to put many warheads on each (offensive) missile, a technology called "MIRV", for Multiple Independently Targetted Reentry Vehicles. If three warheads were placed on each Minuteman missile, for example, it would take them three ABM missiles to defend against each one Minuteman. Since an ABM missile costs roughly the same amount as an offensive missile, this results in "saturation" of the defense. This technology was implemented, and roughly two years later, the Soviets followed suit. (This turned out, later, to be disasterous for strategic stability. Until MIRV, it was impossible for a first strike to take out all of an opposing nation's rataliatiatory capability. After MIRV, a strategy called "counterforce" became feasable, where a small number of missiles with multiple warheads takes out the other side's offense, leaving you a large amount of missiles left to threaten whatever else you wanted. This promotes a "use it or lose it" mentality, which is badly destabilizing.) Around 1968-69, a large grass-roots movement in the US sprang up as the first Safeguard installations were beginning to be built. Unlike ICBM installations, which in general are out in farmland, many of the ABM installations were in relatively populated areas (for example, the one near Chicago, where I lived at the time, was to be in Libertyville, IL). The people in this town basically said, we don't want nuclear-armed missiles in our town, go put them somewhere else. About this time, various disarmament organizations did the math, which showed that any ABM system can be easily saturated at a cost far less than that of the ABM. They eventually convinced Congress etc., who worried about the fact that the Soviet response to our ABM system had been to go on a large binge of missile building. The hard part of the campaign was to convince the Soviets, who had a mind set that defensive missiles were by definition good. When this was done, the ABM treaty was signed, in which both sides agreed not to set up a country-wide missile defense system. The arguments from the ABM era still continue into the current SDI era. In fact, part of the original Pentagon specification to Congress on SDI was that it should be "cost effective at the margin". That's economist talk; economists use the word "marginal" to mean what everybody else says "incremental" to mean. The translation is that is should cost less for a deployed SDI system to add the capability to shoot down one more missile than it would cost the Russians to add one more missile to their arsenal. Interestingly enough, the Pentegon later told Congress that they wanted to remove this specification (changing it to simply "cost effective", a word which, as the Pentegon uses it, is essentially meaningless.) --Geoffrey A. Landis, Ph.D Brown University Until late January: BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM internet address (new): ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 87 18:03:42 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Re: Robotic devices in space In article <2818@zeus.TEK.COM> dant@tekla.UUCP (Dan Tilque) writes: >Henry Spencer: ...All Voyager did was take pictures. > >Phil R. Karn writes: >>Henry, sometimes you surprise me. Description of other science instruments deleted for space. Henry didn't surprise me, because he is visually oriented (as are most people) and he wants space for reasons different than say you are I. >I think that what Henry really meant was that Voyager was a passive data >gathering device and not an active environment manipulator. > >Except for the Viking shovel and the Shuttle arm, we haven't used any >manipulating robotic devices in space (if I'm wrong someone will surely >correct me). That only counts NASA-launched devices. I'm not that >familiar with what the Soviets have launched. They did have a lunar >"rover" and material return device (name forgotten). Any others? Luna. "Telescience" (as opposed to Pacific Bell's "Telesis") is a major new concept for the science community. There are major problems. The posting from GSFC pointed a little bit out. There are three basic ideas for robotics from manipulators to autonomous vehicles. Yes mission planners recognize the political value of an exhibit at the Smithsonian where say, you move a stick and an arm moves on the Moon. Major needs: Development of communications protocols which can work with satellite distances. The 1 second delays to the moon (3 seconds back [rounding, etc.] are significant. Dave Clark (MIT) gave an interesting talk on some problems with conventional protocols (TCP/IP) and satellite communications. This brings up two episodes from Sci Fi shows Outer Limits had the Invisible Enemy on Mars seven minute communications delays (obviously closest approach) and the last note on remote sensing, there was an episode on the camp British Sci Fi, UFO on the importance of scale and sensing. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA Like the man said, "Space is big, really big...." ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 87 04:37:49 GMT From: tektronix!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60aC) Subject: Re: Exact Time (help please) T. Terrell Banks writes: >Ken Trant writes: >>I have been asked by my Young Astronauts group to find out how the >>correct time is determined. > > Try calling WWV (National Bureau of Standards) in Fort Collins. > I think the number is (303) 499-7111. I believe they also broadcast the time on short wave. I don't remember the exact frequencies, but try 2.5, 5 and 10 MHz. (If I'm wrong, someone is sure to correct me.) You can actually hear the "leap second" that will take place at the end of year. Exciting stuff... Dan Tilque dant@tekla.tek.com or dant@tekla.UUCP ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #83 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Dec 87 06:17:27 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08070; Tue, 22 Dec 87 03:18:15 PST id AA08070; Tue, 22 Dec 87 03:18:15 PST Date: Tue, 22 Dec 87 03:18:15 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712221118.AA08070@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #84 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 84 Today's Topics: Purging the Van Allen Belts British Space Development British Space Development Britain in space Re: Exact Time (help please) Re: Treaties with the Russians Re: Recycling Pershing-II's Re: Robotic devices in space Re: Recycling Pershing-II's Recycling Pershing-II's Re: Treaties with the Soviets Re: Recycling Pershing-II's Re: Treaties with the Soviets Recycling Pershings ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 87 09:07 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Purging the Van Allen Belts Yesterday's (12/15/87) NY Times Science Times section had a short article that might be of interest to the readers of this digest. Some scientists have found that certain earth-based transmitters have been found to accidently induce instabilities that can cause the precipitation of electrons from the magnetosphere into the upper atmosphere. It might be possible to use this effect to rid the Van Allen belts of their trapped electrons. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 87 10:31:11 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: British Space Development In article <1580@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk> adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) writes: >The jet plane was invented practically at the same time by Britain, >Germany and the U.S.A. Germany had the first flying jet aircraft, >followed closely by Britain. Britain would have had a jet fighter not >long after the Battle of Britain except for government intervention. ... [...] >Now, for those who say "Why is this in sci.space?", read the above and >apply the lessons of history to the shuttle, Hermes, HOTOL, or whatever >craft your country should be sponsoring. The one thing you could rely on from ALL British goverments for the last couple of hundred years is that they will oppose anything that smells even faintly of change. You can also rely on them to be consitantly wrong. The Admiralty last century issued statements to the effect that they could see no reason to convert any of the ships of the royal navy to use steam power. The post office at the end of last century declared "Why should we want telephones? we have plenty message boys". Much more recently, a goverment report in 1972/3 said that there would be no real changes in computers, so it wasn't worth doing research. There are at least some companies in this country who know where the future will be. A recent TV advert may be the British equivalent of the "Russian space station" advert mentioned in this group recently. It is made by British Airways, and shows a Concorde or Concorde like aircraft going along a runway, climbing very steeply into orbit, passing two astronauts working outside a space station, (passangers gaze out the window, little girl is held up to get a better look), and finally accelerating off into the distance. There is no indication given anywhere about the nationality of anyone featured. The faces of the astronauts are never seen. There are no markings on either the space station or on the astronauts. My guess is thst BA have bought a Japanese shuttle and the astronauts are probably Japanese too. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 87 23:42:39 GMT From: livesey@sun.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: British Space Development In article <841@its63b.ed.ac.uk>, bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) writes: > > . . . > The one thing you could rely on from ALL British goverments > for the last couple of hundred years is that they will oppose > anything that smells even faintly of change. > > You can also rely on them to be consi[s]tantly wrong. > > [A bunch of 19 C. 'history' omitted] > > Much more recently, a goverment report in 1972/3 said that > there would be no real changes in computers, so it wasn't > worth doing research. That is a very interesting statement. I have in front of me three books which are reports of computer research projects funded partly or wholly by the UK Government. Shrivastava, S. K. Reliable Computer Systems. Springer Verlag 1985. This is a report on a research project in reliable computer hardware and software computer system structure, and the introduction contains explicit acknowledgement of and thanks for UK Government support and encouragement in the years 1972 to 1983. This is a fundamental reference in the field, since the Newcastle Reliablity Project is credited with introducing many of the basic concepts of the area, recovery blocks, for example. Duce D. A. Distributed Computing Systems Program Institute of Electrical Engineers 1984 This is a report on a research program in distributed computing hardware and software design, and Chapter I contains explicit acknowledgement of and thanks for UK Government support and encouragement during the years 1977-84, and *also* for other funding during the years *before* 1976. Paker Y. et al. Distributed Computing Systems Academic Press, London 1983 This is a collection of papers on distributed computing systems, including a basic reference on Distributed Path Pascal, with, as usual, acknowledgment of UK Government funding, It's very easy to talk about "A government report" (we have all heard about the US general who swore the atom bomb would not work) but what really matters is what a government finally does or does not do. Other people can check Mr Gray's statements about steam ships and telephones, but on the subject of UK Govt. support for computer systems research it appears he is simply wrong. Cheers. jon. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 87 17:29:40 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Britain in space > The Admiralty last century issued statements to the effect that they > could see no reason to convert any of the ships of the royal navy to > use steam power. Well, don't be too hard on them: remember that it was also the Royal Navy that built HMS Warrior and HMS Dreadnought, both of them massive breaks with the past. (Warrior [mid-1800s? not sure of date] was the first battleship to have an iron hull; Dreadnought [circa 1901] was the first battleship to use armored turrets, all-big-gun armament, and steam turbines; both made all other battleships obsolete. In fact both started arms races.) Unfortunately, it looks like Britain is planning to stick with wood and wind in space... Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 19 Dec 87 21:05:45 GMT From: cgs@umd5.umd.edu (Chris Sylvain) Subject: Re: Exact Time (help please) In article <5034@sdcrdcf.UUCP> darrelj@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Darrel VanBuer) writes: | ... Until atomic clocks, a second was defined as 1/86400 of a day. | Now it is defined as so many oscilations of some standard atomic | clock, thus the need for occasional leap seconds as the Earth's | rotation varies slightly over time. [The side effects of changing the | second to fit Earth would wreak havok with all kinds of precision | measurements] Since 1967, 1 second has been defined as 9,192,631,770 complete oscillations of cesium atoms (which cesium isotope is no doubt part of the definition?). ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 87 03:04:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Treaties with the Russians Written 7:45 pm Dec 11, 1987 by kevin@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu in sci.space: > In article <384@ablnc.ATT.COM> rcpilz@ablnc.ATT.COM (Robert C. Pilz) writes: > >We each [the Soviets and us] have one [ABM system] left. Ours is in > >Grand Forks ND... > > Sorry, but the U.S. has no ABM system of any kind; the one you > mentioned was dismantled. The Soviets do still have their one ABM > system allowed by treaty, and it protects Moscow. > > Kevin S. Van Horn And so very well, too. The joke goes: Wanna bomb Moscow? Fly your warhead in on a private plane with a West German pilot. Speaking of which, my wife just told me that that pilot has been convicted to four years in a Soviet labor camp for illegal entry into Soviet air space, illegal immigration, and "malicious hooliganism". jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 87 22:24:51 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. Starr) Subject: Re: Recycling Pershing-II's In article <871211-133643-1893@Xerox>, LBennett.es@XEROX.COM writes: > It should be possible to get the Soviets to agree to let us use the > Pershing missiles as boosters. There are ways to ensure that a > missile cannot be used militarily, other than destroying it. Why should they? Allowing us to try and use the Pershings for satellite launching just gives us a capability that they've been trying to sell to us for some time. Whether you could really make anything competitive with Proton out of a bunch of Pershings is questionable (see earlier posting), but it's not in their best interests to let us try. Perhaps more importantly, there's an internal Soviet propaganda reason for destroying the missiles by firing them, as pointed out by Gwynne Dyer, a London-based columnist on things military: Gorbachev's economic reforms are going to create a noticeable drop in the average Russian's standard of living in the immediate future, with the promise of better things later on. The promises don't mean much with a populace that's used to being lied to, so he's got to come up with something they value more than subsidized produce if he's going to keep the support necessary to carry his reforms through. That thing is a tangible symbol that the threat of war has been reduced; memories of WWII are still very real in the Soviet Union. Shooting those missiles into the air, around the clock, is a spectacular symbol, and you can bet that pictures of the Soviet missile-disposal launches (and ours) will be a major feature of Soviet TV news for some time to come. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 87 20:38:51 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Robotic devices in space In article <2818@zeus.TEK.COM>, dant@tekla.TEK.COM writes: > with what the Soviets have launched. They did have a lunar "rover" and > material return device (name forgotten). Any others? Wasn't that named "Lunakhod" ("Lunokhod")? Looked like a bathtub on wheels...rather victorian form. seh ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 87 12:47:38 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI To: loeb@bourbaki.mit.edu Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Recycling Pershing-II's Thanks for the note. I suppose the only way to work on this will be for it to be covered in the Senate confirmation hearings. Maybe both the US and Soviet missles could be donated to some international scientific organization which could then oversee their eventual use in some worthwhile research work... I just hope the practical and economic aspects of this are not lost in the euphoric glow of disarmament... Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Dec 87 21:21:17 EST From: loeb@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU To: wmartin@almsa-1.arpa Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Recycling Pershing-II's Is anybody planning to bring the missles up for discussion at the Senate confirmation hearings? I'd hate to lose the INF over such a matter..... How important are these launchers to the Space Program? Danny ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 87 07:56:57 GMT From: tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Treaties with the Soviets Please note that the much mentioned Soviet ABM system does not protect Moscow. As the ABM treaty only allows each nation's ABM system to protect a missile site, setting up an ABM system to protect Washington or Moscow would be a clear violation of the treaty. However the Soviets _do_ have an ABM system and it does protect a missile site. It is purely a co-incidence that the site is just outside Moscow.... (and if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you...) Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 87 9:27:56 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI To: loeb@bourbaki.mit.edu Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Recycling Pershing-II's All I've ever heard about the subject has been the traffic in the Space Digest, so I don't know if any scientific or pro-space organizations have been lobbying for bringing up this topic at the hearings, or if any Senators plan to do so. In any case, I am sure that there is no chance that such a peripheral issue will affect the fate of the treaty itself; the people with the power to determine that have no interest in this. As we have been merely speculating here anyway, I have no idea if these Pershings really have any scientific or research value. One previous posting mentioned that their chances of failure would preclude lashing them together to use as boosters for heavy payload launches, and I don't know if they are usable individually to do something like launch a small satellite. Maybe they would only be usable in a sounding-rocket mode, and, as recent traffic on Space indicated, we have a good record already of successful sounding-rocket work, so they may not even be needed for that. It just seems shameful, and personally morally repugnant to me, to destroy perfectly good devices. I just don't believe in the "throw-away" lifestyle that seems so prevalent. (I guess I'm just an ant amongst grasshoppers... :-) Regards, Will ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 87 19:13:47 GMT From: karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Treaties with the Soviets > Please note that the much mentioned Soviet ABM system does not protect > Moscow. This statement is more true than you think. The Soviets do indeed have an ABM system around Moscow, but it does not protect anything. It has never been considered a serious impediment to our ability to obliterate the city. It did, however, spur our development of MIRVed missiles (the ideal ABM countermeasure). The Soviets quickly copied the idea, and the resulting proliferation of highly accurate MIRVed missiles has greatly destabilized the arms race. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 87 23:12:40 PST From: ota@mariner.s1.gov Subject: Recycling Pershings An article in the Dec 14, 87 issue of AW&ST on page 20 talks about methods of destruction of the banned missiles. According to it each side will be permitted to destroy UP TO 100 missiles by launching them within 6 mo of ratification. None of these missiles may be equipped with instruments. All stages must be fired and all launch trajectories must be into designated impact areas. This suggests that the possibility of re-using the missiles as launchers was eliminated during the treaty negotiations. Ted Anderson ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #84 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Dec 87 06:19:37 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10486; Wed, 23 Dec 87 03:16:56 PST id AA10486; Wed, 23 Dec 87 03:16:56 PST Date: Wed, 23 Dec 87 03:16:56 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712231116.AA10486@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #85 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 85 Today's Topics: space news from Nov 30 AW&ST Re: Recycling Pershing-II's (short Re: Recycling Pershing-II's Re: Life in Moscow Re: Recycling Pershing-II's Soyuz TM-4 flys Monday and 30 month missions planned later Correction to Soyuz TM-4 mission information Soyuz TM-4 launched to Mir Soyuz TM-4 crew - correct spelling of names Re: Life in Moscow ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Dec 87 04:16:34 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Nov 30 AW&ST [last issue before I leave for vacation] Editorial urging NASA and pro-space groups to go onto the offensive politically. NASA is looking at building a new four-stage high-altitude sounding rocket for missions that need more time in space than current ones offer. Weinberger says Soviets may use mobile ICBMs as launchers for spacecraft, notably their ASAT system. SDI is talking about building a new booster as a massive cluster of existing rockets, on a one-time basis (!) to launch the Zenith Star space laser experiment. ZS is 80 ft long and 100,000 lbs, much too heavy for any existing booster. The pictures look vaguely like the Hubble telescope, with the rear being a big chemical laser with exhaust ports on the side, and the front a mirror system. SDI is also looking at in-space assembly after launch on two Titan 4s, or building a Saturn V derivative, but both are probably too costly. There is likely to be a political stink about building a one-shot booster, given the ongoing debate about US launch capability. The two (secret) studies of the ZS booster are being done by McDonnell Douglas (proposing three shuttle SRBs around a cluster of seven Delta main stages) and Martin Marietta (proposing five Titan SRBs around a sort of "fat Titan" main stage with five Titan engines and a body based on the shuttle tank). Neither would have the payload of Energia or the Saturn V, despite greater liftoff thrusts, but both could be built (relatively) quickly and cheaply. Reagan got a briefing on ZS during a visit to a Martin Marietta plant. ZS apparently poses no dire technical problems, and some complex hairsplitting has been done to explain why it would not violate the ABM treaty, but it's not at all clear whether it will get funded fully. Congressional Research Service report says it is most unlikely that space-based missile-defense systems could usefully attack ground targets, but they are a real threat to satellites and high-flying aircraft. New test stand to test SRB joints under external loads is a mixed success; some sort of procedural foulup prevented proper application of loads during the first test. The test will have to be repeated, but this is not thought likely to delay the shuttle much. NRC SRB oversight team recommends more attention to assessing effectiveness of O-rings; the new joint design keeps the hot gases away from them so well that they have not been tested thoroughly yet. Another recommendation is that at least one small-scale test use booster hardware that has been assembled, dismantled, and then reassembled. West Germany's TVSat 1 is in trouble. Successful launch by Ariane on Nov 20, but one of its solar arrays has not partially deployed properly. (The partial deployment is to provide housekeeping power for maneuvering, with full deployment happening only after the major maneuvering ends.) The satellite is in no immediate danger, as the other array is providing enough housekeeping power, and maneuvering is proceeding. Apart from the power question, another worry is whether the satellite's main antennas can be deployed properly if the jammed array won't open. Nothing will be done until the situation is studied at length. This array design has been used successfully before, although one of its previous uses (Arabsat) did have a temporary deployment problem. The contractors are especially concerned because some of them are bidding on the Intelsat 7 contract, and they need to show that they can sort this one out. Progress 33 launched toward Mir. Romanenko will hit the 300th day of his mission on Dec 2. Japan sets Feb 1 as date for next H-1 launch (Mitsubishi comsat). The good news: NASA changes its mind and endorses modifying one orbiter for long stays. The bad news: NASA says it will take 45 months and $146M. [Several expletives deleted...] Thousandth person rescued by the Cospas/Sarsat search-and-rescue system. Letter of the year, from Roger Harvey in Oregon: "To maintain your position in reporting events in the aerospace world, are you going to change your name to Aviation Week & Soviet Space Technology?" [See you in mid-January.] Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 87 19:55:00 GMT From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Recycling Pershing-II's (short Written 4:46 am Dec 12, 1987 by mmason@psu-cs.UUCP in sci.space: "Re: Recycling Pershing-II's (short" > I disagree with the idea that we should "recycle" the pershings which > will be destroyed under the INF treaty. It would be too easy for a > superpower (US, or the Russians with their SS's) to commandeer such > hardware during times of high-tension world events. It follows that > destruction of said hardware is a key ingredient of the INF treaty. This isn't really a valid reason; if tensions were high, there wouldn't be time to put all those warheads back into their missiles. There also wouldn't be much of a need. The current "Strategic" forces are more than enough to keep hot heads in line. > Look, we're getting rid of ten years of nulear arms buildup. Leave > well enough alone. Agreed, but destroying those missiles is a good symbol. Better, I guess, than the old "swords into plowshares" idea. jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 87 21:35:24 GMT From: ems!datapg!sewilco@UMN-CS.ARPA (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Subject: Re: Recycling Pershing-II's In article <1259@vaxb.calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes: [about destroying missiles by launching] >It's not clear to me that conversion to scientific purposes would cost >less than the "value" (whatever that is) of the data acquired, though. >It might take longer to think of good uses for them than is allowed >by the treaty timetable too... There's one known need: a space tug. Refuelable thruster package(s), a keel with mounting points, solar panels, batteries, teleoperated arm, radio gear, bucket of nuts and bolts. Can a single intermediate range missile reach LEO, and with what payload? If single ones cannot, how many needed for a BDB? OK, so it may fail often..we were going to destroy them anyway. Make test shots with fuel cannisters as payload. Solar panels and a battery go up with teleoperated arm. Thruster goes up next, flies to arm. Arm fastened to thrusters. Go to fuel or keel and assemble. Radios needed on thruster package and arm. Special ones needed, or can [mil-spec?] radio be simply sealed in a can? What's difficult about the arm? Need space-spec motors and bearings. One continuous-rotation joint in wrist would be nice. The closest thing to a thruster in my hardware store is a coffeepot or fire extinguisher, so the thruster package needs special manufacturing. Maybe navigational thrusters can be salvaged from some missiles? Put manual control on thruster package so arm can be used for recovery if thruster radio fails? Teleoperators? How much do we have to pay to get to operate it? :-) -- Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG ihnp4!meccts!datapg!sewilco ------------------------------ Date: 19 Dec 87 13:40:22 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Evelyn C. Leeper) Subject: Re: Life in Moscow In article <3584@husc6.harvard.edu>, reiter@endor.harvard.edu (Ehud Reiter) writes: > I picked up a propaganda poster (printed in 1982) of a young Russian > scientist, staring into space with a thoughtful look, and surrounded > by rockets, buildings, oil wells, etc. The slogan on the poster was > "Invent, Improve, Implement". To emphasize the high-tech nature of > science and of Russian society, the most prominent thing in the > picture (besides the scientist himself) was a strip of paper tape. Of course, they have a space station and we don't, they launch a couple of rockets a week and we don't launch any, etc., etc.. But after all, those are just minor quibbles, right? We shouldn't be so smug in our hi-tech abilities if we aren't using them. Evelyn C. Leeper ARPA: mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 Dec 87 21:37:06 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Recycling Pershing-II's > What's difficult about the arm? ... Nothing at all, it's effectively an off-the-shelf item: Spar Aerospace (Toronto) will be happy to quote you a price on a design that is already space-qualified and space-tested. Not cheap, and possibly too big for the suggested application, but no development needed. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 87 09:20:48 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soyuz TM-4 flys Monday and 30 month missions planned later The USSR has announced that the Soyuz TM-4 mission to the Mir/Kvant space station will be launched on Monday Dec. 21 at 11:00 hours UTC (6:00 am EDT). The three man crew will releave Yuri Romanenko (who has been up there 315 days, the world's long duration record holder) and Alexander Alexandrov (who has spent 145 days on Mir). The Soyuz mission will be 7-8 days so the current Mir crew will be coming down around Dec. 30th, as they had previously stated. The Soyuz TM-4 crew is still a bit of a mystery. The commander is Vladimir Titov (Soyuz T-8) and the cosmonaut researcher/flight engineer is Alexander Serebrov (Soyuz T-8 and the Soyuz T-10A pad fire abort). The third memeber is a doctor, but they keep on failing to give out the person's name, so what ever problem they have is still happening. This will be the third successive full or partial switch off for the Russians. This crew is expected to stay up there for 400 days. In addition, a couple of days ago while commenting on Romanenko's long duration a Soviet medical spokesman said that before a Mars mission would occur they intended to have people with 30 months of continuous zero G experience! That time is equal to a low energy conjunction class Mars mission (the planets are on opposite sides of the sun during the launch) where the crew would spend 1.5 years at the planet. Either they are playing it safe by considering the Mars 1/3 G to be the same a zero G for the crew, or they intend that at least part of the mission would stay in orbit to explore Phobos and Deimos (the Marsian moons). If they continue to expand their mission durations with a 30% increase for each long crew they would reach that time in 1995-6, and certainly by the end of the century. There is a very good low energy conjunction mission possible in 2001. They sound as if they are doing the ground work to be ready for such a mission if they decide to go ahead it. The USSR's space station is now becoming permanently manned. Meanwhile the congress has just reduced the NASA/international space station funding by $300 million to $425 - bearly enough to get the work started. Even then they can only spend $200 million during the first 6 months, after which a review will take place before the rest is spent. That review is timed for just when the shuttle is planned to fly - any problems there and we may be in trouble. There seems to be a difference in commitment to space between this country and the Soviet Union. Let us try and change that. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 87 00:06:25 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Correction to Soyuz TM-4 mission information A correction to my posting of earlier today on the Soyuz TM-4 mission. While Vladimir Titov (Soyuz T-8 and Soyuz T-10A) is still the mission commander, Serebrov is no longer the flight engineer. He has been replaced by Mosha Romara (age 36), while the third man is Aton Lekenkov (age 46 - spelling of both uncertain). Romara is listed as an ex test pilot. This is the first flight for both. There mission is stated as being a long duration one, with visits to Mir during their time by "several other crews including international ones". The reason for the crew change has not been stated (Serebrov was on the mission as of last months). Yuri Romanenkov and Alexander Alexandrov will return to earth on new years eve. Glenn Chapman MIT Linclon Lab. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 87 16:23:18 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soyuz TM-4 launched to Mir The Russian Soyuz TM-4 flight was successfully launched today (Dec 21) at about 6:15 am EDT. On board where Vladimir Titov (mission commander), Mosha Romara (flight engineer), and Aton Lekenkov (scientist cosmonaut). They will arrive at Mir on Dec. 23 to replace Yuri Romanenkov and Alexander Alexandrov who will return to earth on new years eve (probably in their Soyuz TM-3 capsule). One interesting point here is that there has been no mention of the Progress 33 supply ship being dropped as of yet. Normally the Progress is removed from the rear docking port a couple of weeks before the visiting crew arrives. However as of a few days ago the Mir/Kvant complex did not appear to have undergone the maneuvers that accompany the separation of the Progress (they normally use the Progress' engines to boost the station just before leaving). Perhaps they are going to pull the Progress away from the station and leave it there while the crew exchange takes place. This is the first full exchange yet attempted - all previous switchoffs have involved one of the old crew staying on when the new ones come up. How times have changed. 5 years ago I speculated on when a Soviet launch would occur based on the orbit of Salyut 7, the time of sun set at the recovery site, and subtle clues on the shortwave. Now they announce the launch time and I get up early to watch a live broadcast of the mission (including pictures from within the capsule) on CNN. Now let us have some shuttle lift offs to watch too. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 87 18:35:41 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soyuz TM-4 crew - correct spelling of names The correct spelling of the new cosmonauts on Soyuz TM-4 is Musa Manarov (flight engineer) and Anatoly Levchenko (scientist cosmonaut) (according to the New York Times). My applogy for the previous positings but spelling Russian names heard on a noisy shortwave broadcast is not my strong point. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 21 Dec 87 18:31:51 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (John Pantone) Subject: Re: Life in Moscow (Ehud Reiter) writes: > I picked up a propaganda poster (printed in 1982) of a young Russian > scientist ..... surrounded by rockets, buildings, oil wells, etc. ... > To emphasize the high-tech nature of science and of Russian society, > the most prominent thing in the picture ... was a strip of paper > tape. (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes: > We shouldn't be so smug in our hi-tech abilities if we aren't using them. Right - Evelyn, except have you (or Ehud) ever seen how our "modern, automated factories" get their data/programs for the NC machines? You got it -- Paper tape (actually, it's often mylar - but punched nonetheless). The "moral" is applicable - just because the technology isn't new is no reason to abandon it - we have a very serious problem, here in the U.S., with un-justified use of new technologies, and with un-justified ridicule of older ones. Had we stayed with the Saturn V/Apollo/Skylab technologies we would now be listening to our moonbase's reporter each evening on the 10 o'clock news - just after the special on the latest Mars mission. John M. Pantone ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #85 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Dec 87 06:20:23 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12151; Thu, 24 Dec 87 03:17:44 PST id AA12151; Thu, 24 Dec 87 03:17:44 PST Date: Thu, 24 Dec 87 03:17:44 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712241117.AA12151@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #86 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 86 Today's Topics: High Temperature Superconductors re: automation/robotics on space station, why not Re: Robotics and Automation on the Space Station Lunar Land Speed Record Re: Six year trip for Galileo Wild Materials (was Re: rewriting history) Re: Wild Materials (was Re: rewriting history) Re: space news from Nov 9 AW&ST Diversification Reform ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 87 17:37:37 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu Subject: High Temperature Superconductors Maybe the NYT's report of high-temp superconductivity wasn't a missprint. The recent _Science News_ had an article quoting Ahmet Erbil (Georgia Tech) saying that they have reproducable evidence of superconductivity at 500 K (that's 225 C!) on a variant formulation of the Lanthanum Copper etc. material. They quoted him as saying that in even the best samples only a small volume fraction is superconducting. I've been real skeptical of >= Room Temperature superconductivity claims, but maybe this time it has something behind it. And, of course, maybe not. Stay tuned.... In the same issue, they quoted Sungho Jim of Bell labs as saying that Bell has manufactured a flexible superconducting wire wthat can carry 100 times as much current as similar ceramics, and that they've "broken a critical current barrier". This is important for two reasons, first because before this all the new superconductors have been brittle, and thus not much good for wires, and second because for technically important uses like magnets (magnetic levitation, mass drivers, fusion containment, and superconducting supercolliders) high currents (and thus, high magnetic fields) are extremely important. --Geoffrey A. Landis, Ph.D Brown University BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM soon to appear at NASA Lewis Research internet address (new): ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Postscript--Brown hasn't gotten a digest of SPACE for several days now. Is this because of WISCVM is dropping out as an internet gate? I hope we get back onto the disty list. Meanwhile, if you are replying to any of my recent postings, could you send me a copy? (I won't read them till after Christmas break, though.) ------------------------------ Date: 19 Dec 87 22:04:40 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: re: automation/robotics on space station, why not > ... Dr. Henry Spencer, U. of Toronto. (A minor quibble, it's not "Dr.") > The Solar Max automated docking system was a rather simple mechanical > device, the "automatic" feature being a trip-released spring... > The device was placed in front of the astronaut using the Manned > Manuevering Unit. There were no robotics involved in the planned > mission to retrieve Solar Max... I realize that calling the TPAD "robotic" is pushing it. Nevertheless, I believe my point stands: the reliance on automatic coupling was a fatal flaw that nearly ruined the mission. As I understand it, if there had been a "manual trip" button, it would have worked. Also of note: if NASA can't make a "rather simple mechanical device" work reliably... > The device had no manual overide because NASA believed that it would > be too dangerous to have the astronaut remove his hands from the MMU > controls when he was just inches from a large, spinning satellite. This objection is the sort of thing that any bright bicycle mechanic could fix in half an hour. The issue is not that a manual control is inherently dangerous, only that it needs to be in a convenient place! It is distinctly peculiar that none of the NASA people, the world champions of contingency planning and backup provisions, ever considered that this particular piece of equipment might not work. > When the first attempt at docking with Solar Max failed, the astronaut > decided to try to stabilize the satellite by grabbing one of the > solar-cell wings, which only served to make things much worse. True, and not enormously surprising. Note, however, that he probably would not have tried it if anybody had bothered to think about the possibility that the TPAD might fail and to evaluate alternatives. I would guess that five minutes of work by the right engineer would have made it clear in advance that grabbing a solar array wouldn't work. Note that a somewhat similar concept, planned carefully in advance, worked just fine for the Leasat repair. > The next day, the satellite was captured on the first try by the > Canadian remote manipulator arm. In other words, a robot did what a > human could not. No, a robot did what another, supposedly foolproof (else why no backup?), robot could not do. Barely; if the Goddard controllers hadn't managed to not only stabilize the satellite, but also *reduce its spin rate*, the arm could not possibly have made this save. I will heroically refrain :-) from claiming that the arm worked because it was not designed or built by NASA! > I'm not sure what Dr. Spencer thinks of when he hears the word > "robot", but judging from his arguments, it appears that he is > thinking of autonomous intelligent machinery working without human > intervention. On the other hand, I think of practically any piece of > machinery with a computer between it and its human operator, whether > the human operator is working in real time or not. Actually, I go along with the latter definition, with the further extension that I don't insist on an actual computer being involved. We don't have a convenient term that covers the whole area of robotics, teleoperation, etc. > In the NASA PR films promoting the Space Station, the most prominent > robot is some variation of the proven remote manipulator arm already > in use on the Shuttle. The arm usually has more degrees of freedom > and different end effectors, but the principle is the same. *This* application of robotics I actually have no quarrel with, because it does appear to be somewhat of a requirement -- for example, it is not all that obvious how to dock a shuttle to the station otherwise. *However*, this application requires little or no R&D, since the hardware is already proven. Nor does it require NASA money, since Canada is doing it. Yes, there are problems with the current arm design, but the station would be far better off with a dozen arms of proven design than with a handful of "new, improved" ones (with new, improved bugs). And it probably would cost less. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 21 Dec 87 21:18:46 GMT From: grasp.cis.upenn.edu!ulrich@super.upenn.edu (Nathan Ulrich) Subject: Re: Robotics and Automation on the Space Station In article <1987Dec17.122217.10185@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >> ... I must admit to some >> disgust at their expression of fear regarding robots... > >Fear? Please point to where that was expressed. Speaking for myself, I Sorry to confuse you with someone else. >> ... *None* of the eventual devices sent up will be unproven.... >> they will all have been tested extensively and will have proved their >> usefulness. > >Tested on the ground, i.e. in an environment that is not representative >of the environment they will have to work in for many years. You have hit on one of the fundamental problems with the testing of robots for space while we are on the ground--too expensive to send them up just for testing, but hard to duplicate outer space on the ground. Notice that I said "hard," not impossible--as a matter of fact, there is a way to test robot arms in almost exactly the same conditions as they will experience in space. Sorry to tease, but I can't talk about the device yet..... >> I do not agree that we cannot afford *new* technology--I >> don't think the space station will work with- >> out new technology... > >The Mir astronauts would get a good laugh out of that. A >carefully-designed space station works just fine without new >technology. Again, I am not expressing myself well. Undoubtedly, we could put up another Skylab or duplicate Mir (maybe not :-), but I understood the goals of our space station to be a bit different....New technology will help, but I agree that it must be proven. Nathan Ulrich ulrich@grasp.cis.upenn.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 DEC 87 09:19-PST From: clopez%UCIVMSA.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu Subject: Lunar Land Speed Record The following is quoted from "Ten Best Ahead-of-Their-Time Machines," in the most recent issue of Car and Driver: "The Lunar Roving Vehicle was a cunning piece of work. It weighed only 460 pounds (on earth) but could carry 1100. Its wheels were matrices of steel wire and titanium tread blocks. For maximum maneuverability, all four wheel steered. A centrally mounted T-shaped handle controlled forward and reverse speed, steering, and stopping. The silver-zinc batteries, with a combined capacity of 242 ampere-hours, allowed the LRV to be driven up to 57 miles. "Each of the three LRVs sent to the moon in 1971 and '72 was kept well within that limit. The highest odo reading, scored in three sorties during the final lunar mission, Apollo 17, was 22.4 miles, covered in 4 hours and 27 minutes of driving. That's an average of only 5.03 mph. However, during the last sortie, Gene Cernen reported a top speed of 11.3 mph -- which stands as the lunar land speed record. For the moment. Carlos A. Lopez (clopez@ucivmsa) ------------------------------ Date: 19 Dec 87 21:30:33 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Six year trip for Galileo > What the article left out: anything about possible problems. For > example, it did not give the launch window (I would expect it to be > narrow to make all the flybys) and what happens if there is a delay in > the shuttle schedule which makes it impossible to make the window. One reason why interplanetary missions tend to go via parking orbit (which can't be avoided for shuttle-boosted missions!) is that it provides some slack: the *real* launch window is for the boost out of parking orbit, so if one plans to arrive in parking orbit early, a modest delay in the launch from Earth doesn't mean missing the real window. I dimly recall seeing mention of a backup launch date for Galileo; it kills the asteroid flybys but otherwise works out okay. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 21 Dec 87 19:08:17 GMT From: decvax!ima!haddock!eli@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Elias Israel) Subject: Wild Materials (was Re: rewriting history) In article <849@uop.edu> robert@uop.edu (Hi how ya doin) writes: >I remember [the Shuttle Tile] demo, the guy who did it I think that the stuff that you are referring to is made by a company called "Spenco". They are a medical supplies company and the material (I forget the name of the stuff) absorbs some huge percentage of any shock applied to it. I have heard that you can make two small cups of the stuff and place an egg inside them and hit the whole mess with a mallet and find the egg unbroken. Spenco uses the stuff to make bicycle seats and foot pads and knee pads and wrist wieghts and ... Supposedly, the theory behind it came from a study of how flesh absorbs shocks. Indeed, if you pick up a lump of the stuff and land a fist in it, it feels petty much like punching someone in the upper arm. Elias Israel Interactive Systems Corporation Boston, MA ..!harvard!ima!haddock!eli ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 87 01:41:59 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Wild Materials (was Re: rewriting history) In article <2038@haddock.ISC.COM>, eli@haddock.ISC.COM (Elias Israel) writes: > I think that the stuff that you are referring to is made by a company > called "Spenco". They are a medical supplies company and the material > (I Spenco uses the stuff to make bicycle seats and foot pads and knee > pads and wrist wieghts and ... The material used in bicycle seats (Avocet, at least) is called GelFlex (by Avocet, at least). Another material like GelFlex is called Sorbothane. The Spenco material is basically neoprene that has had high-pressure nitrogen bubbles injected while it was still liquid. Neat stuff, but not cheap. A Spenco chair cushion (for a sick relative who had lost a *lot* of weight) was quoted to me for @$140. It also weighed about 15 pounds or so. seh ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 87 15:48:47 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: space news from Nov 9 AW&ST In article <1987Dec14.215025.23687@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Letter from S.W. Stagg commenting on Paine's Aerospace Forum piece in Sept: > .... Other countries are in the space business... NASA and the > bureaucrats are fighting it out for last place in the space > race." Sorry, last place is already taken. Bob. ------------------------------ Reply-To: lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov Date: Tue, 22 Dec 87 18:20:22 PST From: lll-crg!ames!scubed!sdcsvax!pnet01.cts.com!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Diversification Reform One component of an effective space program reform policy would be to break NASA up into many independent space programs with overlapping purviews. The most obvious way of achieving this would be to give each NASA center its own independent budget, perhaps while increasing their budgets slightly to account for the cost of transition. This, of course, would be most vocally resisted by nonproductive NASA centers which fear other NASA centers. These centers would almost certainly engage in blatent violations of the Hatch Act by having various contractors lobby their congresscritters mercilessly, and thus would be given 2 opportunities to be terminated: 1) Through good faith enforcement of the Hatch Act and 2) Through being shown to be wasting money when other centers are far more efficient and effective in the use of their budgets to accomplish overlapping tasks. This reform component would, of course, require a President who has a modicum of integrity and the intelligence to understand the failure mode our current space program is in. Such a President would, also, need guidance in the details of the implementation of such a reform. A more detailed version of this proposal is being presented to some Democratic Presidential candidates for consideration as a part of a more effective space policy, and may be presented at the Iowa City space forum coming up in February. I would like to open discussion on the pragmatic aspects of such a diversification of our space activities -- pitfalls to avoid and recommended courses of action. To kick it off, I'd like to offer a few suggestions for administrators of the new space agencies, and ask for input on a more complete list: CENTER ADMINISTRATOR Huston John Young (or person he recommends) Marshall Alan J. McDonald (or person he recommends) JPL James Van Allen (or person he recommends) Another important question to answer is, if we are unable to achieve a diversification of space activities along the above lines, who would be a good NASA administrator? Who would be good suggestions for the directors of various centers? Please provide some justification. Thank you for your suggestions. Jim Bowery PHONE: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 La Jolla, CA 92038 UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #86 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Dec 87 06:19:50 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13336; Fri, 25 Dec 87 03:17:14 PST id AA13336; Fri, 25 Dec 87 03:17:14 PST Date: Fri, 25 Dec 87 03:17:14 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712251117.AA13336@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #87 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 87 Today's Topics: Calendar from Morton Thiokol Still more fascism... Van Allen belts Re: Remote Sensing Fascism Gravity assists Recycled Missiles Re: Still more fascism... Re: Diversification Reform Re: Still more fascism... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 87 16:11:40 EST From: loeb@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU To: ucs_mwk%SHSU.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu Cc: space@angband.s1.gov, jnp@calmasd.ge.com, ajw@manatee.cis.ufl.edu, ecsvax!ruslan@mcnc.org, lasibley%math.waterloo.edu@relay.cs.net, ihnp4!chinet!hcfeams!aicchi!dbb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, jeffh@BRL.ARPA Subject: Calendar from Morton Thiokol Here are the results so far from my survey of Presidential candidates. (Note: Hart was not surveyed does anybody know his address.) 1) George Bush Our Commitment to leadership in space is symbolic of the role we seek in the world... Earlier this year Dr. Sally Ride delivered a report to NASA called LEADERSHIP AND AMERICA'S FUTURE IN SPACE in which she outlined four reasonable options for the space program. The first she called "Mission to Planet Earth." Such a mission would create a global observation system in space, aimed at developing a fundamental understanding of the Earth system, in order to predict changes that might occur -- either naturally or as a result of human activity. NASA should remain the lead agency in exploring the frontiers of space science and technology -- for developement of a trans-atmospheric vehicle to construction of a space station. What it should not be is a freight service for routine commercial payloads. In the short term, I support construction of the replacement shuttle. But because Mission to Planet Earth would require the ability to launch large payloads, it would justify the building of a heavy-lift launch vehicle -- designed for minimum cost instead of minimum weight. Any space based defense will require a deep reduction in the price of placing cargo in orbit in order to be affordable. Indeed, costs need to be cut by a factor of 10. I am committed to a vigorous SDI program. The soviets have been working on strategic defenses much longer and harder than we have -- indeed, well before my time at the CIA in the mid-'70s. Mission to Planet Earth, a strong civilian launching program, and strategic defense -- these are important immediate goals. We should make a long-term commitment to manned at unmanned exploration of the solar system. There is much to be done -- further exploration of the moon, a mission to Mars, probes of the outer planets. These are worthwhile objectives, and they should not be neglected. The signing in April [1987] of a five-year agrement wiht the Soviet Union to cooperate "in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes" is a first step in this direction. -- Remarks made in Huntsville, Alabama October 20, 1987 2) Haig Haig only mentions Space related issues in the following two paragraphs under the heading of SDI. "I favor SDI because we cannot cede the field of space-bases defenses to the Soviets, who have been developing such systems for over two decades. I further support research and testing even deployment of whatever off-the-shelf technology exists. We should be under no illusions, however, about the state of that technology, which is still at an elementary level. "Because a fully workable space defense umbrella may be 15 to 20 years away, SDI cannot be a substitute for nuclear deterrent. That is why I have been critical about premature politicization of this issue, which has caused confusion everywhere -- in the Congress and in the scientific community, among the public, and especially among our European allies." 3) Dole acknowledged my request and forwarded my letter to the appropriate office. 4) No others have responded to date. (Including all of the Democrats) Note that I have refrained from editorializing (with SOME effort) inserting only the date [1987] in Bush's remarks. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 1987 23:07-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Still more fascism... Science, 18-Dec-87, pg 1648: "NASA Denied Access to DOE Laser Fusion Data" NASA apparently is interested in Inertial Containment Fusion for deep space propulsion systems that couild make the trip to Mars in under 100 days. DOE has decided NASA does not have sufficient justification to be given access to the data. Just another example of secrecy paranoia that slows technological advance: Your tax dollars at work screwing you. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To misquote and abuse Shakespeare: "First thing we do, kill all the spooks.." --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 87 08:44:23 EST From: subar%mwcamis@mitre.arpa Subject: Van Allen belts Recently "Paul F. Dietz" posted: >Some scientists have found that certain earth-based transmitters have >been found to accidently induce instabilities that can cause the >precipitation of electrons from the magnetosphere into the upper >atmosphere. It might be possible to use this effect to rid the Van >Allen belts of their trapped electrons. Call me an atmospheric ignoramus, but what are the effects of the precitation? How did the electrons get in the Van Allen belt, and why remove them? Would it be better to replace a Van Allen belt with a leather one? Merry Everything, David Subar subar@mitre.arpa ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 1987 20:17-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Remote Sensing Fascism I don't wish to imply that the individual from the DOD is lying, but I have heard the murmur underground that Mark Brender, the prime mover for mediasat, backed off because they could not get an agreement solid enough to satisfy potential investors. Since an AMERICAN mediasat may be down the tubes, why should DOD respond otherwise? We must keep in mind that they (DOD) don't really need to get very heavy handed to kill the industry. Hundred million dollar investors are warier than a 12 point Pennsylvania buck in hunting season. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 87 16:00:16 EST Posted-From: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA From: m18359%hawki@mitre-bedford.arpa (Marcel Parnas) Subject: Gravity assists Could someone please explain the use of gravity assists (close planetary flybys) by space probes? Suppose I am flying along towards Jupiter. I could try to get there on my own, by flying a "straight" line to where I expect Jupiter to be when I get there, but I guess that would take a long time at the speeds I am currently capable of attaining. My alternative is to deviate from the direct route, and make a close encounter with some likely planet. Obviously, this means the total distance I must travel is greater. Furthermore, I cannot expect to gain any energy with respect to this planet just by flying by it. Am I being accelerated enough by the planet on my way in and on my way out that my average velocity over this greater distance gets me where I am going in a shorter amount of time? Are there any other mechanisms at work? As I only read SPACE Digest, please reply to me directly, (unless you can make sure your reply appears in the Digest)! Many thanks, Marcel Parnas MPARNAS%MDF@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 87 13:25 EDT From: ELIOT%cs.umass.edu@relay.cs.net Subject: Recycled Missiles There may be a good arms control reason not to do this. If there were 100 well instrumented launches of the missiles it might well be possible to discover and correct a number of subtle design problems. The net result would be that deployed missiles would be traded for designs of extremely well tested andmuch more reliable missiles. It sounds wasteful, but I don't want anything to stop this minor arms control measure. If a trivial arms control agreement fails then there does not seem to be much hope for any substantive ones to work. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 87 16:28:23 GMT From: decvax!ima!haddock!eli@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Elias Israel) Subject: Re: Still more fascism... In article <567230824.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >Science, 18-Dec-87, pg 1648: > >"NASA Denied Access to DOE Laser Fusion Data" > >NASA apparently is interested in Inertial Containment Fusion for deep >space propulsion systems that couild make the trip to Mars in under 100 >days. DOE has decided NASA does not have sufficient justification to be >given access to the data. > >Just another example of secrecy paranoia that slows technological >advance: Your tax dollars at work screwing you. Agreed. What a perfect example of &^$^&&^% bureaucrats screwing things up for the rest of the citizens. I say we should seriously question how they became empowered to make this decision..... In any case, what a neat idea! Would someone on the net care to conjecture how inertial confinement fusion could be used as a propulsion system? Would current treaties with the soviets permit us to construct a device that uses as its propulsion many (admittedly, small) fusion reactions? What kind of velocity would be required to send a vehicle to mars (assuming closest approach) in 100 days? Elias Israel Interactive Systems Corporation Boston, MA ..!harvardima!haddock!eli "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 87 18:22:41 GMT From: thorin!hayes!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Diversification Reform In article <8712230236.AA23949@crash.cts.com> lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov writes: >One component of an effective space program reform policy would be to break >NASA up into many independent space programs with overlapping purviews. I believe this is a *really bad* idea. At one stroke you - add a great deal of redundant management for the new organizations, thereby wasting mucho $$$ that could be spent on real stuff. - make them compete against themselves for funding. So far this tends to happen in arguments between NSS and Planetary Society members rather than in Congressional hearings, and I for one would prefer to keep it that way. - lose any hope of having a space program with coherent, large-scale goals such as ``landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth''. Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``...there are many places where gravity has its practical applications as far as the Universe is concerned.'' - R. P. Feynman, _The Character of Physical Law_ ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 87 23:26:14 GMT From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: Still more fascism... In article <2070@haddock.ISC.COM> eli@haddock.ima.isc.com (Elias Israel) writes: >In article <567230824.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >>Science, 18-Dec-87, pg 1648: >>"NASA Denied Access to DOE Laser Fusion Data" I don't have this issue yet, but I'll have to see what the article says. Meanwhile, some general notes: >>NASA apparently is interested in Inertial Containment Fusion for deep >>space propulsion systems that couild make the trip to Mars in under 100 >>days. Means very little. NASA is "interested" in a great many things, including laser propulsion, solar sails, etc. This doesn't mean they plan to do anything about them, like fund any significant research. ICF propulsion has been around as an idea since the mid-70's. Judging by NASA's schedules for much less advanced ideas, they would probably expect to use ICF propulsion in about 2050. NASA has no facilities for research on ICF, with the possible exception of various Crays (Hi, Eugene) which could (but normally don't) run ICF codes. >>DOE has decided NASA does not have sufficient justification to be >>given access to the data. >> >>Just another example of secrecy paranoia that slows technological >>advance: Your tax dollars at work screwing you. Much ICF research is unclassified, and I'm sure NASA has access to those data. While one can certainly argue that much of what is classified should not be, it is also arguable that some ICF data should be classified, and that NASA really doesn't "need to know" that information now for the sake of long distance plans. This doesn't mean I agree with the decision (or disagree -- I don't know enough about the circumstances), just that I can understand what motivates it. > >Agreed. What a perfect example of &^$^&&^% bureaucrats screwing things >up for the rest of the citizens. I say we should seriously question >how they became empowered to make this decision..... Probably by authority of the Secretary of Energy, and thus indirectly by authority of the President. But enough of bureacracy... > >In any case, what a neat idea! Would someone on the net care to >conjecture how inertial confinement fusion could be used as a >propulsion system? Would current treaties with the soviets permit us >to construct a device that uses as its propulsion many (admittedly, >small) fusion reactions? What kind of velocity would be required to >send a vehicle to mars (assuming closest approach) in 100 days? The basic scheme was proposed by Rod Hyde in the mid-70's -- the vehicle drops a small pellet out the back, then blasts it with a large on-board laser. A small amount of the pellet material fuses, heating the pellet material to very high temperatures. The pellet debris is sufficiently ionized to be contained by a magnetic field, which acts as a nozzle, converting the spherical pellet explosion into a directional exhaust that accelerates the spacecraft. A portion of the energy is captured to power the lasers for the next shot. The details vary. For example, D-T (deuterium-tritium) fusion is easiest to "light" but emits neutrons, so the spacecraft must be shielded (usually with a "shadow shield" that blocks only neutrons coming out in a narrow cone). D-D fusion is clean (no neutrons) but harder to light. To my knowledge, no treaty would restrict the operation of an ICF spacecraft, any more than treaty restricts the operation of nuclear reactors on satellites. However, I'm not an expert on treaty law. The performance needed to reach mars in 100 days is quite modest (few km/sec velocity) If ICF propulsion works, it will make trips to mars possible in more like 10 days -- or maybe 1 day. Somewhere around Rod Hyde's office is a nice artist's conception of an ICF spacecraft in orbit around Saturn. Before you get too enthusiastic, though, note that no IC fusion reaction, even using the very large (and very non-portable) NOVA laser has achieved even scientific breakeven (more fusion energy out than light energy into the pellet), much less engineering breakeven (more energy out than electrical energy into the laser), still less continuous operation. We're a long way from building fusion-powered spacecraft (except Orion-style, and that's a whole 'nother story....). Jordin Kare jtk@mordor.UUCP jtk@mordor.S1.gov Statements contained in this article represent only my personal opinions, and do not reflect any official policy or position of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the University of California, or the Department of Energy. >Elias Israel >"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." "Anarchy -- It's Not the Law, It's Just a Good Idea" ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #87 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Dec 87 06:19:36 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14355; Sat, 26 Dec 87 03:16:51 PST id AA14355; Sat, 26 Dec 87 03:16:51 PST Date: Sat, 26 Dec 87 03:16:51 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712261116.AA14355@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #88 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 88 Today's Topics: Spouses in space (was: Re: Astronauts and Trek) Re: Life in Moscow Re: Van Allen belts Re: Still more fascism... Re: Wild Materials (was Re: rewriting history) Re: Diversification Reform Re: space news from Nov 30 AW&ST Re: Remote Sensing Resolution (was Fascism) Re: UK Goverment funding of computer Systems research. Soyuz TM-4 docks at Mir with replacement crew on board ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Dec 87 19:22:57 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!lzaz!lznv!psc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Subject: Spouses in space (was: Re: Astronauts and Trek) In article <391@drilex.UUCP>, carols@drilex.UUCP (Carol Springs) writes: > I recall reading some time ago a newspaper interview with Sally Ride, > in which she and her (now-ex) husband, also an astronaut . . . I know that Dr. Ride is an ex-astronaut (she's gone back to Stanford to teach). I hadn't heard she'd split up with her husband. Both of these facts, plus the fact that NASA never scheduled them to fly together, prevented an important experiment in space science: what's boinking like in zero G? Astronauts routinely go into the shuttle airlock when they need some space (pun intended). I imagine that the rest of the crew wouldn't say anything if a couple locked both doors for an hour or so. > On an unrelated note... How much of the American public do you > suppose knew that Sally Ride and her husband had (gasp!) lived > together for a time during their astronaut training without benefit > of clergy? . . . it's just that I was pleased to learn that NASA had > felt the same way (w.r.t. the selection process). This is very different from the early days: a Gemini (I think) candidate was rejected for divorcing his wife and marrying his girlfriend. On a completely unrelated note, Judith Resnick (one of the Challenger Seven) was both the first divorced astronaut, and the first Jewish one. I doubt there's any relation between the two. On the other hand, while these factors might (stupidly) encourage NASA to pass over a white male, anyone who said, "We can't hire *her*; she's divorced" would have gotten (rightly) flamed by the Equal Opportunity folks. (The preceding has been the personal opinion of the poster; please flame him personally, via email, if you strongly disagree, rather than inflicting it on everyone else.) > Carol Springs {rutgers!ll-xn, ames!ll-xn, mit-eddie!ll-xn, > husc6!harvard, gatech!harvard, linus!axiom, necntc} !drilex!carols -Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet psc@lznv.att.com I'm not speaking for my employer, I'm just speaking my mind. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 87 17:30:12 GMT From: tektronix!tekgen!tekigm2!jimb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Jim Boland) Subject: Re: Life in Moscow In article <2573@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: >Had we stayed with the Saturn V/Apollo/Skylab technologies we would now be >listening to our moonbase's reporter each evening on the 10 o'clock news - >just after the special on the latest Mars mission. I agree. I feel that the Saturn V-A and Apollo program was the most exciting part of our space exploration and I for one would like to see it re-enacted. Witnessing a Saturn launch is a greater experience than the shuttle. jim boland tektronix!tekigm2!jimb (I felt the earth move.......under my feet) ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 87 22:10:02 GMT From: tektronix!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60aC) Subject: Re: Van Allen belts >Recently "Paul F. Dietz" posted: >>Some scientists have found that certain earth-based transmitters have been >>found to accidently induce instabilities that can cause the >>precipitation of electrons from the magnetosphere into the upper >>atmosphere. It might be possible to use this effect to rid the Van Allen >>belts of their trapped electrons. David Subar: >Call me an atmospheric ignoramus, but what are the effects of the precitation? Probably more spectacular auroras than usual. >How did the electrons get in the Van Allen belt, and why remove them? Upper atmospheric nuclear testing in the 50's. The sun also contributes some electrons and possibly some come from cosmic rays. These electrons would be removed by natural causes over a long period (about 100,000 years, I think). Removing them would open some frequency bands in the radio spectrum for use by radio astronomers. >Would it be better to replace a Van Allen belt with a leather one? No, but I think that adding some van Allen suspenders may help. --- Dan Tilque dant@tekla.tek.com or dant@tekla.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 87 21:27:38 GMT From: moria!dunc@sun.com (duncs home) Subject: Re: Still more fascism... In article <2070@haddock.ISC.COM> eli@haddock.ima.isc.com (Elias Israel) writes: ... >small) fusion reactions? What kind of velocity would be required to >send a vehicle to mars (assuming closest approach) in 100 days? Assuming: -Mars is ~36e6 miles away (best case), ~248e6 miles away (worst case) -you keep the motor turned on, ie. constant acceleration -you accelerate for 50 days, flip and decelerate for 50 days -I didn't drop a decimal place somewhere (I *think* it works out) The back of the envelope shows you need a constant acceleration on the order of .00031 gravities (best case) or .0022 gravities (worst case), giving you a maximum velocity at turnover of 13 km/s (best case) and 93 km/s (worst case). Of course the numbers are as rough as the assumptions, but I think they should be order-of-magnitude correct. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 87 19:34:57 GMT From: uop!robert@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (Hi how ya doin) Subject: Re: Wild Materials (was Re: rewriting history) In article <2038@haddock.ISC.COM>, eli@haddock.ISC.COM (Elias Israel) writes: > I think that the stuff that you are referring to is made by a company > called "Spenco". They are a medical supplies company and the material (I I am glad it is that easy, our store deals in Spenco products, I will give the rep a call. thanks --- ...mcvax!uunet!mit-eddie!garp!ames!ucbvax!ucdavis!\ ...eunetv!unido!/ ...princeton!rutgers!retix!--uop!robert ...sun!ptsfa!cogent!/ ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 87 21:17:06 GMT From: mcvax!jack@uunet.uu.net (Jack Jansen) Subject: Re: Diversification Reform In article <8712230236.AA23949@crash.cts.com> lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov writes: >One component of an effective space program reform policy would be to break >NASA up into many independent space programs with overlapping purviews. The Uhm.... I *completely* disagree. Already one of the main problems seems to be that most money is spent on publicity personnel, copiers, new carpets, meetings, coffee machines, etc etc etc. The main thing that'll happen if you split NASA is that there'll be an enormous increase in publicity personnel, copiers, etc etc etc. Somebody said "central management"? giggle. "Consultation"? Hihihihi. "Cooperation"? WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! -- Jack Jansen, jack@cwi.nl (or jack@mcvax.uucp) The shell is my oyster. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 87 21:01:32 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!sq!msb@uunet.uu.net (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: space news from Nov 30 AW&ST > NRC SRB oversight team recommends more attention to assessing effectiveness > of O-rings; the new joint design keeps the hot gases away from them so well > that they have not been tested thoroughly yet. One hopes that this time they will find a non-destructive test. [For those not up on the Rogers Report... one of the contributing causes of O-ring problems was the testing for O-ring problems. There is a dramatic graph showing the increased incidence of trouble after a certain test began to be performed at a higher pressure.] Mark Brader "The last 10% of the performance sought contributes Toronto one-third of the cost and two-thirds of the problems." utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- Norm Augustine ------------------------------ Date: 21 Dec 87 18:38:56 GMT From: mcvax!enea!luth!cad!sow@uunet.uu.net (Sven-Ove Westberg) Subject: Re: Remote Sensing Resolution (was Fascism) In article <3680@ames.arpa> eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene Miya N.) writes: > >In article <905@luth.luth.se> sow@cad.luth.se (Sven-Ove Westberg) writes: >>I can only see one reason for the government to limit the resolution. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >There are many good technical reasons to limit resolution. It depends I agree completly with you that it exist good technical reasons. But my opinion is that this is NOT a matter for the government, did the government have the knowedge to do the correct decisions?? How long will the decision be valid?? 1 month 1 year or forever? Look how many old crazy laws that still exists. This is NOT a question for the government it is a question for the project managers and the founding organisations. What would have happen if the gouvernment tried to estimate the total computer power needed 20 years ago?? Sven-Ove Westberg, CAD, University of Lulea, S-951 87 Lulea, Sweden. UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!enea!cad.luth.se!sow Internet: sow@cad.luth.se ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 87 17:30:57 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bct@uunet.uu.net (B Tompsett) Subject: Re: UK Goverment funding of computer Systems research. [See the end for attributions] Bob Gray (bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk) wrote that the UK goverment is extremely resistant to funding various forms of research (related to space) including Computer Systems research. Jon Livesey (livesey@sun.uucp) claims that as he knows of more than one computer system project in the UK that has received goverment funding. The implication from his article is that this refutes Bob Gray. I think he is wrong. It is very clear that the UK Goverment is not known for its generosity in funding such research. That does not mean that the level of funded research is zero. The fact that Jon Livesey can quote the references he does says more about the access to technical literature at Sun than the state of funding in the UK. For example some University Libraries might have trouble accessing the same volume of material that Sun obviously has because of the difficulty in obtaining funding for such a basic tool of scientific research. As someone who has moved from being somone in Jon Livesey's position (an employee of a US hi-tech company) to the a UK academic position I know who had access to the better tools of research (and it aint here). Attracting suitable funding for Computer Systems research in the UK is bloody hard. I hearby certify the UK goverment to be ungenerous. Brian. -----Attributions----- >In article <841@its63b.ed.ac.uk>, bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) writes: > The one thing you could rely on from ALL British goverments > for the last couple of hundred years is that they will oppose > anything that smells even faintly of change. > > You can also rely on them to be consi[s]tantly wrong. > > [A bunch of 19 C. 'history' omitted] > > Much more recently, a goverment report in 1972/3 said that > there would be no real changes in computers, so it wasn't > worth doing research. In article <36747@sun.uucp> livesey@sun.uucp (Jon Livesey) writes: > > That is a very interesting statement. I have in front of me three >books which are reports of computer research projects funded partly or wholly >by the UK Government. > > [... Details of funded research deleted ...] > > > It's very easy to talk about "A government report" [....] > [......] but what really matters >is what a government finally does or does not do. > [...] but on the subject of UK >Govt. support for computer systems research it appears he is simply wrong. -- > Brian Tompsett. Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, > JCMB, The King's Buildings, Mayfield Road, EDINBURGH, EH9 3JZ, Scotland, U.K. > Telephone: +44 31 667 1081 x2711. > JANET: bct@uk.ac.ed.ecsvax ARPA: bct%ed.ecsvax@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk > USENET: bct@ecsvax.ed.ac.uk UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!ed.ecsvax!bct > BITNET: ukacrl.earn!ed.ecsvax!bct or bct%ed.ecsvax@uk.ac ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Dec 87 13:28:31 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soyuz TM-4 docks at Mir with replacement crew on board The USSR's Soyuz TM-4 ship docked with the with the Mir/Kvant space station complex today (Dec. 23) bringing up a three man crew consisting of Vladimir Titov (Soyuz T-8 and the Soyuz T-10b launch pad failure), flight engineer Musa Manarov (age 36, new cosmonaut) and Anatoly Levchenko (scientist cosmonaut - age 46 and also new). In an interesting alteration from expectations only Titov and Manarov will be staying on board Mir - Levchenko will return with Yuri Romanenko (who has been up there 321 days, the world's long duration record holder - previous record was 237 days) and Alexander Alexandrov (who has spent 152 days on Mir). The Soyuz TM-3 will bring them down on Dec. 31th/ Jan. 1st, as they had previously stated. This change is actually consistent with other things that they have stated - that for well being of the crew it is necessary to have a separate stateroom for each crew member - Mir has two small rooms (each with a bed, desk, and its own window). The expectation is that this new crew will stay up there about 400 days. The Soviets are now referring to Mir as a "Permanently operational space station", very much indicating that they intend to occupy it from now on until its replacement with Novy Mir in the 1990's. They first tried this on Salyut 7 in Nov. '84, but the commander of the replacement crew got ill. That was probably an early trial as they had stated that Salyut 7 was too old a design to be used for permanent occupancy (they probably tried it due to delays in the building or launching of Mir and the Kvant module ). With Mir they have already done one partial replacement (July '29th) and appear to be very strong on keeping this space station fully used. Also there is another trend here. The long duration crews consist of one veteran cosmonaut, and one (or more) younger rockies. This makes sense from the point of view of having one person who has the experience to take care of problems, yet is also training a new person to pass that in orbit experience onto in the environment in which they are going to work. That to my mind beats ground based training after the basics have been learned (be it noted that the new cosmonaut typically has 5 to 7 years of ground training before going up there). Meanwhile here I just found out that the $425 million approved for the NASA space station contains $100 million taken out of other NASA space programs. Note that when the shuttle was being built it ran into a funding barrier at $1000 million a year (1973 dollars, equal to >$2 billion present day money). That had bad impacts on the shuttle design and timing. The station funding looks like it is saturating at 1/4 the shuttle level. Does any one have an idea how we can convince the Congress to do otherwise? (Or get some private group to invest the money to really do something). Something that will work please!! Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #88 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Dec 87 06:20:39 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15399; Sun, 27 Dec 87 03:18:04 PST id AA15399; Sun, 27 Dec 87 03:18:04 PST Date: Sun, 27 Dec 87 03:18:04 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712271118.AA15399@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #89 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 89 Today's Topics: Re: Diversification Reform Re: UK Govermnent funding of computer Systems research. Inertial Containment Fusion (Was: Still more fascism...) Christmas greetings from JSC Inertial Confinement Fusion - Treaty Limits ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Dec 87 13:56:01 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Re: Diversification Reform > Date: Tue, 22 Dec 87 18:20:22 PST > From: lll-crg!ames!scubed!sdcsvax!pnet01.cts.com!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery > Subject: Diversification Reform > One component of an effective space program reform policy would be to > break NASA up into many independent space programs with overlapping > purviews. The most obvious way of achieving this would be to give each > NASA center its own independent budget, perhaps while increasing their > budgets slightly to account for the cost of transition. Sure, that worked so well for AT&T, why not try it on NASA? (:-) > This, of course, would be most vocally resisted by nonproductive NASA centers > which fear other NASA centers. These centers would almost certainly > engage in blatent violations of the Hatch Act by having various > contractors lobby their congresscritters mercilessly, and thus would be > given 2 opportunities to be terminated: 1) Through good faith > enforcement of the Hatch Act and 2) Through being shown to be wasting > money when other centers are far more efficient and effective in the use > of their budgets to accomplish overlapping tasks. I think there would be several problems with this. Consider three cases, illustrating three types of organization: Case 1: true overlap of functions Of the many divisions derived from NASA, Divisions L1 (launch pads, lavatories, and life support), L2 (lavatories, life support, and light bulbs), and L3 (life support, light bulbs, and lubrication) are each partially in competition with the other two. It turns out that L1 is the most skilled and efficient in the areas of launch pads and life support, but is highly inefficient and unskilled in lavatory design. L3 is unsurpassed in light bulbs and lubrication, but is equally unskilled at lavatory work. L2 is extremely skilled and efficient in lavatory design, but is incompetent for work on life support and light bulbs. Since L1 and L3 are each good at two things, they continue to be funded, while L2, good at only one job, is discontinued, and everybody is fired. Maybe a few employees will go to work for L1 or L3, but each division will try to protect its own employees, limiting new hiring. The net result is that the lavatory costs nearly as much as the rest of the Space Station combined, and doesn't work, except when it discharges into random living compartments. Case 2: incomplete overlap of coverage This brings about the risk that vital functions will be wiped out entirely due to real or perceived inefficiency. Safety considerations, for instance, have little immediately apparent productive value. If the situation described in case 1 takes place under these conditions, the Space Station ends up with *no* lavatory, and the shamefaced astronauts must frequently visit Mir to use theirs. Case 3: redundancy of functions In this example, there are several independent divisions covering each area, for example life support. For three divisions, either there are three times as many employees as the original corresponding part of NASA, or each division has a third as many employees, and a third of the skill base of the original part. You would like to have as many parallel divisions as you can afford, to create a good statistical universe in which they can compete. Remember that there is no longer even nominal cooperation, since the parallel divisions are in cutthroat competition for survival. As a result, when one Life Support division discovers that cod liver oil is a cumulative poison when ingested by humans under zero gravity conditions, it neglects to inform the competing divisions. Of course these examples are exaggerated, but I think they illustrate real problem areas that could show up. Not that it's not an interesting proposal, I'm just concerned that it would cause more problems than it would solve. John Roberts roberts@icst-cmr.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 25 Dec 87 01:09:41 GMT From: livesey@sun.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: Re: UK Govermnent funding of computer Systems research. In article <863@its63b.ed.ac.uk>, bct@its63b.ed.ac.uk (B Tompsett) writes: > > Bob Gray (bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk) wrote that the UK gover[n]ment is extremely > resistant to funding various forms of research (related to space) including > Computer Systems research. Please read Gray's message before you summarise it. This is not what he wrote. > Jon Livesey (livesey@sun.uucp) claims that as he knows of more than one > computer system project in the UK that has received gover[n]ment funding. The > implication from his article is that this refutes Bob Gray. You got that right, at least. Gray actually wrote: "The one thing you could rely on from ALL British gover[n]ments for the last couple of hundred years is that they will oppose anything that smells even faintly of change. "You can also rely on them to be consi[s]ta[e]ntly wrong. And: "Much more recently, a gover[n]ment report in 1972/3 said that there would be no real changes in computers, so it wasn't worth doing research." When someone makes statements containing words like (capitalised) 'ALL', 'anything' and 'consistently wrong', it is sufficient to produce a few counter- examples in order to refute what they write. It took me less than fifteen seconds to reach for enough examples to refute what Mr Gray actually wrote. OK? Should I have included the work from your own University? With a little time, I could do that, too. I thought it also worth making the point that handwaving about unreferenced 'reports' that may or may not have existed proves nothing; what counts is what governments finally do. In particular, on the assumption that some report really said this, they apparently decided to ignore it, as my references (which Dr Tompsett was kind enough to delete, but you can look them up, eh?) showed. It is of course not true that HMG has 'oppposed anything that smells even faintly of change'; in fact it's a very silly thing to allege since many scientific and technical innovations of the last hundred years came about with HMG support. It may have become the 'politically correct' thing to say, but then, a great many politically correct things are silly. It's probably true that HMG are pretty stingy with their money, but if you talk to researchers in any country, you find that every government is perceived like this. If there is a level of research funding that would earn a government even faint praise among academics, I don't know what it is. On the other hand, you only have to look at what science HMG does fund, which is a long list, to realise that they seem to be pretty good at identifying what is worth the money. In other words, far from being 'consistently wrong', they are very often right. Their habit of keeping their researchers on short commons does not seem to have prevented some distinguished research in the area I am familiar with, so maybe it's not such a bad idea. (When you are interested in research quality, as opposed to quantity, it's a good idea to check how often work is referred *to*, and the Newcastle work on reliability is being referred to all over the place, even today, almost fifteen years after the project started). What the UK seems to be particularly bad at is the art of getting their money back by the industrial exploitation of their scientific and technical innovations. That, however, is as much a problem of industry and management as it is of government, and I am not sure if HMG should take all the blame. If you really think that research deserves more money, then maybe the way to go about getting it is to demonstrate to people that the research generated will do something to assist the general economy. Just remember that they have seen a lot of good research make money for other people. If you want money for Systems research, or Space, try to find a way to make sure that the UK taxpayer does not pay for profits that end up in Utah or Tokyo. I have noticed that companies that do generate profits for the UK economy, like BAe and Rolls Royce, do get government funding. Now you have to convince them that your research, or HOTOL, is a good bet, too. Slandering them in advance and in public seems like poor strategy, as well as casting an ironic light on ones knowledge of the history of science. > It is very clear that the UK Gover[n]ment is not known for its generosity in > funding such research. That does not mean that the level of funded research is > zero. My point precisely. That's why I though what Gray said ought not to go unchallenged. Had he said what you have just said, I would not have uttered a peep, for a very simple reason; it's probably correct. It's one thing to make a reasonable complaint about funding levels; it's another thing to smear a hundred years of governments. > The fact that Jon Livesey can quote the references he does says more about the > access to technical literature at Sun than the state of funding in the UK. No, it says that the farsighted Jon Livesey, when a grad student, spent his own money buying research publications he though worth spending the money on. Drop by and see my books next time you are in CA. That 5.3 you just felt was my CACMs falling over. It also says that Jon Livesey would not have been able to spend his pennies so wisely, had HMG (and the US Govt, and the French Govt.) not funded the research to begin with. Are you starting to get the point yet? > For example some University Libraries might have trouble accessing the > same volume of material that Sun obviously has because of the difficulty in > obtaining funding for such a basic tool of scientific research. I left an American University for much this reason. They had an amazing section on Astrology (Astrology is studied as an area in sociology, believe it or not) but for five years they refused to buy anything on Computer Systems "because it's not a research area". I'm not kidding, folks, the library staff all had PCs, so they decided it was a closed area. We have 1-2-3, so what else would anyone want to investigate? The state I lived in had an active research funding program to encourage university-industry cooperation, but also refused, as a matter of policy, to fund any research in software. This is the other side of the coin - all kinds of money, and no brains. Notice, though, that I am not slandering them on the net. > I hearby[hereby] certify the UK gover[n]ment to be ungenerous. a. So what? b. What are you going to do about it? Merry Xmas. Jon. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Dec 87 08:21:28 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!hropus!ki4pv!codas!killer!elg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Green) Subject: Inertial Containment Fusion (Was: Still more fascism...) in article <21800@mordor.s1.gov>, jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) says: $ Before you get too enthusiastic, though, note that no IC fusion $ reaction, even using the very large (and very non-portable) NOVA $ laser has achieved even scientific breakeven (more fusion energy out $ than light energy into the pellet), much less engineering breakeven $ (more energy out than electrical energy into the laser), still less $ continuous operation. We're a long way from building fusion-powered $ spacecraft (except Orion-style, and that's a whole 'nother story....). OK. So put a fission reactor on your spacecraft. What would be the efficient way of turning the energy from that reactor into propulsion? How would pouring that energy into ICF compare to other methods? -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg Lafayette, LA 70509 "There's someone in my head, but it's not me...." -PF ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 87 18:46:33 GMT From: nuchat!splut!jay@uunet.uu.net (Jay Maynard) Subject: Christmas greetings from JSC The following is reprinted from the JSC _Space News Roundup_. Maybe, one day, this won't be as farfetched as it sounds now... [Editor's note {from the original}: The holiday season inspires the _Roundup_ staff with hope for the future of humans in space. We present the following with apologies to Clement C. Moore.] 'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the Space Station Not a crewmember was stirring at that inclination The stockings were Velcroed by the microwave with care, In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there. The astronauts were nestled all snug in their sleep restraints, While visions of Tex-Mex ran contrary to diet constraints; And the Commander in her IVA, and I in my cap, Had just settled our brains for a 6-hour nap, When out on the hull there arose such a clatter, I sprang from my crew compartment to see what was the matter. Away to the porthole I flew like a flash, Switched open the shutters in the blink of a lash. White-painted graphite/epoxy like new-fallen snow, Gave the luster of midday to the trusswork below. When, what to my wondering eyes should appear, But a miniature sleigh and eight tiny reindeer, With a little old driver, so lively and quick, I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick. More rapid than Space Shuttles his coursers they came, His radio crackled as he shouted and called them by name: "Now Dasher! Now Dancer! Now, Prancer and Vixen! On Comet! On Cupid! On, Donner and Blitzen!" "To the top of the lab module! To the resource node!" he'd call. "Now close the hatch! Dog the latch! Keep pressure loss small!" As flight controllers monitored his craft on the fly, When he met with an obstacle, they helped him get by. So up to the airlock the coursers they flew, With the sleigh full of toys, and St. Nicholas too. And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the bumper The prancing and pawingof each hoof a thumper. As I drew on my slippersocks, and was turning around, In the airlock St. Nicholas floated upside down. The globe of an EMU helmet he held under his arm, And the red of his space suit added holiday charm. He had a broad face and a little brown belly, That shook when he laughed, like a bowl full of jelly. He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf, And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself. A wink of his eye and a twist of his head Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread. He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work, And filled all the stockings, then turned with a jerk, And laying his finger aside of his nose, And giving a nod, through the airlock he rose. He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a sign, And away they all flew into the Earthshine. But I heard him o'er the S band, as he drove out of sight: "Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good night!" -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC (@WB5BBW)...>splut!< | GEnie: JAYMAYNARD CI$: 71036,1603 uucp: {uunet!nuchat,academ!uhnix1,{ihnp4,bellcore,killer}!tness1}!splut!jay Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. The opinions herein are shared by none of my cats, much less anyone else. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Dec 87 19:58:00 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Inertial Confinement Fusion - Treaty Limits in article <21800@mordor.s1.gov>, jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) says: > To my knowledge, no treaty would restrict the operation of an ICF > spacecraft, any more than treaty restricts the operation of > nuclear reactors on satellites. However, I'm not an expert on > treaty law. Nor am I an expert, but there might be a problem with the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. My understanding is that it prohibits all nuclear explosions in space, as well as in the atmosphere. (And underground too for yields over 150 kt.) But don't worry: > Judging by NASA's schedules for much less advanced ideas, they > would probably expect to use ICF propulsion in about 2050. Sounds over-optimistic to me, but even on this schedule there's plenty of time to renegotiate a treaty or to withdraw from it if necessary. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #89 ******************* From: FNAL::gov%"ota@angband.s1.gov" 28-DEC-1987 06:04 To: HIGGINS Subj: SPACE Digest V8 #90 Received: From UIUCVMD(MAILER) by FNALC with RSCS id 0735 for HIGGINS@FNALC; Mon, 28 Dec 87 06:06 CST Received: by UIUCVMD (Mailer X1.25) id 0729; Mon, 28 Dec 87 06:05:58 CST Date: Mon, 28 Dec 87 03:27:41 PST Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Sender: SPACE Digest From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #90 Comments: To: Space@angband.s1.gov To: "(no name)" SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 90 Today's Topics: Re: Remote Sensing Fascism Re: Van Allen belts Re: Diversification Reform Re: NASA breakup Soyuz TM-4 mission and Bulgarian mission announced ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov Date: Sat, 26 Dec 87 14:53:07 PST From: lll-crg!ames!scubed!sdcsvax!pnet01.cts.com!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Remote Sensing Fascism Dale Amon points out that U.S. companies which might, otherwise, pursue the remote sensing market, are unable to do so because of the high risk that government interests will suppress private enterprise. Thomas P. Quinn, of the DoD "assures" Senator Cranston and us that the DoD is not inhibiting private enterprise in remote sensing. We should not be satisfied with this response. As long as entrepreneurs do not believe that they can pursue remote sensing markets without fear of government suppression, we can look forward to a continuing accelleration of our downhill slide in space prowess. Senator Cranston, other statesmen and we, the people, should not be satisfied until the public sector does whatever is necessary to resolve this problem. The burden of proof is on the DoD, NASA and other government agencies that have earned the distrust of entrepreneurs. Funding to the agencies in question should stop until private capital is fueling the pursuit of the manifestly lucrative remote sensing market here in the U.S. I will let Senator Cranston and other appropriate statesmen know this is how I feel. Jim Bowery PH: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 La Jolla, CA 92038 PS: One has to wonder why the organizations of SPACEPAC and SPACECAUSE haven't been pursuing these kinds of issues and instead, have insisted on working with aerospace industry and National Space Society resources to pump more and more money into NASA so that it can continue to do business as usual. These organizations are not representing my views nor the views of a substnatial number of influential space activists. It would be tragic if we had to notify H.U.D. and political candidates to please ignore SPACECAUSE and SPACEPAC because they represent NASA rather than the voters. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 27 Dec 87 19:41:16 GMT From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu (Bill Wyatt) Subject: Re: Van Allen belts in article <2879@zeus.TEK.COM>, dant@tekla.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60aC) says: >>How did the electrons get in the Van Allen belt, and why remove them? > Upper atmospheric nuclear testing in the 50's. HUH? We're talking an altitude of a few hundred miles. LEO is *below* the Van Allen belts. > The sun also contributes some electrons and possibly some come from > cosmic rays. These electrons would be removed by natural causes over > a long period (about 100,000 years, I think). Virtually all the electrons come from the Sun. Cosmic rays are charged atomic nuclei, stripped (almost always) of electrons. > Removing them would open some frequency bands in the radio spectrum > for use by radio astronomers. If the original poster is correct, they would be removed, but would fill back up again, in perhaps weeks or months. I don't know what the net electron flux is. As for opening RF bands, I think you're confusing ionospheric effects. Bill UUCP: {husc6,ihnp4,cmcl2,mit-eddie}!harvard!cfa!wyatt Wyatt ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu (or) wyatt%cfa@harvard.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Reply-To: lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov Date: Sat, 26 Dec 87 12:32:50 PST From: lll-crg!ames!scubed!sdcsvax!pnet01.cts.com!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Diversification Reform Jonathan Leech and Jack Jansen assert that by centralizing management we can eliminate redundancy and have a more efficient space program. This is the totalitarian falacy. If this were true, the centralized planning of the communist economies would be more effective than the decentralized economic system of free enterprise. This is observed to not be the case. The fact that the Soviet Union's space program is more effective than ours is only an indication that we are no good at centralized long range planning. The Soviets are better at keeping their space bureaucracy from going into complete failure than we are because their entire society is based on the bureacratic model. Rather than trying to better emulate them we should play on our strength, recognizing human nature, particularly in the US, requires competition to keep it honest. NASA currently is overrun with bureaucracy for exactly the same reason other government supported monopolies become overhead dominated -- they can get away with it. For example, when Fletcher came out and said "$40/lb to low earth orbit" and the Shuttle ended up costing a factor of ONE HUNDRED more, how is anyone (primarily Congress) to decide which of the explanations/excuses is valid? If there are multiple entities out there and one succeeds where the other fails, not only do we have a more reliable space program but we can eliminate wasteful bureaucracies thus providing appropriate incentives for efficiency. Face it, we're all human and we all need feedback both positive and negative. Those who provide feedback (Congress) must have good information to base their judgements on. I will get into a detailed description the need for control groups, the criminally anticompetative activies of NASA that have victimized our nation's space prowess and other pertinent topics if this explanation isn't sufficient. In general, running things in a centralized, noncompetitive mode is useful for small organizations, the military and short term emergency projects where you have no other choice. As an ongoing mode of operation, diversification with competition is more reliable and thus, in the long term, more efficient. Projects like Manhattan and Apollo were tremendous achievements that prove our mettle when confronted by immediate challenges. They are gambles that paid off because the leaders and historic circumstances were in our favor. If you are a compulsive gambler, however, you eventually lose it all, no matter how vivid your memories of bygone jackpots. Jim Bowery PH: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 La Jolla, CA 92038 UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 26 Dec 1987 16:42-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: NASA breakup I fear affect of splitting NASA up into it's constituent fiefdoms would be to recreate the space program of the late 70's. If NASA were a private organization, such a split up would create a competive atmosphere. But it is a government agency and the only 'customer' it satisfies is it's own bureacracy and the members of the four relevant committees on the hill. First result: a number of small agencies at the mercy of the giant DC based agencies like DOD, DOE, DOT, HUD, etc. Second result: mutual throat cutting for the plums would make them even weaker. Third result: pork barrel would add to duplication. Space policy would become even more a beast of local politics than it already is. I would guess with high probability that the centers would become more involved in local 'industrial' and 'welfare' 'needs' than in space. I don't entirely disagree that NASA might need changes. But I would suggest that the agency should be kept intact as a single entity and have it's charter changed to one of hardware research. (ie better engines, new propulsion systems, X-craft testing). Maybe responsibility for some major exploratory missions as well. I would put all of the planetary and scientific research under a different agency entirely. I don't think it works to mix the needs of the Van Allen's in the same agency with the goals of the Von Braun's. I would even go so far as to require that the funding for the two areas be handled by completely different committees. And I would require that ALL ELV's be purchased on the open market. NASA should not touch an ELV except as a propulsion test bed. Shuttle should also be handled by a contracted external operating company. Even if it can never be profitable, we might as well pay a private concern to do the best they can rather than tie NASA up being a trucking company. In summary, I see NASA having difficulty defining it's mission because it has three incompatible goals and constituencies. Operations, R&D and Science. Lets put them back to work as the premier R&D agency and let others do what they are good at. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Dec 87 00:00:28 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soyuz TM-4 mission and Bulgarian mission announced The Soyuz TM-4 mission to Mir is now nearing a close with the cosmonauts checking over both the TM-3 (brought up in July) and the current TM-4 capsules. Assuming that they find no problems they will remove Anatoly Levchenko's couch from the TM-4 and transfer it to the TM-3, where he will accompany Yuri Romanenko and Alexander Alexandrov to ground, with a separation from Mir on either Dec. 29 or 30. The Russians have also announced that on June 21 they will fly a 3 man mission to Mir with a Bulgarian guest cosmonaut. That flight will be of 10 days duration and the announcement specifically stated that they will meet Titov and Manarov in orbit on Mir - consistant with the open statement that the long duration crew will be up there for more than one year. It is interesting that the Bulgarian's get the first place in the new series of intercosmos guest missions (though this has been known for at least a year). The last Bulgarian mission, Soyuz 33 with Georgi Ivanov (Bul) and Nikolai Rukavishnikov in Oct. '79, failed to dock to Salyut 6 and returned to earth after only 2 days. The stated cosmonaut for the new mission is Alexander Alexandrov, who was the backup man for Soyuz 33 (he is no relation to the current Mir cosmonaut of the same name). This announcement of a flight date 6 months from now makes the lack of a specific launch date much in advance of the current Soyuz TM-4 even stranger. Also they had previously stated that this would leave a 3 man crew on Mir, not the 2 man one now up there. Obviously something went wrong that made some of the timings of TM-4 uncertain. It is interesting to note that the Bulgarian mission is slated for the date when NASA now says the shuttle is likely to fly. Hopefully there will be more than just Soviet block astronauts up there during that week. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #90 ******************* From: FNAL::gov%"ota@angband.s1.gov" 29-DEC-1987 12:34 To: HIGGINS Subj: SPACE Digest V8 #91 Received: From UIUCVMD(MAILER) by FNALC with RSCS id 5158 for HIGGINS@FNALC; Tue, 29 Dec 87 12:36 CST Received: by UIUCVMD (Mailer X1.25) id 5144; Tue, 29 Dec 87 12:25:28 CST Date: Tue, 29 Dec 87 03:27:13 PST Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Sender: SPACE Digest From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #91 Comments: To: Space@angband.s1.gov To: "(no name)" SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 91 Today's Topics: Re: Exact Time (help please) Re: Van Allen Belts Re: Exact Time (help please) ted this is a test satellites Second attempt to post via mail Re: Diversification Reform "Research" vs "Development" Re: Recycling Pershing-II's Re: heat-shield tiles Re: Diversification Reform Re: Diversification Reform ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Dec 87 22:29:47 GMT From: sdcrdcf!csun!csustan!polyslo!caus-dp!marcos@burdvax.prc.unisys.com (Marcos R. Della) Subject: Re: Exact Time (help please) In article <2837@zeus.TEK.COM>, dant@tekla.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes: >T. Terrell Banks writes: >>Ken Trant writes: >>> >>> I have been asked by my Young Astronauts group to find out how the correct >>>time is determined. >> >> Try calling WWV (National Bureau of Standards) in Fort Collins. >> I think the number is (303) 499-7111. You can also try calling the following number if you have access to something called autovon. The number is 294-1800. This is the East coast naval atomic clock. Marcos R. Della -- ...!csustan ->!polyslo!caus-dp!marcos | Whatever I said doesn't ...!sdsu ---/ Lt. Marcos R. Della | mean diddly as I forgot ...!csun --/ Smail:PO Box 8104 SLO,CA 93403-8104 | it even before finishing ...!dmsd -/ Tele: (805) 544-4900 | typing it all out!!! :-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Dec 87 09:18 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Re: Van Allen Belts To: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu, space@angband.s1.gov Bill Wyatt (wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu), in response to Dan Tilque, wrote: >>>How did the electrons get in the Van Allen belt, and why remove them? >> Upper atmospheric nuclear testing in the 50's. >HUH? We're talking an altitude of a few hundred miles. LEO is *below* >the Van Allen belts. A very high altitude nuclear explosion will eject fission products clear out of the atmosphere, where they undergo beta decay, putting electrons into the magnetosphere. Also, some neutrons from the explosion escape the atmosphere and decay. >> The sun also contributes some electrons and possibly some come from >> cosmic rays. These electrons would be removed by natural causes over >> a long period (about 100,000 years, I think). >Virtually all the electrons come from the Sun. Cosmic rays are charged >atomic nuclei, stripped (almost always) of electrons. The electrons from cosmic rays would be secondaries, I think. Energetic protons, hitting the atmosphere at a glancing angle, can produce muons and neutrons that enter the magnetosphere from below and decay, emitting electrons. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 28 Dec 87 14:11:34 GMT From: mtune!rkh@rutgers.edu (Robert Halloran) Subject: Re: Exact Time (help please) In article <338@caus-dp.UUCP> marcos@caus-dp.UUCP (Marcos R. Della) writes: >In article <2837@zeus.TEK.COM>, dant@tekla.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes: > >T. Terrell Banks writes: > >>Ken Trant writes: > >>> I have been asked by my Young Astronauts group to find out how the correct > >>>time is determined. > >> Try calling WWV (National Bureau of Standards) in Fort Collins. > >> I think the number is (303) 499-7111. >You can also try calling the following number if you have access >to something called autovon. The number is 294-1800. This is the >East coast naval atomic clock. > >Marcos R. Della For those of us not working for DoD, the Naval Observatory master clock can be heard by dialing 1-202-653-1800 in Washington DC. This gives the usual per-second beep and a voice announcement of Eastern and Universal times at 15-second intervals. Hope this helps. Bob Halloran ========================================================================= Classic UUCP: {ATT-ACC, rutgers}!mtune!rkh DDD: (201)251-7514 Domain-style: rkh@mtune.ATT.COM evenings ET USPS: 19 Culver Ct, Old Bridge NJ 08857 Disclaimer: These opinions are solely MINE; any correlation with AT&T policies or positions is coincidental and unintentional. Quote: "No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Dec 87 12:23:38 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: ted this is a test If you catch it, you don;t need to post it, but please ACK. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Dec 87 18:07:14 GMT From: uop!robert@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (Doc Ness) Subject: satellites Well, how about that AP headline? "Satellite saw Waite, newspaper says" and "National Security Agency Officials" talked of the "Lacrosse" satellite parked over Lebanon. Comments? (I bet NSA is pissed off either way!) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Dec 87 15:03:18 pst From: eugene%pioneer@ames.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Second attempt to post via mail Received: Wed, 16 Dec 87 14:09:07 pst by ames-pioneer.arpa (1.2/1.2) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 87 14:09:07 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Message-Id: <8712162209.AA15843@ames-pioneer.arpa> To: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Cashew nut heat shield Newsgroups: sci.space In-Reply-To: <489@stc-f.tcom.stc.co.uk> References: <2553@calmasd.GE.COM> Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. > I'm sure someone (Henry?) will set me straight but I seem to > remember that the Surveyor Moon landers were encased in a > balsa wood outer shell to cushion the impact of a (not very) > soft landing. Surveyor had a tripod landing gear. Uses gas as a shock absorber (like your car). It didn't need a heat shield, the moon has no significant atmosphere. You are thinking of Viking. First, I know this about Surveyor because Mr. Kubo (schoolmate's father) of Huge Aircrash worked on it, dropped all this stuff about JPL (ended up working in a builing in the literature). Surveyor didn't have a shell. Viking lander (JPL), Pioneer Venus (Ames), and Galileo probe (Ames) all had metallic heat shields as well as shells. There's a Galileo probe mock up at Ames and most of the other JPL craft are in a little display off von Karmen Aud. --eugene ------------------------------ Reply-To: lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov Date: Mon, 28 Dec 87 14:00:12 PST From: lll-crg!ames!scubed!sdcsvax!pnet01.cts.com!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Diversification Reform Dale Amon and I agree that NASA needs to be broken up and simply choose different boundaries for the break up. Breaking NASA up into 3 agencies with around $3 billion each would have many of the benefits of breaking it into 6 or so agencies with about $1.5 billion each. Keep in mind that NSF is our most cost-effective research agency at a budget of $1.5 billion. The big bad government departments (DOE etc) haven't squashed NSF yet. The ratio of productive research to cut-throat fighting between various government research agencies seems to be a lot better than that ratio for the current NASA centers. If we break the NASA infighting out to the light of day, Congressional reaction will be quite appropriate -- either they clean up their acts or they get canned. It should be obvious that Congressional hearings are more effective at exposing inappropriate behavior than private meetings between NASA managers and their good ole boys. If NASA weren't so corrupt already, it might not be necessary to break it down to NSF-sized agencies all directly answerable to Congress. After ten years or so of Congressional cleaning it might be feasible to consolidate the centers if that makes sense. John Roberts draws an analogy between AT&T and NASA stating that the AT&T breakup worked so well that we should try it on NASA. I'm glad he brought that analogy up. It supports my point very well. In the time that electronics technology went from relays to Cray's AT&T rocketed us from dial phones to push button phones and NASA took us from $4,000/lb to LEO to $4,000/lb to LEO. Since the break up only 5 years go, we have seen an explosion of telecommunications services and a dramatic drop in long distance rates. Speaking as someone who has been in telecommunications for 15 years, the breakup of AT&T is one of the best things to happen to this country. The initial dislocations of telephone service caused by this revolutionary change are already smoothing out. Once again, thanks for that analogy, John. :-) As to the rest of John's case analysis, it is clear he didn't understand that I was proposing to breaking up NASA along center boundaries since his boundary divisions were all JSC internal. In an earlier message I stated small organizations, emergency projects and the military are most appropriately handled via centralized planning. Someone then sent me mail questioning why I included the military. This requires clarification: Peacetime military operations should be and are run with internal competition. I should have said "wartime military operations." Wartime military operations fall under the same principle as a short term emergency project. I stated it separately as a way of preempting arguments from those who are so close to military operations that they might consider it to be a special case. Jim Bowery PHONE: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 La Jolla, CA 92038 UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov Date: Mon, 28 Dec 87 14:02:23 PST From: lll-crg!ames!scubed!sdcsvax!pnet01.cts.com!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: "Research" vs "Development" Earlier, Dale Amon recommended that we break NASA up into agencies responsible for "Operations, R&D and Science." Since "Science" is synonymous to "Research" and "R&D" stands for "Research and Development" his divisions are, formally, redundant. However, "R&D" has acquired a colloquial meaning that excludes "research". This meaning has arisen because those who like to manage large development projects label what they do as "R&D" so as to fraudulently acquire money that Congressional intent earmarks for research. If we spent as much money on "research" as is implied by our "R&D" appropriations, our nation and its future would be in a lot better shape than it is. As it is, Congress is being hoodwinked by a semantic sleight- of-hand. Jim Bowery PHONE: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 La Jolla, CA 92038 UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 28 Dec 87 23:12:58 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Re: Recycling Pershing-II's Just a short note on this. P-2s are not particularly great launch vehicles for space or near space applications. Maybe keep a few, for sub-orbital stuff, but the majority appear useless for suggested uses like space tugs, etc. You are talking major modifications to the point where making a new rocket can be just as cheap. Sad but true, maybe some private venture can take them. --eugene ------------------------------ Date: 28 Dec 87 22:59:06 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Re: heat-shield tiles This is a test since our mailer is flakey (Pioneer is a development machine, don't send mail here). Ted, let me know if you get the "tile article.") P.S. my car (the Millenium Rabbit ;-) broke down at Tahoe, so I'm just catching up on some people's requested answers). Tiles have been designated material with a certain, shall we say, "strategic importance." This is funny since it is only silica. I gave some small material to past friends (before it was so classified) and owe some to seminar speakers (whom I know are reading this). Don't even think about asking for the stuff at the moment, you might get a visit from some people at the Dept. of Commerce and the FBI. This contrasts with superconducting materials which everybody is duplicating. Maybe some day we will discover it (tile silica) causes cancer ;-). >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 28 Dec 87 20:53:41 GMT From: mcvax!jack@uunet.uu.net (Jack Jansen) Subject: Re: Diversification Reform In article <8712262036.AA17894@crash.cts.com> lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov writes: >Jonathan Leech and Jack Jansen assert that by centralizing management >we can eliminate redundancy and have a more efficient space program. >This is the totalitarian falacy. Well, well... This is the very first time in my life that I'm being caught spreading totalitarian ideas, but so be it:-) Anyway, the reason a totalitarian approach is the best working model here and that "free market" won't work is that most of NASA doesn't produce anything that can be sold. So, since *much* more money goes into NASA than comes out again, NASA relies on government funding. Since the people responsible for the funding are, at best, interested laymen like myself (and probably even completely uninterested in space) they will most likely spend the most money on the project that provides the glossiest folders. So, the best value-for-money personnel for new NASA-descendent startups will be publicity people. Note that this point is already proven in the arms-industry: fighter planes are sold because they look sexy, or because the publicity person selling them looks sexy; *not* because they're good fighter planes. [Note that I couldn't care less about fighter planes, the example just happens to prove my point] -- Jack Jansen, jack@cwi.nl (or jack@mcvax.uucp) The shell is my oyster. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Dec 87 01:14:18 GMT From: livesey@sun.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: Re: Diversification Reform In article <157@piring.cwi.nl>, jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) writes: > Well, well... This is the very first time in my life that I'm being > caught spreading totalitarian ideas, but so be it:-) Don't worry about it. Just point to the Manhattan Project. The security aspects of much space and high technology work ensures that arguments about totalitarian/non-totalitarian approaches are vacuous. > [....omitted] > > Since the people responsible for the funding are, at best, interested > laymen like myself (and probably even completely uninterested in > space) they will most likely spend the most money on the project > that provides the glossiest folders. So, the best value-for-money > personnel for new NASA-descendent startups will be publicity people. > > Note that this point is already proven in the arms-industry: > fighter planes are sold because they look sexy, or because the > publicity person selling them looks sexy; *not* because they're good > fighter planes. > [Note that I couldn't care less about fighter planes, the example > just happens to prove my point] Oh come on. This is humour, right? Except in the US, fighter production has less than epsilon to do with free enterprise. Even for the US, the closest thing to a private enterprise fighter crashed in flames, so to speak, two years ago. As for glossy folders, and sexy models, I doubt if many fighters get bought in this way. Maybe the onesies and twosies that Lower Mondingo has to buy for appearances' sake, but the first tier market; RAF, Armee De L'Air, and Luftwaffe? Sexy models?! Even for the second tier arms market, I suspect bribery is a bigger factor than glossy marketing. Jon. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #91 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 1 Jan 88 13:18:53 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19693; Wed, 30 Dec 87 03:18:34 PST id AA19693; Wed, 30 Dec 87 03:18:34 PST Date: Wed, 30 Dec 87 03:18:34 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712301118.AA19693@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #92 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 92 Today's Topics: Re: heat-shield tiles Re: Diversification Reform The mail path does not appear to work Soyuz TM-4 mission lands Re: Diversification Reform Re: Diversification Reform ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Dec 87 00:14:37 GMT From: nuchat!splut!jay@uunet.uu.net (Jay Maynard) Subject: Re: heat-shield tiles In article <4904@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, thurm@speedy.WISC.EDU (Matthew J. Thurmaier) writes: > As long as people are looking for other things that nasa uses, I would > really like to find out how to get my hands on some of the heat-shield > tiles that the shuttle uses. Any one have any ideas? Good luck. I know that the tiles are individually serialized, tracked (down to the exact position on the orbiter), checked, characterized, inspected, infected, rejected, detected...(>slap<) Where was I? Anyway, I don't know if they'd be available after they're removed from the shuttle. The best suggestion I can make is to contact Rockwell International, North American Space Operations, in Downey, CA. If anyone would know, they would. Don't hold your breath, though. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC (@WB5BBW)...>splut!< | GEnie: JAYMAYNARD CI$: 71036,1603 uucp: {uunet!nuchat,academ!uhnix1,{ihnp4,bellcore,killer}!tness1}!splut!jay Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. The opinions herein are shared by none of my cats, much less anyone else. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Dec 87 15:27:12 GMT From: ihnp4!mmm!allen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Kurt Allen) Subject: Re: Diversification Reform In article <8712230236.AA23949@crash.cts.com> lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov writes: >One component of an effective space program reform policy would be to break >NASA up into many independent space programs with overlapping purviews. The >most obvious way of achieving this would be to give each NASA center its own >independent budget, perhaps while increasing their budgets slightly to >account for the cost of transition. Kinda sounds like what was supposed to happen with the breakup of Ma Bell. We all know how well that worked ... Personally I think NASA's problem is not NASA', but the US governments and Aerospace industry in general. If you really want to do something for NASA why not get the government, especially the executive brance (I wont mention any names) to exercise their responsibilities and to give some direction and support to NASA on what they should do. I could go on and on, but others on the net are doing such a good job that I wont say anything. -- Kurt W. Allen 3M Center ihnp4!mmm!allen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Dec 87 09:12:26 pst From: eugene%pioneer@ames.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: The mail path does not appear to work ----- Transcript of session follows ----- bad system name: crash uux failed. code 101 554 crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil... unknown mailer error 101 ----- Unsent message follows ----- Received: by pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (1.2/Ultrix-T2.2-4A) id AA05647; Mon, 28 Dec 87 15:36:14 pst Date: Mon, 28 Dec 87 15:36:14 pst From: eugene (Eugene Miya N.) To: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil Subject: Re: Diversification Reform Newsgroups: sci.space In-Reply-To: <8712230236.AA23949@crash.cts.com> Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. In article <8712230236.AA23949@crash.cts.com> you write: >One component of an effective space program reform policy would be to break >NASA up into many independent space programs with overlapping purviews. The Oh, yeah? >most obvious way of achieving this would be to give each NASA center its own >independent budget, perhaps while increasing their budgets slightly to >account for the cost of transition. This, of course, would be most vocally >resisted by nonproductive NASA centers which fear other NASA centers. These >centers would almost certainly engage in blatent violations of the Hatch Act >by having various contractors lobby their congresscritters mercilessly, and >thus would be given 2 opportunities to be terminated: 1) Through good >faith enforcement of the Hatch Act and 2) Through being shown to be wasting >money when other centers are far more efficient and effective in the use >of their budgets to accomplish overlapping tasks. > > > >I would like to open discussion on the pragmatic aspects of such a >diversification of our space activities -- pitfalls to avoid and recommended >courses of action. > >To kick it off, I'd like to offer a few suggestions for administrators of >the new space agencies, and ask for input on a more complete list: > >CENTER ADMINISTRATOR >Huston John Young (or person he recommends) Don't know a Center in Houston (sp). >Marshall Alan J. McDonald (or person he recommends) >JPL James Van Allen (or person he recommends) Sounds interesting. Oh what basis did you pick these men? Public visibility? >Another important question to answer is, if we are unable to achieve >a diversification of space activities along the above lines, who >would be a good NASA administrator? Who would be good suggestions >for the directors of various centers? Please provide some justification. Would like to hear what you come up with. This is amusing. >Thank you for your suggestions. > >Jim Bowery PHONE: 619/295-8868 >PO Box 1981 >La Jolla, CA 92038 >UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim >ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil Good scientists do not necessarily make good managers and vice versa. Nor do showmen. Sometimes democracy isn't the way to solve a problem such as this, but your responses are amusing. There are whole lines of scientists, most you have probably never heard of who would run these Centers and the Agency. You could ask me, but I would never know who exactly to appoint, nor would John Young, et al. Since I just got back, and since news and mail tests now work, I've caught up with this discussion (which took place a couple of years ago), with comments by Jon, John, Jack, and others. I don't plan to argue fully against this fellow (it would do no good, and I have better things to do). He needs to do a bit of homework. His proposal sounds like Reagan's ideas of abolishing DOE while pumping the DOD nuclear program. Jon's comment isn't one of centralization; it's one of critical mass. If this fellow wishes a bunch of subcritical masses, so be it, we only follow the whim of the people. Added comments from discussion: the NSF is not the most productive Agency in research, DARPA is. It's just seen as `DOD' and the rest of the DOD brings the appearance down, you only need ask the people at MITI who their competition is. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene NSA == National Surfing Association (on the back of a friend's car) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Dec 87 14:12:54 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soyuz TM-4 mission lands The Soyuz TM-2/3/4 mission to Mir ended this morning (Dec. 29th) when the capsule returned to earth bringing Anatoly Levchenko from the Soyuz TM-4 team, Yuri Romanenko from TM-2 and Alexander Alexandrov from TM-3 to ground. It has not been stated yet which craft they brought down though it is probably the Soyuz TM-3 brought up on July 22. Romanenko now is the world duration record holder with 326 days on the current Mir mission, 37% greater than the previous record of 237 days set by the Soyuz T-10B crew 237 mission on board Salyut 7 in Oct. 1984 (set by Leonid Kizim, Validimir Soloyev and Oleg Atkov). In addition he has 96 days from the Soyuz 26/Salyut 6 flight in Oct. '77 and 8 days from the Soyuz 38/Salyut 6 mission in Sept. '80. This gives him a lifetime total of 430 days in orbit, 15% longer than Kizim's previous record of 373 days (he is the second man to exceed one year total in space). The length of this Mir mission is best illustrated by the 161 days Alexander Alexandrov has accumulated since he replaced Alexander Laveikin on July 22th (Laveikin went up with Romanenko in Feb., but developed a medical problem). That time, is on top of the 149 days he spent in the Soyuz T-9/Salyut 7 mission of Jun. '83, giving him a total of 310 days. By comparison highest time of a currently active US astronaut is 70 days (Owen Garriott from Skylab 3 and STS-9), while the highest US time ever was the 84 days of the Skylab 4 three man crew in Nov. '73. Indeed alone Romanenko has accumulated more time than the combined total gained by the Skylab 3 (59 day) and Skylab 4 crews. Though Soyuz TM-4 was successful even this landing added to the strangeness of this current mission, which was mentioned in my last Space Digest posting (Dec. 28th vol 8, no. 90). Not only was the launch date announced a few days in advance, the landing date stated after the launch was Dec 31, so they brought them home early. Perhaps this is due to the weather conditions at the landing site. That is added to a change in the original crew list and the leaving of only Titov and Manarov on board, not all three. I wounder when we will find out why all these changes. Well at least the news media is noting this mission as a preparation for possible Russian Mars flights. Maybe that will convince people that assumption that if we do not go to the planets the Russians will not either is not valid. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Reply-To: lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov Date: Tue, 29 Dec 87 10:21:54 PST From: lll-crg!ames!scubed!sdcsvax!pnet01.cts.com!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Diversification Reform Jack Jansen says since NASA doesn't produce anything that can be sold, the "free market" won't work. I agree. The goal of diversifying our space program is to create a competition OF IDEAS, the market-place for which is in the scientific and technical community, exactly as is handled in NSF. I'm certainly not suggesting that NASA make money on sending probes to Jupiter. Indeed, another aspect of an effective reform is that NASA should be specifically barred from selling into the free market and, in fact, from developing or operating technology that has significant near term commercial potential. Jansen goes on to point out that R&D appropriations are made on the basis of sexy presentation of the proposal rather than on technical merit. He uses military R&D as an example. I agree with him here, as well. Since we spend about $1 billion on true research (which is sold on the basis of technical merit) and $99 billion on "R&D" (various development projects which are sold on the basis of sexy presentation) it should be quite painless to reduce the deficit by $99 billion. There are a few companies left in our country that would love to fund their own development if they had any hope of finding a market for their systems -- let's let them do it instead of trying to put them out of business. Jon Livesey points out that military projects like Manhattan do not fit under the decentralized competition model. I did point this out myself more than once and went to some length to mention "Manhattan" by name. Since so many people on the net are involved with the military, and such a gross misreading of my position appears to have occurred, I'll state my position on this one more time in a little more detail: Short term emergency projects (like Apollo and MANHATTAN) require centralized management without internal competition. Warfare is another example of an activity that falls under this catagory. In peacetime, we can afford, and must require, a degree of internal competition within the military in order to assure us external strength in time of war. Peacetime military operations exhibit some internal competition but, because of the need to quickly convert to a cohesive and efficient machine when challenged, the military must be totalitarian in architecture. Jim Bowery PHONE: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 La Jolla, CA 92038 UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 87 00:06:21 GMT From: livesey@sun.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: Re: Diversification Reform In article <8712291836.AA05430@crash.cts.com>, jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) writes: > Jon Livesey points out that military projects like Manhattan do not fit > under the decentralized competition model. No. I was talking about "The security aspects of much space and high technology work". Manhattan is just one example. It does not have to be military, just strategic. In 1987, space will do just fine as a similarly effort of great national importance. Security is just one example, also. There is a constellation of reasons why a single organization is sometimes, not always, to be preferred for expensive science and technology development. For each such organization, there is an irreducible overhead of support; libraries, computing, engineering, and so on. A few years at CERN convinced me that a single organization with a billion dollar budget could do things that distributed organizations could never afford to do, because they would be spending all their budgets doing ten times what it only has to do once. CERN's recent successes do not contradict that view. > I did point this out myself > more than once and went to some length to mention "Manhattan" by name. > Since so many people on the net are involved with the military, and > such a gross misreading of my position appears to have occurred, I'll > state my position on this one more time in a little more detail: Calm down. I know you mentioned Manhattan, but you mentioned it only to dismiss it. You talked about it as though it could validly be compare to a gambler staking all on one throw, with the inevitable bankruptcy after enough throws. With all due respect to popular science writing, I think that 'gamble' is a poor analogy for science. The results are not simply controlled by chance. Your argument contains a basic assumption that decentralized organizations are ipso facto more efficient than centralized ones, but have you proved it? I worked for AT&T at the time of the break-up, too (so did half the country, it seemed) and I have a different view to yours. In my view we replaced a single corporation founded on an elite research organization, with a number of corporations founded on weaker research organizations. Is that such a great idea? It might have been better simply to make the single corporation more efficient. What did it add to break it up? Maybe all we really need to do is get better at recognizing beaurocratic redundancy and eliminating it. > Short term emergency projects (like Apollo and MANHATTAN) require > centralized management without internal competition. Warfare is > another example of an activity that falls under this catagory. In > peacetime, we can afford, and must require, a degree of internal > competition within the military in order to assure us external > strength in time of war. Peacetime military operations exhibit > some internal competition but, because of the need to quickly > convert to a cohesive and efficient machine when challenged, the > military must be totalitarian in architecture. Fine, except that you are begging a number of questions here. Many people take the view that 'peacetime' hasn't meant very much since about 1949, especially in strategic technology. Other people might argue that space technology falls right into the area of short term emergency projects that even you say need centralized management (short term only in that it needs to get going fast; presumably it goes on for ever. Yet other people might argue that cantralized management does not imply absence of internal competition. The Manhattan project contained competing internal teams with rival designs, after all. Good science and technology people often just happen to be competitive, and they rarely need to be faked into competing by being told they have their own little NASA-let to play with. They are a bit more grown up than that. Finally, there was an interesting fallacy in your latest posting: "Jonathan Leech and Jack Jansen assert that by centralizing management we can eliminate redundancy and have a more efficient space program. This is the totalitarian falacy. If this were true, the centralized planning of the communist economies would be more effective than the decentralized economic system of free enterprise." That does not follow, of course. The performance of a particular example of a planning system says little about its possible efficiency. They may simply not be very good at it. You might as well dismiss the free market system based on its observed performance in, say, the US auto industry. Jon. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #92 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 1 Jan 88 13:18:17 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA21001; Thu, 31 Dec 87 03:13:47 PST id AA21001; Thu, 31 Dec 87 03:13:47 PST Date: Thu, 31 Dec 87 03:13:47 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8712311113.AA21001@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #93 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 93 Today's Topics: Re: Diversification Reform Re: NASA breakup Re: Exact Time (help please) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov Date: Wed, 30 Dec 87 11:35:58 PST From: lll-crg!ames!scubed!sdcsvax!pnet01.cts.com!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Diversification Reform Kurt Allen is correct to point out that the source of the problem with NASA is in the executive branch. I introduced this topic because I am involved in the political process to elect a president and have been given some responsibility to help put together papers on space policy. I came onto this network to do outreach and was greeted by sophistry (with a signal to noise ratio of about .1) from individuals who are or have been getting their pay checks from bureaucratic organizations with a clear record of wasting vast sums of money. To be honest, I did expect more from the people on here, but I forgot that unedited networks tend to sink to the least common denominator. At least I may have gotten some reasonable, yet silent, people to think about some alternatives to our present malaise, although I received very little of value and nothing that responded to my request for input on the way to go about accomplishing the diversification (except for perhaps, Dale Amon's response). If anyone out there would like to continue this correspondence off-line, please feel free to contact me. Jim Bowery PHONE: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 La Jolla, CA 92038 UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 31 Dec 87 02:27:53 GMT From: vygr!mae@sun.com (Mike Ekberg, Sun {Graphics Product Division}) Subject: Re: NASA breakup Strange thought for the day. I know that commercial aviation was boosted by the government saying it would pay X dollars for air mail. How about NASA putting up a competetion for space station by saying it was willing to pay X million $/day to rent an (orbiting) room in space? mike (sun!mae), M/S 5-40 "Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 87 20:18:35 GMT From: steinmetz!sunray!oconnor@uunet.uu.net (Dennis M. O'Connor) Subject: Re: Exact Time (help please) There is a 900 number ($.50 call) for the time : 1-900-410-TIME ( 1-900-410-8463 ) It's great for setting your watch. Probably cheaper than a normal long-distance call during regular hours ? Easy to remember, anyway. -- Dennis O'Connor oconnor@sungoddess.steinmetz.UUCP ?? ARPA: OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa "If I have an "s" in my name, am I a PHIL-OSS-IF-FER?" ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #93 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 1 Jan 88 13:16:05 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA22306; Fri, 1 Jan 88 03:19:50 PST id AA22306; Fri, 1 Jan 88 03:19:50 PST Date: Fri, 1 Jan 88 03:19:50 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801011119.AA22306@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #94 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 94 Today's Topics: Re: Exact Time (help please) Rent Space Policy (reply to Jim Bowery's msg. on breaking up NASA) Re: Treaties with the Soviets Re: Exact Time (help please) RE: NASA reorganization The Church of the Holy Starship was Re: A request ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Dec 87 16:16:52 GMT From: dayton!ems!viper!dave@rutgers.edu (David Messer) Subject: Re: Exact Time (help please) In article <1383@mtune.ATT.COM> rkh@mtune.UUCP (Robert Halloran) writes: >In article <338@caus-dp.UUCP> marcos@caus-dp.UUCP (Marcos R. Della) writes: >>In article <2837@zeus.TEK.COM>, dant@tekla.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes: >> >T. Terrell Banks writes: >> >>Ken Trant writes: >> >>> I have been asked by my Young Astronauts group to find out how the correct >> >>>time is determined. >> >> Try calling WWV (National Bureau of Standards) in Fort Collins. >> >> I think the number is (303) 499-7111. >>You can also try calling the following number if you have access >>to something called autovon. The number is 294-1800. This is the >>East coast naval atomic clock. > > For those of us not working for DoD, the Naval Observatory master > clock can be heard by dialing 1-202-653-1800 in Washington DC. This > gives the usual per-second beep and a voice announcement of Eastern > and Universal times at 15-second intervals. Another number that may be easier to remember is 1-900-410-8463 or 1-900-410-TIME. It is also the Naval Observatory Master Clock. -- If you can't convince | David Messer - (dave@Lynx.MN.Org) them, confuse them. | Lynx Data Systems -- Harry S. Truman | | amdahl --!meccts!viper!dave | rutgers / Copyright 1987 David Messer -- All Rights Reserved This work may be freely copied. Any restrictions on redistribution of this work are prohibited. ------------------------------ Reply-To: lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov Date: Thu, 31 Dec 87 10:22:27 PST From: lll-crg!ames!scubed!sdcsvax!pnet01.cts.com!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Rent In response to Mike Ekberg's idea about NASA creating a market for facilities in orbit rather than building and operating the facility itself: You hit the nail on the head. NASA shouldn't be building operational equipment -- it should establish a market for operational equipment by stating what its needs are. This is, of course, a spectrum of "make buy" decisions, but NASA is, at present, way out on the "make" end. This principle could be brought clear back to the research wing by stating a bunch of research results and what NASA is willing to pay for each. Private enterprise could then decide how to best go about doing these measurements quickly and efficiently. Second order problems do exist with this kind of procurement system such as how do you break the log-jam created when multiple companies are ready and able to fill the same market niche but there is no guaranteed market large enough for only one of them to be successful at once. In the research results market this can be eliminated by offering substantial, albeit lower, payments for subsequent measurements which are vital to substantiate earlier results. In the development and operations market, NASA can simply guarantee separate vendors a market for redundant capacity. Having redundant capacity around is a problem we NEED to have in this country's space activities. Of course this is all pie in the sky for one simple reason: Private enterprise doesn't trust NASA any further than it can throw NASA. I've heard 3 independent stories about companies/entrepreneurs who have attempted to provide services/equipment to NASA at a much lower cost than NASA could supply itself with NASA's only response being backroom dealings where contracts were threatened, capital sources scared off, etc. If I were going to put up millions of my own money to support any of this, I would require some pretty impressive changes in NASA that were stable over a period of time before I'd invest. From what I understand, other capital sources are even more skittish than I am. It the responsibility of the government to demonstrate that it is not corrupt to the satisfaction of investors and entrepreneurs who are, otherwise, willing and able to pick up the burden for our nation. Jim Bowery PHONE: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 La Jolla, CA 92038 UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 31 Dec 87 14:56:00 EDT From: "R2D2::BRUC" Subject: Space Policy (reply to Jim Bowery's msg. on breaking up NASA) To: "space" Reply-To: "R2D2::BRUC" Jim Bowery's swipe at all of our thinking concerning his NASA breakup proposal coupled with his potential impact on presidential politics requires another response: Dear Jim, Breaking up NASA into its constituent centers would have a disasterous effect on space policy because it would eliminate the prospect for coherent leadership which is essential to making the best use of funds. However, I can understand why Mr. Bowery made the suggestion -- the present leadership and bureaucracy is so moribund that it needs to be removed. Further, the competition of ideas between centers would be stimulating, but it would be more productive to create an environment where innovative ideas are encouraged and used together. The fundamental problem with our space program is a lack of leadership and vision. By vision, I mean a set of worthwhile goals toward which everyone involved is willing strive for. By leadership, I mean a president, NASA administrator, and top level managers who will organize everyone to work for the goals and to ensure that there are sufficient funds. (note that I left Congress out, because if the president articulates worthwhile goals, the people and Congress will support them.) With regard to goals, it is important that we recognize that there are many benefits to space, and that we pursue different goals at the same time to reap as many benefits as possible. In my mind there are two classes of goals, exploration and exploitation. Exploration is most suited to a government agency because the payoffs are very long term and are spread throughout the society. Exploitation refers to the applications of space, both non-profit and commercial. Here, our space policy must mesh with commercial endeavors, to maximize our investment in space. Ultimately, our goal should be the development of a spacefaring society, whose members would be free to choose earth or space as a place to live. With regard to leadership, we need a president who believes in the promise of space like the readers of this digest do. Next, we need a NASA leadership that is visionary, determined, organized, and political adept. If this is not possible in one man, then perhaps several co-administrators who bring all these characteristics together might be successful. Some suggestions for the next NASA adminstrator (I can't say much about how good they'd be a running a large organization): Walter Cronkite shares our vision, and has been exposed to a lot of politics. Robert Forward at Hughes Aircraft should be at the top level since he is a very imaginative thinker. Ben Bova, head of the National Space Society, is another visionary person and has some organizational skills. Many of the people on the National Commission of Space would be good choices. Due to my own personal time constraints, I have not gone into much detail above. If you would like me to, please let me know. Bob Bruccoleri bruc%r2d2.decnet@mghccc.harvard.edu ------ ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jan 88 03:15:50 GMT From: cartan!brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David desJardins) Subject: Re: Treaties with the Soviets In article <635@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: >Please note that the much mentioned Soviet ABM system does not protect Moscow. >As the ABM treaty only allows each nation's ABM system to protect a missile >site, setting up an ABM system to protect Washington or Moscow would be a >clear violation of the treaty. > >However the Soviets _do_ have an ABM system and it does protect a missile >site. It is purely a co-incidence that the site is just outside Moscow.... As a New Year's Resolution I am giving up the practice of wondering aloud why people don't bother to check the facts before posting stupid falsehoods. So, I am sending this now to get my one last chance. WHY DON'T YOU CHECK THE FACTS BEFORE POSTING??? The fact of the matter is that the ABM Treaty of 1972 permits each side two ABM complexes, limited to 100 missiles each, one for the protection of the capital city and the other for the defense of an ICBM site. The US built an ABM base at Grand Forks AFB in North Dakota, but closed it down and terminated its ABM program in 1975. The Soviet Union placed ABMs around Moscow for the defense of the city, and has continued to modernize its system within the limits of the treaty. -- David desJardins ------------------------------ Date: 31 Dec 87 15:00:42 GMT From: hao!noao!mcdsun!sunburn!gtx!al@AMES.ARPA (0732) Subject: Re: Exact Time (help please) > I have been asked by my Young Astronauts group to find out how the correct >time is determined. A recent issue of Science, (18 December, 1987, to be exact) contains an article entitled "A Matter of Time" that gives an excellent overview of time-keeping and time-keepers, discussing such things as UTC, atomic clocks, the Naval Observatory, the role of Greenwich, etc. Some interesting trivia from the article: The idea of a ball sliding down a pole to mark a certain time originated at Greenwich castle in the 1800's; the ball was released at precisely noon every day and everyone who could see the castle could thus be informed of the exact time. By 1861 there were four such "time balls" in England. The New York new year's eve time ball is patterned after this, and, (as I heard on NPR's Morning Edition today), has been in use since 1908, except for two years during WWII. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 2501 W. Dunlap, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA | | {ihnp4,cbosgd,decvax,hplabs,seismo}!sun!sunburn!gtx!al (602)870-1696 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 31 Dec 87 18:18:14 GMT From: tikal!sigma!uw-nsr!brett@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Brett Van Steenwyk) Subject: RE: NASA reorganization In Article 3780 of sci.space, livesey@sun.uucp (Jon Livesey) writes: > Calm down. I know you mentioned Manhattan, but you mentioned it only >to dismiss it. You talked about it as though it could validly be compare to a >gambler staking all on one throw, with the inevitable bankruptcy after enough >throws. With all due respect to popular science writing, I think that >'gamble' is a poor analogy for science. The results are not simply controlled >by chance. One never knows for sure whether or not a venture into a previously unexplored area will bear fruit. It is by definition a gamble. Nature may be an absolute, but humankind can perceive only an imperfect subset of that--discovering links between phenomena isn't a cut and dried process. >corporation founded on an elite research organization, with a number of >corporations founded on weaker research organizations. Is that such a >great idea? It might have been better simply to make the single corporation >more efficient. What did it add to break it up? Maybe all we really need to >do is get better at recognizing beaurocratic redundancy and eliminating it. If "simply make the single corporation more efficient" is that SIMPLE to you, why not work in that field--you would be rich in no time. We've been trying to rid ourselves of bureaucratic redundancy since the Roman Empire, and only one solution has worked so far: extinction. This gets back to the original point: having several competing entities will tend to eliminate the bad ones very quickly, either by getting their act together or die. This is not only to throw the present gaggle of rascals out of NASA, but to ensure that any future ones in the organization(s) that replace it do not have a very long employment history. One may have to accept the fact that it often takes dismantling the entire organization that's around these people to get rid of them. >with rival designs, after all. Good science and technology people often just >happen to be competitive, and they rarely need to be faked into competing by >being told they have their own little NASA-let to play with. They are a bit >more grown up than that. I beg to differ. In the short exposure I have had with science and technology types I have seen a great deal in inflated egos, home turf protection at all costs, etc. Not all that much in doing one's best, pursuing scientific truths, etc. When you are in a group, you follow the leader's dictates like a god (most groups--there are some exceptions), and if he's a raving maniac or even brain-dead, it doesn't much matter. Office politics does not lead to productive independent thinking, and the boss is always free to reject any ideas that either: 1. he can't be credited for, 2. May supercede his pet models of "real science", 3. [put your favorite here]. The only way to counter this tendency is to have competing groups inherent in the organization. > That does not follow, of course. The performance of a particular example >of a planning system says little about its possible efficiency. They may >simply not be very good at it. You might as well dismiss the free market >system based on its observed performance in, say, the US auto industry. The fallacy is that the US auto industry, in the time in question, did not represent a segment of the free market system--three companies did not have free market pressure on their operation. Today, the situation is different as the European and Japanese have provided us with many more companies to choose from. Still, breaking a GM or a Ford in at least half would be a good thing to do once we're through with NASA. I do not write this lightly after reading yesterday that the next SS launch will probably be delayed until October. NASA's role in space as represented by its operation of the SS is inappropriate for that organization--and I hope that the previous discussion did not take away from any emphasis on that. I personally believe that the SS should be scrapped--a few more band-aids will not fix something that is wrong at the overall system level. Maybe one can build some sort of cargo transport out of some of the components, but as long as there are large solid fuel boosters involved, DON'T put any people inside. Putting all of our eggs into the space shuttle basket not only in manned flight but in the use of unmanned probes deserves at least a Mr. Yuk sticker. The shuttle was designed by consensus, in Congress, and it is now very apparent that the dissenters should have been listened to. I can only wish I was old enough to have understood what was going on at the time. If there had been one competing approach, from a Saturn V to a Dynosoar, the present situation would be oh so much better. Just think what things would be like now if there were TWO competing approaches. This brings to mind a few quotes that seem to epitomize what has led our space capability to its present level: "Its so expensive to do _______. We need to pool our resources so that we can complete the project" "It takes a GM to build a car right" "We must focus our attention ..." "The present space shuttle design represents the best cost-performance tradeoffs" I usually need to put on my hip boots to wade through these. --Brett Van Steenwyk ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jan 88 09:38:00 GMT From: m2c!frog!sc@husc6.harvard.edu (STartripper) Subject: The Church of the Holy Starship was Re: A request Followups to this posting are directed to talk.religion.newage. Please help keep other, unconsenting groups _out_ of followups! And for the sake of newagers who don't want to play, maybe we could keep "starship" in the title so they can filter us out? In addition, this is partly an answer to a question in .newage about people making up their own religions, but I'll amplify on that in something that isn't crossposted to eighty-leven groups, ok, Steve? Well, it's been a long year. 900-foot Jesii have their religion, waterslides have theirs. Why not space colonies? And starships? I've dreamed and thought for years about getting our ecosystem reproduced off the planet, thus opening the door to a universe of "culture dishes" where societies can experiment upon themselves. [Of course, this provides a test bench for debugging the neglected technologies of religion and metaprogramming. And when I see some of what passes for religious professionalism (well, it pays their rent, no?), I know I could do _that_ in a rented donkey costume! I won't go down a waterslide in a rented suit though....] A while back, I gave this set of dreams the tag line Church of the Holy Starship. I was, in part, joking, of course. But the more I joke, the more I hear an inner voice saying, "You _sure_ you're joking? I mean, _just_ joking?" And what really bugs me is the inner voice that answers firmly, "I dunno." The voice of my ghod (general hypothetical organizing device) spake unto me in a loud voice, crying "throw it at the net, and dance with the reaction". So if anyone would like to join me in .newage, you're welcome -- Can it be done? Can _we_ do it? Should it be done? (I think the answers are three yesses, but _you_ don't have to agree!). You want to show me how to build a church financial and organizational structure that can't be swindled? I'm listening! Skeptically, but listening.... You have ideas about controlling disinformation on information utilities? I want them. You want to tell me about problems I haven't even thought of yet? Direct me to the appropriate newsgroup. And watch talk.religion.newage. Our mother the earth needs our monkey hands to get us up the well. Can we do it? Author's Honor: I don't know whether I'm playing, starting a crusade, plotting another great unfinished science fiction novel, or getting ready to run for president. But I'd sure like to see any sparks this posting strikes while I'm making up my mind. STartripper QQQCLC sc@frog.uucp" ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #94 ******************* Received: from GALILEO.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Feb 88 15:15:25 EST Received: by galileo.s1.gov id AA06300; Wed, 10 Feb 88 09:44:44 PST id AA06300; Wed, 10 Feb 88 09:44:44 PST Date: Wed, 10 Feb 88 09:44:44 PST From: ota%galileo.s1.gov@mordor.s1.gov Message-Id: <8802101744.AA06300@galileo.s1.gov> To: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: [ota: SPACE Digest V8 #95] Date: Sat, 2 Jan 88 03:02:24 PST From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #95 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 95 Today's Topics: Re: Exact Time (help please) Re: The Church of the Holy Starship was Re: A request Teleoperators In Show Biz OOOOOOPS! was Re: The Church of the Holy Starship was Re: A request ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Jan 88 19:54:15 GMT From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu (Bill Wyatt) Subject: Re: Exact Time (help please) > A recent issue of Science, (18 December, 1987, to be exact) contains > an article entitled "A Matter of Time" that gives an excellent > overview of time-keeping and time-keepers, discussing such things as > UTC, atomic clocks, the Naval Observatory, the role of Greenwich, etc. > > Some interesting trivia from the article: The idea of a ball sliding > down a pole to mark a certain time originated at Greenwich castle in > the 1800's; the ball was released at precisely noon every day and > everyone who could see the castle could thus be informed of the exact > time. By 1861 there were four such "time balls" in England. The New > York new year's eve time ball is patterned after this, and, (as I > heard on NPR's Morning Edition today), has been in use since 1908, > except for two years during WWII. Sky & Telescope did an article last year (sorry, don't know more exactly) on how time balls were used in ports to allow navigators to synchronize their chronometers. BTW, in contrast to the NY new years's eve time ball, it was always the time of *release* that defined the time (usually noon). There were also a set of standard times to rerelease in case the first one went at the wrong time. Bill UUCP: {husc6,ihnp4,cmcl2,mit-eddie}!harvard!cfa!wyatt Wyatt ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jan 88 22:26:52 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Re: The Church of the Holy Starship was Re: A request In article <1985@frog.UUCP> sc@frog.UUCP (STartripper) writes: (among other things) >So if anyone would like to join me in .newage, you're welcome -- Can it >be done? Can _we_ do it? Should it be done? (I think the answers are >three yesses, but _you_ don't have to agree!). My votes: 1) yes, I've seen worse 2) yes, if we're so inclined 3) welllll yes but VERY carefully >You want to show me how to build a church financial and organizational >structure that can't be swindled? I'm listening! Skeptically, but >listening.... Frankly I think that that is either a pipe-dream or a reason to keep the kernel of each component of the organization small enough that one honest person (you?) could keep track of. However, with any amount of money near the range needed for space research and development, or a church on the scale of any of the major religion's subreligions, most of the money will come through cleanly- it's the small percentage of borderline employees/moneyhandlers who will have to be attended to. The best organization for an unswindleable organization that I have even heard hinted at is EE "Doc" Smith's Lensmen (see any good "science fiction" used bookstore or collection). Not to say that there are good men and women out there that will do their damnest to treat all this in a very professional manner, just that the best imaginable is not quite attainable. The next best thing are those who are sincerely dedicated, above and beyond the run-of-the-mill worker. This will require quite a lot of searching. And I'll wager many of them already are set in one of the more mainstream religions. Also, note I said "kernel". I am indeed implying that this organization would do well in taking the learnings gleaned from other organizations concerning structure. The best of corporations are becoming conglomerations of small working groups, some of which act as the bookkeepers, some the research groups, some the design implentors, some the policy coordinators, and so on. The new age movement and the corporate restructuring seem to stem from the same impulse: let everyone discover who they are, and let them take some of the responsibilities themselves instead of surrendering it all the way up the line to "upperlevel management" or "the Lord Jesus Christ" or "my mother" or some other voice of Authority with a 16-ton weight poised above the individual's head, just waiting for the first opportunity to drop it. >You have ideas about controlling disinformation on information >utilities? I want them. We've already got it, at least in rudimentary form: the network, newspapers, magazines, personal letters, the telephone, word-of-mouth. The problem simply is getting people who know about disinformation to speak out about it. _That_ requires a support for those who wish to speak out but cannot without going in the face of a threat from somewhere. Examples: the whistle-blower who must either be employed or be ethical; the person who faces loss of his job if he releases the knowledge of disinformation to anyone outside his area. And there definitely is money in disinformation in other pursuits- the con man lives in all ages, it seems. -Joe Beckenbach (CS BS '88) The Unknowable must have a sense of humor: we were left the Shroud of Turin! No matter how we look at it, we can come up believing blindly, disbelieving blindly, or (rarely) shaking our heads at it & enjoying the joke. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jan 88 10:07 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Teleoperators In Show Biz Eugene Miya's comments about "telescience" reminded me of an article I recently read about a new use for teleoperators: movie making. Previously, Hollywood robots or aliens either had people inside or were controlled by a group of joystick equipped puppeteers. The new system, to be used in the movie "Short Circuit II", is controlled by an actor in a harness. Cost: $2 million. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jan 88 01:08:00 GMT From: m2c!frog!sc@husc6.harvard.edu (STartripper) Subject: OOOOOOPS! was Re: The Church of the Holy Starship was Re: A request Um, gee gang, I screwed up.... I forgot, after deciding to include other newsgroups but spare them the followups, to put talk.religion.newage in the Followup-To: line. Please, people, cover for me in my hour of stupidity, OK? It's better to feel embarrassed than not to feel at all, but sheesh! I feel like a silly monkey.... STartripper QQQCLC sc@frog.uucp ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #95 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 3 Jan 88 06:16:55 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA24614; Sun, 3 Jan 88 03:14:32 PST id AA24614; Sun, 3 Jan 88 03:14:32 PST Date: Sun, 3 Jan 88 03:14:32 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801031114.AA24614@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #96 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 96 Today's Topics: Re: Life in Moscow MIR crew on TV NASA Breakup ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Jan 88 10:55:19 GMT From: troly@locus.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Life in Moscow >>> I picked up a propaganda poster (printed in 1982) of a young Russian >>> scientist, staring into space with a thoughtful look, and surrounded by >>> rockets, buildings, oil wells, etc. The slogan on the poster was "Invent, >>> Improve, Implement". To emphasize the high-tech nature of science and of >>> Russian society, the most prominent thing in the picture (besides the >>> scientist himself) was a strip of paper tape. Back in 1982 I was in space biz. One of the most important computers in the Deep Space Network tracking stations received its instructions via (you guessed it!) paper tape. Bret Jolly Mathemagus . ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jan 1988 17:49-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: MIR crew on TV Arts & Education channel carried "Australia Live". One portion of the show was live from the USSR manned space flight center. Looks exactly like H-MSFC control room, probably because that's the way to build such a control room. The Russian who handled the communication set up, the monitor in the background, all are reminiscent of our past glories. Australian commentator carried out a live conversation (via the command center translator) with the 2 cosmonauts. About 10 minutes later they broke again for a minute of live transmission of Australia from above. Commentator made a funny about how things had changed. 25 years ago they would not have been so sanguine about a Communist passing over Melbourne, and now they're joining in with live transmissions for a national celebration... Sigh, I heartily wish that WE could have shared the up top view with our friends down under. Unfortuneately the new SRB problem has sent all the government bureaucrats (and contractors) scurrying for their CYA papers. Maybe we can take part in the Australian Tricentennial. Should be about the right timing for the next US shuttle flight... Oh well. Congrats to all our net friends down under! (even if it is from ground level to ground level) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Jan 88 14:12 EDT From: ELIOT%cs.umass.edu@relay.cs.net Subject: NASA Breakup The idea of breaking NASA up into a number of smaller government agencies seems somewhat strange to me. After all there is only one U.S. gov't. The difference is whether the buerocracy comes together at the top of NASA, or at higher levels (cabinet, president). Eventually the whole thing is supervised by the President. The "privatization" of space seems to be a much better idea for optimizing the process. Currently satelites can be designed and operated by private companies with the required technology. NASA still has the only lauch facilities. The next logical step would be to try to develop private commercial launch capacity. The fastest way to do this would probably be a generous government subsidy program. For example, the government could give any new U.S. company ten guaranteed payloads at very high prices, say $6000 or $8000 per pound. After that they could bid on other goverment contracts, and private (telecommunications) contracts. As the private launch capacity improves NASA would be forced out of the earth-to-orbit task, which certainly isn't an area where major scientific research is being done. Instead NASA would have to concentrate on more exotic endeavors, like planetary exploration. In the long run we don't need a government research program to get into orbit anymore. WHat we need government research for is much longer range projects and basic scientific research. Chris Eliot University of Massachusetts at Amherst ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #96 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 4 Jan 88 06:17:02 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA25965; Mon, 4 Jan 88 03:14:45 PST id AA25965; Mon, 4 Jan 88 03:14:45 PST Date: Mon, 4 Jan 88 03:14:45 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801041114.AA25965@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #97 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 97 Today's Topics: Re: Exact Time (help please) Re: satellites LAST *DAY* 15 MORE VOTES NEEDED ON talk.politics.soviet! Re: Exact Time (help please) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Jan 88 08:47:12 GMT From: tektronix!reed!aardvark!steve@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Steve Willoughby) Subject: Re: Exact Time (help please) (In reply to a request of how to obtain correct time info...) Someone mentioned calling WWV (Nat'l Bureau of Standards) on the phone. Unless I'm mistaken, you can also hear WWV transmissions on AM radio. (One of those nifty shortwave things) I believe they send on 5, 10, and 15 kHz. What you get is a beep every second, with a voice message each minute telling the correct GMT time. -- Steve Willoughby | "You will, I am sure, agree with me that if page ...ihnp4!tektronix! | 534 finds us only in the second chapter, the length tessi!aardvark!steve | of the first one must have been really intolerable." -- Sherlock Holmes, in The Valley of Fear ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 88 21:09:27 GMT From: cgs@umd5.umd.edu (Chris Sylvain) Subject: Re: satellites In article <873@uop.edu> robert@uop.edu (Doc Ness) writes: ? Well, how about that AP headline? ? "Satellite saw Waite, newspaper says" ? and "National Security Agency Officials" talked of the "Lacrosse" ? satellite parked over Lebanon. ? ? Comments? ? ? (I bet NSA is pissed off either way!) Uh-huh.... apply NaCl liberally.. Really now, does Waite have a highly distinctive bald-spot on the top of his head? or maybe he was looking down into a bird-bath ? -- --==---==---==-- .. 'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves .. ARPA: cgs@umd5.UMD.EDU BITNET: cgs%umd5@umd2 UUCP: ..!uunet!umd5.umd.edu!cgs ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 88 20:40:39 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!EWTILENI@princeton.edu (Eric Tilenius) Subject: LAST *DAY* 15 MORE VOTES NEEDED ON talk.politics.soviet! We only need about 15 more votes to create the newsgroup "talk.politics.soviet" to discuss Soviet politics, relations, problems, and other matters of Soviet affairs... This would be an unmoderated group. Votes must be "postmarked" by January 4, 1988 (sent from you any time on that day), so send 'em in -- quickly! MAIL your votes on talk.politics.soviet to: (note - news path does not work for mail) ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU ewtileni@pucc.BITNET ewtileni%pucc.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu (or other internet gateway) ewtileni%pucc.Princeton.EDU@Princeton.EDU rutgers!princeton!ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU ihnp4!psuvax1!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni - ERIC - * Another proud CoCo 3 user * ______________ | | BITNET:ewtileni@pucc | ARPA:ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU | ColorVenture | CompuServe: 70346,16 | MCI Mail and/or Delphi: TILENIUS |______________| PHONE :609-734-0092 | UUCP:{rutgers,cbosgd,cmcl2}!psuvax1!pucc.BITNET!ewtileni ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 88 23:50:33 GMT From: terra!brent@sun.com (Brent Callaghan) Subject: Re: Exact Time (help please) I've been setting my watch from WWV and WWVH for years. The voice at the 45th sec in each minute announces "At the tone, the time will be n hours nn minutes coordinated universal time". Then on the minute there's a high pitched tone that changes 1 sec later to a lower tone interrupted by "ticks" at 1 sec intervals. My question is: Which tone is the man referring to ? Is it the high pitched tone or is that just a warning that the low pitch tone is going to start in a second ? Made in New Zealand --> Brent Callaghan @ Sun Microsystems uucp: sun!bcallaghan phone: (415) 691 6188 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #97 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 5 Jan 88 06:16:32 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA27656; Tue, 5 Jan 88 03:14:09 PST id AA27656; Tue, 5 Jan 88 03:14:09 PST Date: Tue, 5 Jan 88 03:14:09 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801051114.AA27656@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #98 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 98 Today's Topics: Sierra Club/National Space Society Retreat Re: Exact Time (help please) Re: Telescience Re: Exact Time (help please) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov Date: Mon, 4 Jan 88 10:02:03 PST From: lll-crg!ames!scubed!sdcsvax!pnet01.cts.com!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Sierra Club/National Space Society Retreat Space Development or Space Despoilment? The U.S. and U.S.S.R. have made policy statements to the effect that space is a frontier which they intend to settle. What are the essential differences between the New World and space as a frontier? Will the perception of an infinite frontier encourage the reckless destruction of Earth's riches? How can we avoid the mistakes we've made with our terrestrial environment while migrating into space? The potential of space settlement is powerful enough to illuminate basic questions about our future, ethics and the environment. Members of the National Space Society and the Sierra Club will come together to discuss these issues on March 12 at the Sierra Club Lodge in Laguna Mountains. There will be a pot luck dinner around sundown followed by a discussion and possibly some star gazing, as March 12 is near a new moon. Many of us will choose to stay overnight. Telescopes will be provided, but bring your own if you can. For more information contact Jim Bowery at 619/295-8868. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jan 88 09:20:23 PST From: rgd059@mipl3.jpl.nasa.gov Subject: Re: Exact Time (help please) X-St-Vmsmail-To: ST%"space@angband.s1.gov",RGD059 [Sorry, I lost the references] Somebody said: >Someone mentioned calling WWV (Nat'l Bureau of Standards) on the >phone. Unless I'm mistaken, you can also hear WWV transmissions >on AM radio. (One of those nifty shortwave things) > >I believe they send on 5, 10, and 15 kHz. What you get is a ^^^ >beep every second, with a voice message each minute telling >the correct GMT time. Make that 5, 10, and 15 MHz. It also might be on 20 MHz, I don't remember for sure. Most amateur radio hf receivers that I've seen can tune in at least one of these. Somebody else said: >I've been setting my watch from WWV and WWVH for years. The voice at >the 45th sec in each minute announces "At the tone, the time will be n >hours nn minutes coordinated universal time". > >Then on the minute there's a high pitched tone that changes 1 sec later >to a lower tone interrupted by "ticks" at 1 sec intervals. > >My question is: Which tone is the man referring to ? Is it the high >pitched tone or is that just a warning that the low pitch tone is going >to start in a second ? It's the high pitched tone. The low pitch tone continues for 15 or 30 seconds (don't remember which... it's been too long) so you can tell when 15 or 30 seconds past the minute happens. WWV (Colorado) and WWVH (Hawaii) both transmit on the same frequencies. The WWV announcement happens in a male voice and the WWVH in a female voice. One of them is at 45 seconds past the minute, and the other is at 52.5 seconds. WWV also transmits other information like sunspot and hf propagation reports at certain times during the hour. Somewhere I saw a list of what all they send... if anyone's interested I can try to dig it up again (it's probably in the Amateur Radio Handbook). Bob Deen (N5DPU) @ NASA-JPL Image Processing Lab Internet: rgd059@mipl3.jpl.nasa.gov Span: mipl3::rgd059 ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 88 18:07:07 GMT From: rochester!kodak!ektools!john@bbn.com (John H. Hall) Subject: Re: Telescience "Telescience" is not in my dictionary. Is it pronounced tel-ESS-ee-ents or tel-uh-SI-ents? John Hall ARPA: kodak!ektools!john@rochester.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 88 18:32:10 GMT From: pitt!cisunx!tjw@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Terry J Wood) Subject: Re: Exact Time (help please) WWV in FT Collins, Colorado and WWVH (somewhere in Hawaii) broadcast on 2.5, 5, 10, 15, and 20 MHz. If you have a reasonably good short-wave receiver (or a reasonably good friend who's a Ham-radio operator) you should be able to pick up WWV or WWVH anytime of the day on one of these frequencies. What you will hear on these frequencies is the same information that you will get if you make the phone call. Also, note that the WWV and WWVH transmitters are quite accurate in regards to being on frequency (i.e.: you can use these stations to tell how close YOUR receiver is to being on frequency). Terry J. Wood (WA3VQJ) (Internet) tjw@vms.cis.pittsburgh.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #98 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 6 Jan 88 06:18:13 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA29159; Wed, 6 Jan 88 03:15:52 PST id AA29159; Wed, 6 Jan 88 03:15:52 PST Date: Wed, 6 Jan 88 03:15:52 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801061115.AA29159@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #99 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 99 Today's Topics: Nozzles for Fusion-Propulsion Re: satellites Booster development Re: Diversification Reform Re: Diversification Reform Re: NASA breakup Re: Booster development JSC is in Houston, right? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 05 Jan 88 15:10:00 EST From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu Subject: Nozzles for Fusion-Propulsion (From a discussion of IC Fusion Propulsion by Jordan Kare): >The vehicle drops a small pellet out the back, then blasts it with a >large on-board laser. A small amount of the pellet material fuses, >heating the pellet material to very high temperatures. The pellet >debris is sufficiently ionized to be contained by a magnetic field, >which acts as a nozzle, converting the spherical pellet explosion into >a directional exhaust that accelerates the spacecraft. Note that the problem of using a magnetic field as a nozzle is a very tricky one. Charged particles orbit around magnetic field lines, and the field lines for magnetic confinement necessarily loop around. The result is that the ion exhaust doesn't stream out the back of the rocket, but follows the field lines and loops back around to "stick" to the outside. I don't know if this problem for fusion propulsion (or any type of plasma propulsion) has been solved or not. For inertial confinement fusion propulsion, a brute-force solution would be to use, not a magnetic nozzle, but an actual physical nozzle. Alternatively you could neutralize the plasma after it has passed out of the reaction chamber. --Geoffrey A. Landis, Ph.D Until 23 January: Brown University, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Internet: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU After 23 January: NASA Lewis Research Center ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 88 02:52:23 GMT From: ptsfa!well!shibumi@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Kenton A. Hoover) Subject: Re: satellites >In article <873@uop.edu> robert@uop.edu (Doc Ness) writes: >? Well, how about that AP headline? >? "Satellite saw Waite, newspaper says" >? >? (I bet NSA is pissed off either way!) > >Uh-huh.... apply NaCl liberally.. No, it was the "Terry Waite" on his hostage jersey (number 17?). Or perhaps the satellite heard some car honk when they saw another car's "Honk if you have Terry Waite in your trunk" bumpersticker. Or perhaps a "Terry Waite on board" sign in the window. Or perhaps some person at AP need to change whatever it is they're smoking. Kenton A. Hoover ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jan 88 13:47:00 est From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) Subject: Booster development As is common knowledge by now, the Space shuttle is kaput for a few months (hopefully not years) longer than previously announced. I've heard mention of Air Force work on a reasonably straightforward booster, and I believe some other group is doing something along the same lines. I'd like to know the status and plans for said boosters. Are the rumored plans for real? Timeframes? Planned payload to LEO? Who's in the game besides the Air Force? Any boosters with a fighting chance of existence? As an aside to this, is Amroc alive or dead at this point? For a while there it looked like they had exceeded the critical probability of a snowball in hell - are they still trying? Kevin Ryan ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 88 11:19:29 GMT From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Diversification Reform In article <37471@sun.uucp>, livesey@sun.uucp (Jon Livesey) writes: > Except in the US, fighter production has less than epsilon to do with > free enterprise. Even for the US, the closest thing to a private > enterprise fighter crashed in flames, so to speak, two years ago. What was this plane? Peter da Silva ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 88 11:34:21 GMT From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Diversification Reform In article <37531@sun.uucp>, livesey@sun.UUCP writes: > That does not follow, of course. The performance of a particular > example of a planning system says little about its possible > efficiency. They may simply not be very good at it. You might as > well dismiss the free market system based on its observed performance > in, say, the US auto industry. > > Jon. Since the '70s the U.S. auto industry hasn't been operating under anything like a free market. Prior to the massive regulation during and after the energy crunch the U.S. auto industry was pre-eminent. Since then the companies that are operating in relatively free-market environments have done much better. Also, (watch this splendid 180 degree turn) the Soviet planned economy does seem to be doing rather well in the space business. Peter da Silva ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 88 11:39:34 GMT From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: NASA breakup In article <37617@sun.uucp>, mae%vygr@Sun.COM (Mike Ekberg, Sun {Graphics Product Division}) writes: > Strange thought for the day. I know that commercial aviation was > boosted by the government saying it would pay X dollars for air mail. > How about NASA putting up a competetion for space station by saying it > was willing to pay X million $/day to rent an (orbiting) room in > space? mike (sun!mae), M/S 5-40 "Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the > only one." I know that a bunch of people standing around saying "yes, yes" is frowned upon on the net, but I'd like to do just that. There is already a movement towards purchase of satellites delivered to orbit, rather than buying them on the ground and shipping them up yourself. The government should at least send out RFPs for a station delivered to orbit. Peter da Silva ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 88 20:39:34 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Re: Booster development In article Kevin William Ryan (kr0u+@andrew.cmu.EDU) writes: >I'd like to know the status and plans for ... boosters. Are the >rumored plans for real? Timeframes? Planned payload to LEO? Who's in >the game besides the Air Force? Any boosters with a fighting chance of >existence? Another voice along the same lines: whatever happened to the Saturn V plans, assembly lines, and related production? All NASA needs to do to get a booster is to revive the Apollo hardware! "Gee, it got us to the Moon, it must not be good enough for the New Frontier," seems to be the prevailing attitude at the very highest decision levels. :-( Question: How could a private company get launch facilities in the US? If private enterprise can't launch from the US, it will soon surface somewhere outside the US- the US definitely cannot have all the good launch sites. Hm, it may be about time to emigrate to Australia and join a space company. 1/3 :-) Question #2: If every nation is responsible for the space activities of its citizens, then the only Americans who can be present in space will either have to ignore the government, or go to a country which allows space access, "on loan" as it were. What other options are there, aside from disclaiming all citizenship or forming a UN citizenship if I want to go into space contrary to the wishes of all national governments? -Joe Beckenbach (CS BS '88) ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 88 11:27:22 GMT From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter da Silva) Subject: JSC is in Houston, right? In article ... eugene%pioneer@AMES.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes: > >Huston John Young (or person he recommends) > Don't know a Center in Houston (sp). You're kidding, right? Johnson's pork barrel? "Houston, Tranquility Base. The Eagle has landed" "Roger, Tranquility. We copy you on the ground." Must have been a figment of my imagination. I know that most times they cut the first word out of that quote (I haven't been able to get a recording of it), but you work at NASA... Peter da Silva ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #99 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 7 Jan 88 06:41:21 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00831; Thu, 7 Jan 88 03:16:13 PST id AA00831; Thu, 7 Jan 88 03:16:13 PST Date: Thu, 7 Jan 88 03:16:13 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801071116.AA00831@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #100 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 100 Today's Topics: Candidates on space issues Soviet space marketing moves Liberia of space (was Soviet space marketing moves) Saturn V Re: Boosters (S V) and space commericalization Re: Booster development Re: Liberia of space (was Soviet space marketing moves) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Jan 88 20:24:26 GMT From: aterry@teknowledge-vaxc.arpa (Uninterned Symbol) Subject: Candidates on space issues We now have more than a dozen candidates who think they want to be president. Have any of them made any coherent statements on space issues, preferably positive? I suspect that even if one should mention a stand on space exploration, the media would not give it a lot of coverage. If anybody picks up some news, this group might be a good way to pass the word during this election year. Who deserves support over their stand on space? Who needs persuasion (letters, etc)? And who, if any, seems to be a dead loss? Lets work to make space an issue. Allan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 88 10:22:03 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soviet space marketing moves In the area of space marketing the Soviets have just signed a commercial contract with a West German firm for the production of several materials in orbit during 1989 to 1992 aboard a Photon spacecraft. Meanwhile Art Dula, the Texas lawyer who is trying get permission to launch some communications satellites on Soviet boosters, has just returned from a tour of the Baikonur Cosmodrome. While initially doubting how much the Russians would reveal he said "we were surprised they opened up as much as they did", by showing them a satellite being integrated to a Proton launcher (with its panels off and wiring harnesses observable). Foreign launches he said would occur in a separate portion of the space center and he said "we'll have an American team of 50 people at the Soviet launch complex doing our satellite processing, checkout, and integration, and our own security people will be guarding our satellites until the moment of launch." The opposition by the State Department to the using the Russian launch vehicles he felt was based not only on questions of technological transfer but also on worries about Soviet boosters taking flights which would go to US companies. Not only are US satellite companies losing money from comsats they cannot get into orbit now, the existence of foreign companies which launch their systems on cheap Soviet boosters, as well as the modification of the USSR's Gorizont system to compete directly with western comsats "will kill the US satellite technology industry. [The Soviets are] clearly determined to be part of the [space] market". In the 1970' the French and Germans wanted to launch a new type of communications satellite called Symphony. They had built the satellite and were trying for a launch contract when certain groups in US industry and government objected to Europe being allowed to send up such a system (I do not recall the full details but it had something to do with US vendors not being allowed to send up similar designs at that time). The Europeans felt that their satellite industry could not be held hostage to a determination of what was allowed by various groups in this country, especially when they were competing for comsat contracts with US industry. Hence they started the Ariane projects, producing a launcher which even before the shuttle accident was capturing 50% of the world's space commercial booster contracts. One point to note that if it was not for Ariane a fifth shuttle orbiter at least would have justified just on the basis of demand. Are we seeing the same thing with respect to Soviet launch vehicles? Will the mercantile forces in industry within this country again try to keep everything for themselves, and result in losing world market shares elsewhere? To third world nations what does it mater whether they buy US, European, Japanese, Chinese or Soviet equipment, only price, service and quality are of concern. At least in launch systems the Russians meet all those requirements. It reminds me of the old stock market saying - "A Bull can make money part of the time, a Bear can make money part of the time, but a Hog always looses". Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 88 17:39:17 GMT From: paul.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) Subject: Liberia of space (was Soviet space marketing moves) Seems to me that it's only a matter of time before some multinational (or American) company figures out that they can get satellites launched by the Russians if the satellites aren't built in the U.S. The alternatives to achieve this are to subcontract with the Russians to build the satellite themselves (would they allow verification of the design and construction?), or to build the satellite in a country which is willing to put up with threats of U.S. retaliation. (Is anyone from Toshiba listening? 0.5 :-) Either way, both satellite launch and construction technology move offshore, and specifically into the hands of the Evil Empire. I wouldn't be too surprised to see a new satellite company organized in, say, French Guiana (a third-world country which needs the bucks more than it needs the U.S. government, and already has the Kourou launch facility.) Such a company could construct satellites to be launched from anywhere convenient - Kourou, Canaveral, Bainokur, wherever - as long as they had the sympathy of the local government (which could be maintained by the prospect of losing the revenue from the satellites.) The only alternative is to give the commercial launch business in this country a free rein, and government support through launch contracts (with competition encouraged.) If the federal government insists on suppressing commercial launchers in the U.S., commercial space in this country will go the way of commercial electronics - offshore. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 1988 10:20:37 EST From: Kevin.Ryan@a.cfr.cmu.edu Subject: Saturn V Joe Beckenbach, [beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu] wrote >... whatever happened to the Saturn V plans, assembly lines, and >related production? All NASA needs to do to get a booster is to revive >the Apollo hardware! This subject was discussed some time back on Space Digest. Apparently NASA threw away the plans and specs, sold some of the tooling, trashed most of the rest. We are incapable of building a Saturn V without reinventing it. Various reasons were given by NASA for this - mostly consisting of "We didn't have the room/money to keep it while developing the Space Shuttle." There are rumors that the Saturn V plans were pitched in order to prevent it from becoming a SS competitor, but I have heard no solid evidence for this theory. If the publicly stated reasons are true, then this loss is the result of horrible nearsightedness. If the rumor is correct, then somebody deserves to be keelhauled, in the genuine and original sense. (Look it up, and think about barnacles...) Either way, we've lost an important and well-designed tool. Kevin Ryan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jan 88 14:41:21 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Boosters (S V) and space commericalization All sounds interesting. I like Sagan's solution in Contact: the US and Soviet technology had problems, so they took the third party Japanese solution. Let them make the follow-ons to the Saturn V ;-). [Actually it's pretty sorry technology in some ways, if you only knew.] --eugene ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 88 13:54:12 GMT From: ece-csc!ncrcae!ncr-sd!ncrlnk!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson@mcnc.org (Mark Johnson) Subject: Re: Booster development In article <5097@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> beckenba@cit-vax.UUCP (Joe Beckenbach) writes: >Question: How could a private company get launch facilities in the US? >If private enterprise can't launch from the US, it will soon surface >somewhere outside the US- the US definitely cannot have all the good >launch sites. Private companies *are* trying to get launch facilities. E-Prime Aerospace has a preliminary agreement to use Canaveral Air Force Station for a test sounding rocket launch now scheduled for early next month. The original target date was November but the Air Farce (1/2 :-) is requiring a $10 million liability policy (for a 10-foot long, 90-lb sounding rocket which will reach 20,000 feet!!!!! ) [I am in no way affiliated with E Prime Aerospace] -- Mark Johnson (mjohnson@ncrwic.UUCP) NCR Engineering & Manufacturing-Wichita, KS phone: (316)688-8189 email:...!rutgers!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson US snailnet: 3718 N. Rock Rd., Wichita, KS 67226 ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 88 02:57:47 GMT From: karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Liberia of space (was Soviet space marketing moves) > say, French Guiana (a third-world country which needs the bucks more > than it needs the U.S. government, and already has the Kourou launch > facility.) French Guiana is an overseas department of France, one of the last remnants of the great European empires. Although there are still plenty of islands under European control, I believe it's the very last such colony on a mainland continent. Phil ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #100 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 8 Jan 88 06:20:18 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03056; Fri, 8 Jan 88 03:17:04 PST id AA03056; Fri, 8 Jan 88 03:17:04 PST Date: Fri, 8 Jan 88 03:17:04 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801081117.AA03056@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #101 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 101 Today's Topics: Kalmann Filter F20 old missiles--usage? Re: Saturn V RFP's Re: AMROC alive or dead? Tranquility Base Re: Liberia of space (was Soviet space marketing moves) Re: Saturn V Re: RFP's ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Jan 88 17:10:54 GMT From: linus!philabs!gotham!ursa!raj@husc6.harvard.edu (Raj) Subject: Kalmann Filter I am interested in forecasting and estimation, and would like to see a simple introduction to Kalman filters. The several books I looked into were rather advanced, and needed a lot of background knowledge. I would like to know what does this filter do, how to build a model for it, some simple examples, etc. Does any of you have a simple paper, book or something that will explain this to me in simple terms? Secondly, I was told that someone, perhaps MIT, sells a package that takes in all the relevant data and comes up with the required answers using this filter. Does any of you know of this package? Please reply to sun!sunrise!ursa!raj. Thanks very much. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 88 11:54:21 EST From: subar%mwcamis@mitre.arpa Subject: F20 Re: Diversification Reform Peter da Silva (ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@ames.arc.nasa.gov) asked the musical question: >> Except in the US, fighter production has less than epsilon to do with >> free enterprise. Even for the US, the closest thing to a private >> enterprise fighter crashed in flames, so to speak, two years ago. > What was this plane? The plane is the F-20, built Northrop. The development costs were small (relative to designing a new fighter) because the F-20 design was based on the F-4, also built by Northrop. The chief differences between the planes are the body lengths and the thrusts, both specifications being larger on the F-20. The 20 was considered by a few nations (particularily S Saudi Arabia and Taiwan) as their next fighter, but none would buy it because it never got the gold seal from the US, a purchase order. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 88 19:06:16 GMT From: uop!robert@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (Robert McCaul -- The Equalizer) Subject: old missiles--usage? what about using the old rockets in the space program, and the warheads to drive teller's sdi x-ray lasers? ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 88 12:48:19 GMT From: pitstop!sundc!netxcom!rkolker@sun.com (rich kolker) Subject: Re: Saturn V In article <8801061516.AA29718@angband.s1.gov> Kevin.Ryan@A.CFR.CMU.EDU writes: > Joe Beckenbach, [beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu] wrote >>... whatever happened to the Saturn V plans, assembly lines, and >>related production? All NASA needs to do to get a booster is to revive >>the Apollo hardware! > >This subject was discussed some time back on Space Digest. Apparently >NASA threw away the plans and specs, sold some of the tooling, trashed >most of the rest. We are incapable of building a Saturn V without >reinventing it. Perhaps reverse-engineer is a better term, since we have several complete ones lying around. A tough, job, but the payoff is the most powerful heavy lift booster around, and one that is man-rated. Check your references on what that thing can bring up to LEO. ++rich ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 88 11:54:58 EST From: subar%mwcamis@mitre.arpa Subject: RFP's Subject: Re: NASA breakup Peter da Silva (ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@ames.arc.nasa.gov) says: >In article <37617@sun.uucp>, mae%vygr@Sun.COM (Mike Ekberg, Sun {Graphics Produ ct Division}) writes: >> Strange thought for the day. I know that commercial aviation was >> boosted by the government saying it would pay X dollars for air mail. >> How about NASA putting up a competetion for space station by saying >> it was willing to pay X million $/day to rent an (orbiting) room in >> space? mike (sun!mae), M/S 5-40 "Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I'm not >> the only one." >The government should at least send out RFPs for a station delivered to >orbit. Sorry, no can do. Putting out an RFP if you don't plan to buy is known as a felony in the gov't biz. It will open the gov't up to massive civil and perhaps criminal damages. The only way to cancel an RFP is to have extremely extenuating circumstances. You really can't change them all that much once they are on the street. It costs too much to respond to one. David Subar ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 1988 17:15-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: AMROC alive or dead? AMROC is indeed alive and well at this point. Their funding source pulled the rug after the market crash, but they have found new backers and have rehired many of the people they laid off. Still talk of a launch sometime next year as I understand. I actually heard about this a number of weeks ago, but I didn't know for sure whether it was to be public knowledge. I waited until Space Calendar mentioned it so's I wouldn't break any confidences... ------------------------------ Return-Path: dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu Date: Thu, 07 Jan 88 01:29:33 -0800 From: Doug Krause Subject: Tranquility Base Reply-To: dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu From: djkrause@UCI >You're kidding, right? Johnson's pork barrel? "Houston, Tranquility >Base. The Eagle has landed" "Roger, Tranquility. We copy you on the >ground." Must have been a figment of my imagination. I always thought it was "Tranquility Base to Houston, the Eagle has landed." (I know, it's minor quibble.) Douglas Krause ARPANET: dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 88 19:52:05 GMT From: devvax!jplpro!des@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Smyth) Subject: Re: Liberia of space (was Soviet space marketing moves) In article <1687@faline.bellcore.com> karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: >> say, French Guiana (a third-world country which needs the bucks more >> than it needs the U.S. government, and already has the Kourou launch >> facility.) > >French Guiana is an overseas department of France, one of the last >remnants of the great European empires. Although there are still plenty >of islands under European control, I believe it's the very last such >colony on a mainland continent. ^^^^^^ French Guiana has EXACTLY the same political status in the Republic of France as, say, Bordeaux. Just like Hawaii has EXACTLY the same status as New York. It is NOT a colony. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jan 88 01:07:08 GMT From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu (Richard Harter) Subject: Re: Saturn V In article <624@netxcom.UUCP> rkolker@netxcom.UUCP (rich kolker) writes: >In article <8801061516.AA29718@angband.s1.gov> Kevin.Ryan@A.CFR.CMU.EDU writes: >> >> Joe Beckenbach, [beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu] wrote >>>... whatever happened to the Saturn V plans, assembly lines, and related >>>production? All NASA needs to do to get a booster is to revive the >>>Apollo hardware! >> >> This subject was discussed some time back on Space Digest. >>Apparently NASA threw away the plans and specs, sold some of the >>tooling, trashed most of the rest. We are incapable of building a >>Saturn V without reinventing it. > >Perhaps reverse-engineer is a better term, since we have several >complete ones lying around. A tough, job, but the payoff is the >most powerful heavy lift booster around, and one that is man-rated. >Check your references on what that thing can bring up to LEO. It is *obvious* that if we could do it in the past, we could do it now in less time and at less cost -- after all we have made a lot of *progress* since then. Unfortunately, the obvious isn't necessarily true! One of the things that NASA in the 60's had that does not really exist today is high level QA and the cooperation of industry. Today it is much harder to get the kind of high-rel parts that NASA routinely demanded in the old days. Vendors simply don't want to be bothered with the demands of high-rel QA -- the high tech industry doesn't need that level of QA, and that's where the money is. In the old days NASA got the cream of the crop; the best and the brightest were sitting on top of the vendors, checking everything in exquisite detail. Today ... Challenger. In the old days NASA had strong political support from the White House and the public; they could ask for and get the best. They were not burdened with 20 years of career hacks both inside NASA and in the aerospace industry. ... Comparing the American space effort of 1987 with that of 1967 is like comparing the papacy of the Borgias with the ministry of St. Paul. -- In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 88 23:09:45 GMT From: paul.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) Subject: Re: RFP's [Note to those not familiar with FedGovSpeak: RFP stands for Request For Proposal, the government's way of telling industry it wants to get bids to do something. -SPM] In article <8801071654.AA18834@mitre.arpa> subar%mwcamis@mitre.arpa writes: > >The government should at least send out RFPs for a station delivered to > >orbit. > > Sorry, no can do. Putting out an RFP if you don't plan to buy is known > as a felony in the gov't biz. It will open the gov't up to massive > civil and perhaps criminal damages. The only way to cancel an RFP is > to have extremely extenuating circumstances. You really can't change > them all that much once they are on the street. It costs too much to respond > to one. Yes, but the proposal process can be stalled later. I was on a proposal where the contract award was halted for a full year, due to wrangling between the Air Force and the bidder over who would be liable if the thing we were bidding for didn't work. There was a _very_ signifigant chance it wouldn't, both sides realized this, and neither side wanted to accept a dead loss of millions of dollars. I think our side withdrew the bid after something like sixteen best and final offers (BAFOs). In this case, the proposal process did work to prevent the government from spending a lot of money on a half-baked idea. The people in the Air Force would have withdrawn the RFP if they could have; instead, they worried us into backing down. The names have been withheld to protect the guilty. :-) - Steve ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #101 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 9 Jan 88 06:17:44 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01252; Sat, 9 Jan 88 03:14:46 PST id AA01252; Sat, 9 Jan 88 03:14:46 PST Date: Sat, 9 Jan 88 03:14:46 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801091114.AA01252@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #102 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 102 Today's Topics: Re: satellites F-20 Re: F-20 RFPs Re: The Church of the Holy Starship was Re: A request Re: Saturn V De-Commercialize NASA Re: F20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Jan 88 00:52:39 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!hropus!ki4pv!codas!killer!netsys!wb8foz@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David Lesher) Subject: Re: satellites >>? Well, how about that AP headline? >>? "Satellite saw Waite, newspaper says" >> >>Uh-huh.... apply NaCl liberally.. On the other hand, several public sources have reported that resolutions good enough to read the brand of coffin nails being smoked by the guard on duty in Moscow are in use. If you combine that with the art of *interpretation*, it is not unreasonable that the distinctive, big bulky fellow walking outside the isolated house in a area of interest, surrounded by guards with AK-47s is Terry Waite. I suggest the book "Deep Black" on the subject of remote imagery. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Jan 88 09:47:07 EST Posted-From: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA From: m18359%hawki@mitre-bedford.arpa (Marcel Parnas) Subject: F-20 Not to quibble (especially with a fellow MITREite), but the F-20 was a derivative of the F-5, not the F-4. The F-5 is still used around the world. The U.S. principally uses the F-5 as agressor planes in training exercises. Northrop tried awfully hard to sell the F-20. Remember the ads for spark plugs or something with Chuck Yeager standing in front of a "Tigershark?" Marcel Parnas mparnas%mdf@mitre-bedford.arpa [Also similar info from: From: phoenix!pucc!ICEMAN@princeton.edu (Joakim Karlsson) From: lf-server-2.bbn.com!tdonahue@bbn.com (Tim Donahue) From: John Sotos ] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Jan 88 13:07:09 EST From: subar%mwcamis@mitre.arpa Subject: Re: F-20 Hank.Walker@taurus.ece.cmu.edu sent me a note: > Unless I'm losing it, the F-4 was built by McDonnell Douglas (well, > actually McDonnell), and the F-5 was/is built by Northrup. The F-20 > looks a lot more like an F-5 than an F-4. Perhaps it was just a typo. I believe he is correct. The rest of my message, about why the F-20 died, is correct, though. David Subar ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Jan 88 12:17 EDT From: ELIOT%cs.umass.edu@relay.cs.net Subject: RFPs There are always ways around problems like this. Don't send out an RFP for a space station. Send out an RFP for a *study* of the possibility of sending out an RFP for a space station. Then be sure that someone explains` it to the CEO of the major companies over a nice game of golf. You get your preliminary idea of whether any companies are interested, but no legal obligations to follow up. As for the Saturn V. How many were actually used, and how many blew up? I think there were two major accidents out of about 15 launches. On the other hand we have one major accident with shttle out of about 25 launches or so. The numbers are too low for any statistical significance, but there is the possibility that Saturn V is not really any more reliable than the shuttle. Maybe they just quit while they were ahead. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 88 01:27:33 GMT From: amdahl!nsc!fiasco@ames.arpa (G. R. Gircys) Subject: Re: The Church of the Holy Starship was Re: A request In article <1985@frog.UUCP> sc@frog.UUCP (STartripper) writes: >I've dreamed and thought for years about getting our ecosystem >reproduced off the planet, thus opening the door to a universe of >"culture dishes" where societies can experiment upon themselves. Only when we learn to live on our natural spaceship should we entertain fantastically ambitious ideas like space born culture dishes. Face the mayhem here before you start exporting it. Signed: An unsuspecting and innocent universe ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 88 20:58:41 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!dambrose@ames.arpa (David Ambrose) Subject: Re: Saturn V In article <8801061516.AA29718@angband.s1.gov> Kevin.Ryan@A.CFR.CMU.EDU writes: >Apparently NASA threw away the plans and specs, sold some of the >tooling, trashed most of the rest. We are incapable of building a >Saturn V without reinventing it. > If the publicly stated reasons are true, then this loss is the result >of horrible nearsightedness. If the rumor is correct, then somebody >deserves to be keelhauled, in the genuine and original sense. (Look it >up, and think about barnacles...) Either way, we've lost an important >and well-designed tool. ^ |-- And think about SALT WATER too Amen, to the above! As if it isn't already obvious, there is something dreadfully wrong in the space industry. Costs overrun, program management fails to live up to its name, and none of the would-be leaders of this country seem to be willing to discuss the issue. Why is this? I have a theory. The current situation with NASA and its contractors strongly resembles the DOD of about 15 years ago. Contracts are usually a pretty cushy COST + 10%. Under a situation like this, there are few incentives to do things right the first time. It will cut into your profits. Maybe NASA should take a few lessons from DOD. [gulp! did I really say that?] Many of the contract reforms instituted at DOD should have also been instituted at NASA. The prime thrust of DOD reforms were in the contract management area. DOD started negotiating more fixed-price contracts, including performance bonuses, and separating development from production. By themselves, contract reforms cannot clean up the mess at either NASA or DOD. But over the long run, they can make a difference. We have given NASA the job of making our dreams, and those of our children, into reality. We need to take a cold, hard look at how we'll achieve that goal. We need to remember that NASA is the source of profits for many companies and managers. If we remember the monetary aspects of space exploration, we can keep the profit-mongering from getting out of hand. I am not in any way denigrating the people who work in the space program! I do want to remind you all that there IS a profit motive available and that there will be individuals who will let profits over-rule other criteria. My goal would be to keep these people in check. David L. Ambrose, -- Digital Research, Inc ...!amdahl!drivax!dambrose ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 88 16:05:00 GMT From: codas!killer!ninja!sys1!trsvax!reyn@bikini.cis.ufl.edu Subject: De-Commercialize NASA There continues to be much discussion on ways to speed the privitization of space. It seems to be a general consensus (note the word seems) that NASA has unfortunately become part of the problem. It is only natural for any organization, whether government of private, to become increasingly protective of its control over its domain. NASA wishes to dominate all space policy, much as A.T.& T. wishes to dominate telephone policy. Enough said. One way to release NASA's strangle-hold on the future of American enterprises in space would be the following: prohibit NASA from launching commercial satelites. After all, you can't hire the Army Corps of Engineers to build a shopping mall for you, so why should you be able to hire NASA to launch a satellite for you? Hire Martin-Marietta, or Rockwell, or General Dynamics, or one of the many other companies who posses space launch technology to do this for you. NASA was originally envisioned as, and should return to the role of a research and development organization. It is extremely odd that post-Appollo planners have begun to regard NASA as a trucking company. John Reynolds ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 88 03:21:51 GMT From: amdahl!oliveb!epimass!epiwrl!parker@ames.arpa (Alan Parker) Subject: Re: F20 In article <8801071654.AA18820@mitre.arpa> subar%mwcamis@mitre.arpa writes: >The plane is the F-20, built Northrop. The development costs >were small (relative to designing a new fighter) because the F-20 design was >based on the F-4, also built by Northrop. ^^^ You mean F-5. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #102 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Jan 88 06:19:21 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02704; Sun, 10 Jan 88 03:16:36 PST id AA02704; Sun, 10 Jan 88 03:16:36 PST Date: Sun, 10 Jan 88 03:16:36 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801101116.AA02704@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #103 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 103 Today's Topics: Re: Tranquility Base Re: Saturn V Re: Life in Moscow Re: Exact Time (help please) Re: Saturn V Re: satellites Re: The Church of the Holy Starship was Re: A request ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Jan 88 18:57:55 GMT From: amdahl!bnrmtv!takahash@ames.arpa (Alan Takahashi) Subject: Re: Tranquility Base In article <8801071158.AA01093@angband.s1.gov>, djkrause@UCI.BITNET (Doug Krause) writes: > From: djkrause@UCI > >You're kidding, right? Johnson's pork barrel? "Houston, Tranquility > >Base. The Eagle has landed" "Roger, Tranquility. We copy you on the > >ground." Must have been a figment of my imagination. > > > >I know that most times they cut the first word out of that quote (I > >haven't been able to get a recording of it), but you work at NASA... > > > >Peter da Silva > > I always thought it was "Tranquility Base to Houston, the Eagle has > landed." (I know, it's minor quibble.) > Douglas Krause Followed by: "We copy you down, Eagle." Just continuing the minor quibble... :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alan Takahashi ! hplabs amdahl Bell-Northern Research ! \ / Mountain View, CA ! .....!{-----}!bnrmtv!takahashi ! / \ "When you need to knock on wood is when ! 3comvax ames you realize the world's composed of !----------------------------------- aluminum and vinyl." -- Flugg's Law ! DISCLAIMER: It's all an illusion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jan 88 14:32:47 GMT From: codas!burl!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!kcarroll@bikini.cis.ufl.edu (Kieran A. Carroll) Subject: Re: Saturn V >>>... whatever happened to the Saturn V plans, assembly lines, >>>and related production? All NASA needs to do to get a booster is >>>to revive the Apollo hardware! ... >> >>...We are incapable of building a Saturn V without reinventing it. > >Perhaps reverse-engineer is a better term, since we have several >complete ones lying around. A tough, job, but the payoff is the >most powerful heavy lift booster around, and one that is man-rated. >Check your references on what that thing can bring up to LEO. Have you stopped to consider that perhaps we don't >>want<< to build new Saturn Vs? From what I can remember, those spectacular machines delivered payload to orbit at a cost of around $2000/lb, >>in 1966 dollars<<; that'd be at least 1988$8000/lb. While you could make the argument that the price per booster would come down were they mass- produced (thus bringing down the cost per pound), I've seen at least one early-60s reference that suggested the anticipated savings were not very great; perhaps a factor of two cost reduction, by the time the 100th booster rolled off the assembly line. Saturn Vs were >>expensive<< to fly! (also, bear in mind Eugene's comment about the technology involved not being too impressive...). Shuttles, on the other hand, deliver payload to orbit at more like 1988$2000/lb; a similar cost is available from Deltas, Arianes, Titans, etc. Their main problem is a small payload per launch; also, the safety improvements to the shuttle, and reduced launch rate, will tend to jack up the price. The shuttle was intended to reduce the cost of getting to orbit; it seems to have achieved that. The people behind the Jarvis booster (McD-D?) looked into using the Saturn V engines for their Big Dumb Booster; apparently they've decided that it's not even worthwhile reverse-engineering just the engines. Those engines are >>old<<, designed back around 1960; according to Henry, von Braun and friends didn't even try to make them particularly efficient, striving for reliability and simplicity at the expense of performance. A good approach for a crash program, that must achieve results soonest, and has a huge pot of money to draw from; not the best way to design engines for an affordable rocket. Comments, anyone? Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!kcarroll -- Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!kcarroll ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 88 22:23:04 GMT From: tolerant!sci!auspyr!aussjo!ausmelb!mulga!ditmela!george@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (George michaelson) Subject: Re: Life in Moscow >>>In article <3584@husc6.harvard.edu>, reiter@endor.harvard.edu (Ehud Reiter) >>>writes: >>>> Russian society, the most prominent thing in the picture (besides the >>>> scientist himself) was a strip of paper tape. >>> I have a similar poster I believe mine says technology will help lead russia forward. However I have no human but instead a large hammer & sickle formed of 5-dot baudot coded paper tape, against a backdrop of atomic icebreakers, huge robot arms & general heavy machinery. There seems to be an implication in your posting that the paper tape image implies great backwardness.. Well in my poster the whole style is iconic, and as a visual medium to say "computer" which is fluid enough to shape into the motif of a hammer & sickle I think tape can't be beaten If you look at any western TV wildtrack of computer room activity they don't show a black cube 2 foot square with one red light on, they go for a tennis court of minions loading tape into chunky drives. no autoload collars, no vaxen. People need a heavy handed motif to get the technology image re-inforced, we might now be impressed by oh-so-cool no-buttons boxes but whose to say that will still be true in 10 years time? look at the images of computers in even recent films like ALIEN - the computer control room has wall-to-wall buttons just like the old days, yet in 2001 they had simple keyboards & voice input. Look at old computer ads and the new ones in your trade rag. Images change. I for one miss the aesthetics of older machines. there's a whole generation of mindless ada hackers out there who've never had punched tape chad stuffed down their shirt nor had to sort carddecks by hand. Hell I'm not even OLD! That poster of mine looks really great on the wall, I'd rather have it than any number of glossy spreads of the shuttle on a monitor, or the same old stacked balls floating in space. -- ACSnet: G.Michaelson@ditmela.oz.au Postal: 55 Barry St, Carlton, Vic 3053 Phone: (03) 347 8644 Fax: (03) 347 8987 ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 88 19:11:26 GMT From: amdcad!uport!smegma!mdg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Marc de Groot) Subject: Re: Exact Time (help please) In article <880104092023.007@Mipl3.JPL.Nasa.Gov> rgd059@mipl3.jpl.nasa.GOV writes: >WWV also transmits other information like sunspot >and hf propagation reports at certain times during the hour. Somewhere I saw >a list of what all they send... if anyone's interested I can try to dig it up >again (it's probably in the Amateur Radio Handbook). My latest RAdio Amateur's Handbook is 1974, and it's in there. I would also suggest tuning in WWV at zero minutes past the hour, and copying down the mailing address for WWV in Fort Collins, CO. They will be glad to send you a package describing all the wonderful services that WWV provides. Such things as major storm warnings, geomagnetic disturbances, sunspot flux reports, and more can be yours for the twist of a radio dial. -- Marc de Groot (KG6KF) UUCP: {hplabs, sun, ucbvax}!amdcad!uport!smegma!mdg AMATEUR PACKET RADIO: KG6KF @ KB6IRS "Look, he's mounting a tape!" "Quick, throw cold water on him!" ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 88 20:52:27 GMT From: cit-adel!kevin@csvax.caltech.edu (Kevin Van Horn) Subject: Re: Saturn V In article <1988Jan8.093251.11064@utzoo.uucp> kcarroll@utzoo.uucp (Kieran A. Carroll) writes [re the possibility of building Saturn V's again]: >Have you stopped to consider that perhaps we don't >>want<< to build >new Saturn Vs? From what I can remember, those spectacular machines >delivered payload to orbit at a cost of around $2000/lb, >>in 1966 >dollars<<; that'd be at least 1988$8000/lb. [...] >Shuttles, on the other hand, deliver payload to orbit at more like >1988$2000/lb; [...] Not true. The figures I've heard are more on the order of $5000-$6000/lb. once you add in all the operating costs. >[The Saturn V engines] are >>old<<, designed back around 1960; >according to Henry, von Braun and friends didn't even try to make >them particularly efficient, striving for reliability and simplicity >at the expense of performance. Making your launch vehicles reliable and simple is in general a better way to reduce costs than making the engines efficient. With the shuttle, I believe that fuel costs are only a fraction of a percent of the total cost of a launch, the large majority of the costs being in maintenance and preparing the shuttle for launch; thus, its higher-performance engines do not decrease the cost-per-pound to orbit, but rather increase it, because their greater complexity boosts maintenance costs. We need simplicity, not performance; we need the space-going equivalent of a truck, not a race car. Kevin S. Van Horn ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 88 02:02:42 GMT From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) Subject: Re: satellites In article <1952@netsys.UUCP> wb8foz@netsys.UUCP (David Lesher) writes: >>>? "Satellite saw Waite, newspaper says" >>>Uh-huh.... apply NaCl liberally.. >On the other hand, several public sources have reported that >resolutions good enough to read the brand of coffin nails >being smoked by the guard on duty in Moscow are in use. >If you combine that with the art of *interpretation*, >it is not unreasonable that the >distinctive, big bulky fellow walking outside the isolated house >in a area of interest, surrounded by guards with AK-47s is >Terry Waite. I suggest the book "Deep Black" >on the subject of remote imagery. I haven't read the book, but there is a simple argument against such resolution. Cameras in orbit are limited either by diffraction or atmospheric conditions. A telescope at sea level, in perfect weather, is typically limited to no better than 1" (that is a unit of angle: 1 arc-second, not 1 inch). At 200 km this is a linear distance of 1 meter. I would believe that looking down from orbit would give a different result (though I don't know). An *absolute* limit on the resolution of an image is diffraction in the camera. For visible light (wavelength 5 X 10^-7 m), and a 1 meter lens or mirror on the satellite, the limit is about 10 cm. To distinguish an object of size 1 cm, a 10 meter lens/mirror would be needed. The Space Telescope, which has not been launched and is to my knowledge the largest mirror in or intended to be in space, is about 2 meters. The biggest telescope in the world is 6 meters. There are techniques for processing images distorted by the atmosphere or an imperfect lens, but they can not get an image to be better than the diffraction limit. I would be impressed if any intelligence agency could regularly scan a city at 4 inch resolution while also doing its other (presumably more important) business. (assuming B+W image, 256 intesity levels, 10 cm pixels, 2 km square area : 400 MB per image.) Unless the miltary or intelligence agencies are far ahead of anything I have read about in computer pattern recognition (or somehow learned exactly where to look), I would not believe the report "Satellite saw Waite". (Unless someone was *extremely* lucky). --John Carr ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 88 05:07:49 GMT From: hin9@sphinx.uchicago.edu (World Court Jester) Subject: Re: The Church of the Holy Starship was Re: A request In article <4907@nsc.nsc.com> fiasco@nsc.UUCP (G. R. Gircys) writes: >In article <1985@frog.UUCP> sc@frog.UUCP (STartripper) writes: >>I've dreamed and thought for years about getting our ecosystem >>reproduced off the planet, thus opening the door to a universe of >>"culture dishes" where societies can experiment upon themselves. >Only when we learn to live on our natural spaceship should we >entertain fantastically ambitious ideas like space born culture >dishes. Face the mayhem here before you start exporting it. >Signed: >An unsuspecting and innocent universe "What do you mean _we_, paleface?" -Tonto "_We_ decided? _My_ best interests?" -Suicidal Tendencies "It's not my goddamn planet, monkey-boy!" -John Bigboote' What they said. T_Rev -- The Reverend with No Name I know I'm born to lose @ The Lord Julius Cabal And gambling's for fools ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!hin9 But that's the way I like it baby The Legend Begins... I don't want to live forever - Lemmy (God) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #103 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Jan 88 06:19:50 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04302; Mon, 11 Jan 88 03:17:03 PST id AA04302; Mon, 11 Jan 88 03:17:03 PST Date: Mon, 11 Jan 88 03:17:03 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801111117.AA04302@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #104 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 104 Today's Topics: Realistic technology. Private Space Station F-20's and Nasa..... re:Sierra Club Weenie Roast Re: Private Space Station Saturn V Facts? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1988 11:56 EST From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Realistic technology. George michaelson remarks: >If you look at any western TV wildtrack of computer room activity they >don't show a black cube 2 foot square with one red light on, they go >for a tennis court of minions loading tape into chunky drives. ... >People need a heavy handed motif to get the technology image >re-inforced, we might now be impressed by oh-so-cool no-buttons boxes >but whose to say that will still be true in 10 years time? When Kubrick was making 2001 he invited me to look at HAL. The modules had very fancy engravings and indicators. I said I thought that all the status data would come out the pins and no one would look at anything but centralized display terminals in the year 2001. (I agreed the machine would speak very well, but wasn't convinced it would understand continuous speech input reliably.) Kubrick scrapped that set and replaced it by the plain black modules seen in the movie. I forget whether they have a red LED on them. I was horrified to see all that nice artwork go away but Kubrick would not compromise. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 1988 14:46:39-EST From: Hank.Walker@taurus.ece.cmu.edu Subject: Private Space Station Apparently-To: Space-Enthusiasts@mc.lcs.mit.edu Would anyone care to comment on the proposed private space station? This would be a man-tended station several times the size of Spacelab and larger than Mir/Kvant, with electrical power provided by large electrical panels. It could be put up by ~1991 in 1-2 shuttle launches. The station would be man-tended, not manned, and would get life support from a docked shuttle. One might think of it as a free-flying Spacelab, which was proposed at one time. The government would lease a large fraction of the station to run experiments. This lease would be sufficient for the private companies involved to raise funds for construction. The benefits would be to encourage private space industry, and get something up much sooner than NASA's space station. The White House and some Congressmen are pushing this idea. NASA of course is dead set against it since they rightly see it as a threat to their own fancier station. I'm all for it since I think it has a much better chance of success than NASA's station. Congress is already cutting the budget for that. The smaller station can be built with a much more realistic number of shuttle flights, and accomplish many of the same goals at a much lower cost. It also takes the right path of many incremental changes, rather than infrequent major leaps. Obvious extensions to the smaller station would be life support and manned modules. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 88 13:48 EST From: NKK101%URIMVS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu Subject: F-20's and Nasa..... > One way to release NASA's strangle-hold on the future of American > enterprises in space would be the following: prohibit NASA from > launching commercial satelites. And how do you propose we pay off the expediture of R&D? Out of the tax-payers pocket? I happen to LIKE the idea of a government controlled private enterprise. The way to go about it is to reform the aquisition process for contracts. Close off the bid. And let the bid go NOT to the lowest bidder, but the one who can best handle the job. Improve the QUALITY of the space program, and lower costs. Find alternate sources for critical parts. This is what the Dod did. And they've managed to eliminate a lot of pork-barrelling. And finally, Keep the DAMN thing out of space until it WORKS! NKK101@Urimvs. p.s. the F-20 Tigershark was an extended weapons platform based on the F-5. It was supposed to be another version of the F-5 but the extremity of the changes to the F-5 warrented a new designation. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 88 19:44 CST From: SQUID HUNTER Subject: re:Sierra Club Weenie Roast Original_To: Orig_To! space, MAXWELL In SPACE DIGEST V8 #98 Jim Bowery writes about a Sierra Club/NSS function in the Laguna Mountains: >Subject: Sierra Club/National Space Society Retreat > >Space Development or Space Despoilment? > >The U.S. and U.S.S.R. have made policy statements to the effect that >space is a frontier which they intend to settle. What are the essential >differences between the New World and space as a frontier? The essential diffence between the New World and space is this: space does not have a biosphere. Space is deadly; if you move into space you _must_ live in an artificial enviornment because you die if you experience the natural enviornment there. We _can_ pollute space, and of course we can clutter it up with junked hardware. Junked hardware can become a kinetic hazard. Some of it goes away, some of it doesn't. There are other differences between here and there. of course, but I think that we're talking about enviornmentalism. >Will the perception of an infinite frontier encourage the reckless >destruction of Earth's riches? I don't think so. The whole idea behind space manufacturing is that you move the nasty stuff _off_ Earth. You get raw materials _out there_. Go to the moon or the belt for minerals and metals, the belt or the gas giants for volatiles. You _do not_ rape the planet. I'm sure we all know about the idea of orbiting power stations relieving Earth of the burden of nuclear and fossil-fueled power plants. We could, none the less, do bad things to our planet. There are serious questions about our ability to get this bounty back to the planet. Are we _sure_ we want to pump giga- or terawatts of micro- wave energy through the atmoshpere? (Maybe a beanstalk would be the solution) Deorbiting mass products may have a deleterious effect on the atmosphere, water cycle or who-knows-what. I don't think a beanstalk would help here. How do many many ground launches effect the enviornment? Would laser propulsion be better? Could we be so stupid as to reduce Earth's insolation [sic] by blocking out too much sunlight? >How can we avoid the mistakes we've made with our terrestrial environment >while migrating into space? We've soiled our nest here. It existed before we did, is greater than we are. The synergisms of Earth effect everyone. Screwups propagate here. Earth is the only source of life we have; we lose something and its _gone_. In space our mistakes might not necessarily propagate so widely but they might propagate more. At least we will not have all our everything in only one place. I do wonder how much weight should be given to the aesthetics of space. I don't really believe we can do anything to space to make it more hostile, so I don't believe we can "ruin" it, but what about the philosophical concept of aesthetics? Could somebody someday be so crass as to suck up the rings of Saturn? I am not being facetious. Humans _do_ value beauty; how should we value the beauty of the solar system? Do you want a 20 km billboard in orbit telling you to "c-c-c-catch the wave" or "eat more pork"? (I don't) >The potential of space settlement is powerful enough to illuminate basic >questions about our future, ethics and the environment. ====== Questions like who goes, who comes back, who stays, and who pays. How do we share the wealth, between the Lunatics, the Martians, the Belters, the L-5'ers, the industrialized Earth, and the third world Earth. Who is equal, first, or last among same; what if we try to pull a King George? What happens to politics? >Members of the National Space Society and the Sierra Club will come >together to discuss these issues on March 12 at the Sierra Club Lodge in >Laguna Mountains. ...[deleted] >For more information contact Jim Bowery at 619/295-8868. > >UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim >ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil >INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com This posting has been a little long...but I won't be there to enjoy the wonderful weenie roastand stargaze; but perhaps my voice would be heard. It would be good if the Sierra Club recognized NSS goals as a means to their ends. Max Monningh MAXWELL@FNALB.BITNET SPAN/HEPnet: 43011::MAXWELL ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 88 23:00:50 GMT From: thorin!hayes!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Private Space Station In article <8801101946.AA01556@taurus.ece.cmu.edu> Hank.Walker@TAURUS.ECE.CMU.EDU writes: >Would anyone care to comment on the proposed private space station? Is this the Industrial Space Facility or something new? (If the latter, details would be appreciated, I haven't seen anything on it). Anyway, this is an excellent idea, we should push it for at least 2 reasons: - it's unlikely to be designed by committee and thus may be actually usable to someone. - it might actually fly. The pressure to cut the deficit makes it clear that NASA cannot hope to get their proposed funding increases for the station in FY 89 and beyond ($1.8 billion from $450 million this year? Give me a break). In the absence of strong political support for the station - and it's not going to come from any of the presidential candidates regardless of how many editorials Aviation Week writes on the topic - the obvious conclusion is that the station *will not fly* by anything close to the current IOC (1994? 1996? I've lost track). I'd be surprised if NASA admits this since they have so much at stake in the project. Fletcher threatened to can the station (so to speak :-) if funding was reduced to the levels they did finally get this year but it was just a threat. >The White House and some Congressmen are pushing this >idea. NASA of course is dead set against it since they rightly see it as a >threat to their own fancier station. The NIH mentality is strong both within NASA and their contractors - witness the fate of Oliver Harwood and his modular station design. But, if NASA actually has this forced on them, perhaps it would be also be a good opportunity to get them make use of the ETs at long last. Tangential question: can the ET-analog on the Soviet Energia booster be placed in orbit? Have they made any comments about doing so? Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``After all, the best part of a holiday is perhaps not so much to be resting yourself as to see all the other fellows busy working.'' - Kenneth Grahame, _The Wind in the Willows_ ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 88 19:54:40 GMT From: uvaarpa!virginia!uvacs!edison!mjk@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Kocher) Subject: Saturn V Facts? I got into a discussion the other day, and couldn't remember where I had seen this documented, but here goes. It seems to me I read that the third stage was targeted to crash on the back side of the moon, after it had accellerated the Apollo package up to its necessary velocity. This was always ignored, as I remember it, during all those discussions about "space trash on the moon" back in the 70s. Can anyone confirm this? It makes sense to me, but I can't find the reference. Thanks to anyone who can corroborate this. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #104 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Jan 88 06:22:13 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06110; Tue, 12 Jan 88 03:19:27 PST id AA06110; Tue, 12 Jan 88 03:19:27 PST Date: Tue, 12 Jan 88 03:19:27 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801121119.AA06110@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #105 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 105 Today's Topics: Starship: Innocence? PLEASE STOP! Re: satellites Re: RFPs Re: heat-shield tiles Re: Saturn V Facts? Super Science Weekend in Trenton, NJ; January 16-17 Re: The Church of the Holy Starship was Re: A request SDI maybe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Jan 88 00:26:00 GMT From: cybvax0!frog!sc@eddie.mit.edu (STartripper) Subject: Starship: Innocence? Followups to talk.religion.newage (this time for sure....) In article <4907@nsc.nsc.com> fiasco@nsc.UUCP (G. R. Gircys) writes: >In article <1985@frog.UUCP> sc@frog.UUCP (STartripper) writes: >> >>I've dreamed and thought for years about getting our ecosystem >>reproduced off the planet, thus opening the door to a universe of >>"culture dishes" where societies can experiment upon themselves. > >Only when we learn to live on our natural spaceship should we >entertain fantastically ambitious ideas like space born culture >dishes. Face the mayhem here before you start exporting it. "Only when we learn to live on our natural spaceship the ocean should we entertain fantastically ambitious ideas like land-borne culture dishes. Face the mayhem here before you start exporting it to dry land"? Sounds silly, no? Not to mention that if we'd taken such advice, this conversation would not be taking place, since my terminal is NOT suitable for underwater use, and my fins would not be able to type. We _have_ learned to live on this spaceship. Not, perhaps, with perfect love and peace, but such is not required of the rest of the universe, so why should we require it of us, the seeds of self-aware ghods? When Stewart Brand put that shot of the earth on his catalog, it made a point that many people had not previously considered. This one precious earth is, for all _we_ know, the only place where matter reached self-awareness. And we are all in it together. And right now, _ONE_ error could fry all our eggs in this one terrestrial basket. The first time a colony _dies_ because they ignore their ecological responsibilities, it will jolt the planet-bound as well as those in other colonies. I don't _know_ that it will create as strong a reaction as the whole-earth image did, but that's the way I'm betting. >An unsuspecting and innocent universe Unsuspecting? Yes, if it's not self-aware! And in that case, why _not_ eat it? But if the universe contains self-aware life, I rather expect it to be just as suspicious, just as wary, as a bankvault full of gangsters with machineguns. Or a tin tank full of Terrans.... Innocent? Not the bits _I've_ seen. Ever watched a starfish wrestle an oyster open? Ever seen what lions have for lunch? Do you happen to know where the AIDS virus lives? Yes, in one sense all these things are innocent, since there's no more blame for the munching tiger than for my shooting a would-be rapist, but in the sense I take you to mean, there are NO innocent bystanders -- all that is self-aware must be considered either the hands of ghod, or on the construction committee, depending on your beliefs. I believe, in some moods, that all life on this planet is one single being of ghod-like adaptability. And that we, twitching unkind monkeys that we are, are Her hands, Her mind (as modified, always, by feedback from the rest of Her body of life), and potentially, Her heart (not circulatory, but emotional heart...). And even when other aspects of Herself organize to stop me, I will still feel that She who is our life is saying to me "You are my hands, help me up the ladder to the stars." STartripper QQQCLC sc@frog.uucp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jan 88 09:54:17 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: PLEASE STOP! Just a short, note, I have a cold, and can't spend a lot of time responding. SPACE (sci.space) has to start restraining yourself. I mean little correction articles like the derivation of the F-20, using shuttle fuel tanks for XXX, etc. Discussion articles, fine, but use mail rather than posting a follow up. Can all of you readers start doing this? Separating the true signal from the noise is hard, especially when answering serious requests as which occasionally come by. I still owe the net some survey results and also the summer contacts, which should be forth coming before weeks end. I'm over-loaded as is... --eugene ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 88 17:53:35 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Re: satellites Resolution is only part of the problem. Last evening, the local PBS station (Channel 54) started rebroadcasting the camp British sci-fi show "UFO." Now UFO is a pretty *bad* show, but there was ONE episode which had a good theme, and it turned out that was last evening's show (Closeup). It was about remote sensing (they used older Gemini images, I recognized the Nile Delta in one, I had not studied photo-interpretation when I first saw this show as a kid). The problem was that the satellite malfunctioned and did not send back what's called "ancillary" data. The interpreters knew this, but the Boss-man didn't fully understand. If you IGNORE the characters and the story line, it was a very good lesson in interpretation (and also the budgeting process). I recommend that one episode alone. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 88 16:39:22 GMT From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: RFPs In article <8801090616.AA00966@angband.s1.gov>, ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU writes: > As for the Saturn V. How many were actually used, and how many blew up? > I think there were two major accidents out of about 15 launches. I challenge you to back that up. David Smith ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 88 13:45:00 PST From: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" Subject: To: "space" Reply-To: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" Subject: Control >> One way to release NASA's strangle-hold on the future of American >> enterprises in space would be the following: prohibit NASA from >> launching commercial satellites. >And how do you propose we pay off the expenditure of R&D? Out of the >taxpayers pocket? I happen to LIKE the idea of a government controlled >private enterprise. The way to go about it is to reform the acquisition >process for contracts. Close off the bid. And let the bid go NOT to the >lowest bidder, but the one who can best handle the job. Improve the >QUALITY of the space program, and lower costs. Find alternate sources >for critical parts. This is what the DoD did. And they've managed to >eliminate a lot of pork-barrelling. One has to be clear on the meaning of "control" here. Government control vs. government ownership is the main difference between fascism and socialism. Our own economy is more than sufficiently regulated to qualify as at least quasi-fascist. The rest of the suggestion isn't bad, but as long as NASA continues to do to space what the Post Office does to written communication, privatizing NASA will be a hot issue in the space community, and I'm glad to see so many SPACE DIGEST postings on it. Kevin "Mad Max" Bold (BOLD@AFSC-SD.ARPA) ------ ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 88 21:11:11 GMT From: polak@brl-adm.arpa (Helen R. Polak ) Subject: Re: heat-shield tiles A guy from NASA spoke at a Physics Seminar at Towson State U around '83 or so. He brought along a couple tiles, and we passed them around. They felt like old rotten carpet backing, and they erode to the touch of a finger though not much. Neat-looking. Strategic, eh? Helen /\ ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 88 19:20:41 GMT From: halley!bill@im4u.utexas.edu (Bill Baker) Subject: Re: Saturn V Facts? In article <1282@edison.GE.COM> mjk@edison.GE.COM (Mark Kocher) writes: >I got into a discussion the other day, and couldn't remember where I >had seen this documented, but here goes. It seems to me I read that >the third stage was targeted to crash on the back side of the moon, >after it had accellerated the Apollo package up to its necessary >velocity. On some of the later lunar flights this was true. Apollo 15 & 16 I think, but maybe Apollo 17 too. And I don't beleive it was the back side. The purpose was to create shock waves that would be detected by the sensors placed on the surface by EVAs. The data was used to analize the geoloical structure of the lunar core. They used the same principles as are used to detect subterranian structure here (they use dynamite blasts on earth though.) Bill ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 88 20:23:21 GMT From: mtune!mtgzz!mtuxo!tee@rutgers.edu (54317-T.EBERSOLE) Subject: Super Science Weekend in Trenton, NJ; January 16-17 Reprinted from Asbury Park Press without their knowledge, much less permission. I hope they don't mind. MUSEUM TO HOLD SCIENCE WEEKEND Dinosaurs, fossil digs, and monitor lizards are some of the attractions included in the eighth annual Super Science Weekend to be held Jan 16 and 17 at the New Jersey State Museum, West State Street, Trenton, NJ. The festival is designed to introduce children and parents to the wonders of science. Special attractions begin at 10:30am, Jan 16, when Paul and Brenda Cohen present "Science, Past and Present," an illustrated tour of ancient and present contemporary scientific sites around the world. At 1 and 3pm, Ozzie Tolletson will present "The Great Dinosaurs!" Tolletson, who has worked with the museum's fossil collectors in South Dakota, included specimens and puppets in the program. The Wizards of Chemistry will present "Air," a program that explores the wonders of gases at 1 and 3pm Jan 17. Admission to the program is $1. Admission to the other programs is free. Other science weekend highlights include displays organized by the New Jersey Science Teachers Association. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I can't vouch for the quality of this science festival, since I've never attended. But I think exposing kids to science of all kinds is important, so I hope those of you with kids in the NJ-Penn area will consider this. Tim Ebersole ...!ihnp4!mtuxo!tee ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 88 00:47:31 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: The Church of the Holy Starship was Re: A request In article <4907@nsc.nsc.com>, fiasco@nsc.nsc.com (G. R. Gircys) writes: > In article <1985@frog.UUCP> sc@frog.UUCP (STartripper) writes: > > > >I've dreamed and thought for years about getting our ecosystem > >reproduced off the planet, thus opening the door to a universe of > >"culture dishes" where societies can experiment upon themselves. > > Only when we learn to live on our natural spaceship should we > entertain fantastically ambitious ideas like space born culture > dishes. Face the mayhem here before you start exporting it. > WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! I suppose you prefer to carry fresh eggs all in one basket... and you *never*, **ever** trip! Take some of the pressure off the single basket we're in, and maybe it'll have a better chance of surviving. Maybe one of the modified cultures would work out better than what's down at the bottom of the well. If not, it's better to know beforehand. Don't forget that different cultures have been and are and will be tried out her. What if one of them is *really* non-viable? How do you backtrack and retry another path if there isn't anyone left to try again? Let's spread out as much as possible, as soon as possible. It's easier that way to absorb a really bad hit. Besides, shifting, say, steel processing off-planet wouldn't be such a hardship for Europe's forests, don't you think? seh ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 88 04:41:50 GMT From: sunghou@violet.berkeley.edu (Sung-Hou KimGroup) Subject: SDI maybe Defence December 1987 "SDI Partnership and Participation" contains invaluable detailed information , much firsthand, on what the SDI programme is all about, how it is being administered, the various special contracting procedures designed to drive it along, and the assistance being offered to business and academic institutions bidding for research funding. Focusing on the UK/US SDI Memorandum of Understanding and subsequent arrange - ments - the model for all foreign participation in the SDI programme - the editor and contributors examine every aspect of the most important military/ industrial initiative launched in this half of the 20th century. The US Congress has allocated $26 billion to SDI R & D through to 1990 and, President Reagan has indicated deployment might begin as early as 1993. Overall the programme might be worth more than $1,000 billion. The implications of SDI on Western security policy, East - West arms control , nuclear and conventional deterrence, and high technology development and spin-off are far reaching. "SDI Partnership and Participation" represents the most comprehensive and detailed examination available of the US Strategic Defense Initiative and its international programmes. It not only looks at how bodies like the Pentagon's SDI Organisation and Britain's SDI Participation Office are organised, staffed and run and how contracts are being awarded in theory and practice, but also contains many useful names, addresses and telephone numbers essential for anyone wishing to pursue their own inquiries. ----> L5.00 UK L6.50 or US$10.00 rest of world, surface mail. ----> L10.00 or US$16.00 rest of world, air mail. Cheques payable to: Whitton Press Ltd., Queensway House, 2 Queensway Redhill, RH1 1QS, UK. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ BLEVINS@SILVER.BACS.INDIANA.EDU SILVER=VAX 8650/32 MB Ultrix V2.0 BACS=Bloomington Academic Computing Services ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #105 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Jan 88 06:23:34 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07917; Wed, 13 Jan 88 03:20:20 PST id AA07917; Wed, 13 Jan 88 03:20:20 PST Date: Wed, 13 Jan 88 03:20:20 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801131120.AA07917@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #106 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 106 Today's Topics: Re: satellites Re: satellites Re: satellites Re: satellites Universal Time I hate person mail (to Reiff), but it's important Re: Universal Time Funding a laser launcher G.I. Joe Conquest X-30 Re: Saturn V Re: Saturn V Re: RFPs Re: The Church of the Holy Starship was Re: A request ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Jan 88 23:08:46 GMT From: karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: satellites > On the other hand, several public sources have reported that > resolutions good enough to read the brand of coffin nails being smoked > by the guard on duty in Moscow are in use. Nonsense, assuming you're talking about orbiting reconaissance satellites (as opposed to low-flying aircraft). Do a little math and determine the visible-light resolution limit of a 2-meter diameter mirror (roughly the largest that could be comfortably carried inside the payload fairing of a Titan from Vandenburg) at a distance of 500 miles (the perigee of a KH-11 orbit plus allowance for slant range). You'll end up with something on the order of a foot, which just so happens to be the resolution of the KH-11 aircraft carrier construction pictures that showed up in Av Week last year. Making a project secret doesn't exempt it from the laws of physics. (Too bad the SDI folks don't realize this. :-)) Phil ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 88 20:29:27 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (John Pantone) Subject: Re: satellites > >>>? "Satellite saw Waite, newspaper says" > >>>Uh-huh.... apply NaCl liberally.. > >On the other hand, several public sources have reported that > >resolutions good enough to read the brand of coffin nails being > >smoked by the guard on duty in Moscow are in use. > I haven't read the book, but there is a simple argument against such > resolution. Cameras in orbit are limited either by diffraction or > atmospheric conditions. A telescope at sea level, in perfect weather, > is typically limited to no better than 1" (that is a unit of angle: 1 > arc-second, not 1 inch). At 200 km this is a linear distance of 1 > meter. Except sattelites don't use cameras - in that sense of the word. They use CCD's and all sorts of bizarre imaging equipment - but they DON'T take pictures - I don't think that the same limitations apply (although they no doubt have other limitations). I've seen a message on this subject from someone at NASA - can anyone talk? -- These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer. John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, 9805 Scranton Rd., San Diego, CA 92121 ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.GE.COM GEnie: J.PANTONE ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 88 17:11:48 GMT From: daveb@eneevax.umd.edu (David Bengtson) Subject: Re: satellites >Except satelites don't use cameras - in that sense of the word. They use That's true, they don't use cameras, in the sense of a piece of film isn't currently used, However, the concept of diffractive losses apply to any situation where an image is formed, and light, or in the more general sense, Electromagnetic waves, are passed through an aperature. From Jenkins & White, Fundamentals of Optics p331 Minimum angle of resolution in seconds = 1.220 * ( lambda / D ) Where D is the diameter of the aperture and lambda is the wavelength of the light. It is physically impossible, using 1 image, to get below this limit. For the visible range ( lambda ~ 555 nanometers ) and D = 2 meters, theta = 3.39e-7 radians For an orbit of 200 miles, features resolve to ~ 5 inches. Not bad, but that assumes a perfect atmosphere. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I cannot comment on the possibility of image processing, since I know squat about that topic David Bengtson Laboratory for Plasma Fusion University of Maryland ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 88 21:12:02 GMT From: devvax!lwall@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Larry Wall) Subject: Re: satellites In article <1175@eneevax.UUCP> daveb@eneevax.umd.edu.UUCP (David Bengtson) writes: : For the visible range ( lambda ~ 555 nanometers ) and D = 2 meters, : theta = 3.39e-7 radians. For an orbit of 200 miles, features resolve : to ~ 5 inches. Not bad, but that assumes a perfect atmosphere. You guys are all assuming a big round mirror. Now, it's true that for looking at faint stars you need a lot of mirror acreage, but there's plenty of light bouncing off of Lebanon. You don't need a huge round mirror to get the aperature you want--just build a frame that will stay rigid in microgravity and hang several smaller mirrors on it with a common focus. What's the resolution for a mirror with an effective aperature of, say 20 meters? How many 1 meter mirrors would it take to get the interferometry to come out right? Larry Wall lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: 21 Dec 87 17:40:00 CDT From: "PAT REIFF" Subject: Universal Time To: "space" Cc: reiff Reply-To: "PAT REIFF" Regarding getting the master clock by phone: If you call the (303) number, you get the WWV broadcasts (which include predictions of solar flare activity, etc), but only announce the minute once per minute. If all you want is the (absolutely) correct time, call (900) 410-TIME. There they announce the minute several times per minute (handy for setting watches). I think the call costs 50c or so. The WWV is exactly on the 5 Mz and 10 Mz channels (also useful for calibrating radios). In addition, the "tocks" are also exactly calibrated signals, as is the "ping" of the minute, but I forget the frequencies. ...Patricia Reiff Department of Space Physics and Astronomy Rice University ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jan 88 14:22:13 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: I hate person mail (to Reiff), but it's important I suggest that you solicit article on the Net. Lots of friends read EOS. I'm not permitted to just publish anything. NASA doesn't regard the net as publishing, and few NASA people know or understand networks. Tried egreping spacvax. This won't work, so I'll cc your line. Anyway thanks for the reply test. I should visit Rice as I do go to Johnson on occasion. Ken Kennedy in CS does stuff with us. --eugene ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 88 22:49:15 GMT From: trantor.umd.edu!louie@umd5.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) Subject: Re: Universal Time In article <8801122059.AA06930@angband.s1.gov> "PAT REIFF" writes: >Regarding getting the master clock by phone: >If you call the (303) number, you get the WWV broadcasts (which include This may sound picky, but when making the telephone call you don't know what the propagation delay between you and Boulder (or where ever) is. This is even the case with the HF (5,10,15,20 MHz) broadcasts unless you happen to know how high the F layer happens to be that day. The advantage to listening to the WWVB signal (60kHz) is that the propagation delay remains very constant. In fact, our WWVB clock/receiver has thumbwheels on the back panel that you dial in your propagation delay. What, you don't want the time within a few milliseconds? Louis A. Mamakos WA3YMH Internet: louie@TRANTOR.UMD.EDU University of Maryland, Computer Science Center - Systems Programming ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 12 January 1988 0835-EST From: DAVID%PENNDRLS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu Subject: Funding a laser launcher Crazy idea of the month: suppose someone were to come to you with sufficient credentials for credibility and a proposal to research and build a laser (or other) launch facility capable, at the end of 30 years, of launching routine passenger flights to orbit on the order of once a day. Suppose you were offered the opportunity to buy a ticket to orbit in advance, at the cost of $n/month for 30 years. How much would you be willing to pay, keeping in mind that the company might not survive? If 10,000 people were willing to pay $100/month, that would be $12 million a year. At 350 launches a year ultimately, and randomly assuming five tourists per launch, it would take six years to give each of the investors their payoff. (The launch would have to be gentle enough that people past their fiftieth could survive it, but thirty years advancement in in medicine should help.) You could offer earlier slots to those who pay a higher price, later slots for lower investments. Some people might invest in tickets for their kids. Some people might even be willing to gamble on one way tickets. Obviously, more money would be needed from somewhere, but this could provide startup costs. A well founded project could probably draw on a fair bit of good talent at relatively cheap wages by promissing orbital work down the line (barring medical incapacity, of course). (Hmn. Maybe I should strike that 'of course'.) Obviously there are big holes in this. Like, how does the company make enough money to afford to give the 10,000 investors their flights? But I thought it might spark some other ideas. The key point is, if you want investors, offer them the return we all want: a chance to go ``out there''. $36,000 for a trip to a -- R. David Murray space station? Where do Arts and Sciences Computing Facility I sign? University of Pennsylvania P.S.: I bet you could get some sizable corporate investments if the investment had the added perk of company executives getting special spots on a space flight. Read ``The Man who Sold the Moon'' by Robert Heinlein. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 88 20:34:54 GMT From: bucsb!alkis@bu-cs.bu.edu (Alkis Kornilios) Subject: G.I. Joe Conquest X-30 I guess this is the place to ask my question, so here it is. I'll have to call the jet i am refering to the X-30 since i can't remember what the name is, and also it looks like the cartoon jet ( or is it the other way around ). Whatever happened to that jet that was designed with its wings backward. I read one not very informative article on it but i haven't seen anything on it since ( maybe i'm not looking in the right places ). Could someone tell me what is going on with the development of this jet. Thanks. P.S: Any good references would be appreciated. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 88 16:00:15 GMT From: hao!noao!mcdsun!sunburn!gtx!al@husc6.harvard.edu (0732) Subject: Re: Saturn V In article <1988Jan8.093251.11064@utzoo.uucp> kcarroll@utzoo.uucp (Kieran A. Carroll) writes: ->Have you stopped to consider that perhaps we don't >>want<< to build ->new Saturn Vs? From what I can remember, those spectacular machines ->delivered payload to orbit at a cost of around $2000/lb, >>in 1966 ->dollars<<; that'd be at least 1988$8000/lb. While you could make the Compared to the current shuttle cost/lb, which is infinite. Alan Filipski ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 88 23:11:22 GMT From: karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Saturn V > Maybe NASA should take a few lessons from DOD. [gulp! did I > really say that?] Nonsense. NASA does almost everything under the glare of intense public scrutiny, while DoD routinely hides its expensive mistakes by classifying them. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 88 13:17:50 GMT From: pitstop!sundc!netxcom!rkolker@sun.com (rich kolker) Subject: Re: RFPs In article <4495@hplabsb.UUCP> dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes: >In article <8801090616.AA00966@angband.s1.gov>, ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU writes: >> As for the Saturn V. How many were actually used, and how many blew >> up? I think there were two major accidents out of about 15 launches. > >I challenge you to back that up. Well, let's do a little research (and more memory searching). What could be considered an S-V failure? AS-502/Apollo 6 - Pogo effect (caused early center engine shutdown?) This so scared NASA that they used the next Saturn V off the line to send Apollo 8 to the Moon. Apollo 12 - Struck by lightning causing computer problem. Mission successful (except they pointed the TV camera at the sun). Apollo 13 - Explosion of oxygen tank in SM caused by failure in heater element...not a Saturn V componant. Skylab 1 - Shroud over solar array ripped off during ascent, repaired and three crews man Skylab. Where are the major accidents? ++rich ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 88 01:44:22 GMT From: spdcc!kaos!hilda@husc6.harvard.edu (Hilda Marshall) Subject: Re: The Church of the Holy Starship was Re: A request >In article <4907@nsc.nsc.com>, fiasco@nsc.nsc.com (G. R. Gircys) writes: >> >> Only when we learn to live on our natural spaceship should we >> entertain fantastically ambitious ideas like space born culture >> dishes. Face the mayhem here before you start exporting it. In article <38531@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: > > >Maybe one of the modified cultures would work out better than >what's down at the bottom of the well. If not, it's better to >know beforehand. Don't forget that different cultures have been >and are and will be tried out her. What if one of them is >*really* non-viable? How do you backtrack and retry another >path if there isn't anyone left to try again? > >Let's spread out as much as possible, as soon as possible. It's >easier that way to absorb a really bad hit. > >Besides, shifting, say, steel processing off-planet wouldn't be >such a hardship for Europe's forests, don't you think? One of my relatives got mad at another relative for selling some cherished family property foolishly registered in his name when he had to move away for health reasons. She said, "He had his drink from the pond, then he pissed in it." If planets are an unlimited resource (like we used to think the seas/garbage receptacles were), we may spread out over the ages with nothing more than a scaled-up version of our previous attitude toward resources: "Muck with it until it fits, and if it rips go get a new one". This approach makes some assumptions that I don't see as obvious facts: 1. The expansion of the human realm and the assurance of the propagation of the human species are paramount. 2. When technology can assure a constant supply of something, there is no reason to preserve the existing supply. 3. Therefore, if a species does not directly serve humanity in its viable state, it is expendable. This whole argument teeters on the brink of the purely ethical, especially if one believes that we can reach a point where we can thoroughly and accurately predict the extended outcome of any action. But then, who said we had to kick out the ethics anyway? And what makes PARTICIPATION in a system "better" than DOMINATION of it, and how do you tell the difference? -Hilda ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #106 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Jan 88 06:23:12 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09606; Thu, 14 Jan 88 03:20:46 PST id AA09606; Thu, 14 Jan 88 03:20:46 PST Date: Thu, 14 Jan 88 03:20:46 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801141120.AA09606@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #107 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 107 Today's Topics: Earth's rotation is speeding up Launch Costs (was Re: Saturn V) Face on Mars Re: De-Commercialize NASA Re: Satellite Resolution Re: G.I. Joe Conquest X-30 Re: satellites Mir Elements, 10 Jan 87 Re: Tranquility base Re: satellites Re: RFPs Re: RFPs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Jan 88 01:24:55 GMT From: mahendo!ted@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (4989) Subject: Earth's rotation is speeding up A lot of people have been talking about the leap second that was added recently with reference to Earth's rotation slowing down. But it's not - it's speeding up, at least in the near term, i.e., over the last few years. I have recently looked at a plot of the difference between Terrestrial Dynamic Time (which is measured by atomic clocks) and UT1 (Universal Time, as measured on the "Earth clock" after some cyclic variations are removed). While the "Earth clock" is slower than the atomic clocks just now (the difference is increasing), the curve of the difference is flattening out, i.e., the "Earth clock" is speeding up. Although extrapolation in this area is pretty chancy, it looks like the "Earth clock" will catch up to the atomic clocks sometime in the 90s and we will have to start taking out seconds instead of adding them (4...3...2...Happy New Year!). ted@iji.jpl.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 88 14:45:23 GMT From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Launch Costs (was Re: Saturn V) Kevin Van Horn writes: >>Shuttles, on the other hand, deliver payload to orbit at more like >>1988$2000/lb; [...] > >Not true. The figures I've heard are more on the order of $5000-$6000/lb. >once you add in all the operating costs. > >>[The Saturn V engines] are >>old<<, designed back around 1960; >>according to Henry, von Braun and friends didn't even try to make >>them particularly efficient, striving for reliability and simplicity >>at the expense of performance. > >Making your launch vehicles reliable and simple is in general a better way to >reduce costs than making the engines efficient. With the shuttle... >...greater complexity boosts maintenance costs. > >We need simplicity, not performance; we need the space-going equivalent of a >truck, not a race car. Rebuttal: The figure that >>I<< heard was a fee of approx. $80 million-$100 million for a dedicated shuttle launch. This price was a compromise. If Shuttle launches at a rate of, say, 24 per year were to recover >>all<< the research and development money spent on the Shuttle, a higher price of perhaps $200 million per launch would have obtained. If only operating costs were to be charged for, on the other hand (ie. the government would pick up the tab for all the R&D; the customers would pay for none of that), the price might have been as low as $50 million or $60 million per launch. The agonizing over pricing was sparked by the relatively low launch costs offered by Arianespace for comsat launches, some 3 years ago; NASA started losing launch orders, and complained (with some justification) that the Ariane was beingheavily subsidized by the French government. Note that these prices are a couple of years old, and are post-Challenger-explosion at that. If they still hold, tho', and the Shuttle payload is assumed to be downgraded to 30 tons, that still works out to about $1600 per pound of payload to orbit. Q: does anyone know what NASA will be charging for dedicated Shuttle flights, assuming that they get around to renting the machines out again? As for your point about simplicity, I wholeheartedly agree that it's a Good Thing. However, Performance is also a Good Thing. The Saturn V engines, we speculate, had the first but not enough of the second (ie. not enough to bring cost per pound to orbit down to a reasonable level); the Shuttle engines certainly do pretty well on the second, but fall enough short on the first that complexity has become one of the major cost drivers. Just because the Shuttle engines are too complex doesn't mean that we should retreat to re-using Saturn engines. What NASA >>should<< be doing (what it ought to have been doing for the past 25 years!) is pursuing an active engine-technology program. We've seen one generation of new engines (the Shuttle SSMEs) since Apollo; we ought to have been in our fifth or tenth by now. Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!kcarroll -- Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!kcarroll ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 88 21:52:35 GMT From: vu-vlsi!harman@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Glen Harman) Subject: Face on Mars Hello netfolks! I watched David Letterman last night (January 11th)}, and on this re-run there was a UFO "enthusiast". This guest brought a few pictures of unexplained images with him. One of the pictures was of Mars, and in this picture there was what appeared to be a large face carved into a rock. It is ironic that I read about such a face a few days before, but quickly dismissed it as nonsense. Then, I see the picture and cannot believe how realistic it looks! It appears to be symmetric and looks very human, and therefore has me wondering. However, the picture could have been altered. I once read on the Net that NASA photographs are available to the public for a small price. I would like to send for a copy of this photograph. If anyone knows how I can do this (possibly the address or phone # of the appropriate office) would you please mail it to me, or better yet, post it. I think the picture would make a nice conversation piece. Thanks for your help! Glenvar Harman !{cbmvax, pyrnj, bpa}\!vu-vlsi\!harman ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 88 16:44:46 GMT From: ems!rosevax!kksys!bird@UMN-CS.ARPA (0000-Mike Bird) Subject: Re: De-Commercialize NASA In article <191700003@trsvax> reyn@trsvax.UUCP writes: > ... (stuff deleted) ... NASA wishes to dominate all space policy, >much as A.T.& T. wishes to dominate telephone policy. Enough said. Except that AT&T's network worked wonderfully well. It hasn't worked as well since the bust-up. Enough said. >NASA was originally envisioned as, and should return to the role of a research >and development organization. It is extremely odd that post-Appollo planners >have begun to regard NASA as a trucking company. Except that NASA was created to get the US space program ahead of the Russians. It's done that. Excuse me, it did that, and should have been replaced. Now, we've fallen behind again, NASA looked for, and found, the Space Truck mandate, and we have a bit of the mess we're in. However, ask how many truckers are killed in a year, and compare that with NASA's director's comments that we won't launch until SSTS is "safe". If truckers had waited until it was "safe" to drive, Wells Fargo would still be using horses. -- ================================================================================ Mike Bird (These opinions are mine, dammit!) Mail paths: bird@kksys.UUCP -or- Void where prohibited by law. ...rutgers!meccts!kksys!bird ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 88 06:05:56 GMT From: hanauma.stanford.edu!joe@labrea.stanford.edu (Joe Dellinger,ESMB 471,7230463,4153244824) Subject: Re: Satellite Resolution I'm pretty sure you can beat the "theoretical resolution limit" with satellites. Imagine what they do with radio telescopes: they combine a dish in Puerto Rico, California, Australia, and Great Britain into "one dish as big across as the world". Can you do the same thing optically, utilizing the satellite's motion? I know that digitally you can re-focus an out of focus image. Most of the information to make a sharp image is there, it just isn't in the right place if the image is out of focus. \ /\ /\ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________ \ / \ / \ /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___ \/ \/ \/Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu decvax!hanauma!joe\/\.-._ ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 88 03:12:18 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!ICEMAN@princeton.edu (Joakim Karlsson) Subject: Re: G.I. Joe Conquest X-30 In article <1395@bucsb.UUCP>, alkis@bucsb.UUCP (Alkis Kornilios) writes: >I guess this is the place to ask my question, so here it is. >I'll have to call the jet i am refering to the X-30 since i >can't remember what the name is, and also it looks like the >cartoon jet ( or is it the other way around ). >Whatever happened to that jet that was designed with its wings >backward. I read one not very informative article on it but i haven't >seen anything on it since ( maybe i'm not looking in the right places ). >Could someone tell me what is going on with the development of this >jet. Thanks. I know veeeeery little about G.I. Joe, but the "wings backwards" reference probably means you're talking about the X-29, which was developed by Grumman, primarily as a technology demonstrator. I don't know much about it, but at least now you know what you're talking about... :) Joakim Karlsson iceman @ pucc.Princeton.edu Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering '88 BITNET only: iceman @ pucc Princeton University "You can be my wingman anytime..." ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 88 04:46:22 GMT From: phoenix!pupthy2!lgy@princeton.edu (Larry Yaffe) Subject: Re: satellites In article <2604@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: >> [[ Quoted comments about limits on image resolution omitted. ]] > >Except sattelites don't use cameras - in that sense of the word. They use >CCD's and all sorts of bizarre imaging equipment - but they DON'T take >pictures - I don't think that the same limitations apply (although they no >doubt have other limitations). > >John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, 9805 Scranton Rd., San Diego, CA 92121 >...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.GE.COM GEnie: J.PANTONE The fact that CCD sensors are used in place of film is completely irrelevant to the issue of diffraction-based resolution limits. Diffraction by the primary mirror of the imaging system limits the best acheivable focusing of the incoming light irrespective of what sort of sensor is used to record the picture. On a marginally related note - an earlier posting (sorry, no reference), implied that spy satellite mirrors are no larger than the primary mirror of the Hubble Space Telescope. I doubt that this is true (but not by enough to change the improbability of recognition of Waite from orbit!). The size of the space telescope mirror was far more strongly influenced by economic realities than by technical limits. Supposedly, when the bids for the fabrication of the space telescope mirror were solicited, the lowest bids came not from traditional optical companies like Corning, but from defense companies like Lockheed. Seems that they already had lots of experience... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Laurence G. Yaffe Department of Physics lgy@pupthy.princeton.edu Princeton University ...!princeton!pupthy!lgy PO Box 708, Princeton NJ 08544 609-452-4371 or -4400 ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 88 13:43:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir Elements, 10 Jan 87 Hi. I'm back from vacation, somewhat delayed owing to a combination of car trouble and the wearther on the East Coast. Mir elements as of 10 January 1987: Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 9 Epoch: 88 6.86636483 Inclination: 51.6274 degrees RA of node: 184.1272 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0016248 Argument of perigee: 303.0891 degrees Mean anomaly: 56.8166 degrees Mean motion: 15.74133730 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00013744 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 10822 Source: NASA Goddard via TS Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 88 22:25:25 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: Re: Tranquility base I wonder if the Soviets were debating the meaning of the word *base* in Tranquility base as we were debating the meaning of *mir* recently? ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 88 19:20:10 GMT From: karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: satellites > In fact, it is possible to get better than the diffraction limit, as synthetic > aperature radars have shown. Take several images from different points,(from > a satelite, easily done by just taking a few sequential pictures, since the > stelite is moving) and image-process your little brains out. Aperture synthesis doesn't "get better than the diffraction limit", it decreases the diffraction limit by building a system with a very large effective aperture. It's like having a telescope with a very large virtual mirror where only small portions of the signal gathering area is actually "filled in". You can get extremely high resolution images if you *simultaneously* photograph the same target from two or more widely separated satellites, and then *coherently* add the two images with an accuracy on the order of a small fraction of a wavelength. This is entirely practical at radio wavelengths (VLBI and SAR being two examples), but at optical wavelengths? Good luck! Phil ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 88 04:20:00 GMT From: silber@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: RFPs Another point in favor of the Saturn V, the first stage was Kerosine and LOX fueled, it would burn but not explode. (That is why they had an escape tower, as opposed to Gemini's more risky ejection seats. Titan IIs blow-up easier. Armstrong once witnessed a test where the seats went through the closed doors (this is bad enough through an aircraft canopy). He remarked "what a headache!".) ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 88 04:17:00 GMT From: silber@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: RFPs >As for the Saturn V. How many were actually used, and how many blew up? >I think there were two major accidents out of about 15 launches. On the >other hand we have one major accident with shttle out of about 25 launches >or so. The numbers are too low for any statistical significance, but >there is the possibility that Saturn V is not really any more reliable >than the shuttle. Maybe they just quit while they were ahead. Saturn V uses. I forgot which unmanned launches there were, I know that it was used on Apollo IV (the first full unmanned test, I think. It may have even included a pseudo-LEM), and I assume V and VI, if they were launched. It was also used on Apollo 8, (the first manned lunar orbiter), Apollo 9, (first manned test of LEM, in NEO), Apollo 10 (first lunar orbit test of the LEM, a probably uneeded shot, all they found out is that one should document test suites properly (the LEM started tumbling due to thrusters firing off at random, it turned out that that was left over from a deleted test someone forgot to clean up), and Apollos 11-17. Apollo 13 had a problem with the service module, and Apollo 12 burned out their only video camera. (One of the early ones, 8, I think, had the CM capsize, after that, they made the little inflatable balls standard with the capsule, as opposed to the rescue crew. Several others also capsized, and at least one lost a chute.) Apollos 21-23 or so had originally been planned, but cut early (I read somewhere that they had been talking about going up to the mid 20s), and 18-20 somewhat later. The Saturns for these had been built. One was used for Skylab, one is at Huntsville, and one is at Houston. (There may be another one down at the cape.) The pad is still there, or at least one of them. If you remember the Skylab crew shots, or Apollo-Soyuz, they adapted it with a kind of "high-chair" to carry the Saturn I-B, as the original pad for that had been scrapped sometime after Apollo 7. Near as I remember, there were no tests of the Saturn V before Apollo IV, it was seen as highly reliable, enough to warrent risking a simulated mission on. The restartable 3rd stage had been tested earlier, using the Saturn I-B, and the command module using the "Little Joe". Gemini had only two unmaned flights, due to the reliability and predictability of the Titan II. (The two flights were to test the capsule, more than anything else.) In summary, the Saturn V proved its reliability. It was a big, dumb booster, using tried and proved technology for the most part. The major inovation was the large scale of the engines. I think that we need something like this again. ami silberman - janitor of lunacy ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #107 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Jan 88 06:27:38 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11481; Fri, 15 Jan 88 03:25:11 PST id AA11481; Fri, 15 Jan 88 03:25:11 PST Date: Fri, 15 Jan 88 03:25:11 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801151125.AA11481@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #108 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 108 Today's Topics: "RE: Face on Mars" Universal Time/WWV Re: X-30 Re: satellites Re: satellites Re: Earth's rotation is speeding up Re: How long can a human live in a vacuum? Re: The Church of the Holy Starship was Re: A request Beating the diffraction limit (was Re: satellites) Re: Fighter nitpicking Re: satellites Something wrong with a Molniya? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Jan 88 13:49:02 GMT From: jim@xn.ll.mit.edu (Jim L. Washburn) Subject: "RE: Face on Mars" I have seen the "face on Mars" picture and have heard an explanation for it. It seems that one of the vital parts of this face, one of its eyes, is in fact missing data. This area was photographed at different times and none of the other pictures show a human face. This one picture keeps circulating by these UFO folks as "evidence" for something that does not exist. Unfortunatly showing them other, contridicting photos of the same area does nothing to diminish their claims. -- Jim Washburn ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 88 12:02:28 EDT From: Jeffrey R Kell Subject: Universal Time/WWV One other interesting aspect of the 'noises' in the WWV(B) broadcasts are the presence of encoded bitstreams for the date/time. A friend of mine, now moved to the west coast, had a Heathkit clock with a receiver and the necessary electronics to decipher them. Just before the official 'ping' of the minute, the requisite values are transmitted, and the clock resynchs itself when the 'ping' is received. It too had adjustments for propagation delay (albeit not absolutely constant in the Mhz bands). As long as the clock had A/C power and a received signal, it would synch itself with WWV; if it lost the signal, it had its own internal clock; if the power went off it had a battery backup. Not absolutely "exact" but close enough for the curious. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 88 09:39 PST From: William Daul / McAir / McDonnell-Douglas Corp Subject: Re: X-30 To: bucsb!alkis@bu-cs.bu.edu Cc: SPACE@angband.s1.gov message I recently saw a ad from my company that designated X-30 as the national Aero-space plane (NASP). ...fyi, --Bi(( ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 88 09:59:07 PST (Wednesday) From: Cate3.PA@xerox.com Subject: Re: satellites In regrads to: > At 200 km this is a linear distance of 1 meter. and: >For an orbit of 200 miles, features resolve to ~ 5 inches. Not bad, but >that assumes a perfect atmosphere. Just one comment, my advanced mechanics physics teacher from a few years ago pointed out it would make sense for the orbits to be ellipses. That way the satellites could get closer. Have a good day. Henry III cate3.pa@xerox.com ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 88 15:26:28 GMT From: rochester!srs!lee@louie.udel.edu (Lee Hasiuk) Subject: Re: satellites > That's true, they don't use cameras, in the sense of a piece > of film isn't currently used, However, the concept of diffractive losses > apply to any situation where an image is formed, and light, or in the > more general sense, Electromagnetic waves, are passed through an aperature. Actually, this may not be completely true. According to the 'The Puzzle Palace', some reconnaissance satellites have the capability of ejecting film cannisters which can be picked up by airplanes as they fall to Earth. This technology was developed in 1960. > > From Jenkins & White, Fundamentals of Optics p331 > > Minimum angle of resolution in seconds = 1.220 * ( lambda / D ) > > Where D is the diameter of the aperture and lambda is the wavelength > of the light. It is physically impossible, using 1 image, to get below > this limit. > For the visible range ( lambda ~ 555 nanometers ) and D = 2 meters, > theta = 3.39e-7 radians > For an orbit of 200 miles, features resolve to ~ 5 inches. Not bad, but > that assumes a perfect atmosphere. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > I cannot comment on the possibility of image processing, since > I know squat about that topic > In a complex analysis class, we were told that the diffractive 'limits' of lenses and mirrors could be bypassed to a certain degree through the use of analytic continuation. Anyone care to comment? ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 88 19:59:27 GMT From: nather@sally.utexas.edu (Ed Nather) Subject: Re: Earth's rotation is speeding up In article <130@mahendo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, ted@mahendo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (4989) writes: > A lot of people have been talking about the leap second that > was added recently with reference to Earth's rotation slowing > down. But it's not - it's speeding up, at least in the near > term, i.e., over the last few years. I have recently > looked at a plot of the difference between Terrestrial > Dynamic Time (which is measured by atomic clocks) and UT1 > (Universal Time, as measured on the "Earth clock" after > some cyclic variations are removed). While the "Earth clock" > is slower than the atomic clocks just now (the difference is > increasing), the curve of the difference is flattening out, > i.e., the "Earth clock" is speeding up. Although extrapolation > in this area is pretty chancy, it looks like the "Earth clock" > will catch up to the atomic clocks sometime in the 90s and > we will have to start taking out seconds instead of adding > them (4...3...2...Happy New Year!). > > ted@iji.jpl.nasa.gov While there may be fluctuations in the difference between the "earth clock" and atomic clocks on the "short term" -- i.e. a few thousand years -- the overall trend, both observationally and theoretically, is for the earth's rotation to slow down. We have observations of solar eclipses by oriental astronomers made very long ago, which they could not possibly have seen had the earth maintained its current rotation rate since that time. They indicate the earth has been slowing down ever since, but say nothing about how smooth the effect has been. Observations of the moon show that its distance from the earth is getting greater all the time, and theory explains how the conservation of the angular momentum of the earth-moon system requires that the earth's rotation slow down if this is happening. Some of earth's rotational momentum is being transferred (by tidal action) into the orbital momentum of the system. Now, maybe the atomic clocks are slowing down ... -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 88 20:10:34 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: How long can a human live in a vacuum? In article <988@cblpf.ATT.COM>, dim@cblpf.ATT.COM (Dennis McKiernan) writes: > > Simple question: How long can a human live in a vacuum? I remember reading about some experiment done at the Air Force Medical facility at (Holloman AFB) years ago with chimps and explosive decompression. The maximum times claimed were on the order of three or four minutes. If memory serves (and it usually does, poorly) a small pressurized capsule was placed in a large chamber which was then evacuated. When the small capsule's seal was popped, the subject found itself at the equivalent of 100K to 150K equivalent pressure. After a brief (to the guys running the test, at least!) period, air was let into the chamber. Must have been quite an experience! Generally, according to the report, the major lasting effect on the subject was *really* bloodshot eyes. (Not to mention a strong desire to go on vacation in some other hemisphere. > References would be appreciated. Sorry...memory's not that good. Anyway, this may be where some ideas of spacesuits in the form of industrial-strength body-stockings came from. Evaporative cooling would sure be simpler than miles of tiny tubes pumping water...suppose you'd need silver coveralls or the like to avoid overheating. seh ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 88 20:32:52 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: The Church of the Holy Starship was Re: A request In article <409@kaos.UUCP>, hilda@kaos.UUCP (Hilda Marshall) writes: > > If planets are an unlimited resource (like we used to think the seas/garbage > receptacles were), we may spread out over the ages with nothing more than a > scaled-up version of our previous attitude toward resources: "Muck with it > until it fits, and if it rips go get a new one". You missed the point: Muck about with alternative paths off-site. Then if they *don't* work, you haven't polluted the pond. This gives you a chance to investigate potentially risky options without stuffing all your eggs in one basket, and ending up with crunchy, raw omelet. > This approach makes some assumptions that I don't see as obvious facts: > > 1. The expansion of the human realm and the assurance of the > propagation of the human species are paramount. Don't know about you, but *I'd* like to visit new neighborhoods, maybe stay awhile, maybe not. If the water and power get shut off at home, I'd prefer to not be locked in the house. The coziest bungalow loses its charm under such conditions. > 2. When technology can assure a constant supply of something, > there is no reason to preserve the existing supply. Who said that? The supply may be assured, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it will be cheap or easy to get. If it is, fine. If not, there might be other reasons (pollution, esthetics) that might make off-planet operations desirable. (Ensuring safety from industrial spies?) > 3. Therefore, if a species does not directly serve humanity in > its viable state, it is expendable. What??!!! Iron ore is an organism? I don't think this follows at all! >From what I've heard, to the contrary, most astronauts come back with an increased feel for the value of the earth and its passengers, not a feeling that they're more expendable. Expansion into space is more likely to reduce the stress on the biosphere than increase it. After all, why open a strip mine if you can more of what you need, closer to the product in its final form somewhere else? > This whole argument teeters on the brink of the purely ethical, especially > if one believes that we can reach a point where we can thoroughly and > accurately predict the extended outcome of any action. All the more reason for moving the petri dishes out of the kitchen. > But then, who said we had to kick out the ethics anyway? Not me! seh ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 88 01:30:37 GMT From: jwl@ernie.berkeley.edu (James Wilbur Lewis) Subject: Beating the diffraction limit (was Re: satellites) In article <531@srs.UUCP> lee@srs.UUCP (Lee Hasiuk) writes: >> From Jenkins & White, Fundamentals of Optics p331 >> Minimum angle of resolution in seconds = 1.220 * ( lambda / D ) >> Where D is the diameter of the aperture and lambda is the wavelength >> of the light. It is physically impossible, using 1 image, to get below >> this limit. > >In a complex analysis class, we were told that the diffractive 'limits' of >lenses and mirrors could be bypassed to a certain degree through the use >of analytic continuation. Anyone care to comment? The diffraction component of the point spread function for a given wavelength and aperture is known; it should be possible to beat the diffraction limit by deconvolving this function with the image. I've seen this done for out-of-focus images, and the results are remarkable. The real problem, it seems to me, is noise introduced by the atmosphere (and other factors, I suppose...). Since you can't remove the noise analytically, information is truly lost. It is not clear (to me) how this effect varies with aperture; amateur astronomers often prefer a small aperture/high f-ratio instument to larger (and theoretically better resolution) "light bucket" type 'scopes for planetary observations where light grasp isn't the limiting factor. Are larger apertures really more sensitive to "seeing", or is this an artifact of the difference in focal ratios/optical quality? Would this effect be irrelevant for a telescope above the atmosphere, where one doesn't have to worry about air boiling around inside the tube? -- Jim Lewis U.C. Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 88 20:20:53 GMT From: ghostwheel!milano!mcc-pp!rsb@sally.utexas.edu (Richard S. Brice) Subject: Re: Fighter nitpicking Do any of you F-20 experts know why the twin engine design in the F-5 was abandoned in favor of a single engine? ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 88 00:39:23 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: satellites In article <531@srs.UUCP>, lee@srs.UUCP (Lee Hasiuk) writes: > > Actually, this may not be completely true. According to the 'The Puzzle > Palace', some reconnaissance satellites have the capability of ejecting > film cannisters which can be picked up by airplanes as they fall to Earth. > This technology was developed in 1960. The old Discover series of satellites, generally launched from Vandenberg AFB, tossed down film cannisters after they had exposed all the film (most of the time). The exposed film, drifting down with a parachute off the coast of someplace like Hawaii, would be snagged in mid-air by either a HC-130 or a large helicopter towing a trapeze-like device. There was usually time to make several passes before the thing hit the water. (When that happened, whoever pulled the short straw got to go swimming.) The disadvantage of this system (while nobody could intercept and decode any transmissions) was that you had to wait some variable amount of time before the polar-orbiting satellite was in a position to launch its package where you wanted to be. It's probably cheaper to dump a radio signal down to one or more ground stations (once you have them built, anyway) than sending a plane 600 miles out to sea to catch a film drop. (Somewhat quicker, too.) seh ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 88 06:45:26 GMT From: hanauma.stanford.edu!joe@labrea.stanford.edu (Joe Dellinger,ESMB 471,7230463,4153244824) Subject: Something wrong with a Molniya? Here at Stanford Russian TV channel 2 is piped over the University Network. There is an official 10 minute "technical break" 4 times a day to allow everyone time to switch satellites. For the last few days, the satellite that's supposed to come on line at around 12:20 PST hasn't. Is one of the Molniya satellites sick? \ /\ /\ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________ \ / \ / \ /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___ \/ \/ \/Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu decvax!hanauma!joe\/\.-._ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #108 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Jan 88 06:28:18 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12794; Sat, 16 Jan 88 03:25:51 PST id AA12794; Sat, 16 Jan 88 03:25:51 PST Date: Sat, 16 Jan 88 03:25:51 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801161125.AA12794@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #109 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 109 Today's Topics: Re: Face on Mars Re: satellites Re: Earth's rotation is speeding up Satellites and diffraction limits Re: Face on Mars Re: satellites Saturn V Re: UK Govermnent funding of computer Systems research. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Jan 88 06:40:47 GMT From: tektronix!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60aC) Subject: Re: Face on Mars In article <1291@vu-vlsi.UUCP> harman@vu-vlsi.UUCP (Glen Harman) writes: > > a UFO "enthusiast"... brought a few >pictures of unexplained images with him. One of the pictures was of >Mars, and in this >picture there was what appeared to be a large face carved into a rock. >It is ironic that I read about such a face a few days before, but quickly >dismissed it as nonsense. Then, I see the picture and cannot believe how >realistic it looks! It appears to be symmetric and looks very human, >and therefore has me wondering. However, the picture could have been altered. The picture was probably not altered; on "Cosmos" Carl Sagan mentions this "face". This is an example of coincidental resemblance. The are several examples of this on Earth (the old man in the mountain, etc.) There's even a rather interesting one near Portland, OR. East of town there is a rock formation called Rooster Rock. Its original name was Cock Rock from its resemblance at certain angles to a part of a man's anatomy. It's now a state park and for some reason they didn't want a "Cock Rock State Park". --- Dan Tilque dant@tekla.tek.com or dant@tekla.UUCP The above address will go away on Jan 17. I don't know where or when I'll regain net access. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 88 23:08:15 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!lsuc!sq!msb@rutgers.edu (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: satellites > A telescope at sea level, in perfect > weather, is typically limited to no better than 1" (that is a unit > of angle: 1 arc-second, not 1 inch). At 200 km this is a linear > distance of 1 meter. I would believe that looking down > from orbit would give a different result (though I don't know). Probably it would be considerably better, since the atmosphere is at the right end of the light path. However, diffraction is still a limit, as you say. They might not be using visible light; how many times the frequency of violet light must you go to before viewing becomes impossible? > I would be impressed if any intelligence agency could regularly scan > a city at 4 inch resolution while also doing its other (presumably > more important) business. This could have BEEN considered important business, or they could have gotten lucky, or, as you say, they could have known where to look. I'm not saying that people CAN be spotted by satellite, only that it's not as easy to dismiss as one might think. Mark Brader "You wake me up early in the morning to tell me I am Toronto right? Please wait until I am wrong." utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- John von Neumann, on being phoned at 10 am ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 1988 10:01:14 EST From: Kevin.Ryan@a.cfr.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Earth's rotation is speeding up >Date: 13 Jan 88 01:24:55 GMT >From: mahendo!ted@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (4989) >Subject: Earth's rotation is speeding up >A lot of people have been talking about the leap second that >was added recently with reference to Earth's rotation slowing >down. But it's not - it's speeding up, at least in the near >term, i.e., over the last few years. ... > ... Although extrapolation >in this area is pretty chancy, it looks like the "Earth clock" >will catch up to the atomic clocks sometime in the 90s and >we will have to start taking out seconds instead of adding >them (4...3...2...Happy New Year!). Perhaps some astrophysicists out there could correct me on this, but I thought that the earth was slowing its rotational velocity. I recall the mechanism as being tidal forces with the moon - tidal force slowly pushes the moon away from the earth, with the energy for this coming out of the earths rotation. The moon moves away, the earth slows down, and energy is conserved (ain't physics great :-). The discussion I read on this (sorry, I have no idea where) said that the only problem with this is that, extrapolating backwards, the moon must have been within the Roche limit some time ago (a billion years or so? My memory is akin to swiss cheese today.). The Roche limit is that point where tidal forces exceed the gravitational pull of the moon, and rocks on both sides just fall up... Despite small problems like this, which may be explained by something I don't know about, I do believe that the earth is slowing down. Perhaps Ted is looking at a short term variation? Kevin Ryan "Of course this is just my opinion. Who else would say such a thing?" ................................................................................ | arpanet kevin@a.cfr.cmu.edu (preferred) | | or kr0u@andrew.cmu.edu | | bitnet kevin%cmcfra@cmccvb | | decnet {cmcctd, cu20b, nyu20, or vassar}::cmcfra::kevin | |..............................................................................| ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 88 07:20:57 GMT From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) Subject: Satellites and diffraction limits In article <990@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> lwall@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes: >> [I and others pointed out diffraction, etc, limit resolution >> to about 5 inches] >You guys are all assuming a big round mirror. Now, it's true that for looking >at faint stars you need a lot of mirror acreage, but there's plenty of light >bouncing off of Lebanon. You don't need a huge round mirror to get the >aperature you want--just build a frame that will stay rigid in microgravity >and hang several smaller mirrors on it with a common focus. What's the >resolution for a mirror with an effective aperature of, say 20 meters? How >many 1 meter mirrors would it take to get the interferometry to come out right? Another posting suggests a larger conventional mirror. The reason I used 2 meters in my article instead of (1) assuming a larger single mirror or (2) assuming an interferometer is that I think neither practical. I do not believe that the technology is available to do the right kind of interferometry at optical wavelengths with non-coherent sources. A more likely method would be to launch a 3 meter mirror in 3 1.5 meter pieces, then fit them together in orbit. I doubt that the required accuracy is possible now (a telescope is being built in Hawaii (??) which has 6 mirrors fitted together into one large mirror; I have heard that the technology to build it is quite recent and that it is not known if it will work). Unless the mirror array were solid, the gaps would cause diffraction and the result would be no better than a single mirror of the size of the individual components. I chose 2 meters because I am not aware that we can launch anything bigger. Does anyone know what the size of the Titan II(I) is? Does anyone know what the diffraction limit is for 3 mirrors, in an equilateral triangle [so no preferred direction], with a common focus ? --John Carr ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 88 23:01:21 GMT From: karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Face on Mars > ...there was what appeared to be a large face carved into a rock. This is an *old* one. Humans are amazingly capable of pulling "patterns" out of random noise; just consider Rorsach blots. Look at enough pictures long enough, and you'll eventually see all sorts of stuff that isn't there. One of the Surveyor missions even had a "dinosaur skull". Go find another picture of the same spot on Mars when the sun lighting is from a different direction (or the wind has had a chance to move the dust around) and the face will be gone. The "face" is an interesting curiosity, but nothing more. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 88 23:15:30 GMT From: karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: satellites > ...You don't need a huge round mirror to get the > aperature you want--just build a frame that will stay rigid in microgravity > and hang several smaller mirrors on it with a common focus. What's the > resolution for a mirror with an effective aperature of, say 20 meters? How > many 1 meter mirrors would it take to get the interferometry to come out right? Yes, but those mirrors will have to be positioned to accuracies of a fraction of a wavelength. That's easily done at radio frequencies, but optical frequencies are a different story. I'm not saying it can never be done, only that it's well beyond our capabilities at present to do it on spacecraft. Not to say that there probably isn't a few billion buried somewhere in NRO's black budget for R&D into this sort of thing. (Can you say 'Welfare for Engineers?' Good! I knew you could!") :-) Don't be *that* sure you don't need light-gathering capability, even when imaging the sunlit earth. Remember you are imaging a narrow field with a very long "lens", so the f-rating will be very large. You're also moving along at a good clip (~7 km/sec) so there's something to be said for being able to use short exposure times. Any photographer can tell you that ASA 400 film isn't all that fast when you're using handheld telephoto lenses, even on a sunny day. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 88 16:00:35 GMT From: 2.474.enet!hughes@decwrl.dec.com (Greetings and Hallucinations!) Subject: Saturn V In response to various comments around the Saturn V... The Saturn V had only two test flights before its first manned use (Apollo 8). They were Apollos 4 and 6 (Apollo 5 was an LEO test of the LM launched on a modified Saturn IB). One of those flights (6, I think) experienced the pogo problems which lead serious underperformance by the Saturn V second and third stages. One objective of this mission was to test the CM heat shield at lunar reentry speed. This was acheived by using the service module propulsion system. (This is from memory, I may have the two flights mixed) A number of other missions experienced less than ideal operation of the J-2s but clearly the missions proceeded. I have read (Space World?) that based on mission statistics, the SSMEs are far more reliable than the J-2s. One significant difference between the Saturn V and the Shuttle is that the Saturn has more failure modes that would allow the mission to continue or recover with reasonable safety. The Shuttle design philosophy seems to have been to minimise the possibility of failure and not design in 'graceful degradation'. I don't think space technology is that advanced, yet. Some comments were made regarding LOX/RP-1, escape towers and Titans. If LOX and RP-1 (or LOX/LH2 for that matter) are allowed to mix together for more than a very short period of time before ignition they will form globules that will detonate rather than burn. Although burning in a closed environment will cause an explosion, detonation is a much faster reaction and leads to more serious explosions in a much shorter time. The detonation reaction is propagated by a shock wave. The ability to undergo detonation distinguishes high explosives from common, garden variety explosives. The Titan propellants (Aerozine 50 and nitrogen tetroxide) are hypergolic, meaning that they react upon mixing and do not carry the risk of detonation. Explosions can still occur but they are slightly less likely and would proceed at a slower rate. This supposedly was a factor in the choice between ejection seats and escape towers. Gary Hughes UUCP: ...{ decvax | allegra | ucbvax }!decwrl!monstr.dec.com!hughes ARPA: hughes@monstr.dec.com reality?: DEC, ZKO2-1/N71, 110 Spit Brook Rd, Nashua NH 03062 ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 88 18:07:18 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: UK Govermnent funding of computer Systems research. In article <37389@sun.uucp> livesey@sun.uucp (Jon Livesey) writes: >In article <863@its63b.ed.ac.uk>, bct@its63b.ed.ac.uk (B Tompsett) writes: >> >> Bob Gray (bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk) wrote that the UK gover[n]ment is extremely >> resistant to funding various forms of research (related to space) including >> Computer Systems research. > > Please read Gray's message before you summarise it. This is not >what he wrote. Please go back and re-read what I wrote. The point I was making was about special funding for research. There is a vast difference between the special funding of research of the type proposed by ESA and the UK space industry, and the low levels of routine research funding paid forby the Goverment through SERC and other bodies. > >> Jon Livesey (livesey@sun.uucp) claims that as he knows of more than one >> computer system project in the UK that has received gover[n]ment funding. The >> implication from his article is that this refutes Bob Gray. > > You got that right, at least. Gray actually wrote: > > "The one thing you could rely on from ALL British gover[n]ments > for the last couple of hundred years is that they will oppose > anything that smells even faintly of change. > > "You can also rely on them to be consi[s]ta[e]ntly wrong. > > And: > > "Much more recently, a gover[n]ment report in 1972/3 said that > there would be no real changes in computers, so it wasn't > worth doing research." > > When someone makes statements containing words like (capitalised) 'ALL', >'anything' and 'consistently wrong', it is sufficient to produce a few counter- >examples in order to refute what they write. It took me less than fifteen >seconds to reach for enough examples to refute what Mr Gray actually wrote. OK? It does of course help your point if you quote me out of context. I am unable to find any examples of MAJOR research projects which were not rejected at least once. That they eventually funded research in this country after realising that we were being left behind by other countries, is irrelevant. > > I thought it also worth making the point that handwaving about unreferenced >'reports' that may or may not have existed proves nothing; what counts is what I will admit to confusing two Goverment papers here. I originaly should have referred to a paper in 1980 by the "Electronic computers sector working party" and published by the institute of manpower studies, called "Computer manpower in the '80s". Based on much the same evidence as this paper covers, the Japanese started their Fifth generation research. It was only when the Goverment realised that we were falling behind everyone else in research, that the Alvey project was funded. I have been working on this for the last few years, so I should know something about it. The 1972 paper is from the Goverment select committee on science and technology. It is called "Prospects for the UK computer industry in the '70s". I will quote from it. "At present, many people feel, for no very valid reason, that they must have their own equipment under their own control. As time and education break down this attitude the present picture of a large number of in-house machines is going to change" "There is no Goverment policy toencourage the industry to grow and expand." "the British Computer Society [complaines about] lack of a national policy.... very little guidance on the kind of development and research work ... worthy of support." "Witnesses critical of small scale of Goverment support" "Goverment R+D remote from practical applications" There is a table which shows an estimate of the numbers of computer terminals in the UK. 0-200 bps 201-10,000bps over 10,000 bps 1973 27,000 24,000 108 1978 169,000 65,000 390 1983 316,000 117,000 637 and a final quote, "The need to continue support at the previous level had diminished and greater financial support from industry was looked for" Just to bring things back to space, If the word space were to be sustituted in the above paper for computer, the paper could have been produced last week. There are warnings about investments by the French the Germans, the Americans, and that even the Japanese have a large research programme. There is also a note that people concerned about security in the USA were woried about the export of equipment to the Soviets. It isn't possible to tell from the paper that that Goverment was about as ideologically different from the present Conservative Government as it is possible to get in this country. I will leave it up to you to decide if the Goverment (through it's committee report) got it right. >From my reading of Goverment reports on scientific subjects, the Goverment, Any (UK) Goverment, cannot comprehend that Science and technology are constantly changing. They accept small changes, but any major change (e.g. space exploration) is resisted for as long as possible. There is a report from the same select committee on "UK space activities" in the session 1970-71. The report opens "The United Kingdom's space programme is confined to the use of space vehicles for gathering and transmitting information." This would very neatly sum up the present Goverment's attitude to space exploration. > What the UK seems to be particularly bad at is the art of getting their >money back by the industrial exploitation of their scientific and technical >innovations. That, however, is as much a problem of industry and management >as it is of government, and I am not sure if HMG should take all the blame. This last part I must agree with. The Government is, however, developing closer ties with Japan in an attempt to help solve the problem without spending too much money. Bob. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #109 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Jan 88 18:07:24 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00905; Tue, 19 Jan 88 14:38:50 PST id AA00905; Tue, 19 Jan 88 14:38:50 PST Date: Tue, 19 Jan 88 14:38:50 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801192238.AA00905@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #110 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 110 Today's Topics: Re: G.I. Joe, X-30, X-29, and X-19? Standing an egg on it's small end Re: CCD and HI RES Re: Hilda NSS press release: Soviet Space Program (2 PAGES) Re: satellites Re: Saturn V Re: Liberia of space (was Soviet space marketing moves) Re: The X-29A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 88 13:33:55 EST From: subar%mwcamis@mitre.arpa Subject: Re: G.I. Joe, X-30, X-29, and X-19? -------- Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: G.I. Joe Conquest X-30 Joakim Karlsson recently posted: > the "wings backwards" > reference probably means you're talking about the X-29, which was > developed by Grumman, primarily as a technology demonstrator. I > don't know much about it, but at least now you know what you're > talking about... :) The plane was interesting (read unique?) because the forward swept wings and the cannards (sp?) gave the plane loft but made it unstable. Unstable, you say, how did it fly, and why would that be good? Although the plane was naturally unstable, controlled flight was achieved through the use of a computer system(s) that sampled flight conditions 40 times a second. The instability of the plane, when properly controlled, allows the plane to maneuver (that is turn, dive, etc.) much quicker, and in a much smaller radius. An example of this phenomenon in everyday life is riding a bicycle. When the bike is unstable (at low speeds) it is easier to make the bike lean, and if your not careful, to fall over. At higher speeds, the bike is more stable, more likely to come to it's initial upright state naturally, and harder to move it from that stable state (static equilibrium in an area local to the bike's position normal to the ground. I know that this is really dynamic equilibrium in the universe of movement, i.e. comparared to resting on the ground, but to illustrate the point, allow me to take a small liberty.) Now, imagine if you could retain the instability, control it, and move at high speeds. You could do incredible manuveurs. By the way, I think, although I've been wrong in the past, the plane is the X-19, not the X-29. David Subar subar@mitre.arpa Disclaimer - The opinions expressed don't even belong to me. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jan 88 11:44:14 PST From: tencati@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Tencati) Subject: Standing an egg on it's small end X-St-Vmsmail-To: ST%"space@angband.s1.gov" I don't think I was dreaming when I saw this posted on a bulletin board at JPL, but now the message has been taken down. I was wondering if anyone could tell me if the following contention is true: The bboard message said that on a certain day early in the year (march?), it was possible to stand an egg (hard boiled?) on it's small end, and it would stay. This was due to the gravitational forces acting upon the Earth due to the position of it's orbit and it's relation to the sun. The article further mentioned a "window" for the upcoming year when this effect was supposed to be "best". Anybody else heard of/seen such a story? The article was a copy from some net bboard somewhere. Ron Tencati Tencati@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 1988 18:03-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: CCD and HI RES True, diffraction limits hold for CCD because it is just the image storage technique, not the image collection technique. But the difference is that the data is in a form that is easily manipulated for other imaging methods. A reader pointed out the key issue: the diffraction limit of the mirror holds for ANY ONE IMAGE. There are aperture synthesis techniques used in SLAR that are dependent on the motion of the craft to generate the aperture. Once the input data is in digital form, I see little difference whether the original frequency was light or microwave. There is of course the problem that there is no reference beam, but I've heard that this is not necessarily required, that a reference signal can be mathematically synthesized. Even if the pure motion of the craft is not useable, there is still a simple interferometry technique of taking multiple images and using the phase differences to make an image with a diffraction limit equivalent to a mirror whose diameter is the distance between the two images. The key is whether the craft are stable enough and whether it is possible to get a time base good enough to allow combination of data from two separate satellites. Time bases have taken a few orders of magnitude jump in accuracy, and a few more are expected in the next couple years. The pointing accuracy seems to be not too different from that required for VLBI using a satellite component to image the core of a quaser, something both the USSR and USA are talking about doing in the 1990's. How about the resolution of an effective mirror with a 100km diameter, hmmm? ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 1988 18:24-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Hilda The difficulty is that there will never ever be a consensus, only a dynamic tension between the different views. We will go out, we will do some good, we will do some evil. But we WILL go. The simple nature of it is that those who want to leave will eventually do so whether others wish them too or not, and with a universe to expand in, those who expand will eventually dominate those who stay behind. Note even necessarily physical domination, but philosophical and numerical domination will be quite as effective. Can you imagine any means of preventing, forever, a few hard core pioneer types from escaping this particular philosophical doctrine and developing in a different direction? I can't. Unless we commit suicide. So if someone truly wishes that humanity be controlled and not allowed to expand helter skelter into the universe, they had better pray for nuclear annihilation of every last homo sapiens, because otherwise, next century or next millennia or 10,000 years from now, the dam will break and there will never, ever be a way to put it back together again. Personally, I pray for the dam break. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 1988 18:44-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: NSS press release: Soviet Space Program (2 PAGES) BACKGROUND INFORMATION Date: 20 December 1987 Number: BI8703 Reference: PR8703 SOVIET SPACE PLANS AFTER "MIR" (Note to editors: Please credit Art Bozlee & Seattle L5/1 Chapter Newsletter if used in full) With the launch of the Soviet Type-L (ENERGIA) booster on May 15, 1987, the long range future plans of the Soviet conquest of space entered a new era. In contrast to the usual secretive nature of Soviet efforts many details of future programs were recently revealed in a series of startling announcements. Contrary to some ill informed Western reports, the Soviets are very actively working on a reusable space shuttle to compete with the West. The Soviets confirmed in early October of this year that cosmonauts crew have been conducting flight tests of the shuttle from the 15,000 foot runway at the cosmodrome at Tyuratam. For these early flight tests two 20,000 pound thrust jet engines have been installed to supplement the two jet engines the space-rated shuttle carries. After takeoff from the runway the vehicle is flown to alititude where the cosmonauts can then practice the difficult approach and landing sequence. For these tests two cosmonauts are flying the orbiter. First flight of th Soviet shuttle is expected in late 1988 or early 1989. One report stated the first flight test would be unmanned, a decision not well received in the cosmonaut corps. Problems in developing the digital flight control system may have prompted the decision for an early unmanned test flight. The booster for the Soviet shuttle is the Type-L vehicle, called ENERGIA by the Soviets is by some margin the most pwerful rocket system ever successfully flown, dwarfing even the might SATURN V the US used in the APOLLO program. ENERGIA stands 200 feet (60 meters) tall, 65 feet (20 meters) across the four strap on booster rockets, and weighs an awesome 4,400,00 pounds (2,000 metric tons). Liftoff thrust is 8,280,000 pounds, compared with 7.5 million pounds for the SATURN V. Unlike the US Shuttle, all of the ENERGIA booster is recoverable, and thus reusable. About two minutes after launch the four strap on boosters separate from the core. They are then lowered to Earth by a parachute system carried in two pods mounted on the forward and aft section of each booster. After the core booster completes its mission it breaks into three sections for recovery. One section carries the expensive and delicate booster engines, a second parachute system recovers the fuel tank structure, and the third section recovered are the liquid oxygen tanks. The payload, either the shuttle orbiter, or a cylindrical payload container then goes into orbit propelled by its own internal engines. For the first flight test of ENERGIA last May this recovery system was not used. The engines of ENERGIA represetn another major advance for Soviet engineers. The four main engines in the core booster burn liquid hydrogen, a first for the Soviet Union. Each engine has one thrust chamber, and delivers 400,000 pounds (200 metric tons) thrust. The strap on boosters employ a single engine with four thrust chambers burning liquid oxygen and kerosene. The use of liquid fuel boosters is a safer and more sophisticated tehcnology than the solid fuel boosters that destroyed the Shuttle CHALLENGER in 1986. Computer science has also taken a long stride for the Soviets on ENERGIA. Automated ground checkout equipment has been incorporated in a Soviet booster design for the first time. This equipment greatly speeds the ground testing of the vehicle prior to launch. The biggest question regarding ENERGIA and the shuttle is what missions are planned for them. Aside from the ability to lift either a shuttle or 220,000 pounds into low earth orbit, several other missions are seen as very probably by Soviet planners. The first of these difficult and spectacular missions could very well be a manned mission to the planet Mars. Several cosmonauts have stated for the record they expect to go to Mars in the early to mid 1990's. While landing ont he surface of the planet is not seen as a high probability, at least one mission model is regarded as reasonable by Western analysts. A landing on one of the two moons of Mars, most probably Phobos, would offer cosmonauts a secure base from which they could send automated landers, rovers, and sample return missions to the surface of Mars, and manage them via teleoperations. Several Soviet officials have also spoken openly of manned lunar landings. After Apollo 11 the Soviets publicly stated they were no longer interested in manned lunar landing, preferring to put their efforts into unmanned probes of the Moon, and their manned space station program. However, Soviet space literature and interviews with defectors involved int the Soviet space progam state work on a lunar module intended for manned lunar landings was being developed as late as 1978. It seems reasonable to assume that work has continued. It is cetainly not impossible we could see the hammer and sickle flying over the barren lunar plains as soon as the early 1990's. (end) ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 88 02:53:50 GMT From: tikal!hplsla!deanp@beaver.cs.washington.edu ( Dean Payne) Subject: Re: satellites >From: lwall@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) > >You guys are all assuming a big round mirror. No. > You don't need a huge round mirror to get the >aperature you want--just build a frame that will stay rigid in microgravity >and hang several smaller mirrors on it with a common focus. Without signal processing, which is still very difficult at 500 TeraHertz, the required surface accuracy for the interferometer is the same as for the huge round mirror. Gravity is not the only structural problem. >From: jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) > >Except sattelites don't use cameras - in that sense of the word. They use >CCD's and all sorts of bizarre imaging equipment - but they DON'T take >pictures - I don't think that the same limitations apply (although they no >doubt have other limitations). The same restrictions still apply. Dean Payne ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 88 10:25:35 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!adam@uunet.uu.net (ERCF02 Adam Hamilton) Subject: Re: Saturn V In article <2902@drivax.UUCP> dambrose@drivax.UUCP (David Ambrose) writes: > > I am not in any way denigrating the people who work in the space >program! I do want to remind you all that there IS a profit motive >available and that there will be individuals who will let profits >over-rule other criteria. My goal would be to keep these people in >check. > >-- I was under the impression that this newsgroup was unanimous that the way to get the US Space program back on its feet was to turn it over to private industry as far as possible. I was also under the impression that this involves putting the profit motive first (you know, as in capitalism) rather than keeping it in check. Please tell me of my logic errors without flaming. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 88 08:19:40 GMT From: mcvax!inria!axis!matra!ma@uunet.uu.net (Michel Allair) Subject: Re: Liberia of space (was Soviet space marketing moves) French guyana is not a third world country, it's a French oversea department wich is part of the French republic, and so part of the ECC. One of the last part of the former French colonial empire. By the way, about ten years ago a german private company tried to build a launch facility in Zaire. Does someone knows about how this story has ended ? ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 88 00:02:45 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya N.) Subject: Re: The X-29A Yes, the forward-swept wing is the X-29A by Grumman. We have two in existence (just down the ramp at EAFB from the remaining Northrup F-20). The X-29A combines 3 low-cost technologies together: a left over engine, airframe, and it's 3 onboard computers (1 failure: immediate return to base, 2 failures: immediate ejection). The plane is unstable (one retired pilot noted it's just a little more unstable than a DC-3) one poster noted the 40Hz control surface adjustments. What's interesting to note is the flow of the wing slipstream (not shed) up to the fuslage and then along side it (note red lines on wings). Has nice fuel efficiency advantages as well as manuveurably (rather than shed the stream of wing tips). The cockpit is quite minimal. It is an unfair characterization to say it has a pilot. The X-29A is not really capable of getting off the ground without another 16 people monitoring ground computers. Yes, there's other planes (most notably a West German executive business jet). It's not flying currently as systems are being reprogrammed. It did not handle as expected in some conditions in the first phase of testing, but the program is being called a success (it was real cheap). >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #110 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Jan 88 06:20:22 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01853; Wed, 20 Jan 88 03:18:21 PST id AA01853; Wed, 20 Jan 88 03:18:21 PST Date: Wed, 20 Jan 88 03:18:21 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801201118.AA01853@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #111 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 111 Today's Topics: Re: Satellites and diffraction limits RE: HI RES Re: HI RES, Jim Lewis Re: Satellites and diffraction limits Re: Fighter nitpicking Re: satellites Re: Standing an Egg on End SPACE Digest V8 #108, Earth's rotation Re: Fighter nitpicking Re: Standing an Egg on End Re: SPACE Digest V8 #108, Earth's rotation Re: Fighter nitpicking Forward Swept Wings and Dynamic Instability Re: G.I. Joe, X-30, X-29, and X-19? Re: Forward Swept Wings and Dynamic Instability ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Jan 88 07:35:58 GMT From: tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick) Subject: Re: Satellites and diffraction limits Here is an extract from "The Puzzle Palace" (James Bamford) page 259: " ... the Code 467 satellite, better known as Big Bird ... first launched on June 15, 1971 ... built around an extraordinary, superhigh resolution camera capable of distinguishing objects eight inches across from a height of ninety miles ... " ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 1988 03:39-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: RE: HI RES Answers to the questions I raised on other means of getting high resolution have been been brought to my attention. 1) The SLAR technique is strictly coherent. 2) CCD devices do not preserve phase information needed for VLBI, and there are no known devices capable of capturing and storing this information. 3) The quantity of data per second would be well beyond the capacity of any foreseable machine, except possibly some of the pure optical image processing systems NASA (and others) have been working on. And that type of system still requires that the full image data with phase info be stored or transmitted some how. It might require the ability to make a hologram without using coherent light, which would return us to something very similar to problem 1. Comments and discussion are welcome. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 1988 16:05-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: HI RES, Jim Lewis I'd entirely forgotten about some of the deconvolution work you mentioned. I've seen the before and after processing of pictures fogged by intentionally out of focus optics and by motion of a car past a speed sign. The image is translated into the complex frequency domain, fiddled with at great computational expense and then (VOILA) translated back to an amplitude domain. The results are remarkable, but I seem to remember cautions about the limited applicability. I also did not intuit the connection to the aperture, etc. It's been 3-4 years since I read it, so does anyone know what the state of this art is? Also, I wonder if the atmospheric effects from above are all that serious. Remember that it is not the same problem faced by ground based astronomy where the disturbing 'cells' are close at hand and thus cause large changes in the path of a photon (well, its large if you're thinking of imaging in arcseconds). From space the angular size of these cells is small and their impact on imaging is much less. If it became a problem before other limits were reached (which I doubt) the same speckle interferometry techniques that are being used in ground based astonomy might be used, IF the images could be taken quickly enough that the satellite did not travel TOO far (define too far?) and that the slewing (ala Voyager at Uranus) was accurate enough not to blur the image during the exposure interval(s). ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 88 19:49:46 GMT From: pitt!cisunx!bgarwood@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Robert Garwood) Subject: Re: Satellites and diffraction limits Lets see, 8 inches from 90 miles corresponds to an angular size of 0.3 arc seconds. This is only a factor of 3 or so smaller than the best seeing of ground based astronomical telescopes and a factor of 4 to 5 larger than the diffration limit of a 2-m telescope at optical wavelengths. Seems reasonable to me. Bob Garwood Dept of Physics and Astronomy Univ. of Pittsburgh ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 88 23:16:21 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Fighter nitpicking In article <4477@mcc-pp.UUCP>, rsb@mcc-pp.UUCP (Richard S. Brice) writes: > > Do any of you F-20 experts know why the twin engine design in the F-5 was > abandoned in favor of a single engine? (Can I play? I'm not an expert...) With nearly 20 years development time in the art, the thrust/ weight/fuel consumption requirements for the design were met by a single engine. This also meant fewer parts (reliability/ maintenance win) and parts count reduction in needed fuel system and engine control and support mechanisms (read simpler with added lightness). It seems reasonable... seh ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 88 04:15:58 GMT From: marque!gryphon!mhnadel@csd1.milw.wisc.edu (Miriam Nadel) Subject: Re: satellites In article <880113-095952-2436@Xerox> Cate3.PA@XEROX.COM writes: >Just one comment, my advanced mechanics physics teacher from a few >years ago pointed out it would make sense for the orbits to be >ellipses. That way the satellites could get closer. Orbit planners choose what they consider optimal for any given mission. One of the parameters they determine is how eccentric the orbit should be. If you're really interested in a relatively small region, you would select both your orbit and, assuming you have more than one satellite to use, the phasing of your constellation (among several other parameters) to maximize coverage over that region. Given the latitude of the Soviet Union, it's hardly surprising that they put their communications satellites in Molniya orbit (highly eccentric, result is satellite spending most of its time near the northern latitudes.) Miriam Nadel mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM crash!gryphon!mhnadel ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 88 06:31:16 GMT From: saturn!ucscb.UCSC.EDU!avalon@jade.berkeley.edu (Scott A. McIntyre) Subject: Re: Standing an Egg on End yeah, you can stand an uncooked egg on end on March 21st, the Vernal Equinox. Now this does not work for all locations on earth, I think that this is just for northern lattitudes. I used to do this all the time in San Diego, people would find it a real blast...but if I remember corretly, it was only for a few hours onthe equinox.. Scott ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1988 14:28 EST From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #108, Earth's rotation There exist fossil corals from, as I recall, 400 megayears ago, that show both annual and diurnal growth rings - with the order of 400 days per year! ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 88 19:07:13 GMT From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: Fighter nitpicking They wanted the F-20 to have greater thrust for higher performance, and one F-404 gives more thrust than two J-85s. David Smith ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 88 19:32:05 GMT From: pitt!cisunx!bgarwood@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Robert Garwood) Subject: Re: Standing an Egg on End Every year this shows up (although usually not until sometime closer to the equinox). While I was a graduate student in astronomy at the U of Minnesota, one of the faculty performed an experiment to test this. Several weeks (I think it was 6 or so) before the equinox he bought a couple dozen eggs and managed to make most of them stand on their ends (I can't remember the exact fraction, but it was at least 60%). From then on, every other day he attempted the same feat. The fraction of eggs which he was able to stand on the end increased slightly for the first few trials (a result probably do to his learning how to stand them on end) but leveled off and remained essentially constant through the equinox. The point being that anyone can stand eggs on their ends at at time throughout the year. All it takes is practice. Try it, you'll like it. Bob Garwood Univ. of Pittsburgh Dept. of Physics and Astronomy ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 88 23:59:41 GMT From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu (Richard Harter) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #108, Earth's rotation In article MINSKY@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU writes: >There exist fossil corals from, as I recall, 400 megayears ago, that >show both annual and diurnal growth rings - with the order of 400 days >per year! Verrry interestin'. Now that you mention it, I recall reading something about that also, but I don't recall the numbers. I expect that one can translate the change in the length of day to a change in the distance of the moon from the Earth. Two thoughts occur to me. The first to ask whether it is settled as to whether the Earth/Moon system started out that way or whether it is possible that the Moon was acquired at a later date. If the latter is still under consideration, one asks when, and, in particular, if a date about 700 million years ago is likely. The reason why this date matters is that it is just before the precambrian. One of the great events in the history of life is the development of the Eurkaryotic cell. There is a lot of debate about when this happened, but one scenario runs -4500 Myears Earth formed -3500 Myears First detectable life (un-nucleated) - 700 Myears First nucleated life - 650 Myears First multicellular nucleated life For about three billion years life did nothing except pile up algal mats - dull, dull, dull. Then all of sudden cells got nucleii and mitochondria and chromosomes, and things happened, and here we are. Maybe something really big happened back then that kicked of a biological revolution as as side effect. Just a speculation. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 88 02:44:17 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Fighter nitpicking > Do any of you F-20 experts know why the twin engine design in the F-5 was > abandoned in favor of a single engine? Northrop wanted to re-engine with more modern engines, for performance, reliability, etc. Undoubtedly they would have preferred to fit two engines of size similar to the old ones, which would have avoided having to redesign the whole aft fuselage... but there simply weren't any modern fighter engines that small. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 88 00:57:39 GMT From: devvax!jplpro!des@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Smyth) Subject: Forward Swept Wings and Dynamic Instability Forward swept wings, such as used on the Hansa business jet from the late 50's, the Northrop X-29 demonstrator, and on the Rockwell Hi-MAT demonstrator, are very good for several reasons. First, because they are swept, so the transonic shock wave causes less drag. All recent transonic and supersonic aircraft have swept wings for this reason. Slower aircraft have swept tail surfaces so they look fast %^). The same drag reduction is realized regardless of which way a wing is swept - forward or back. The reason FORWARD swept wings are good is because it makes stalls surviveable. If a 747 stalls, everybody on board is dead. This is because a wing stalls at the tip, and then the stall moves closer to the root because of tip effects (the vortex) and because the fuselage bends the air and reduces the apparent angle of attack at the root. In this scenario, as the tips stall, the center of lift moves forward, which increases the nose up attitude, which increases the angle of attack, which stalls the wing more, which ... until the plane goes inverted and spins. Everybody on board gets dead. On the forward swept wing aircraft, the opposite effect occurs near stall: first the tip stall, which moves the center of lift AFT. This decreases the nose up attitude, which decreases the angle of attack, which avoids the stall. Safe! Nobody dies. Why aren't all aircraft built this way? Because of "flutter". If a forward swept wing tip flexes up, it will tend to keep flexing up, increasing the angle of attack at the tip, until it stalls - suddenly. This will suddenly release most of the upward pressure, allowing the tip to come back down. Then whatever caused it to go up it the first place will happen again ... eventually, the wing fatigues and fails. Darn! Looks like everybody dies now in cruise rather than at stall. Turns out that if the wings are built of a material where the elasticity is different in different directions, like composits, then this flutter problem SHOULD be controllable. This is the main thing the X-29 was for: what is the flutter behavior of composite forward swept wings. The Hansa Jet was a very good business jet because of its flight qualities. It was safe at stall, unlike EVERY other swept wing business jet. However, they had shorter wing life due to this flutter fatigue. I know of no case where the wings failed, but they did need more frequent inspection and rebuilding. Forward swept wings are very good for fighters, because they can be flown right at stall (like in a very high speed tight turn - you realize that airplanes always turn by LIFTing into the circle, right?) safely, which no other planes can do. All current fighters must be kept safely away from their maximum turn rate because if they stall at max rate, the plane is lost. There is alot of garbage in the press, even by people who should know better like AW&ST (pronounced A-WASTE), about "dynamically unstable aircraft, which can only be flown by computer." This is just "plane" wrong. Dynamically unstable aircraft are simply ones which have all the horizontal surfaces lifting. That is it. Old fashioned airplanes have the horizontal stabilizers generating negative lift. Obviously, if all that structure lifts instead of some of it pulling down, the total wing and horizontal stabilizer is smaller, lighter, and therefore, less drag. The only reason a computer is involved is because the pilots arms would get tired pushing on the stick all day. The computer just takes care of that part of the force. Nothing nasty, nothing unsafe. Just purely more efficient. A forward swept wing aircraft can be balanced like an old fashioned airplane, or like a dynamically unstable airplane. It has nothing at all to do with sweep, only to do with control technology: cables & hoses of wires & hoses. Nothing else. A racing sailboat is typically dynamically unstable: it has "weather helm". If it doesn't, it is slow. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 88 23:29:39 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: G.I. Joe, X-30, X-29, and X-19? In article <8801141833.AA07616@mitre.arpa>, subar%mwcamis@MITRE.ARPA writes: > Joakim Karlsson recently posted: > > > the "wings backwards" reference probably means you're talking about > > the X-29, which was > > By the way, I think, although I've been wrong in the past, the plane > is the X-19, not the X-29. Nope. The swept-forward demonstrator is Grumman's X-29. For example, the X-20 was the Air Force DynaSoar...and it's been dead for *decades*. BTW, the Germans have built at least at least two other swept-forward winged jets, one a WW2 bomber (the Arado234?) and the Hansa (320?) business jet. There was at least one sailplane with a swept-forward wing, I think it was the Czech-built Blanik. A doctor acquaintance of mine from the far, dusty past owned one. The X-29 is just the first supersonic aircraft with swept-forward wings. (Needed development of new materials, such as composites, to make one strong enough to fly that could still be lifted off the ground.) seh ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 88 19:31:33 GMT From: devvax!jplpro!des@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Smyth) Subject: Re: Forward Swept Wings and Dynamic Instability I know somebody is going to get nick-picky on my previous (already too long) posting about my claim that the stall always starts at the tip, and that a typical swept wing aircraft cannot survive a stall. First, it is possible to prevent a stall to first occur at the tip. Simply twist the wing enough so the tip always has a significantly lower angle of attack, or is very thick, or add giant tip tanks, or fences, etc. However, each of these approaches reduces effeciency, so they are rarely done. Second, a 747 has stalled and recovered. It did go into an inverted spin first, but luckily it did recover after only loosing 37000 feet of altitude. The pilots completely freaked out, and the cockpit recorders picked up crying and asking for mommy. The plane recovered by itself. Of course I am referring to the China Airlines 747 which safely landed at SFO, but (I think) never took off again... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #111 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Jan 88 06:20:45 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03752; Thu, 21 Jan 88 03:18:32 PST id AA03752; Thu, 21 Jan 88 03:18:32 PST Date: Thu, 21 Jan 88 03:18:32 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801211118.AA03752@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #112 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 112 Today's Topics: Re: Forward Swept Wings and Dynamic Instability Re: Forward Swept Wings and Dynamic Instability Re: Forward Swept Wings and Dynamic Instability Oddities Re: The Church of the Holy Starship was Re: A request Re: RFPs Re: Saturn V Re: Saturn V Re: Saturn V Facts? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Jan 88 19:58:21 GMT From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: Forward Swept Wings and Dynamic Instability In article <998@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, des@jplpro.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Smyth) writes: > Forward swept wings, such as used on the Hansa business jet from the > late 50's, the Northrop X-29 demonstrator, and on the Rockwell Hi-MAT > demonstrator, are very good for several reasons. FSW on Hi-MAT? Not in any pictures I ever saw of it. Did they put on a new set of wings? > The reason FORWARD swept wings are good is because it makes stalls > surviveable. If a 747 stalls, everybody on board is dead. This is > because a wing stalls at the tip, and then the stall moves closer to > the root because of tip effects (the vortex) and because the fuselage > bends the air and reduces the apparent angle of attack at the root. > In this scenario, as the tips stall, the center of lift moves forward, > which increases the nose up attitude, which increases the angle of > attack, which stalls the wing more, which ... until the plane goes > inverted and spins. Everybody on board gets dead. Competent designers have long included washout (wing twist) or changed cross section to ensure that the tips don't stall first. Note that tip stall is also bad on straight-wing aircraft (and FSW), because that is where the ailerons are. If a badly designed plane flies near stall and the pilot tries to turn right, the alieron will cause the left wingtip to stall, resulting in a spin to the left. I can't believe the 747 designers didn't do their homework. I will believe that FSW cuts down the penalty for avoiding tip stall. The wing tips are flying in clear air in which no spanwise flow has been induced. > There is alot of garbage in the press, even by people who should know > better like AW&ST (pronounced A-WASTE), about "dynamically unstable > aircraft, which can only be flown by computer." This is just "plane" > wrong. Dynamically unstable aircraft are simply ones which have all > the horizontal surfaces lifting. That is it. Old fashioned The Vari-Eze is not unstable. If its nose should be picked up (e.g., by a gust), the rear lifting surface (lifting wing) will gain lift more than the front (lifting canard), straightening the plane back out. This stability also counters a nose-up movement commanded by the elevators, reducing maneuverability. The same goes for conventionally tailed and tailless aircraft. Dynamically unstable aircraft dispense with this inherent stability, and maintain stable flight by sensing uncommanded movements and countering them with control surface movements. This requires a computer. > airplanes have the horizontal stabilizers generating negative lift. > Obviously, if all that structure lifts instead of some of it pulling > down, the total wing and horizontal stabilizer is smaller, lighter, > and therefore, less drag. The only reason a computer is involved is > because the pilots arms would get tired pushing on the stick all day. > The computer just takes care of that part of the force. Wrong (see above). Anyway, "pushing on the stick all day" can be relieved by trim tabs, which are not new. By the way, dynamically stable aircraft with all-lifting horizontal surfaces (i.e., canard or tandem wing aircraft) load the front surface more highly, which also causes drag. David Smith ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 88 21:39:02 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Forward Swept Wings and Dynamic Instability In article <1053@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, des@jplpro.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Smyth) writes: > Second, a 747 has stalled and recovered. It did go into an inverted > spin first, but luckily it did recover after only loosing 37000 feet > of altitude. The pilots completely freaked out, and the cockpit > recorders picked up crying and asking for mommy. The plane recovered > by itself. Of course I am referring to the China Airlines 747 which > safely landed at SFO, but (I think) never took off again... Yeah, it was kind of bent in places... ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 88 21:25:49 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Forward Swept Wings and Dynamic Instability Does a 747 really automatically go inverted and buy farmland when- ever one stalls? Such behaviour would seem to indicate the need to go back to straight wings, just in case something were to fail in control systems' safety measures... The Pipers that I've flown (as well as other little guys) have mostly been designed with some form of washout, such as tip twist or variying airfoil sections, so that the tip stalls before the root of the wing. (Is this a Piper [Cessna, Aeronca, Stinson,...] trade secret? Shouldn't someone tell Boeing about it? :} ) > On the forward swept wing aircraft, the opposite effect occurs near > stall: first the tip stall, which moves the center of lift AFT. This > decreases the nose up attitude, which decreases the angle of attack, > which avoids the stall. Safe! Nobody dies. We, of course, assume sufficient altitude... > Forward swept wings are very good for fighters, because they can be > flown right at stall (like in a very high speed tight turn - you > realize that airplanes always turn by LIFTing into the circle, right?) > safely, which no other planes can do. All current fighters must be > kept safely away from their maximum turn rate because if they stall at > max rate, the plane is lost. Umm...I must be able to commune with ghosts. I've talked to several (living) current and ex-fighter drivers who, at one or more points in their career, have stalled jet aircraft and had been forced to do nothing more than recover from the stall. (Except for the two who lacked sufficient altitude...) > There is alot of garbage in the press, even by people who should know > better like AW&ST (pronounced A-WASTE), about "dynamically unstable > aircraft, which can only be flown by computer." This is just "plane" > wrong. Dynamically unstable aircraft are simply ones which have all > the horizontal surfaces lifting. The VariEze is dynamically unstable? (Tell *that* to Mr. Rutan, who chose to go for canard layouts for the VariEze-type designs partly for better efficiency [everything lifting] and partly for safety...the canard stalls first, lowering angle-of-attack, saving the main wing from stalling.) You can fly a VariEze (and probably many other small canard types) by weight shifting. If you're heavy enough, just lean the way you want to pitch or bank...hold it.. and eventually it will do it. It will also eventually correct to straight-and-level. Seems to have positive stability. > That is it. Old fashioned airplanes have the horizontal stabilizers > generating negative lift. The Wright brothers built their Flyers (admittedly canards) with neutral or negative stability. On purpose. > Obviously, if all that structure lifts instead of some of it pulling > down, the total wing and horizontal stabilizer is smaller, lighter, > and therefore, less drag. OK. See VariEze, Beech StarShip, etc... > The only reason a computer is involved is because the pilots arms > would get tired pushing on the stick all day. The computer just takes > care of that part of the force. Only forces? What ever happened to hydraulic boosting of the controls? Why use a computer for *that*? Maybe because the X-29 was designed to be dynamically unstable in hopes of better performance, and that also bought you the need to quickly correct for deviations from desired states? > Nothing nasty, nothing unsafe. Just purely more efficient. A forward > swept wing aircraft can be balanced like an old fashioned airplane, or > like a dynamically unstable airplane. Which the X-29's shape was selected for specifically. > It has nothing at all to do with sweep, only to do with control > technology: cables & hoses of wires & hoses. Nothing else. Well, the thing's shape has *something* to do with it... like sweep, dihedral (or anhedral), camber, twist, angle-of- attack,... seh ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1988 17:44:38.50 EST From: (Jim Shaffer) Subject: Oddities To: The recent letters about the "face" on Mars have prompted me to write. I, too, have heard of the "missing data" information, and I believe, although I cannot recall where I have seen them, that pictures were published that prove that it is, indeed, missing data. However, there is another intriguing photograph that may not be so easily explained. I first saw this on a "Late-Night With David Letterman" re-run about a week ago. One of Dave's guests was a man from the Aethereus Society. He was trying to prove that aliens have visited Earth. (What else is new?) He, too, showed the picture of the "Mars face." However, he also showed a picture of the Moon that was very unusual, to say the least! This picture was taken from orbit, I believe in 1965. On it, in the same frame, were two objects that appeared to be mountains or bright craters. Extending out from them, in roughly the same direction, were what appeared to be tracks, as if the objects were moving over the surface. One of the tracks was wide and extended 900 yards, the other was narrow and extended 1200 yards until it disappeared in a crater. These tracks appeared to be geological faults, except for the facts that they were so close, that they extended in roughly the same direction, and that they ended at unidentifiable objects. Can anyone offer any explanation? ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 88 19:06:48 GMT From: necntc!drilex!tomr@husc6.harvard.edu (Tom Revay) Subject: Re: The Church of the Holy Starship was Re: A request In article <1985@frog.UUCP> sc@frog.UUCP (STartripper) writes: >I've dreamed and thought for years about getting our ecosystem >reproduced off the planet, thus opening the door to a universe of >"culture dishes" where societies can experiment upon themselves. So in article <4907@nsc.nsc.com>, fiasco@nsc.UUCP (G. R. Gircys) replies >Only when we learn to live on our natural spaceship should we entertain >fantastically ambitious ideas like space born culture dishes. Face the >mayhem here before you start exporting it. Tho' I'm of the "Fix Yourself Before You Fix Anybody Else" school (and my preferred drinking salute is "Here's mote in yer eye!"), given the mayhem here, it might be a wise idea to create a few of STartripper's Culture Dishes. I mean, petri dish cultures have been known to die under the best of circumstances. You wouldn't find a bio lab keeping only one copy of a given cell or virus culture, and use the whole thing in a single experiment, now would you? I realize that it's not especially cheerful to be talking about Planet Earth as a Failed Culture (tho' it does contain Los Angeles 8-) ), but if we're talking survival, well, fish gotta sing and birds gotta swim, and we'd better keep a few backups of our genetic microcode, just for safety's sake. Tom Revay ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 88 14:41:17 GMT From: ncspm!jay@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Jay C. Smith) Subject: Re: RFPs In article <74700086@uiucdcsp> silber@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >...as opposed to Gemini's more risky ejection seats. Titan IIs blow-up >easier. Armstrong once witnessed a test where the seats went through >the closed doors (this is bad enough through an aircraft canopy). He >remarked "what a headache!".) I didn't think Neil was that witty, so I looked this up in _The Space Program Quiz & Fact Book_ by Timothy B. Benford and Brian Wilkes (a childish-looking book to the casual browser, but full of lots of great information): Q. Who said: "That's one hell of a headache, but a short one." A. John Young, watching a test of the Gemini ejection seat. The seat worked just fine, but the hatch failed to open; the seat blasted right through the 2-inch-thick hull. (Young had other problems with ejection seats; during an early shuttle test it was determined that the parachutes would open "about 50 feet after we hit the ground.") Jay C. Smith Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 88 18:52:18 GMT From: pitstop!sundc!hqda-ai!cos!smith@sun.com (Steve Smith) Subject: Re: Saturn V In article <886@its63b.ed.ac.uk> adam@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF02 Adam Hamilton) writes: >I was under the impression that this newsgroup was unanimous that the >way to get the US Space program back on its feet was to turn it over to >private industry as far as possible. I was also under the impression >that this involves putting the profit motive first (you know, as in >capitalism) rather than keeping it in check. > Please tell me of my logic errors without flaming. Adam - The bad assumption you're making is that everybody in *any* newsgroup can agree on *anything*. I've seen at least three points of view on this so far: 1. "Privatize" (ugly word) as much of the "routine" space work as possible. This, of course, involves somebody making money. 2. Give NASA lots and lots of money. They will know what to do with it. 3. Do "whatever is necessary" as long it doesn't hurt the environmnt, involve animal experimentation or South Africa, give more power to the Military - Industrial Complex, and does employ minorities, give the Third World a cut of the profits, and whatever else is currently "politically correct". The opinions that I've seen are pretty evenly split between 1 and 2. Somebody occasionally posts a "3" type article, apparently after wandering in from talk.religion.newage (:-). The article you were responding to is on the edge of type 3 - let people make money, but not too much, and make sure that they don't do anything Bad (unspecified) in the process. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 88 05:08:14 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Re: Saturn V In article <886@its63b.ed.ac.uk> Adam Hamilton (adam@its63b.ed.ac.uk) writes: >I was under the impression that this newsgroup was unanimous that the >way to get the US Space program back on its feet was to turn it over to >private industry as far as possible. I was also under the impression >that this involves putting the profit motive first (you know, as in >capitalism) rather than keeping it in check. > Please tell me of my logic errors without flaming. Frankly, I don't think that any group this size could be unanimous about anything. :-) I think the common consensus is that unless the government and NASA et al get their acts together, the only way Americans will get up into space will be through private industry. {or foreign exchange :-( } The profit motive, like anything, is best/most ethically used in moderation. Putting the profit motive first and foremost means that the bottom line is the money gain, and only the money gain differentiates two courses of action-- the one yielding more money is the only way to go, says this view. Most of the corporations in step with the times which are pleasant to work for {evidence is second-hand from friends and strangers} happen to realize that profit motive is not the end-all and be-all of existence. An excess of profit-motive ignores other, vital considerations: Will this action destroy the environment? Will this action affect a city's growth? Will this action degrade this company's ability to deliver goods and services in the next decade? -- and so on. Personally, I think that the private sector will go into space despite any government's actions to the contrary. It just depends on how long it takes for some individual/corporation to gather enough expertise, material, and gumption to get up and DO it. Now, hopefully they will be very responsible and ethical in their activities (aside from their revolutionary attitude), but then no human or group has been wholly good. Or unethical. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 88 16:50:19 GMT From: oliveb!pyramid!fmsrl7!eecae!crlt!russ@AMES.ARC.NASA.GOV (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: Saturn V Facts? In article <1282@edison.GE.COM>, mjk@edison.UUCP writes: >I got into a discussion the other day, and couldn't remember where I >had seen this documented, but here goes. It seems to me I read that >the third stage was targeted to crash on the back side of the moon, >after it had accellerated the Apollo package up to its necessary >velocity. I remember hearing from Jim Loudon that the third stages of several missions (posted by another user) had not only been aimed at the moon, but that at least one of the resulting craters was visible in sufficiently powerful telescopes. If you want to ask him about this yourself, his number is (313) 426-5396; LD callbacks are collect. Russ Cage rsi@m-net ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #112 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Jan 88 06:19:24 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06227; Fri, 22 Jan 88 03:17:13 PST id AA06227; Fri, 22 Jan 88 03:17:13 PST Date: Fri, 22 Jan 88 03:17:13 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801221117.AA06227@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #113 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 113 Today's Topics: space news from Dec 7 AW&ST + space-station editorial part 1 Progress 34 launched and Soviet Shuttle on the pad report Re: RFPs Re: Launch Costs (was Re: Saturn V) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Jan 88 05:46:51 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Dec 7 AW&ST + space-station editorial part 1 [I'm back. I've had a couple of letters asking "what's this I hear about serious trouble in the latest SRB test?". To which my reply is, "what's this *I* hear about serious trouble in the latest SRB test?". I have been on vacation in Australia, completely out of touch, for a month. All I know is: 1. The next full-scale SRB test was scheduled for Dec 19. 2. Any significant problem in that test will mean a shuttle schedule slip, because there is no longer any slack in the schedule leading up to the June launch date. (For that matter, NRC has criticized the whole shuttle recovery program as being lacking in backup plans and contingency arrangements.) More when I know more.] Editorial about the space station. "...there is a hollowness to the station program; a nagging feeling that there may be considerably less long-term substance to the effort than the initial numbers indicate... lack of commitment is the foremost reason. It must be unnerving for the newly named station contractors to hear frustrated program officials at NASA saying that their biggest challenge is to convince top level managers within their own agency that the space station is a viable program and that adequate funding for it must be pursued vigorously... The contrast with what the US space program used to be is stark indeed. December 7 marks the 15th anniversary of the Apollo 17 launch... it will pass with no official notice. A national consensus had been generated in support of Apollo and despite a certain amount of public wrangling over costs, sufficient resources were found to support the program. Unless a concerted effort is made to rekindle that same national consensus in support of the space station, there is a good chance the program is headed for oblivion..." Draft NASA/DoD report on the Advanced Launch System says DoD will pay for it, except for things needed to meet NASA-unique requirements. This also means that DoD is basically in charge. White House Senior Interagency Group for Space [the current feeble excuse for a space decision-making body in the US government] is deadlocked over whether (a) preeminence in manned orbital flight and (b) eventual manned presence beyond Earth orbit should be US policy goals. Predictably, NASA is in favor and OMB leads the opposition. Space station contractors selected. Big set of articles on this. Boeing gets pressurized modules. McDonnell-Douglas gets structure, support, and assembly. Rocketdyne gets power. GE gets free-flying platforms and satellite servicing. Andrew Stofan, NASA station boss, says stretchout is preferable to scaledown if money is tight; he strongly opposes more reductions in the station plans. When contractor activity begins, what international cooperation is now in effect will cease unless there is quick agreement on the remaining disputed issues. Canadian participation is a particular problem because the Canadian arm system is vital to station assembly. [Late reports say agreement reached with Canada.] NASA's funding deal with the White House, reached earlier in 1987, will probably not be honored in the current deficit crunch: Stofan says "that piece of paper and fifty cents will get me a cup of coffee". Hardware bashing will begin in 1990, eight years after NASA started fighting for the station; Stofan says this is "ridiculous". Mir crew to return Dec 31 [actually it was a few days sooner, I think]. Next crew expected to stay up about a year. US will have similar capabilities in about a decade, maybe. Details on Boeing station contract, boring. Details on McD-D contract, a bit more interesting. The moving base for the Canadian arm system is being subcontracted to Astro Aerospace in California, a US subsidiary of Spar Aerospace (which builds the arms). Orbit-maintenance propulsion will be an electrically-heated steam jet, using waste gases and fluids. NASA and contractor people slam station design, saying it lacks flexibility and will have trouble when in-orbit experience calls for modifications. Member of NASA Advisory Council notes that "give the customer what he wants" is the rule for NASA contractors these days, with few suggestions made beyond those already found in the NASA RFPs. One top contractor official observes that the way to win a NASA contract is to figure out which faction within NASA will win, and align your proposal with that faction's ideas. Some critics say that the basic station design has never been evaluated properly, but has won on sheer momentum. Problems are lack of adaptability to later changes, too much time and payload needed to get things started (making the station vulnerable to overruns), and too much technology for its own sake (e.g. the 20 kHz power system, whose technical advantages are most unlikely to outweigh the extra time, risk, and money of developing a new system incompatible with all existing equipment and components; use of 400 Hz aircraft systems would make much more sense). Station contract awards permit KSC to start work on ground-support facilities for the station, notably a new processing building. USAF Titan 34D launches early-warning satellite from the Cape Nov 28. Eutelsat reluctantly agrees with its own advisors not to openly oppose Luxembourg's Astra comsat program, while calling for ongoing monitoring of possible impact on Eutelsat's business. Arinc plans to start aviation comsat services by 1989, using Inmarsat satellite channels leased via Comsat Corp. FCC recently rejected Arinc's proposal to set up its own satellite network for both communications and traffic control for aircraft, mostly because Arinc asked for an overly large slice of spectrum. Pictures taken by the infrared camera flown in Columbia's fin to look at heat distribution on the upper surface of the orbiter during reentry. The system will fly again when flights resume, with some changes to give full coverage late in reentry, where the original system failed because of inadequate gas flow to cool its viewing windows. This work is thought important to permit future heatshield designs to be lighter and simpler than the highly conservative shuttle design. Photographs of lightning-research rocket launches at KSC, using small sounding rockets with trailing wires to draw lightning bolts. USAF and NASA prepare to encourage revival of small US expendables. NASA intends to issue an RFP for up to 10 Scout-class launchers in 1988, to suport the Small Explorer program. Scout is the only current launcher of the right size, and all 10 remaining Scouts are committed. Italy and LTV [makes Scout] announce joint development of a souped-up Scout using two Ariane strap-on boosters [built by an Italian company] to roughly double payload. (West Germany and Italy are already involved in a project to do semi-commercial microgravity work using up to 12 standard Scouts launched from Italy's San Marco platform off the Kenyan coast.) Biggest delay in the Italy-LTV project preparations is US export licensing. Both NASA and USAF are interested in this project although neither has a current requirement. NASA making various shuttle pad modifications for improved safety and efficiency, notably precautions to ensure adequate clearance between pad structures and the rising shuttle. McDonnell-Douglas reaches agreement with Great Wall Industries to put McD-D's PAM upper stage on the Long March launchers. First in-flight test of the tractor-rocket escape system for shuttle crews is successful. More tests of this system and the telescoping-pole system are imminent. Globesat, a new small-satellite company, picked by NASA to design a small satellite to study degradation of materials by atomic oxygen in low orbit. [Saving The Space Station, Part 1. As I understand it, Alcoholics Anonymous will tell you that you can't make any progress on an alcohol problem until you admit that (a) you have a real and serious problem, and (b) fixing it will be difficult and painful. How is this relevant to the Space Station, you ask? The Space Station is dying. Not just troubled, but *dying*. Its cost escalation is out of control. After repeated cutbacks to try to get costs under control, they still far exceed the original $8G target -- and they are still growing. This is *BEFORE* a single part has been launched, *BEFORE* any metal has even been cut, *BEFORE* we even have a final design for some parts! There is just no hope that the project can be held to anything near current estimates at this rate. And if it goes well beyond them, as it will, there is a serious danger of cancellation, or cuts so severe that they amount to cancellation. This cannot be avoided if NASA continues to treat it as "business as usual". It is time to admit that the Station is in real and serious danger, and that it cannot be saved without drastic and painful changes. What kind of changes? Well, first, what goals do we have too meet, i.e., what is the thing *for*? Well, it's not for the excitement of space exploration, that's for sure. If we wanted excitement, the right thing to do would be the long-overdue return to the Moon. The station, by itself, is boring. So it has to be justified as a tool for other purposes. What are the uses of a manned space station? There are people, including me, who argue that in a rational universe many currently automated space activities would be at least man-tended, to improve their reliability and reduce their cost. This is pretty much out of the question with Earth-to-orbit costs the way they are now, though. Although we ought to be working on cheaper transport, it won't happen overnight. What are the uses of a manned space station in our current situation? One is obvious: many biomedical microgravity experiments simply cannot be done without human presence as things stand now (we will politely ignore the people who claim that robotics and telepresence technology will be up to handling such things Real Soon Now). This is trivially true when the experiments in question use humans as their experimental animals. Many of these experiments want lengthy stays in free-fall. Many other experiments, like materials-processing work, don't need (or even actively don't want) human presence while they are running, but would benefit greatly from occasional human attention. In principle this could be done with shuttle visits, but those are very expensive and in short supply. The situation looks much better if many experiments can be visited at a time. Unfortunately, lumping a whole bunch of experiments into one box brings back many (not all) of the problems that are cited as disadvantages of manned spacecraft: interference between experiments, compromises due to shared facilities, contamination from the "housekeeping" activities of a large spacecraft. The best solution is to put these experiments on modest free- flyers with human visits available on a flexible and frequent schedule. Another prominent use of humans in a rational world would be interaction with experiments, as witness some of the on-orbit repairs and modifications that have already occurred aboard Spacelab and other missions. The high costs of human presence in our current world reduce the importance of this argument, but it's not entirely trivial even so, particularly for first- generation exploratory experiments which lack past experience to draw on. Observation experiments, both Earth-observation and astronomical, generally are simple enough to run by remote control, and do not want the problems caused by nearby humans. They do want occasional man-tending, though, and novel experimental instruments might be an exception to the general rule. Finally, it is clear from past studies, like Fairchild's Leasecraft effort, that integrating a satellite well enough to guarantee it will be functional after the high acceleration and vibration of a launch is very expensive, and that major cost reductions could be had from on-orbit final assembly. That would also bypass launcher payload limits, which considerably restrict what can be done today. Only the most limited forms of such assembly are practical today without human presence. Do these things justify a manned space station? I would say yes. But not quite the sort that is now being planned. The station should not be meant primarily as a mounting platform for major experiments; major experiments will want their own platforms, and even minor ones will want private or shared unmanned platforms. (Even the biomedical lab may eventually want its own platform so it can spin for partial-gravity experiments.) The station's jobs are to support the biomedical lab, to provide a convenient place for small exploratory experiments that are expected to need a lot of hand-holding, and to serve as a base for man-tending and assembly work. At least one major shared unmanned platform should probably be considered part of the station (although it will co-orbit rather than being attached) as a service to small experimenters who want high-quality microgravity conditions but haven't yet worked up to running their own platform. Another useful service would be a modest number of standardized small platforms that could be leased to individual experimenters. Okay, that's what we want; how do we get there? Sorry, I'm going to leave you in suspense until part 2.] -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 88 00:53:52 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Progress 34 launched and Soviet Shuttle on the pad report The Soviet Union has launched Progress 34 today (Jan. 21), the tenth unmanned freighter to travel to the Mir/Kvant complex so far, and will be the 16th vehicle total to dock to the space station. As usual this will bring up about 1.5 tonnes of fuel/water/air and 1 tonne of other supplies and equipment. Note that this shows how much work is going on at the Mir station, Salyut 6 & 7 had 12 Progress' each visit them during their 5 year operational lifetimes, while Mir is less than two years old so far. On board Mir itself Vladimir Titov and Musha Manarov have now been in orbit for 31 days, already exceeding the USA's Skylab 2 mission of May '73. Medical studies on Yuri Romanenko, who holds the orbital record at 326 days, have indicated that he actually was in better shape after this mission then he was after the 96 day Soyuz 26/Salyut 6 mission in Dec '77. They attribute this to their exercise program and some medicines. The Russian doctors see no reason that the current mission cannot go the full year that they plan for Titov and Manarov. Also there was an interesting statement on the shortwave that the a Soviet fully reusable spacecraft (ie. shuttle) was being prepared for launch now using an Energya booster core. This was the same sort of statemnet that was released just before the first Energya liftoff. This somewhat contradicts previous announcements that the next Energia launch would occur in May-June and would not be a shuttle test. Soviet progress continues. At least if the current AWST issue is correct this has finally generated some movement on the part of the President, if he does announce the expected plans in the state of the Union speach. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 88 16:05:34 GMT From: karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: RFPs Since no one else seems willing to go research the actual facts, I did. Apollo 6 had major problems with each of the three stages in the Saturn V. This was the second launch of a Saturn V; the first had been Apollo 4, which was a complete success. The pogo effect occurred during first stage flight. During this time, part of the spacecraft adaptor between the third stage and the Apollo vehicle broke away. There seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether this was caused by the pogo or by faulty manufacturing. The pogo didn't show up on Apollo 4 because it was sensitive to the payload mass distribution, and the two flights used different mass simulators in place of the lunar module. Two of the second stage engines shut down early. This was caused by a wiring error. The remaining engines burned until propellant depletion, but the performance of the stage was still way below nominal. The third stage achieved orbit, but it was not the circular one originally planned. When the third stage was commanded to start for a second time to raise apogee for a lunar-speed re-entry test, nothing happened. The Service Propulsion System engine on the service module was used instead, so a high-speed re-entry test from high altitude was still possible. In this sense the mission was at least partially successful. The cause of the third stage failure was later determined to be a broken liquid hydrogen line. This line had bellows to allow flexing. In ground tests, frost forming on the bellows damped vibrations and protected the line. In vacuum, however, no frost formed and the bellows broke from the vibration. The line was redesigned to use bends instead of bellows. Sources: "The History of Manned Space Flight" by David Baker, and NASA SP-350 (Apollo Expeditions to the Moon), chapter 9. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 88 02:25:59 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Launch Costs (was Re: Saturn V) > Rebuttal: The figure that >>I<< heard was a fee of approx. $80 > million-$100 million for a dedicated shuttle launch... That's a very old price, Kieran, based on very optimistic assumptions which have not come true. The NRC report on launch frequency etc. concluded that all-inclusive costs to orbit were about $5000/lb for all current launch systems. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #113 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Jan 88 06:22:44 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07925; Sat, 23 Jan 88 03:20:30 PST id AA07925; Sat, 23 Jan 88 03:20:30 PST Date: Sat, 23 Jan 88 03:20:30 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801231120.AA07925@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #114 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 114 Today's Topics: Re: Saturn V Re: Saturn V Re: RFPs Re: Spouses in space (was: Re: Astronauts and Trek) Re: RFPs Re: Saturn V A Pure Rumor--State of the Union Address? Re: RFPs Re: RFPs Nanotechnology Fourth National Space Symposium Re: satellites Re: satellites Re: satellites ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Jan 88 02:21:45 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Saturn V > One of the things that NASA in the 60's had that does not really exist > today is high level QA and the cooperation of industry... Don't forget something else: NASA in the 60s had its own independent engineering capabilities, not dependent on the vagaries of contractors. The first Saturn Vs were built by NASA crews (with some contractor participation) at Marshall, not at contractor plants. Von Braun insisted on doing it that way. The results say that he knew what he was doing. That whole organization was destroyed in the post-Apollo cuts. Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 88 02:12:49 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Saturn V > Shuttles, on the other hand, deliver payload to orbit at more like > 1988$2000/lb; a similar cost is available from Deltas, Arianes,... More like $5000/lb in the estimates I've seen. Order-of-magnitude check: Titan 4 pricetag approx $250M, payload definitely more like 50klbs than 125klbs. > The people behind the Jarvis booster (McD-D?) looked into using the > Saturn V engines for their Big Dumb Booster; apparently they've > decided that it's not even worthwhile reverse-engineering just the > engines. Those engines are >>old<<, designed back around 1960... It was Hughes and Boeing. They very badly wanted to use the Saturn V engines; those were good engines, despite their age and unsophisticated design. (The "very badly" part I have firsthand from sources within Boeing, by the way.) They decided, however, that they could not justify the cost of reverse-engineering major rocket engines. That's not a small job, and not a quick one either. So they reluctantly opted for SRBs and SSMEs instead. Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 88 02:40:26 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: RFPs > ... Apollos 21-23 or so had originally been planned, but cut early (I > read somewhere that they had been talking about going up to the mid > 20s)... They were talking about going much farther. The fate of the later missions was sealed when Congress terminated Saturn V production at 15, though. 18-20 were cancelled after all the hardware was built; one of the leftover Saturn Vs was used for Skylab. > ... one is at Huntsville... No, the Huntsville Saturn V was a test article that was never officially flight-ready, although in a pinch it could probably have been flown. > The pad is still there, or at least one of them... The pads and launchers have been revised for Shuttle use, mostly. > Near as I remember, there were no tests of the Saturn V before Apollo > IV, it was seen as highly reliable, enough to warrent risking a > simulated mission on.... Right answer, wrong reasons. The Saturn V used "all-up" testing, on the grounds that the only way of doing a fully realistic test of the first stage was to put loaded upper stages on top, and one might as well test them as well if the first stage worked (which it did). Von Braun had to be talked into this, as his original preference was for one-thing-at-a-time testing, but he later admitted that Apollo could not possibly have made its 1969 deadline without all-up testing. The simulated mission was simply the best and quickest way of testing everything. Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 88 05:15:31 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Spouses in space (was: Re: Astronauts and Trek) > Both of these facts, plus the fact that NASA never scheduled them to > fly together, prevented an important experiment in space science: > what's boinking like in zero G? Surely you don't think it's an accident that NASA never scheduled them to fly together? NASA management, collectively, is as prudish a bunch as you'll find anywhere. The story I hear is that it *has* been tried in NASA's free-fall-simulation water tanks, however. Alas, a guess I'd made some years ago is confirmed: it is difficult for the participants to stay together without gravity to help. Having a helper ready to contribute an occasional shove helps. So do bungee cords. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 88 05:29:55 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: RFPs > As for the Saturn V. How many were actually used, and how many blew > up? Thirteen. None. Someone commented that the Saturn V is the only launcher NASA has ever built that kept all its promises. > I think there were two major accidents out of about 15 launches. Nope, unless you have an odd definition of "major". 15 Saturn Vs were built, not counting non-flying test articles. Two unmanned tests (Apollos 4 and 6, I think). Two circumlunar flights (8 and 10). One LEO flight for testing the lunar module (9). Seven lunar landings, one of which aborted (11-17). Skylab 1 (Skylab itself, not the crews). One rusting on the lawn at Kennedy, one rusting on the lawn at Houston. No failures, despite some rather severe conditions (notably, Apollo 12 taking a direct hit by lightning). The second unmanned test had upper-stage engine trouble, but this was a nuisance rather than a disaster: the mission was not ruined, and the next flight carried Apollo 8 around the Moon. The third lunar landing aborted en route due to a failure in the Apollo service module. Skylab was nearly ruined due to a failure in the lab's heat/meterite shielding during launch. Both were payload failures, not launcher failures. > ... The numbers are too low for any statistical significance, but > there is the possibility that Saturn V is not really any more reliable > than the shuttle. Maybe they just quit while they were ahead. It is possible. On the other hand, considering the people involved, I doubt it. That was before the rot set in at Marshall in particular. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 88 21:43:08 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!dambrose@ames.arc.nasa.gov (David Ambrose) Subject: Re: Saturn V In article <886@its63b.ed.ac.uk> adam@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF02 Adam Hamilton) writes: >In article <2902@drivax.UUCP> dambrose@drivax.UUCP (David Ambrose) writes: >>program! I do want to remind you all that there IS a profit motive >>available and that there will be individuals who will let profits >>over-rule other criteria. My goal would be to keep these people in >>check. > >I was under the impression that this newsgroup was unanimous that the >way to get the US Space program back on its feet was to turn it over to >private industry as far as possible. I was also under the impression >that this involves putting the profit motive first (you know, as in >capitalism) rather than keeping it in check. > Please tell me of my logic errors without flaming. I agree that a profit motive is important. However, let us structure things in a manner where efficiency and performance are rewarded. How do you make money in a cost plus 10% type of contract? Spend more money! Your return is guaranteed. You have no motive to get things right. In a fixed price contract, efficiency is rewarded. By getting it done right the first time, you lower your cost, you make a better profit. You do things right, you get the next contract that comes through. This is much more business like than the current pork barrel approach to space exploration. Do you think we would get better performance from Morton-Thiokol if they knew their next contract depended on their current performance? You betcha! Fixed price contracting is not a panacea, but it is a big improvement. Regarding my original posting, I think I owe you all an apology for the tone of the whole thing. Guess I should have re-read net.intro. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 88 19:01:00 GMT From: ndsuvax!ndsuvm1.bitnet!ud140469@uunet.uu.net Subject: A Pure Rumor--State of the Union Address? I just heard a rumor that we should keep an eye on the President's State of the Union address. The rumor says that he will be talking about space commercialization, and specifically announce that the Industrial Space Facility will be flown before the space station (one of my professors in Space Studies is of the opinion that this is because the SS might be canceled, considering the Industrial Space Facility & recent moves by ETCO towards getting ET's into orbit... but that's beside the point). The rumor originates, as do so many, out of Washington, D.C., but I don't know the specific source... Remember, just a rumor. Comments, any one? Scott Udell UD140469@NDSUVM1.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 88 13:33:38 GMT From: codas!burl!clyde!mcdchg!illusion!marcus@bikini.cis.ufl.edu (Marcus Hall) Subject: Re: RFPs Just a few comments to add, I think the orriginal assertion (that the Saturn V had any major accidents [attributible to the Saturn.]) >AS-502/Apollo 6 - Pogo effect (caused early center engine shutdown?) >This so scared NASA that they used the next Saturn V off the line to >send Apollo 8 to the Moon. It should be noted that this was only the second launch of a Saturn V. Also, there were no tests of individual stages, to get things done faster they did the testing "all up" with everything tested at once (they did do extensive component testing, of course). The 2nd stage center engine shutdown was caused by a failure of some flexible tubing under low atmospheric pressure I believe. Anyhow, the other four engines burned longer to compensate and if that launch had been a real launch they thought that the mission would have continued normally. >Apollo 12 - Struck by lightning causing computer problem. Mission >successful (except they pointed the TV camera at the sun). Most of the CM/SM systems kicked out their circuit breakers, including the guidance system. This required re-alignment in orbit which had not been done before. The Saturn's instrument unit, however, continued to function and its guidance system got the crew into orbit without any problems. So the Saturn's systems appeared to be much more robust than the CM/SM (although depending on where the lightning hit this could be misleading.) Marcus Hall ..!{ihnp4,mcdhcg}!illusion!marcus ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 88 17:06:17 GMT From: fred!anderson@ames.arpa (Douglas T. Anderson) Subject: Re: RFPs In article <218@antares.aero.org> zeus@antares.UUCP (Dave Suess) writes: >I was in Huntsville in '79, I think, and I recall seeing TWO Saturn Vs: >one was vertical, one was on its side. Do I misremember the type of >one? >Dave Suess zeus@aerospace.aero.org Yep Dave you sure do, I lived in Huntsville for 3 years, the one standting was a Saturn 1B if I remember correctly, the reclineing one was the Saturn V. Douglas T. Anderson Manager - Technical Services General Electric @ NASA/AMES Research, Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 88 09:15 EST From: GODDEN%gmr.com@relay.cs.net Subject: Nanotechnology Of interest to you space buffs (and all techno-junkies, for that matter) is the book >Engines of Creation< by K. Eric Drexler, which is now out in paperback. It discusses the emerging field of nanotechnology (itty- bitty machines) in a readable style with references to more technical literature. Last night I read a hypothetical scenario he proposes where- by a rocket engine would be produced entirely by molecular-sized assemblers directed by nanocomputers (itty-bitty computers) working with raw materials in the form of a kind of soup. The assemblers draw out the particular atoms/molecules they require to build up the engine parts atom- by-atom. Since there are a LARGE number of such assemblers working in parallel they can build this engine in a very short time. Drexler states they could be expected to build an engine as strong or stronger than possible with current technology at 10% the mass. Since it is constructed at the atomic level there would be no seams, rivets, welds, etc. Before you write this off as belonging on sci.fi.baloney I suggest you take a look at the book. He addresses specific objections to the feasibility of nanotechnology in chapter 1. Forward is by Minsky. There is also a separate chapter devoted to space exploration. He claims nanotechnology will make it not only routine, but cheap. I hope so, I'm getting tired of reading about $2000/lb to orbit. -Kurt Godden godden@gmr.com My opinions are just that. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 88 09:49:00 PST From: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" Reply-To: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" From: Kevin Bold (BOLD@AFSC-SD.ARPA) Subject: Fourth National Space Symposium The United States Space Foundation will sponsor the Fourth National Space Symposium 12-15 Apr 88 at the Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs. The theme will be "The Challenges of '88." Speakers include Dr. James C. Fletcher, Dr. Edward Teller, Lt Gen James A. Abraham, and former astronauts Deke Slayton, Buzz Aldrin, and Gene Cernan. For more information write the USSF at PO Box 1838, Colorado Springs, CO, or call (303) 550-1000. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 88 23:39:33 GMT From: pur-phy!clt@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Carrick Talmadge) Subject: Re: satellites In article <1988Jan12.180815.685@sq.uucp> msb@sq.UUCP (Mark Brader) writes: >> A telescope at sea level, in perfect weather, is typically limited to >> no better than 1" (that is a unit of angle: 1 arc-second, not 1 >> inch). > >Probably it would be considerably better, since the atmosphere is at >the right end of the light path. Mark is right here. This is a point which I screwed up on last fall when this question was last discussed: You'll do a lot better looking in from the outside than 1 arc-second. Numbers that were floating around at that point were maximum resolutions of about 3-4 cm. >However, diffraction is still a limit, as you say. They might not be >using visible light; how many times the frequency of violet light must >you go to before viewing becomes impossible? Depends. Violet light is usually classified to be around 4200 angstroms. The transmission coefficient of the atmosphere plummets somewhere between 2900-3000 angstroms (at 2900 angstroms, it is less than 1e-6) [Ref: International Critical Tables, Vol. V, page 268]. Over Antartica, with the hole in the ozone layer, you'll probably do better, though. :-) Anyway, you'll gain *maybe* a factor of two by going as far as is practical into the ultraviolet. Carrick Talmadge clt@newton.physics.purdue.edu ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 88 17:15:12 GMT From: codas!mtune!whuts!homxb!hropus!jgy@bikini.cis.ufl.edu (John Young) Subject: Re: satellites Are you safe from satellite scanning if you carry an umbrella, or could they scan from a *wide* range of angles (>100 degrees) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 88 18:14:30 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (John Pantone) Subject: Re: satellites > > I'm not saying that people CAN be spotted by satellite, only that > > it's not as easy to dismiss as one might think. > > O.K. - I've finally reached saturation. As a certifiable old-fart who > was around during the Cuban missle crisis (1962) I can guarantee that > an object as small as an automobile and/or truck was plainly visible > by sattelite in '62. I'm quite confident that you could have made out > the make of the car or truck - even in the crummy newspaper photos > they were showing at the time. I must also be a certifiable old idiot - apparently those photos were from a U-2 not a satellite. Sorry to increase the background noise. John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, 9805 Scranton Rd., San Diego, CA 92121 ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.GE.COM GEnie: J.PANTONE ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #114 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Jan 88 06:19:12 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09171; Sun, 24 Jan 88 03:17:08 PST id AA09171; Sun, 24 Jan 88 03:17:08 PST Date: Sun, 24 Jan 88 03:17:08 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801241117.AA09171@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #115 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 115 Today's Topics: Re: satellites Re: satellites remote sensing and resolution Re: satellites Re: satellites Re: Beating the diffraction limit (was Re: satellites) Re: satellites Re: satellites Re: satellites Re: satellites Re: Beating the diffraction limit (was Re: satellites) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Jan 88 04:09:40 GMT From: eecae!crlt!russ@super.upenn.edu (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: satellites In article <5860003@hplsla.HP.COM>, deanp@hplsla.HP.COM (Dean Payne) writes: >>From: lwall@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) >>You don't need a huge round mirror to get the aperature you want--just >>build a frame that will stay rigid in microgravity and hang several >>smaller mirrors on it with a common focus. > >Without signal processing, which is still very difficult at 500 >TeraHertz, the required surface accuracy for the interferometer is the >same as for the huge round mirror. Gravity is not the only structural >problem. You don't have to do that, necessarily. Speckle interferometry has been used to get resolution much greater than the limit imposed by atmospheric distortion out of large mirrors; I have read that the surface of Betelgeuse was imaged well enough to measure the Doppler difference in the spectral lines between the advancing and retreating edges (and presumably not by measuring line widths)! The way this is done (as I understand it) is to subdivide the mirror into pieces which are smaller than the atmospheric turbulence cells, so that the image from each piece is sharp (but has bad diffraction due to the small size). "Snapshots" of the images are taken at rapid intervals (compared to the time over which turbulence changes). The images are then summed by computer to remove the diffraction "fuzz" and yield an image which has neither turbulence blur nor fuzz. This technique would work just as well looking down as looking up, so long as your viewpath through the turbulent part didn't change too quickly and you had enough processing power *somewhere* to add up the pieces. Russ Cage rsi@m-net ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 88 09:37:00 GMT From: necntc!frog!die@husc6.harvard.edu (Dave Emery) Subject: Re: satellites Not that it has much to do with resolution from orbit, but on the original topic that started the discussion - NSA picking up pictures of Waite from a satellite "over Lebanon" - This could very well have been accomplished by satellite interception of the video signal from one of the low altitude drones that the Israelis regularly fly over the area. These aircraft probably use microwave wide-bandwidth encrypted digital video links to send back real time imagery - no doubt one of NSA's Aquacade class synchronous spy satellites would do quite nicely at picking up the signal. And for at least the smaller drones, omnidirectional transmit antennas which radiate significant signal at the sky are more or less neccessary because mechanically or electronically steered high gain antennas are impractical from a weight, cost, size, and angular coverage standpoint. (since the drones circle and manuever to get the right camera angle and linger over the target the rf link has to work at almost any azimuth and over quite a range of elevations and vehicle attitudes). ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 88 17:37:05 GMT From: rochester!daemon@rutgers.edu Subject: remote sensing and resolution Often the resolution obtainable by SAR imaging systems is better than that obtainable by comparable-level (eg. built around the same time) optical technology. Incidentally, clouds are irrelevant to SAR imaging systems. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 88 10:50:40 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!truett@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: satellites In order to beat the apparent diffraction limit, you don't even need a rigid frame for the multiple mirror setup. The method is called active optics and it works like this: First you drop a small corner reflector somewhere in the Lebanese highlands. Then you put an array of mirrors and CCD detectors into orbit together with a small laser. Now, use the reflected signal of the laser from the corner reflector to get the optical sensors all phase to withing a fraction of a wavelength of light (or infrared, that's even easier). The resulting system has an effective appature much bigger than a sigle mirror. I suspect that arrays with an apparent aperture of 20-30 meters can be orbited easily. Another note. Each of the optical sensors is using folded optics with a very long focal length (probably up to ten meters) and for pictures in daylight, a very high f/stop would be used resulting in extreme depth of field. There is also nothing that says the observation had to be in visible light. I believe that synthetic aperture radar achieves a resolution of half the antenna diameter. It should not be too difficult to put a microwave radar on a satellite that can achieve a three-dimensional image to a resolution of a few inches. Such a system can even provide sequential images giving you a movie of the action below. Now, use the reflected laser light to put an array of synthetic aperture radars in phase (thus overcoming the higher diffraction limit of microwaves) and the results can be very interesting. Truett Lee Smith, Sunnyvale, CA UUCP: truett@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 88 01:52:35 GMT From: oliveb!epimass!epiwrl!parker@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Alan Parker) Subject: Re: satellites In article <2619@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: >As a certifiable old-fart who was >around during the Cuban missle crisis (1962) I can guarantee that an object >as small as an automobile and/or truck was plainly visible by sattelite in >'62. I think you are confusing sattelite imaging with U-2 pictures here. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 88 01:13:50 GMT From: tektronix!orca!brucec@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Cohen) Subject: Re: Beating the diffraction limit (was Re: satellites) In article <22572@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >The diffraction component of the point spread function for a given >wavelength and aperture is known; it should be possible to beat the >diffraction limit by deconvolving this function with the image. I've >seen this done for out-of-focus images, and the results are remarkable. Similar computations can also be done to remove motion-blurring. If the distortion characteristics of the intervening medium are known (or can be approximated to some reasonable degree), they can be also be removed. This makes it easy to look through wavey glass, but leaves something to be desired when looking through the atmosphere, because of the imperfect knowledge about the medium. Still some enhancement is possible. >The real problem, it seems to me, is noise introduced by the atmosphere >(and other factors, I suppose...). Since you can't remove the noise >analytically, information is truly lost. It is not clear (to me) how >this effect varies with aperture; amateur astronomers often prefer a >small aperture/high f-ratio instument to larger (and theoretically >better resolution) "light bucket" type 'scopes for planetary >observations where light grasp isn't the limiting factor. Are larger >apertures really more sensitive to "seeing", or is this an artifact of >the difference in focal ratios/optical quality? Would this effect be >irrelevant for a telescope above the atmosphere, where one doesn't have >to worry about air boiling around inside the tube? Yes, larger apertures are more sensitive. As I recall (I may very well be wrong, this information comes from many years back in my memory), there is a critical size of roughly 10 cm., established by the size of the average convection cell in the air. Distortion is least when all of your image goes through a single cell (on average). There are some things which can be done to remove atmospheric distortion even though it varies with time in an unpredictable fashion. First, recognize that there are several sources of distortion: 1) Unpredictable translations of the image caused by changes in the refractive index of the air you look through as a function of time. This is mostly of concern when taking moving pictures, or trying to compare one picture to another (although taking pictures of the janitor next to the general you want to know about can be embarrassing). Where this is a problem in single images is when the motion takes place in a time of the same order as the exposure length (or the integration time of the CCD). This can be handled as motion-deblurring. 2) Arbitrary affine geometric distortions caused by what you might call the "funhouse mirror" effect: Changes in the path of the light rays over the field of the image. Since this affects only the large-scale geometry of the image, it can removed by applying an inverse transform, which can be determined interactively if need be (twiddle the knobs 'til it looks right). This gets harder if the distortion changes on the same time-scale as the exposure time. I haven't read of any research on this problem (guess who's most interested in it), but I would guess that applying motion-deblurring with different parameters in each of several regions of the image would be useful. This might also help when the image is viewed through several convection cells, since the distortion transformations will change abruptly at the edges of a cell. 3) Haze. This is equivalent to a loss of image contrast. Since most of the human image recognition capability is based on boundaries (high-spatial-frequency components of an image), edge-enhancement helps here. This is a useful preprocessing step for the first two effects. Theoretically, taking a number of images of the same area and correcting for angular changes due to the flight path of the observer could allow some averaging out of distortion. I suspect this technique isn't all that useful, since the improvement should go as the square root of the number of images used in the average, and you just don't have that long a time during which a low-orbit bird is over any one place. By the bye, the newspaper article I read stated that these incredible feats of imaging could be done through cloud cover, which I very much doubt. Even infrared doesn't see perfectly through clouds, and since IR wavelengths are longer than light, the diffraction limit on angular resolution is larger for a given aperture optic. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The galaxy-spanning luminous arcs reported by M. Mitchell Waldrop in Research News on 6 February have a very simple explanation. They are part of the scaffolding that was not removed when the contractor went bankrupt owing to cost overruns." "Arthur C. Clarke, Sri Lanka" My opinions are my own; no-one else seems to want them. Bruce Cohen UUCP: {the real world}...!tektronix!ruby!brucec ARPA/CS-NET: brucec@ruby.TEK.COM overland: Tektronix Inc., M/S 61-028, P.O. Box 1000, Wilsonville, OR 97070 ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 88 20:11:36 GMT From: bill@astro.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys) Subject: Re: satellites In article <2619@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: ~O.K. - I've finally reached saturation. As a certifiable old-fart who ~was around during the Cuban missle crisis (1962) I can guarantee that ~an object as small as an automobile and/or truck was plainly visible by ~sattelite in '62. I'm quite confident that you could have made out the ~make of the car or truck - even in the crummy newspaper photos they ~were showing at the time. Actually, the photographs made public by the Kennedy administration during the Cuban missle crisis were taken by high-flying U-2 aircraft, not by satellites. They carried cameras of much smaller aperture (and correspondingly lower resolution) than the present generation of spy satellites does. Bill Jefferys ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 88 14:22:54 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: satellites Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.crypt Cc: Cuban photos: >I think you are confusing sattelite imaging with U-2 pictures here. ^^^^^^ oops! Not all the photos (these were photos) taken over Cuban were U-2, the low-obliques were taken by F-8 Crusader pilots who had some SAM risk. These pilots don't deserve to be placed in obscurity. There's too much misunderstanding about microwave to try and correct certain misunderstandings (re: resolution better than optical), most of the postings are good and correct (Dale's, Bruce's, for instance), but I give up. A case of a few misinformed trying to educate the uninformed. People make microwave the super-sensor that it isn't. (See the wavelength term in the radar equation.) --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 88 02:43:31 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: satellites In article <8801192222.AA08418@ames-pioneer.arpa>, eugene@PIONEER.ARC.NASA.GOV (Eugene Miya N.) writes: > Cuban photos: >>I think you are confusing sattelite imaging with U-2 pictures here. > ^^^^^^ oops! > > Not all the photos (these were photos) taken over Cuban were U-2, > the low-obliques were taken by F-8 Crusader pilots who had some SAM risk. > These pilots don't deserve to be placed in obscurity. I think there were also some overflights made by Air Force drivers in RF-101s, too. (Wouldn't want to miss anybody...:}) ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 88 03:32:13 GMT From: daveb@eneevax.umd.edu (David Bengtson) Subject: Re: satellites In article <8801192222.AA08418@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@PIONEER.ARC.NASA.GOV (Eugene Miya N.) writes: >Cuban photos: >There's too much misunderstanding about microwave to try and correct >certain misunderstandings (re: resolution better than optical), most of >the postings are good and correct (Dale's, Bruce's, for instance), but >I give up. A case of a few misinformed trying to educate the >uninformed. People make microwave the super-sensor that it isn't. >(See the wavelength term in the radar equation.) > >--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA Sorry to increase the net.traffic, but I'd like to stand up in defense of microwaves ( they're paying my way through grad school ). The Radar equation does indeed have wavelength dependence, but there are some things that the radar range eqn. doesn't take into effect. Mechanical tolerancing being one of the more important. Reflector surfaces in general need to be correct to within fractions of a wavelength, something that is easier to do at millimeter wavelengths than at optical wavelengths. Microwave sources are, in general, more efficient than lasers, 50% and up as opposed to quantum efficiencies of ~1 to 10 percent in lasers. Important thing to consider when heat dissipation and mass are major considerations. I do want to agree, with you, though, that optical radars ( think about what RADAR stands for! ) are useful and remote sensing needs all wavelengths available for good judgement. David Bengtson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 88 13:22:21 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: Beating the diffraction limit (was Re: satellites) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.crypt Bruce, you made some excellent comments about this problem! However, I would like to add one comment about what you said about removing motion blurr. Rather than do it computationally or optically, it's just much simpler to move the recording instrument or media. (If I had a quarter for every roll of film I've hunched over, I'd be rich.) --eugene ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #115 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Jan 88 14:03:56 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00452; Tue, 26 Jan 88 10:50:13 PST id AA00452; Tue, 26 Jan 88 10:50:13 PST Date: Tue, 26 Jan 88 10:50:13 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8801261850.AA00452@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #116 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 116 Today's Topics: Re: HI RES Re: HI RES Re: UK Govermnent funding of computer Systems research. Origin of Moon, Effect on Life space flight coordinates In Orbit of 9th Jan 1988 Re: Proton/anti-proton annhilation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jan 1988 10:58:35 EST From: Kevin.Ryan@a.cfr.cmu.edu Subject: Re: HI RES >Date: 15 Jan 1988 16:05-EST >From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu >Subject: Re: HI RES, Jim Lewis > >I'd entirely forgotten about some of the deconvolution work you >mentioned. I've seen the before and after processing of pictures fogged >by intentionally out of focus optics and by motion of a car past a >speed sign. The image is translated into the complex frequency domain, >fiddled with at great computational expense and then (VOILA) translated >back to an amplitude domain. The results are remarkable, but I seem to >remember cautions about the limited applicability. I also did not >intuit the connection to the aperture, etc. It's been 3-4 years since I >read it, so does anyone know what the state of this art is? Several notes about this: The out of focus problem is not really the point. The ground image for a spy sat is in focus already, or the people who launched it are not doing their job :-). Sharpening poor images is generally a matter of emphasising high vs low spacial frequencies using either spacial or frequency domain techniques. This emphasises edges over large expanses - and since the eye detects edges well you see more detail. I suspect that this is what has been seen by many of the people who mentioned this. Unfortunately this also emphasises noise, which tends to be high frequency. Even more unfortunately, this does not deal with diffraction limits. You can only emphasize what is there in some form already. (more on this later) Actual out of focus information is a considerably different problem. As you go out of focus on an object, you _lose_ certain of the spacial frequencies. The transfer function for the defocussed imaging system has zeros in some places - those frequencies simply don't appear, information is lost. If you have an object that extends out of the focal depth of the imaging system (not terribly likely from orbit) you can use multiple planes to try to reconstruct the object from the point spread function (which describes how a point behaves when going out focus). But this is quite a different problem than trying to get one GOOD image in focus. I don't think that it's applicable to the spysats. You would get the best information from one clean image in focus. As to the movement blur - the limits mentioned by Dale are real. You really must have the motion well defined. If not you're better off getting a beer and trying to blur yourself. However, I believe that this can be done for most spysat images, and therefore I'm willing to bet that it's _being_ done. This would really only be needed when one had to take long exposures. The diffraction limit problem is best stated as this - an imaging system with a set aperture can only resolve up to a certain spacial frequency in the focal plane. The information describing objects that are smaller than that does not get collected. It is simply impossible to separate objects that are closer together than the diffraction limit, as they appear to be contiguous. You do not have the information about the spacial frequency that describes the gap. Since you do not have the information, it is not possible to enhance past the diffraction limit using either spacial or frequency (Fourier) techniques. SAR 'constructs' a large aperture that allows high resolution in the direction of movement, but I do believe that it's a coherent technique, and thus not applicable to visible or infrared imaging. Sorry I'm so talkative, but this stuff is something of an interest of mine. Hope this helps 'resolve' the problem... Kevin Ryan arpanet kevin@a.cfr.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 1988 18:06:25 EST From: Kevin.Ryan@a.cfr.cmu.edu Subject: Re: HI RES Mea culpa. I just sent out a long post on diffraction limitations of spysat photos, and I may have not been entirely correct :-< I stated that diffraction limitations cut off information about high spacial frequencies. This is not precisely true. Diffraction prevents the collection of information _at_ high frequencies, but there is information _about_ those frequencies. If the Fourier transform is examined, it is an analytic function. By appropriately analyzing the section of the FT that you _do_ have, an estimation can be made of the continuation of the function beyond the diffraction limit. Upon reconstruction and Fourier inversion, you have a higher resolution image. In the absence of noise, and with a continuous detector, you have infinite resolution. Several things to note. Noise is, as always, a limitation on all reconstruction techniques, and this is no exception. Secondly, it requires at least partially coherent light. Sunlight, oddly enough, is partially coherent. I do not know if the noise level in spysats is low enough (this may be improved), or if the solar coherence is high enough (rather difficult to improve), but it may be doable. Finally, I suspect that the sampling rate of your imager (film particles, CCD wells) will limit the accuracy if your original FT function section. So, my apologies both for stating something too strongly in the first place and for confusing both you and me with my correction. Hope this 'clears' thing up a little. Kevin Ryan "You canna change the the laws of physics, Cap'n!" At least, not without a _real_ good lawyer... | arpanet kevin@a.cfr.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 88 08:20:48 GMT From: livesey@sun.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: Re: UK Govermnent funding of computer Systems research. In article <880@its63b.ed.ac.uk>, bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) writes: > Please go back and re-read what I wrote. The point I was making was > about special funding for research. And I wasn't contradicting that point. I pointed out that the historical claims you made were sweeping and against the evidence. > There is a vast difference between the special funding of research of > the type proposed by ESA and the UK space industry, and the low levels > of routine research funding paid forby the Goverment through SERC and > other bodies. As one would expect. Britain is a relatively poor country, among Europeans. However, again, what I objected to was not a reasonable complaint about funding levels, but an over-generalization, as follows: > > "The one thing you could rely on from ALL British > > gover[n]ments for the last couple of hundred years is > > that they will oppose anything that smells even faintly > > of change. > > > > "You can also rely on them to be consi[s]ta[e]ntly > > wrong. > > > > And: > > > > "Much more recently, a gover[n]ment report in 1972/3 > > said that there would be no real changes in computers, > > so it wasn't worth doing research." > > It does of course help your point if you quote me out of context. I am > unable to find any examples of MAJOR research projects which were not > rejected at least once. That they eventually funded research in this > country after realising that we were being left behind by other > countries, is irrelevant. At least the state of logic research must be shaky. When someone purports to describe the behaviour of ALL UK governments w.r.t. any innovation, as you did, it's pretty hard to quote them out of context. As to specific projects, one we have already talked about: "Britain has its own plans for a hypersonic plane called Hotol. BAe and R.R. have now finished the "proof of concept" of Hotol, and so far wind tunnel tests on the Hotol models have gone well. ..................During the past three years, The British Government, Bae and R.R. have spent L3m on the early design of Hotol. When the government's contribution of L1.5m ran out, industry found the extra money to complete the tests. [more omitted - the article goes on to descrebe tests at the University of Canberra high speed wind tunnel and talks about other possible research spinoffs (ceramics, carbon-carbon, and engine design)]" New Scientist Dec 3 1987 It sounds to me as though the UK government did contribute some of the initial funding (about $3m?), and it does not sound as though Hotol has been cancelled. Has it been? I heard a BBC World Service interview with the principal designer last week, so I am assuming not. Is that right or wrong? Of course, you can claim that HMG is not funding BAe/RR enough, but over in talk.politics, the people who worry about trade deficits will tell you they should not be funding them at all. Damned if you do; damned if you don't. > I will admit to confusing two Goverment papers here. I originaly > should have referred to a paper in 1980 by the "Electronic computers > sector working party" and published by the institute of manpower > studies, called "Computer manpower in the '80s". Is this Institute a government body, and was it they who recommended not investing in computer research or was it really the government which did so? Is this the quote saying computer research ought not to be pursued? > [Alvey project] > > I have been working on this for the last few years, so I should know > something about it. Has Alvey been cancelled? Has HMG decided not to fund it? > The 1972 paper is from the Goverment select committee on science and > technology. It is called "Prospects for the UK computer industry in > the '70s". > > [extensive quotes] > > I will leave it up to you to decide if the Goverment (through it's > committee report) got it right. I don't see a single quote there to support your contention. I see a mixture of quotes criticising government policy, and what is, I think, some criticism of people who wanted their own machines. Where is the quote which tells us they (HMG) think it's not worth investing in computer research? By the way, is this a government policy statement or a parliamentary report? I thought Select Committees were Commons bodies. Could you clarify that? Again, I am not claiming UK funding levels are correct (I said in my last posting that they are obviously tight with their money) but I still see no evidence to support the sweeping claims you made. Jon. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 88 07:21:24 GMT From: hanauma.stanford.edu!joe@labrea.stanford.edu (Joe Dellinger,ESMB 471,7230463,4153244824) Subject: Origin of Moon, Effect on Life Best theory of the origin of the moon is that after the proto-Earth was formed there were still Mars-sized planetisimals wandering around... probably both Earth and Venus got thwacked by one (or more) of these. In Venus' case it didn't make a moon but it screwed up it's rotation. In the Earth's case it kicked enough stuff up into orbit to make the moon. The collision probably melted the Earth if it weren't still molten anyway... Speculation: Whether a moon recedes or approaches with time depends on whether a month is more or less than a day. It is quite possible the inner planets all had moons early on that death-spiraled in and were lost, because they were too close. Any comments? > For about three billion years life did nothing except pile up algal mats > - dull, dull, dull. Then all of sudden cells got nucleii and mitochondria > and chromosomes, and things happened, and here we are. Figuring out how to make a true multicelled creature that can do sex is the HARD PART... after you've got THAT, the trifles like a backbone, central nervous system, etc, are EASY. Consider that both vertebrates and cephalopods (octopus) have evolved the eye (apparently) completely independently. Insects, birds, and mammals have all independently discovered flight... once you've evolved something that's good at evolving, it's EASY! (Well... at least on a geological time scale...) Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 88 20:53:02 GMT From: necntc!linus!philabs!sbcs!bnl!allard@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Rick Allard) Subject: space flight coordinates What is the coordinate system used for space flight? thanks, Rick ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 88 17:07:41 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: In Orbit of 9th Jan 1988 There were a couple of interesting items in last weekend's "IN ORBIT" pages on the channel Channel 4 teletext service. They are reproduced below for other readers of this newsgroup. The author of the articles is Dr David Whitehouse. I'm just posting them. Bob. ------------------------------------------------------- [Report on shuttle booster rocket test failure deleted] RIP-OFF OF THE WEEK AWARD :- goes to US estate agent Rick walter. He's offering to sell five acre plots on the moon for just 14 pounds through his lunar land company. Selling land on other planets has been tried before and, just like the service that offers to name a star after you, has no legal status. The United Nations has said that space, including the moon and planets, belongs to no-one, and no-one can claim it. -------------------------------------------------------------- QUOTES AFTER 326 DAYS IN SPACE Yuri Romanenko, record breaking cosmanaut, said: "we know and feel, we are sure we will not stop at this 300 day flight. The next comrades will take it further and, of course, much is being said about Mars." "for us, Mars is getting nearer and nearer." "We are pleased we have completed this - it will, without doubt, help all our comrades who fly further, higher, and more interestingly." Ex cosmanaut and the new chief of the Yuri Gagarin cosmanaut training centre, Vladimir Shatalov, said that apart from earth observation, there was a lack of consistency about the space effort. On crews in space he said: "Relaxation on board is the achiles heel. It is necessary to have good collections of books, videos, tapes, and regular televisual contacts with families." "Sometimes you also need to be alone in the cabin. As space stations are improved so oppertunities for relaxation are increased." Oleg Gazenko, Director of the biomedical problems institute of the USSR ministry of health, said: "I believe that man could easily work for 18 months or two years in orbit. "There is no doubt that man could make the solar system habitable and perpetuate his race" ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 88 23:37:27 GMT From: thorin!hayes!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Proton/anti-proton annhilation In article <3814@husc6.harvard.edu> greg@endor.UUCP (Greg) writes: >In article <1176@crlt.UUCP> russ@crlt.UUCP (Russ Cage) writes: >>Proton/antiproton annihilation results in three pi mesons, a pi, an >>anti-pi, and a pi-nought. > >Really? I would have thought that photon production was the most >probable outcome. > >But then again, what do I know. The antimatter propulsion system devised by Robert Forward under an Air Force contract relies on the fact that proton/antiproton annihilation does not *immediately* produce a burst of gammas; he proposes a magnetic thrust chamber to channel the charged mesons in the right direction during their brief lifetime. The project report is fascinating reading and, being unclassified, is available from the NTIS. Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #116 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 2 Feb 88 06:28:00 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01300; Tue, 2 Feb 88 03:23:49 PST id AA01300; Tue, 2 Feb 88 03:23:49 PST Date: Tue, 2 Feb 88 03:23:49 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802021123.AA01300@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #117 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 117 Today's Topics: International Space Devel. Conference (1988) Creating National Space Policy House Subcommittee hearings: Feb. 5 in Iowa Aerospace Engineering Conference & Show space news from Dec 14 AW&ST Re: Still more fascism... (fusion propulsion) Curved space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Jan 88 18:57:19 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!cyrill@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Cyro Lord) Subject: International Space Devel. Conference (1988) 1988 INTERNATIONAL SPACE DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE Memorial Day weekend, May 27-30, 1988 Denver, Colorado USA Travel Agency: 800-451-8097, Mon-Fri 9-5, Sat 1-4 (Pacific) Conference Committee: 303-692-6788 or 303-388-2368 Stouffer Hotel Reservations: 800-468-3571; please specify 1988 ISDC! 1988 ISDC, P.O. Box 300572, Denver, CO 80218 OUR DREAM ... "To create a spacefaring civilization beyond Earth." In the TECHNICAL track, you can listen to presentations about leading-edge aerospace topics. The SOCIOECONOMIC track considers cultural relations, business development, and other "human" aspects of a spacefaring civilization: "Space is for people, not just governments and machines!" ... OUR CHILDREN'S REALITY We can make it happen. From individual initiatives by a single person, through building chapters to inform the public, political candidates, and government officials, the GRASSROOTS track shows how we can make a difference. People need to know that space development is both possible and necessary. Educators can hasten that realization by incorporating aerospace themes into their classes -- not only math and science classes, but the entire curricula. They'll learn how to do this in the educators' course, which has been accredited by the University of Colorado for one graduate or undergraduate credit. A special educators' package, including registration, tuition, two lunches and two banquets makes it easier for them to attend the conference. Call For Papers: abstracts received after February 15th might not be considered! Guest Speakers include: Steve Wolfe Art Dula Andrew Stofan Eric Drexler Dr. Ben Clark Dorothy Diehl Georgia Franklin Dr. David Webb Robin Kline (Teacher in Space) Please print off the registration form below: _____________________________________________________________________ REGISTRATION thru May 1, 1988 NAME (please print) _____________________________ 1988 1989 BOTH! Member of NSS or AFFILIATION (for name tag) ______________________ co-sponsor: $60 $45 $90 If not member: ADDRESS _________________________________________ $90 $75 $120 Circle $xx. College _________________________________________ students check here __ ifor half-price. ________________ EDUCATORS' PACKAGE, day or | | academic credit: PHONE (_________________ evening | for official | check here __ to register | use only | for $125. |______________| PAYMENT Check VISA MC AmEx Date ___________ Exp. Card SIGNATURE Date_________ #__________________ ___________________________ $ ENCLOSED ___________ PLEASE MAIL TO: 1988 ISDC, P.O. BOX 300572, DENVER, CO 80218 -- Cyro Lord Alpha Comm. Dev. Corp. 2570 Sky Ranch Rd. Aurora, CO. 80011 UUCP/DOMAIN {boulder,hao,isis}!scicom!cyrill / cyrill@scicom.alphacdc.com "Endeaver to Persevere" ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 88 01:42:07 GMT From: hamilton@caf.mit.edu (David P. Hamilton) Subject: Creating National Space Policy Here's a chance for you to influence space policy for the next four to eight years, so sharpen your pencils: A friend and I are working for one of the Democratic presidential candidates and are likely to be talking with his issues coordinator in the near future (like next weekend) on the subject of space policy. In order to build a solid case for a pro-space agenda, we'd like to solicit your ideas on concrete justifications for national space programs. In addition, we'd appreciate any suggestions for specific goals and programs that can be justified in an era of budget cutting and potential austerity. Remember, this is a Democrat we're talking about, so it would help to provide reasons that will stand up to people asking questions like "why don't we spend the money here on Earth, instead?" Specific ideas to consider might include: How do you feel about the Space Station (perhaps as opposed to the Industrial Space Facility or use of external shuttle tanks)? What about space shuttle follow-ons, such as the NASP, BDB's, etc? Possible benefits from lunar missions, near-Earth asteroid missions, or a manned mission to Mars? What role should NASA play in U.S. space policy? How can it complement, rather than hinder, commercial development of space? What other steps might the government (reasonably) take to encourage commercial space ventures? Finally, if anyone can provide pointers to official studies on space policy, such as the Ride and the National Space Commission reports, we'd also appreciate them. Thanks for your time. David P. Hamilton hamilton@caf.mit.edu ...!mit-eddie!mit-amt!mit-caf!hamilton ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 88 18:26 CST From: Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey Subject: House Subcommittee hearings: Feb. 5 in Iowa Original_To: SPACE SPACE SCIENCE FIELD HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR IOWA, NEW HAMPSHIRE The House Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications will be holding special hearings on Monday, February 1 in New Hampshire and Friday, February 5, 1988 in Iowa. The Subcommittee, chaired by Bill Nelson [D-Florida], will hold its Iowa hearings in Iowa City, Iowa, in the Main Ballroom of the Iowa Memorial Union on the University of Iowa campus. (This is the district of David R. Nagle (D-Iowa).) At this time the field hearing is scheduled to have a morning session from 9:30 to 11:30 AM and an afternoon session from 12:30 to 3:30 PM. There will be four parts to the hearings, panels dealing with space science, education, history, and finally the space policy views of the Democratic presidential candidates. As of January 14th, however, none of the candidates have confirmed their appearance. Hearings might be broadcast by National Public Radio stations. These are the Iowa hearings that were originally scheduled for mid-December, then postponed. If I get information about the New Hampshire hearings (which presumably include an invitation to Republican candidates), I'll post it in appropriate places. Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET SPAN/HEPnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Feb 88 07:41:19 EST From: Al Lester Subject: Aerospace Engineering Conference & Show To: Ted Anderson The Aerospace Engineering Show is going to be held at the Los Angeles Airport Hilton Hotel and Towers on February 9, 10 and 11. COSMIC, the NASA Computer Software Management and Information Center, will be in booth 919. I invite you to stop by and find out about new software available form NASA. If you should need a free pass, please contact me by Thursday morning, Feb. 4th. (The Aerospace Engineering Conference & Show is organized and operated by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.) Thanks! Al Lester 404-542-3265 ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 88 03:38:37 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Dec 14 AW&ST Reagan-Gorbachev summit vaguely endorses international cooperation in space. Gorbachev calls for joint manned Mars mission; no US response. An attempt will be made to free the jammed solar array on TVSat 1 by shaking the satellite with apogee-motor firings. It is in Clarke orbit near its planned position, and the firings will contribute to moving it there. This will minimize the waste of fuel, which otherwise could shorten the satellite's useful life. The big question is how many of the hold-down hooks failed to release; engineers are studying whether a small thruster firing could make the solar array resonate at a distinctive frequency that could be observed via the attitude gyros, and whether the slight power loss caused by the shadows the hooks cast on the outermost panel of the array could be distinctive at suitable sun angles. Neither test will be tried until possible results are thoroughly understood. If the array cannot be freed, then it will be necessary to reduce the number of broadcast channels as the solar arrays age, which will cause a political battle in Germany over who gets the remaining ones. Another problem is that the satellite's main receiving antenna cannot deploy fully unless the array is released, and nobody has yet sorted out just where it is pointing as a result; no great amount of time will be spent on this until the array issue is resolved. Polar-platform meeting in Tokyo decides against French proposal to reduce the size of the ESA polar platform. Original plan was a US platform in 1995, ESA's in 1997, another US one in 1997, and a Japanese one in 1998. France proposed replacing the European platform with a Spot-sized satellite, out of concern for the impact of reduced British contributions; Britain was a major supporter of the European platform until its recent turnabout. Nobody else liked the idea and the French backed down, but there may still be trouble later. NASA seeks ways to block expected Station budget cuts. Senator Garn says there simply is no serious public support for it, in a time of tight money. Garn slams Reagan for showing "no leadership in space whatsoever". Stofan, NASA station admin, says Station may suffer from same up-and-down budget that plagued the Shuttle. He says this is "devastating and wasteful" and may double the cost of the program. [Lordy, considering what it already costs...] Stofan says he will recommend scrapping the station if the budget is too low, but refuses to say just how low that is. Martin Marietta receives USAF contract for 13 more Titan 4s. Canada and US reach agreement on Canadian space-station participation! Amroc begins to recall work force after major new investor found. Article on Galileo's latest trajectory, arrival at Jupiter 7 Dec 1995 from launch Oct 1989, with flybys of two asteroids (Gaspra and another, name not mentioned) plus Venus and Earth. Plans underway for Venus and Earth observations, including first infrared mapping of lunar farside. The launch window is about 45 days long; failing that, July 1991 is possible although the asteroid flybys would have to be shelved. Galileo is at JPL with instruments starting to return from sponsoring labs. Full assembly will be followed by thermal testing in summer, after which some instruments will again go back home for final calibration before final assembly in mid-1989. Modifications for the new schedule and trajectory include more sunshades [Galileo originally not having been intended to get as close to the Sun as Venus], a Sun sensor to ensure that Galileo can stay in its "shaded" position without help from Earth, an aft-facing low-gain antenna for inner-solar-system operation, a higher-performance telemetry encoder, and isotope heaters replacing some electrical heaters on cold-sensitive subsystems. The last two changes are aimed at preserving full operation despite the loss in power caused by the delays [Galileo's isotope generators cannot be refuelled at any reasonable price -- the plant that made them has shut down -- and they will be about 12% of the way down their decay curve due to the long delays in the mission]. Also underway is a study of the shelf life and aging of systems and components, and various minor upgrades in equipment that have become possible since it was built. Soviet Union expected to unveil a plan for a space-based global aviation navigation and tracking system at a spring meeting of ICAO's future- navigation-systems group. Soviets continue unwilling to discuss status of their Navstar lookalike, but make positive noises about sharing it with others. [Part 2 of the saving-the-space-station editorial is postponed to next time. Instead we will observe three minutes of silence. Today is the anniversary of Apollo 1. Tomorrow is the anniversary of Challenger. Last month, slightly under two years after Challenger, the schedule for the first post-Challenger shuttle launch slipped again, for at least the fourth time. The most optimistic date is eight months from now. Slightly under two years after Apollo 1, the first manned Saturn V took humans into deep space for the first time, as Apollo 8 rounded the Moon... eight months before Apollo 11. The three minutes of silence are for Grissom, White, and Chaffee, for Scobee, Smith, McNair, Onizuka, Resnik, Jarvis, and McAuliffe... and for the US space program that once was.] Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 88 05:08:22 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Still more fascism... (fusion propulsion) > ...For example, D-T (deuterium-tritium) fusion is easiest to "light" > but emits neutrons, so the spacecraft must be shielded... An addendum: when you get into really high-power systems, D-T simply becomes infeasible, because the neutrons' energy turns into heat in the shield, and the shield-cooling problem becomes insuperable. > ... D-D fusion is clean (no neutrons) ... Alas, wrong; the main reaction path of D-D fusion is clean but one of the significant alternate paths does generate neutrons. This is why the BIS Daedalus design went to D-He3 for a super-high-power design that simply could not tolerate major neutron emission. (There would be some residual emission due to the D in D-He3 reacting with itself, but it would be manageable.) > ... We're a long way from building fusion-powered spacecraft (except > Orion-style, and that's a whole 'nother story....). Another addendum is that it's not clear that *laser* inertial fusion will ever power spacecraft, because lasers are fairly inefficient for quite fundamental reasons. Daedalus picked electron-beam inertial fusion to avoid the power loss (and consequent cooling problems) of lasers. Sigh, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, however: using charged-particle beams in the presence of a magnetic nozzle is lots of fun... Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 88 17:49:41 GMT From: heurikon!lampman%heurikon.UUCP@speedy.wisc.edu (Ray Lampman) Subject: Curved space If the curvature of space were disturbed, then allowed to revert to normal, would it be possible to detect this event some time later at the site of the disturbance? (An analogy may make the question more clear: If a guitar string is plucked, then allowed to stop vibrating, would it be possible to tell that it had been plucked?) If space were `plucked' :-), I would expect the curvature of space to oscillate and gravitational energy to be radiated as equilibrium were restored. But after normal curvature is restored, can the event be detected? In the case of extreme curvature (greater than 100G), I would expect evidence at the site even after normal curvature was restored. In less extreme events (on the order of 10G) a distortion of the physical surroundings should remain. But would any evidence remain after an event on the order of 1 or 2G? - Ray Lampman (lampman@heurikon.UUCP) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #117 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 3 Feb 88 06:36:08 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01306; Wed, 3 Feb 88 03:18:38 PST id AA01306; Wed, 3 Feb 88 03:18:38 PST Date: Wed, 3 Feb 88 03:18:38 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802031118.AA01306@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #118 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 118 Today's Topics: Do you really want to put it into print? Mir elements, 2 Feb 88 Re: Curved space Re: Saturn V as low cost booster Info request on Rocket Boosters Question to England Zaire Outcome for the Germans Zaire LOFT-1 Flight delayed yet again Re: Question to England Re: Still more fascism... (fusion propulsion) Re: Zaire Outcome for the Germans Re: Question to England ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Jan 88 13:59:00 CDT From: "Pat Reiff" Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Cc: eos@spacvax.rice.edu Subject: Do you really want to put it into print? Reply-To: "Pat Reiff" FORUM SOLICITATION I am one of the discipline editors of EOS, the Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, a weekly newspaper. The paper includes general-interest articles, news items, section reports, and "forums" - a place for "letters to the editor" about sundry topics, both of science and of political policy. For example, in forums near the end of the year, there were several items pro and con about the space station as presently envisioned. In any event, many of the contributors to Space Digest have made good points, and I am hereby inviting you to submit to me items for the forum page of EOS. My discipline is Solar-Planetary Relationships, covering everything from the surface of the sun to the upper atmosphere of the Earth, including the solar wind and its interactions with planets, (with or without magnetospheres), comets, and asteroids. (In addition, for you history buffs, we are also soliciting items for articles on the history of geophysics and space science - there is a separate history editor). You may submit things to me by email if you like; my addresses are as follows: SPAN: RICE::EOS arpanet: EOS%spacvax.rice.edu@rice.edu telemail: [preiff/edunet] Mail/USA bitnet: REIFF@RICE Please send, _in addition to_ (or instead of) the email version, a hard copy with signature to my postal address: Dr. Patricia H. Reiff Department of Space Physics and Astronomy Rice University Houston, TX 77251-1892 Naturally, although I encourage discussion, flames will be edited out or rejected entirely. The newspaper is distributed free to all members of the American Geophysical Union (~21,000 members). The AGU is _the_ principal society for space scientists (as opposed to Astronomers/Astrophysicists). To join is $20 for regular members, $7 for student members (you need not be a scientist to join - just interested in geophysics). The toll-free number for membership information is (800)424-2488; the address is 2000 Florida Avenue, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20007. from the first Space Science Dept in the World: Pat Reiff, Rice U. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Feb 88 21:41:16 PST From: ota@because.s1.gov Subject: Mir elements, 2 Feb 88 Cc: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Mir elements as of 2 February 1988: Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 43 Epoch: 88 27.87464829 Inclination: 51.6300 degrees RA of node: 76.1431 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0016762 Argument of perigee: 26.2501 degrees Mean anomaly: 333.9259 degrees Mean motion: 15.74904835 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00022385 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 11153 Source: NASA Goddard via TS Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 88 22:01:59 GMT From: heurikon!lampman@speedy.wisc.edu (Ray Lampman) Subject: Re: Curved space I received mail suggesting the environment involved in my original posting was not specified. I would like to correct that mistake. The question is not just "is the event theoretically detectable?", but what environment at the site would aid in later detection? Are there any natural recording devices? Some rocks record information about the magnetic field in which they were formed. Are there any objects which record information about the magnitude of changing gravitational fields. I will restate the question: If the curvature of space were disturbed (other factors remaining constant), then allowed to revert to normal, would it be possible to detect this event some time later at the site of the disturbance? If the site of a 100G disturbance was your back yard (normally rated at 1G), I would expect evidence at the site even after normal curvature was restored. Any object unable to withstand a 100G acceleration would be permanently distorted (this may include the ground itself). But would any evidence remain after an event on the order of 2G? How about a distortion which reverses the normal 1G curvature to -2G? Would trees be pulled out of the ground? Enquiring mind wants to know ... :-) - Ray Lampman (lampman@heurikon.UUCP) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 88 03:07:19 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Saturn V as low cost booster > ...The entire structure becomes much larger, requiring expensive > things like the Vehicle Assembly Building and creating logistical > nightmares if the larger pieces are not constructed near where they > will be used. Note that the much-more-sophisticated Shuttle still needs the VAB. It's simply impossible to avoid such facilities for big rockets. The VAB actually could have been smaller for the Saturn V, but it had to be designed before anyone knew for sure how big Apollo's boosters were going to be. > The Saturn V weighed 6.5 million pounds while the first stage > delivered 7.5 million lbs of thrust. The result was very low initial > acceleration. This made good TV pictures but produced poor > efficiency... The tradeoffs here are not that simple. Higher acceleration is more efficient, yes, but it also means bigger engines and heavier structures. The Saturn V's initial acceleration was not especially low by the standards of the time. > ... Also, reliability IS necessary for low cost unmanned vehicles -- > some of those satellites cost > 100M ! Some (me, for example) would argue that a major reason for the immense cost of the satellites is that they are designed for launch on expensive boosters, where every gram of weight costs several dollars and reliability must be extremely high because replacing a failed satellite is very costly. Satellites cost far more than equivalent commercial Earthbound equipment; there *are* other reasons for this, but the extreme cost of access to orbit figures in almost all of them in one way or another. Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 88 01:35:11 GMT From: pc.ecn.purdue.edu!ga.ecn.purdue.edu!edward@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Edward L Haletky) Subject: Info request on Rocket Boosters Hello Netlanders, I am a member of a Design Project here at Purdue University. We are looking for a booster configuration to launch a 1000 lb. vehicle to mah 20 and 220,000 ft. I am interested in fuel types and rocket types. The vehicle is also relatively small (15x10ft or so). Do any of you have any information that you would be willing to share upon the subject? Thanks in advance, Edward L. Haletky (struggling design student) Usenet: ~!pur-ee!edward Arpa: edward@ga.ecn.purdue.edu ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 1988 06:04-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Question to England Someone just told me something that I found rather difficult to believe, so I thought I'd ask for verification. Is it REALLY true that amateur rocketry is banned in England? That no one is allowed to even OWN, let alone launch Estes type rockets? and that in particular no one is allowed to build their own outside of a controlled research lab? I know UK is more controlled than here, but I found the above claim a bit hard to swallow. After all, rumor has it that it is still a free country over there... PS: anyone near Edinburgh? If someone happens to be in contact with Duncan Lunan, please contact me. ------------------------------ Return-Path: FHD%TAMCBA.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1988 10:09 CST From: H. Alan Montgomery Subject: Zaire Outcome for the Germans Michel Alistair asked what happen to the West German company which tried to get off the ground in Zaire. Zaire had a civil war, incursion from a neighboring country, or a local conflict depending on who you talked to. The upshot is that the company's people were in jepardy of getting shot. They beat hasty retreat. At the time I heard rumors that the Soviets had inspired the war to keep the Germans out of space. Whether this is true or just sour grapes I do not know. Just because you are paranoid does not mean you do NOT have enemies. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 88 16:57:53 GMT From: el0r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Eric Wesley Leuliette) Subject: Zaire >By the way, about ten years ago a german private company tried to build >a launch facility in Zaire. Does someone knows about how this story has >ended ? I believe the name of the private German company was OTRAG. 60 Minutes did a segment on them about five or seven years ago, if I remember correctly. Also, if my memory serves me right, they attempted to set up shop in Libya. (We let you launch satellites, and you build us missiles, I guess). Under external pressure (few in the rest of the world were pleased with the idea of a certain colonel with rockets), OTRAG left Libya. Eric W. Leuliette Tartan News Editor Carnegie Mellon University ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 88 13:34:25 GMT From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrlnk!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Mark Johnson) Subject: LOFT-1 Flight delayed yet again Most readers of sci.space may remember discussion of the LOFT-1 sounding test vehicle, which was to have flown from Cape Canaveral AFS in November. It has been delayed multiple times by the Air Force's insistence on a $10 million insurance policy...and by the USAF's refusal to schedule range time until it was available. With the latest delays the flight is now scheduled for early April (was mid-Oct, was mid-Nov, was mid-Feb.). Meanwhile, the Univ. of Alabama/Huntsville industrial engineers, North Coast Rocketry, and the high school group will be flying an alternative mission with a similar but slightly smaller bird. This flight will take place near Huntsville on/about April 9. The Army's Huntsville reservation will be utilized (presumably they allow such flights without the huge insurance requirement the Air Force has). Mark Johnson (mjohnson@ncrwic.UUCP) NCR Engineering & Manufacturing-Wichita, KS phone: (316)688-8189 email:...!rutgers!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson US snailnet: 3718 N. Rock Rd., Wichita, KS 67226 ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 88 22:26:45 GMT From: ut-emx!tmca@sally.utexas.edu (Tim Abbott) Subject: Re: Question to England In article <569415871.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: > Is it REALLY true that amateur rocketry is banned in England? Try visiting Goode Olde Englande on November 5th! Remember now boys and girls, don't play with fireworks, read the instructions and make sure there is always an adult supervising. T. (The Brit that got away) "Clean as a Q-Tip, Quiet as nylon. Don't look now, We've got eyes on; Sway, this way. P.S. Oh, yes: light the blue touch paper and stand well back. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 88 00:32:37 GMT From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: Still more fascism... (fusion propulsion) In article <1988Jan17.000824.5071@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >> ... D-D fusion is clean (no neutrons) ... > >Alas, wrong; the main reaction path of D-D fusion is clean but one of >the significant alternate paths does generate neutrons. This is why >the BIS Daedalus design went to D-He3 for a super-high-power design >that simply could not tolerate major neutron emission. 'Tis what I get for posting at odd hours. D-He3 was what I was thinking of for avoiding neutrons; D-D just saves you fuel costs. >Another addendum is that it's not clear that *laser* inertial fusion >will ever power spacecraft, because lasers are fairly inefficient for >quite fundamental reasons. Daedalus picked electron-beam inertial >fusion to avoid the power loss (and consequent cooling problems) of >lasers. Lasers aren't necessarily that bad, but I'd rather leave them on the ground and just send out the power.... Jordin Kare . ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 88 18:02:21 GMT From: pitstop!sundc!hqda-ai!cos!smith@sun.com (Steve Smith) Subject: Re: Zaire Outcome for the Germans In article <8801201630.AA04286@jade.berkeley.edu> FHD@TAMCBA.BITNET (H. Alan Montgomery) writes: |[Regarding OTRAG's troubles in Zaire] |At the time I heard rumors that the Soviets had inspired the war to |keep the Germans out of space. Whether this is true or just sour grapes |I do not know. German capatilists in space! The ultimate Russian paranoid fantasy! ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 88 13:52:50 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!hwcs!hwee!sutherla@uunet.uu.net (I. Sutherland) Subject: Re: Question to England In article <569415871.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >Is it REALLY true that amateur rocketry is banned in England? That no >one is allowed to even OWN, let alone launch Estes type rockets? and >that in particular no one is allowed to build their own outside of a >controlled research lab? > >PS: anyone near Edinburgh? If someone happens to be in contact with >Duncan Lunan, please contact me. I think your question is aimed at the United Kingdom, I am currently sitting in Edinburgh and I am certainly *not* in England, but please forgive the patriotism and I'll overlook your poor geography. In answer to your question though I have never, *ever*, heard of amateur rocketry in this country. I am also quite sure that the authorities would never allow it, they are very protective of their airspace (maybe 'cos there's not that much of it :-) ). In fact, I remember from about a year ago that a certain kind of kite was refused manufacture on the grounds that it flew too high, and our air force likes to fly very low over inhabited areas. Iain A. Sutherland Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh, SCOTLAND sutherla@uk.ac.hw.ee ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #118 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 4 Feb 88 06:20:51 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03094; Thu, 4 Feb 88 03:19:50 PST id AA03094; Thu, 4 Feb 88 03:19:50 PST Date: Thu, 4 Feb 88 03:19:50 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802041119.AA03094@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #119 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 119 Today's Topics: Re: Funding a laser launcher Re: Saturn V Re: Question to England Re: Amateur Rocketry in England Re: Question to England 'Rail Guns?' Re: Zaire Ownership of extraterrestial material Re: Ownership of extraterrestial material Re: NYT editorialo on space. NYT editorialo on space. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Jan 88 16:12:12 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: Funding a laser launcher in article <8801121543.AA06748@angband.s1.gov>, DAVID@PENNDRLS.BITNET says: > Crazy idea of the month: > If 10,000 people were willing to pay $100/month, that would be > $12 million a year. I hate to rain on your parade, but investing $100/month for 30 years should give you somewhere between $100,000 and $350,000. Depending on how conservative you are with your investments. So what you are actually asking me to pay is more like $250,000 for a ticket. Why not just sell stock in your company? Or, 30 year bonds, with pay off in either cash or in some fraction of a round trip ticket? Then, in thirty years I, or my heirs, can decide whether to take the cash or the trip, depending on desire and the current market value of the trip. I've met a lot of people who would like the sound of your offer. I know a lot of people who could afford to send you $100/month. But, I believe they are disjoint sets. :-) Bob Pendleton ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 88 15:36:33 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: Saturn V in article <1988Jan8.093251.11064@utzoo.uucp>, kcarroll@utzoo.uucp (Kieran A. Carroll) says: > The people behind the Jarvis booster (McD-D?) looked into using ^^^^^ Boeing and Hughes. Jarvis was a passenger on board the Challenger. > the Saturn V engines for their Big Dumb Booster; apparently they've > decided that it's not even worthwhile reverse-engineering just the > engines. Those engines are >>old<<, designed back around 1960; > according to Henry, von Braun and friends didn't even try to make them > particularly efficient, striving for reliability and simplicity at the > expense of performance. Everything I've read indicates that the efficiency of the first stage engines in a stack like the Saturn V is not as important as their cost. One of the basic concepts of the Big Dumb Booster (BDB) is that weight and engine efficiency are not that important for things like first stages that aren't lifted very far from the earth. The costs involved in using high tech to shave pounds or add a few more ISP to second and third stage engines can be justified because every pound of fuel, tank, and engine in those stages increase the cost of the lower stages. What are the differences in design trade offs for engines in the different stages of a stack staged vehicle like the Staturn V vs. parallel staged vehicles like the Shuttle and Energia ( to name only two of the many in use ). Clearly the core engines on parallel staged vehicles must be able to run longer than the engines on stack staged vehicles. They must also operate under a much wider external pressure range. On the Shuttle the main engines are carried all the way to orbit and are returned, so their weight affects OMS fuel requirements, reentry heat loading, wing loading, landing gear weight, even runway construction. Hm, starting to look to me like a high ISP, low weight engine is a critical design requirement for vehicles, like the shuttle, that don't throw away their core engines. So high tech expensive engines might be a good thing for the shuttle. But, if the engines were attached to the ET, like they are on the Energia, a lot of the reasons for low weight engines on the shuttle would be eliminated. Would high ISP still be important enough to justify the cost of high ISP engines? > A good approach for a crash program, that must achieve results > soonest, and has a huge pot of money to draw from; not the best way to > design engines for an affordable rocket. > Comments, anyone? Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 88 12:41:32 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Question to England In article <569415871.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: > Is it REALLY true that amateur rocketry is banned in England? It is banned in the whole UK, not just England. The control of explosive substances act of 1880-something makes it illegal for any unlicenced person to handle explosives. Rocket fuel is explosive, and no-one gets a licence just so they can have fun launching rockets. Anyone with explosives would also have problems with the prevention of terrorism act. Any building and launching of amateur rockets would have to be done secretly. but then, no-one drives faster than the speed limit, do they :->. It does make sense, if you consider just how little open land there is in (most) of the UK. > I know UK is more controlled than here, but I found the above claim a > bit hard to swallow. After all, rumor has it that it is still a free > country over there... See my recent postings in soc.culture.celtic for a different view of how things are over here than you will get from most of the news agencies. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 88 18:16:41 GMT From: terra!brent@sun.com (Brent Callaghan) Subject: Re: Amateur Rocketry in England In article <911@its63b.ed.ac.uk>, bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) writes: > The control of explosive substances act of 1880-something makes it > illegal for any unlicenced person to handle explosives. There must be an exception here every November 5th - Guy Fawkes night of course. It's OK then for kids to set off explosives in their own back yards and do night launches of rockets over built-up areas. What a strange world we live in... I'm not sure of the details of the law in the U.K. - I grew up in New Zealand. As a teenager I was interested in model rocketry and drooled over the Estes rockets and boosters in U.S. magazines. There was no law banning model rocketry as such - except for laws governing the use and storage of explosives. Model rockets are trivially easy to build - just a paper tube and some balsa wood for the fins and nose cone. The big problem was getting boosters. I tried making my own but my mother freaked out when she asked what I was cooking in a pot on her stove and I had to admit it was rocket fuel. She wasn't mollified by my explanation that it was just sugar and potash and was perfectly safe under 600 degrees... I couldn't get the Estes boosters either - there's a prohibition against sending explosive substances through the mail. My solution was to wait until November 5th and stock up on skyrockets. With the stick removed they made ideal boosters. The ones with the colored stars in the top were good for deploying the parachute. I couldn't have a real countdown though - it seemed a bit silly getting to zero and having to strike a match. I good countdown needs a button. Made in New Zealand --> Brent Callaghan @ Sun Microsystems uucp: sun!bcallaghan phone: (415) 691 6188 ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 88 17:53:16 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Question to England > I heard this on the net earlier, so it may just be GIGO, but the > original wording of the bill which Reagan announced in a State Of The > Union address a few years ago--a bill which was supposed to make it > possible for free enterprise to get into the launch business--made it > illegal to fire the little Estees rockets... No, it merely subjected model rockets to the same regulatory agency as the bigger ones. This was NOT changed, by the way, although the agency in question (Office of Commercial Space Transportation, I think it is) woke up to the issue and quickly issued rules exempting model rockets from detailed regulation. Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 88 16:40:00 GMT From: uflorida!codas!killer!ninja!sys1!trsvax!reyn@gatech.edu Subject: 'Rail Guns?' >From Electronic Engineering Times - January 18,1988 - Page 14 ... "Technologies discussed included electromagnetic rail guns for launching swarms of small research vehicles, reusable and servicable components of spacecraft for use in both Earth orbit and outer reaches of the solar system, trans-atmospheric vehicles that could lift heavy loads into space in relatively rapid sequence and a single-stage-to-orbit space station service vehicle. "The continuing need for workable U.S. space launch systems, plus the rail gun work done by the SDI Organization, makes the timing good for the consideration of using the technology for a space-based launch system, said Ross Jones of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "A 100-meter, free-flying rail gun deployed near the space station could launch a 1 kg spacecraft to speeds of 10 km per second, Jones said. The 90,000 kg gun would cost $30 million .... " Pardon me for airing my ignorance, but what is the difference between a 'rail gun' and the 'mass drivers' outlined by O'Neill back in the early 80's. The accellerations for this rail gun seem to be considerably higher than those mentioned for the 'mass driver'. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 88 16:46:04 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Zaire In article <4VxC0Fy00Ws7JFY0Ad@andrew.cmu.edu> el0r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Eric Wesley Leuliette) writes: >>By the way, about ten years ago a german private company tried to >>build a launch facility in Zaire. Does someone knows about how this >>story has ended ? > >I believe the name of the private German company was OTRAG. 60 Minutes >did a segment on them about five or seven years ago, if I remember >correctly. > >Also, if my memory serves me right, they attempted to set up shop in >Libya. (We let you launch satellites, and you build us missiles, I >guess). Under external pressure (few in the rest of the world were >pleased with the idea of a certain colonel with rockets), OTRAG left >Libya. > >Eric W. Leuliette About 7 or 8 years ago I read an article about OTRAG, and their proposed rockets. They had a good idea, build 'em cheap using off the shelf equipment. For instance, they were using windshield-wiper motors to control some engine valves. Their would be a standard propulsion unit, which would be bundled together with as many other units as necessary to launch a given payload. What the article was really about was the Soviet disinformation machine. Russia, as it seemed, didn't appreciate a private rocket company working in Africa (Zaire at first), so they launched a massive propaganda campaign against OTRAG. Among their activities was the leak of (phoney) "CIA" documents proving that OTRAG was actually producing ICBMs and that the satillite stuff was merely a cover story. Zaire fell for it, and booted the company out. The only nation willing to take them in was Libya, not very good for the PR department. I gather the stigma stayed with them and the group just faded away. Another fine example on how "the Workers Paradise" saved us from the evils of capitalism. I don't know where it was published, but I read it in Space World, before NSI bought it. *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick *** ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 88 00:42:35 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov (MacLeod) Subject: Ownership of extraterrestial material In article <888@its63b.ed.ac.uk> bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) quotes another writer: >The United Nations has said that space, including the moon and planets, >belongs to no-one, and no-one can claim it. Let them enforce their claims. This fantasy will last as long as it takes for somebody to build solar-powered railguns or working particle-beam weapons. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jan 88 06:51:31 GMT From: tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Ownership of extraterrestial material In article <2963@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) The United Nations has said that space, including the moon and <>planets, belongs to no-one, and no-one can claim it. < Message-Id: <8802051118.AA04698@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #120 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 120 Today's Topics: Space Digest face to face meeting? space news from Dec 21 AW&ST + space-station editorial part 2 Piezoelectric Spacesuits? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Feb 1988 17:43-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Space Digest face to face meeting? I have been asked by Elisa Wynn, NSS Chapters Coordinator, to set up a session at the 7th Space Development Conference for network people to get together. The conference will be in Denver (see the posting earlier this week) at the end of May. I'd like to see get a show of hands on who is interested in doing this. It would be an excellent forum for us to discuss digest issues in real time. It would also be a good time to look into Eugene Miyas 'talking books' digest archive project and any other ideas that are useful to either promoting space via international networking or to simply increasing the utility of this digest in either professional or avocational usage. Any and all suggestions are welcome. So are volunteers. Ted, Henry, Eugene: hint, hint... ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 88 04:43:02 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Dec 21 AW&ST + space-station editorial part 2 Cover: image of the Antarctic ozone hole from weather-satellite data. KH11 spysat imaged the second Energia on its pad earlier in fall. It was later removed; presumably this was for tests of some kind. Next launch thought to be set for early 88. Italy is interested in taking part in the space station even if ESA as a whole does not. Italy is interested in the logistics module, and also in use of tethers to lower reentry vehicles into a reentry trajectory. [Italy is cosponsor of the shuttle tethered-satellite experiment.] USSR proposes that US Mars Observer, to launch in 1992, be modified to act as a relay satellite for data from the Soviet/French balloon probes. This would considerably increase the number of images that could be returned, by adding another relay satellite (the Soviet orbiters not being able to provide 100% coverage). Mars Observer will be finishing its primary mission at about the time the balloons arrive. It would need a receiver for the balloons' signals, but otherwise there is little cost involved. White House and NASA seem to be taking the idea quite seriously. Soviets are planning a radarsat mission to Mars to fill the hole between the Phobos missions (launch 1988) and the balloon missions (launch 1994). Radar imaging would add information about surface composition and the possible presence of water. Launch of U of Chicago's cosmic ray experiment (flown on Spacelab 2 in 85) to Mir has been discussed informally. Booster and spacecraft being readied for the Mir crew rotation. Aussat studying four proposals for Australia's next comsats. This is one of the two major 1988 satellite buys, the other being the Intelsat 7 contract, and Aussat and Intelsat are interested in the possibility of getting a quantity discount by choosing the same supplier. Australians have been offered launchers including Long March 3, Ariane, and US expendables. No bidder has openly said the word "Proton", but the Aussies say they would be interested, and it is rumored that at least one US (!) bidder will offer a Proton option. The US marketing agents for Proton report having responded to several US requests for information on Proton launches for Aussat. Article on why the space station contracts went where they did, nothing very interesting. NASA's budget cut seriously, including major space-station cuts. First station operations will probably slip a year, to 95-96. Shuttle recovery program is also hurting, and Magellan's launch may be delayed. Large article on SDI sounding-rocket experiment aimed at investigating operation of high-powered electrical equipment in space. It flew Dec 13, and pretty much completely worked. Another is planned for about a year from now, carrying more realistic hardware. Of note [as a contrast to some agencies we could name] is that this experiment took less than a year to go from approval to launch. Rocketdyne to build two ground-demonstration units of an isotope-heated turbogenerator power system, aimed at providing several kW for military satellites. Launch safety remains a concern. SDIO considers advancing the launch date for its Starlab laser-pointing experiment by swapping it with another military shuttle mission. ESA approves [finally] its 1988 mandatory budget. [This is ESA's core budget, requiring unanimous approval, that covers general operating expenses, not major projects.] KSC readiness for 1988 shuttle operations is being jeopardized by hiring restrictions and personnel shortages, according to KSC director. Japan Air Lines and Inmarsat demonstrate FAX transmissions between an airborne 747 and ground stations, via Inmarsat satellites. NASA decides to send a human inspector into the central cavity of stacked SRBs; a fiber-optic instrument for joint inspection is badly behind schedule. The inspector will be suspended by crane, using a breathing mask and a lamp. Tests underway now. Morton Thiokol says this is not overly hazardous, and human entry into horizontal booster segments is routine at both M-T and KSC already. This is the first use of human inspectors inside already-stacked boosters. Late delivery of support equipment is considered a potentially serious schedule problem. KSC managers express concern that manpower is not adequate to process three orbiters simultaneously, once launches get underway again. NASA Langley is testing space-shuttle landing gear, aiming at less tire wear and better steering for landings at KSC. The KSC runway is very rough, for good traction, and is quite hard on tires. Langley says that smoothing the touchdown area somewhat would greatly reduce tire damage without hurting wet-weather handling. [Saving the Space Station, Part 2. In the first installment of this editorial, I argued that we need a space station, but that the program is in desperate trouble and needs drastic changes to survive. Its missions should be support of a biomedical lab, small hands-on experiments, satellite assembly, and man-tending of free- flying platforms to support all the things that want occasional human attention but don't want the noisy, dirty environment of a manned station. (Note that this is not quite the same list of missions NASA has now.) So, what sort of drastic changes am I talking about? Well, first, foremost, and almost solely: Dump The Luxuries. The station is in deep financial trouble and can no longer afford to fund everybody's pet project. It is time to stick to building a useful space station, and dispense with the pork barrel, the corporate welfare programs, and the bureaucratic empire-building. A major corollary of this, important enough to be mentioned in its own right, is: Use Existing Hardware. One reason why the station is so scandalously expensive is that it's developing nearly everything from scratch. This has to stop; new development should focus on the (few) things which *cannot* be bought off the shelf. On to specifics. The first Luxury which has to go is all the "high technology" swill. The station's budget for automation and robotics development, in particular, should be ZERO. There have been nine space stations flown to date (eight by the USSR), most of them quite successful, none of them with any significant use of leading-edge automation or robotics. The same applies more generally to high technology: the only fundamental defect of Skylab -- built with early-60's technology -- was the lack of any way to resupply it in orbit. (It had other flaws, but nothing that could not have been cured easily at the time with 5% higher funding and a longer-range outlook.) The station cannot afford to develop technology it does not need, and that means it should do virtually no technology development. Next in the list of Luxuries is the Polar Platform. This has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the space station, and should be funded on its own merits or not at all. (NRC agrees with me, by the way.) And speaking of Platforms, the Co-Orbiting Platform needs, at the very least, a long hard look. I don't recall the details of the current plans for it, but I strongly suspect it falls under the same heading as the Polar Platform. But I did say I wanted co-orbiting platforms, didn't I? Yes, but not of that sort. The station needs one major shared platform for multiple small experiments, and a handful of modest single-experiment platforms for things that are especially touchy or that have outgrown the shared platform. Neither of these needs to be developed from scratch. SII's Industrial Space Facility is perfect for the shared platform, and there have been several proposals for small platforms that would do for the other role. NASA's role in these projects should be limited to ensuring compatibility and guaranteeing startup customers; there is no need for major NASA funding for hardware that private industry is perfectly willing to finance itself. That leaves us with the station proper. The most obvious essential is the pressurized modules. Can we buy existing hardware there? Damn right. ESA would be overjoyed to see a straight commercial order for half a dozen Spacelab "long modules"; they have long felt that they got thoroughly shafted on the original Spacelab deal, and this would go a long way toward fixing that. It would be worth seeing if the "long module" could be stretched into an "extra-long module" cheaply, but this is not vital. Yes, this means that agreement with the Europeans is essential and that it would not be even theoretically possible for NASA to "go it alone if necessary"; the current unwillingness to depend on supposed "partners" is another Luxury, as are the parochial US demands that are obstructing agreement with ESA. The hardware to connect the modules is probably going to have to be built from scratch. This means that it should be kept as simple as possible. If the station needs more internal volume, we add more modules and more connectors, rather than making the existing ones fatter. (Note that this is the opposite of what NASA is doing, and the budget reflects it.) The station should be planned around adding a shuttle external tank (or more than one!) as the long-term solution to volume problems. The Spacelab modules do need external support equipment to provide things like power and life support, as do the currently-planned station modules. In the current plan, this support equipment is partly built in and partly the responsibility of a "logistics module" which is periodically replaced. A reasonable plan. The built-in stuff will need some development, as will the other "furnishings" of the pressurized modules; much of it can be done with commercially-available hardware, though. As I recall, Japan originally wanted to do the logistics module. Fine, let them; we need that much more badly than we need Yet Another Laboratory Module, which is what they're doing in the current plan. See above comments on international cooperation. Given that the station I envision is *not* a mounting point for major experiments, the need for the big truss needs to be re-assessed. If it remains necessary, it's time to get some construction firms bidding. If they are allowed to make it a bit heavier than an aerospace contractor would, they can do it FAR more cheaply. The station is not like the shuttle: every kilo of dead weight in either is that much less payload when it's launched, but the station only needs to be launched ONCE. We are far better off accepting slightly higher launch costs to keep the development costs down. Yes, the station needs reboosting periodically, but a heavier station will need that less often, so to a first approximation the weight of the station cancels out when computing station-keeping costs. In fact the heavier station probably comes out ahead when indirect costs [e.g. experiments disrupted by reboost acceleration] are figured in. Speaking of reboosting... rather than developing all-new hardware for the station, the simplest way to handle this is to carefully put the logistics module at the center of gravity and include an off-the-shelf liquid-fuel engine and tankage in it. Since the logistics module gets replaced with a new one regularly anyway, and that is the logical time for a reboost (this puts the replenishment visits at the low point of the station's path, which is just right for maximizing shuttle payload), this eliminates any need to mess with in-space refuelling and so forth. This is *not* ideal and we should pursue better systems, but it will get the station operational with minimum delay and cost, which is the major requirement right now. The station needs power. Fortunately there are several commercially- available large solar arrays. Buy a dozen of whichever looks best. It will be cheaper and quicker than building a new design from scratch. Solar-dynamic power is an excellent idea, LATER. The nonsense of running the power at 20 kHz, requiring *everything* to be developed from scratch, is a Luxury of the stupidest kind and should be discarded at once. Yes, higher frequencies mean lighter power equipment, which is why aircraft power systems run at 400 Hz rather than 50 or 60 like land-based power. Off-the- shelf aircraft hardware will do just fine for most of the station's needs; the extra benefits of 20 kHz cannot possibly pay for themselves. Some other support systems, like cooling, probably will need some new development. Again the emphasis should be on simplicity and rapid availability rather than on optimal design and minimal weight, and aerospace contractors should be avoided whenever possible -- those people couldn't sell you a pencil for less than $10 if they tried, especially with NASA "helping". Although we should be putting some effort into things like lightweight spacesuits for easier EVA, for the moment we will need remote manipulator arms of some sort. This is also said to be the easiest way to dock the shuttle to the station; could be. Fortunately, reasonably suitable arms are available off the shelf (well, almost...) from Spar Aerospace, which builds them for the shuttle. There is no reason to mess around with a major redesign. As for the mobile base for them, dare I suggest that it's better to just buy half a dozen arms and put them in all the likely places? Finally, we have to launch the thing. At least some of the stuff will have to go up on the shuttle, since it's the only man-rated launch system we've got handy (unless we take the Soviets up on Commercial Soyuz!!). It sure would be nice to use a heavylift booster for the big things, though. I know how to make one available, too. Just ask Boeing/Hughes to quote a price for twenty Jarvis launches spread over, say, ten years. The station won't need all of them, of course, but does anyone suggest that we can't find uses for the rest? And the nice part of it is that Boeing and Hughes are willing to do the development with their own money, provided they're sure of having customers. The one thing better than getting a heavylift booster is getting it FREE -- and we can. Intelligently done, the above program would cut station costs vastly, and probably shave some time off the schedule too. [These are not unrelated; doing something sooner is usually *cheaper* these days.] Do I think there is any chance of it happening? No way, no hope, no chance. Remember how Congress squealed when NASA proposed some minor rearrangements in station responsibilities within the US? How do you think they would react to some of the above suggestions right off the bat, never mind after the lobbyists got going? My prediction? I give the space station less than a 50-50 chance, the way things are going. And I don't see any way to save it.] Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 88 14:31:34 EST From: ST401385@brownvm Subject: Piezoelectric Spacesuits? Comments by Joe Brenner about my suggestion of a spacesuit based on piezoelectric fibers that contracts to exert a constant pressure on the body when in vacuum: From: ^ Victor Von Doom ^ >What caught my eye was your piezoelectric space suits. I've liked the >skin tight space suit idea ever since I first read about it in one of >Pournelle's articles in Galaxy back in the 70's, but I have to say that >I'm dubious about being able to use the piezoelectric effect to tighten >them up. The range of motion you can (currently) get out of a piezo is >really pretty small (though I'm told you can amplify it using strips of >disimilar materials, as in a thermostat). And what happens if the suit >loses power? Are you envisioning using the actuating force from the >piezos against some sort of elastic springs, i.e. you have to supply >power to remove the suit? >I have an alternate suggestion that I like better, though I'm not sure >I know how to work out all the details: shape memory metals. Currently >there are two uses of Nitinol (nickel-titanium). One is in connectors >in F-14s, the other is in Japanese bras. The way they work in Japanese >bras is that there's a flat spot in the stress vs. strain curve, so >that when you put the bra on, you exert a constant, low force to >stretch it into place (rather than exerting a force increasing >proportionally with the amount of extension, as you would in a typical >elastic material). The bra doesn't become streched out, however, >because the heat of washing and drying is enough to return them to >their original shape. >I imagine you could squeeze into a shape memory space suit fairly >easily then apply a touch of current to heat the wires and cinch the >suit into place. There might be problems with the suit stretching out >as you work in it. You need *some* ordinary elasticity and possibly a >periodically applied current to restore the shape of the suit. Maybe >pulsing the current fairly frequently would allow you to use this >effect for general heating purposes also. Bad news if you're in >someplace warm and you need to stay cool, though. Yes, piezoelectric spacesuits would assume a new miracle material! Other than that, though, they would have some advantages over shape memory suits or stretchy suits, in that the on-board computer could exactly compensate for changing volume to keep a constant pressure, making it "feel" like there was no suit there at all. I'd worry about the shape-memory suit. Space is not a very good isothermal system; you'd hate to step into a shadow and all of a sudden have your suit depressurize! How about a suit made of thin foam (polyurethane, maybe? or just plain neoprene? which will expand in vacuum? --Geoffrey A. Landis, Ph.D Until 23 January: Brown University, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Internet: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU After 23 January: NASA Lewis Research Center 21000 Brookpark Road, Cleveland Ohio 44135 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #120 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 6 Feb 88 06:19:19 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06162; Sat, 6 Feb 88 03:18:02 PST id AA06162; Sat, 6 Feb 88 03:18:02 PST Date: Sat, 6 Feb 88 03:18:02 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802061118.AA06162@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #121 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 121 Today's Topics: Re: NYT editorial on space. Article about Space Station RE: Space station editorial, part 1 Re: space station Re: RE: Space station editorial, part 1 re:Sierra Club Weenie Roast Re: Solar System Volcanos Re: Japanese Astronomy Re: SPACE Digest V8 #108, Earth's rotation Re: Earth's rotation is speeding up Re: Earth's rotation is speeding up ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Jan 88 22:03:01 GMT From: amdahl!reddy@ames.arc.nasa.gov (T.S. Reddy) Subject: Re: NYT editorial on space. In article <3507@mtgzz.UUCP>, dls@mtgzz.UUCP (XMRP50000[jto]-d.l.skran) writes: > 3)The picture that accompanied this editorial was deceptive -- it showed > the ISF, the station, and MIR. Problems include: > > A)It showed only the MIR core(!) with no add-on modules. This > considerably understates MIR's value and size. > Dale Skran You're right Dale in that it's not the quantity that counts, but quality. I remember reading somewhere though that, during the joint space excercise between the US and SU in the seventies, the Soviets also fudged the size of their module to show that it was as big as the US one! But enough of that. I agree that the ISF is a nice idea, but disagree that NASA should go with both the Space Station and the ISF. The ISF kills a lot of birds (to borrow an idiom) with one stone, among them: 1) It will be in space much before the Space Station, thus re-establishing regular US presence in space in the very near future. 2) It will be a private enterprise operation, thus representing eminently this nation's very philosphy of captalism in outer space. As a corollary NASA will be a sort of guideline agency rather than one which does the integration/launching. This is how a government agency should operate. 3) Considering that the commercial viability of space is yet to be proven, there is no need to spend $32 billion (which will definitely go up) on a space station only to find out that it is really not necessary. To me, it looks like NASA still believes that it is in the unlimited availability of monies mode of the sixties when it should be thinking about wringing all it can out of every space dollar spent. Thank you for your support! T.S.Reddy Arpa: reddy@amdahl.amdahl.com ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 88 00:13:24 GMT From: rochester!daemon@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Brad Miller) Subject: Article about Space Station I just thought I'd give y'all a pointer to Feb 88 REASON mag, as it contains an article on the space shuttle. Cover: Ronnice is a westernized space suit. Subtitle: Lost in Space -- Billions and Billions for a Space Station Nobody Wants Byline: T.A. Heppenheimer It's an interesting chronicle of the politics involved in the SS project. A 25 word summary might be that the contractors want the SS because otherwise there's no big $ projects, and NASA wants it because otherwise who needs NASA. Read the article, I won't defend it. miller@cs.rochester.edu {...allegra!rochester!miller} ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 88 17:02 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: RE: Space station editorial, part 1 To: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu, space@angband.s1.gov Henry, I liked the alcoholic analogy. Some comments... (1) It's clear that a manned presence is needed for extensive biological microgravity work. You don't need much of a station for this, though. (2) I am unconvinced a manned presence for the purpose of assembly and repair could be economical at current launch costs. The cost of keeping a person in space with the current station design is several million dollars per day; at that rate it makes sense to spend more than a man-year of effort on the ground to save one man-hour in space. (3) As Van Allen noted a few years back, the potential of microgravity manufacturing has been so hyperbolized as to leave the informed person gasping for breathe. NASA keeps trotting out a few tired examples (3M's crystal research, McD-D's CFE apparatus; but note that McD-D is a station contractor); if they had much more wouldn't they tell everyone? The reaction of most american industry to microgravity research has silence or derision. Given that the prospects for manufacturing are poor, there is little reason to make microgravity materials research a major funding target. (4) The space station program is built on a foundation of sand: the assumption that the shuttle program succeeded. It didn't, but NASA bulls ahead anyway. Mir is criticized for being small and low tech, but the Soviets have concentrated their efforts quite sensibly on the real bottleneck to space: launch costs. NASA should do the same, even if it means euthanasia for the space station. We'll be better off in the long run. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 88 21:25:08 GMT From: ecsvax!hunnic@mcnc.org (Jeff Hunnicutt) Subject: Re: space station I think that we should get into an orbiting space station before we talk about going back to the moon. I do not see it as economically feasible to try a lunar base. We have neither the capability or the funding for such a project. The shuttle was not designed with lunar missions in mind. The cost of getting men, materials, supplies, etc. to the lunar surface is certainly higher than getting a space station in orbit and could be done in a fraction of the time it would take to develop a new generation of lunar craft and heavy lift vehicle. Once in orbit we could use the station as a stepping stone to future lunar endeavors. I do not see the governmant shelling out big bucks for a project that may be shelved in the future for the sake of budget cuts. I am all for a lunar base its just that i think we should get back into the shallow end of the pool before we go for the deep end. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 88 01:06:23 GMT From: uflorida!codas!burl!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@gatech.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: RE: Space station editorial, part 1 > (1) It's clear that a manned presence is needed for extensive > biological microgravity work. You don't need much of a station for > this, though. That's good, because we aren't getting much of one! I predict problems for the station as now planned, because the biomedical-lab environment is not going to be a very good place for materials research, and they're not very well separated. > (2) I am unconvinced a manned presence for the purpose of assembly and > repair could be economical at current launch costs... I would like to see a proper study of this before conceding the point. Launches were not exactly cheap when Fairchild did the Leasecraft study. I admit that I'm not confident of the result. However, note another issue I mentioned: on-orbit assembly permits doing things that Cannot Be Done otherwise at present. The obvious example is sending Galileo to Jupiter on a direct, fast trajectory. There are enough uses for on-orbit assembly to make it valuable on at least an experimental basis. Eventually we will want it in a big way, and it's high time to start sorting out how to do it. (This sort of technology development is, after all, supposed to be a major NASA responsibility.) That means DOING IT, not thinking about it. > (3) As Van Allen noted a few years back, the potential of microgravity > manufacturing has been so hyperbolized as to leave the informed person > gasping for breathe... Microgravity manufacturing definitely is not going to suddenly spring into vigorous activity. Just as well, since we're not going to be able to support vigorous activity in the immediate future. The best we can hope for is to do a good job on supporting basic, and some applied, research. That means more than five-minute sounding-rocket flights, and more than the one-week-per-decade situation offered by the shuttle. Last I heard, there is no shortage of investigators, especially at universities rather than companies, who would like space access for this. There is potential there, even if next-quarter-oriented companies cannot justify funding it right now. > ... Mir is criticized for being small and low tech, but the Soviets > have concentrated their efforts quite sensibly on the real bottleneck > to space: launch costs. NASA should do the same, even if it means > euthanasia for the space station. We'll be better off in the long > run. The Soviets have not "concentrated their efforts" on low launch costs. They don't seem to agree that one can only have one major objective at a time. You haven't heard *me* criticizing Mir for being small and low tech; it is large and high tech compared to its current competition. And it's up NOW; they did not wait for Energia to become operational to start getting experience running a space station. Finally, while I agree that massive reduction of launch costs is our biggest priority by any reasonable measure, the chances of achieving this objective by having NASA (or the USAF) do it are nil. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 88 05:34:41 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: re:Sierra Club Weenie Roast > ... Space is deadly; if you move into space you _must_ live in an > artificial enviornment because you die if you experience the natural > enviornment there... Many parts of Earth are just as deadly. Experiencing the natural environment of over half the surface of Earth usually results in drowning. Experiencing the natural environment of a midwinter blizzard in central Saskatchewan -- where I was born and raised -- will kill you almost as quickly as space would. Experiencing the natural environment of the Los Angeles basin, notably its distinct shortage of water, would kill most of the population of LA within days. Space is different in degree, not in kind. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 88 09:36:35 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!wlp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Walter Peterson) Subject: Re: Solar System Volcanos The gold medal goes to Olympus Mons, by far the largest volcano in the solar system. It rises more than 26Km above the surrounding Martian plains and is roughly 700Km in diameter ( diameter here is used *very* freely, as none of these features are really round ). The silver medal goes to Maxwell Mountain on Venus. It is about 10Km above the mean radius of the planet and on the order of 300Km in dia. Finally, for the bronze is "lowly" Mauna Loa. It also rises about 10Km above the Pacific abyssal plain, but is only on the order of 150Km in dia. A possible reason for the greater height to width ratio of Mauna Loa is that it errupted from the ocean floor and the cooling effect of water solidified the lava sooner keeping it from spreading out. Such would not have been the case with either Olympus Mons or Maxwell. All three of these feature are what are called shield volcanos. These type of volcanos on earth don't produce large amounts of atmospheric ejecta, they mostly pour out vast quantites of lava. Caldera eruptions on the other hand do put out hugh quantities of atmospheric eject. From that point of view the "largest" volcano in the solar system is probably the Long Valley Caldera Volcano in California, which last exploded 1000s of years ago, covering the entire U.S. in ash !!! The sulphur volcanos of Io probably do not rise very high above the average radius of the satellite. The extreame tidal effects of Jupiter rework the surface of Io so fast that no feature would have a chance to grow very large. The largest caldera seen on Io is about 50Km in dia. The ejecta from the sulphur volcanos does indeed go into orbit arround Jupiter, but since Io is only 1.21 times the mass of Luna and the eject is estimated to break the surface at 500 to 1000 meters/sec, that is not too surprising. See Abell, Morrison, and Wolff "Realm of the Universe" Sanders College Press, 1988 and Murray, B. ed, "The Planets" Freeman, 1983 Walt Peterson GE-Calma San Diego R&D ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 88 18:44:37 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: Japanese Astronomy In an otherwise excellent article <1437@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM> on the Japanese space program, kempf@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Jim Kempf) says: > ... there is no well known international astronomer of Japanese origin > and a very weak astronomical program in general. It's not clear whether this statement is from Mr. Kempf or from the article he is quoting, but I have to dispute at least the second part. While Japanese astronomy is arguably weaker than it ought to be considering the strength of the Japanese economy, describing it as "very weak" in absolute term is too severe. The Japanese astronomy community is small but excellent in certain areas. While Japan has no large optical telescopes, they do operate the world's largest millimeter-wave telescope (45 meters) and a world-class millimeter interferometer. These instruments, used by both Japanese and foreigners, have made major contributions to understanding of molecular clouds and star formation. Japan (ISAS) has also launched two X-ray satellites, one of which (GINGA, I think) made the first X-ray detection of the Magellanic Cloud supernova. Also notable were the Halley's Comet flybys. While no Japanese astronomer is publicly recognized (at least in this country), many are well known to other astronomers and are highly respected. The term "Hayashi track", for example, is known (or ought to be) to all astronomers. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 1988 21:00-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #108, Earth's rotation The current front runner theory for the moon's formation would make life difficult for any cell on earth, since it requires a grazing impact of a Mars sized planetisimal. It is only in the last few years that this idea has gained credence, because only recently have computer simulations shown that the results of such a collision would be pretty much what we see: a moon size body with depleted volatiles. Under this scenario, the moon accreted from the fraction of Terran and planetisimal crust that fell into stable orbit. Most of the material would have escaped. It would also place the time of the event in the early formative years when large planetisimals were still wandering around like Velikovskian planetary billiard balls. The lunar crust, as dated from Apollo samples, is also quite old. FAR FAR older than .7G BP. More like ~4.3G BP for undisturbed areas (ie not from the maria which are slightly younger. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 88 15:59:09 GMT From: ulysses!gamma!pyuxp!nvuxj!nvuxg!nvuxk!perseus@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (A D Domaratius) Subject: Re: Earth's rotation is speeding up In article <10080@ut-sally.UUCP>, nather@ut-sally.UUCP writes: > Observations of the moon show that its distance from the earth is > getting greater all the time I had heard the other day that the moon was as close as 10k miles from the earth at one time. Is that true. Can't the rate of movement of the moon from the earth be used to calculate the time that it may have been a part of the earth as is theorized by some people? Al Domaratius ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jan 88 15:12:34 GMT From: nather@sally.utexas.edu (Ed Nather) Subject: Re: Earth's rotation is speeding up In article <280@nvuxk.UUCP>, perseus@nvuxk.UUCP (A D Domaratius) writes: > I had heard the other day that the moon was as close as 10k miles from > the earth at one time. Is that true. Can't the rate of movement of > the moon from the earth be used to calculate the time that it may have > been a part of the earth as is theorized by some people? I'm afraid it's not that simple -- if you put a moon too close to a planet it is subject to severe tidal forces which can disrupt it. This is the main (theoretical) argument against the theory you mentioned. By the way, even having a plausible theory doesn't mean that's what actually happened. (And you thought astronomy as *easy*!) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #121 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 7 Feb 88 06:21:50 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07462; Sun, 7 Feb 88 03:19:36 PST id AA07462; Sun, 7 Feb 88 03:19:36 PST Date: Sun, 7 Feb 88 03:19:36 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802071119.AA07462@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #122 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 122 Today's Topics: Re: Earth's rotation is speeding up Re: Moon with orbit less than a day Re: Earth's rotation is speeding up missing/phantom matter Re: Dynamic Instability X-29A references as requested Re: Arado 234 not swept forward Re: Arado 234 not swept forward Re: Stalls Re: Forward Swept Wings and Dynamic Instability Forward Swept Wings Re: Stalls Re: Stalls ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Jan 88 14:12:42 GMT From: bill@astro.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys) Subject: Re: Earth's rotation is speeding up No, it can't. The rate is variable and depends, upon other things, on the existence or nonexistence of resonant modes of energy dissipation, which vary over time in a random way due to continental drift, varying heights of the ocean, etc. These resonant modes can drastically alter the "Q" of the system. The present rate is unusually large. This was discussed several years ago in an article in _Science_, but I don't have the reference handy. I could find it if you are really interested. Bill Jefferys ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 1988 14:22-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Moon with orbit less than a day I've read some recent theorizations that a number of the larger lunar impacts may have been caused by the breakup of 2-3 smaller bodies as they breached the Roche limit and then impacted, each series seperated by many millions of years. Theory holds that this is an explanation for some of the masscons, and also suggests that the impacts occured along the original orbital path, but the impact masses were sufficient that the moon would stabilize after some time with the impacts all on the equator. Three different 'former' lunar equators are suggested. I have seen no other papers that confirm or disconfirm the conclusions of this paper. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 88 16:40:53 GMT From: ptsfa!varian!vaxwaller!chip@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Chip Kozy) Subject: Re: Earth's rotation is speeding up In article <280@nvuxk.UUCP>, perseus@nvuxk.UUCP (A D Domaratius) writes: . In article <10080@ut-sally.UUCP>, nather@ut-sally.UUCP writes: . . . . Observations of the moon show that its distance from the earth is . . getting greater all the time . . I had heard the other day that the moon was as close as 10k miles . from the earth at one time. Is that true. Can't the rate of movement . of the moon from the earth be used to calculate the time that it may . have been a part of the earth as is theorized by some people? It's highly probable that the moon was never part of the earth. I believe examination of the moon rocks is the basis for this. However, an interesting thought occurs. If the moon was at one time a "lot" closer, would it have been recent enough to affect continental drift and all its' associated phenomina (i.e. vulcanism, faulting, plate tectonics in general, etc.)? (I should add "and close enough" up at the beginning of the last sentence, but I'm too lazy, so it's here instead ;-)). Sto lat; Chip ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 88 17:21:19 EST From: nutto%UMASS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Andy Steinberg) Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: missing/phantom matter I'm fairly familiar with the missing mass problem, that about 95% of the matter in the universe seems to be invisible. But recently my friend Jim mentioned something called phantom matter. I could not find this in any of my astronomy books and all he could tell me was that it was like being stuck in space but able to move forward, backward, and sideways in time freely. Could someone please elaborate this? USnail: Andy Steinberg BITNet: nutto@UMass 216 Johnson Internet: nutto%UMass.BITNet@cunyvm.cuny.edu UMass nutto%UMass.BITNet@mitvma.mit.edu Amherst, MA. 01003 Phone: 413-546-3227 ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 88 21:41:22 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: Dynamic Instability in article <4505@hplabsb.UUCP>, dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) says: > Dynamically unstable aircraft dispense with this inherent stability, > and maintain stable flight by sensing uncommanded movements and > countering them with control surface movements. This requires a > computer. The "computer" may be a biological one in some cases. Remember the Wright flyer? The Wright brothers were the first (as far as I know) to recognize the importance of control but thought dynamic instability was the only way to achieve it. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 88 09:45:07 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: X-29A references as requested Here's some refer (for obvious reasons): %A Gadi Kaplan %T The X-29: Is it coming or going? %J IEEE Spectrum %V 22 %N 6 %D June 1985 %P 54-60 You will probably want this first, but I doubt many would want the following articles (maybe 2 readers). %A Don Anderson %T X-29 foward-swept wing flight control system %J Joint AIAA-IEEE Fifith Digital Avionics Systems Conference %D Nov. 1983 %X IEEE no. 83 CH 1839-0 %A A. Whitaker %A J. Chin %Z Grumman %T X-29 digital flight control system design %J Symp. Active Systems Control %C Toronto, Canada %D Oct. 1984 %A Joel Markowitz %Z Grumman %T An Efficient Structural Resizing Procedure for Meeting Static Aeroelastic Design Objectives %J Journal of Aircraft %V 16 %N 2 %D Feb. 1979 %P 65-71 Additionally, several dozen NASA and DARPA TRs available from libraries. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 1988 21:14-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Arado 234 not swept forward Unless the sweep forward was too small to be visually noticeable, the German Arado 234 bomber had a straight wing over the top of the fuselage with one jet slung underneath each side on a pylon. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 88 18:30:23 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Arado 234 not swept forward In article <569729685.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: > Unless the sweep forward was too small to be visually noticeable, the > German Arado 234 bomber had a straight wing over the top of > the fuselage with one jet slung underneath each side on a pylon. You're right, it wasn't the Arado. However, one of the the prototype German jet bombers *did* have a slight forward sweep. I'll see if I can find pictures somewhere to be sure, but I think Heinkel may have done it. (Off to the library...) ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 1988 22:24-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Stalls I would suggest that any aircraft can be brought out of a clean stall, (ie nose up, power off or down), SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT SLIDE OFF THE STALL TO EITHER SIDE. I base the presumption on a very simple fact, known to any pilot. A LANDING IS A CONTROLLED STALL. I have heard, and expect someone will tell me if I'm wrong, that some of the Rutan aircraft like the Vari-eze, and a few other aircraft which stall only with difficulty, take a very different piloting technique because you 'fly them onto the runway'. The difficulty with a stall at altitude is that many high performance aircraft will tend to fall off the stall into a flat spin. This is unrecoverable except in some aerobatic aircraft and grounds for immediate ejection. It is particularly nasty in a jet because with the inlet air at such low speed, the engines can't even be restarted from a power out stall. I have heard that compressed gas(?) for the engine restart or possibly JATO packs to stop the spin have been tried. I do not know if this has become standard equipment anywhere, or even if it works particularly well. I can not say what the results of a power on stall would be on a jet, since most of my experiences or those of friends have been at several less horsepower. It can be pretty scary for a non-acrobatic pilot even in a well balanced plane. "Any aircraft can be stalled at any power setting or attitude." Is an almost truism (except for Rutan). Isn't wing dihedral is also used to keep the approach to stall characteristics honest? I believe that aircraft like the F4U Corsair had the dual dihedral so they would have both good high speed fighter performance and a very low stall speed for carrier approach. All of the 7x7 series have a positive dihedral, and I would guess that this is a major factors controlling their stall recovery characteristics. I'm certain Dani Eder has access to the people at Boeing who can give the FINAL WORD on stall characteristics of Boeing products... ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 88 18:27:46 GMT From: pyramid!fmsrl7!eecae!crlt!russ@decwrl.dec.com (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: Forward Swept Wings and Dynamic Instability In article <39204@sun.uucp>, fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >In article <1053@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, des@jplpro.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Smyth) writes: >> Second, a 747 has stalled and recovered. It did go into an inverted >> spin first, but luckily it did recover after only loosing 37000 feet >> of altitude. The pilots completely freaked out, and the cockpit recorders >> picked up crying and asking for mommy. The plane recovered by itself. >> Of course I am referring to the China Airlines 747 which safely landed at >> SFO, but (I think) never took off again... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Yeah, it was kind of bent in places... If this is the incident of which I heard, that is not true. I read about an incident in which a 747, en route to SFO, had the #4 engine fail to spool up again because of bleed-load hogging after the autothrottle had brought all engines back to flight idle. (The cause was a worn part in the fuel computer.) The imbalanced thrust overpowered the autopilot (which does not use the rudder) and the plane rolled off to the right. The plane was in IFR conditions, and the pilots did not believe what they saw on their gyros. Shortly thereafter, they were pinned down by 5 G's. They recovered after coming out of the clouds and acquiring visual references again (not surprising). Half the horizontal stabilizer was gone, and the wing acquired a permanent upward set of a couple of feet. *The wing was returned to service*, and I assume that the aircraft is now flying again after repairs. Considering that the cracked-in-half Boeing is slated to be repaired and flown again, trivial matters such as a broken stabilizer are nothing. Goodness, the airplane flew without it; if the structure is okay, it'll fly safely once it's repaired. Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc (rsi@m-net) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 88 11:26 EDT From: ELIOT%cs.umass.edu@relay.cs.net Subject: Forward Swept Wings There was a reasonably good non-technical article on this a couple years ago in Science85/86. As I recall it started as a doctoral thesis (probably something like a study of the dynamic properties of FSW in supersonic flight.) By coincidence the student or his professor ended up as the head of an Air Force experimental research unit and was in a position to make decisions about what kind of experimental planes to build. The decision to put a pilot in it was, as I recall, purely political. It made the program more visible and harder for the Air Force to decide not to follow up. The scientific research could have been done just as well in a cheaper remote-control plane. As I read all of this several years ago it is possible that I have mis-rememebered any or all of it. If you want to actually find the article I would start looking near the time the test flights were done. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 88 23:59:01 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Stalls In article <569820264.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: > Isn't wing dihedral is also used to keep the approach to stall > characteristics honest? I believe that aircraft like the F4U Corsair > had the dual dihedral so they would have both good high speed fighter > performance and a very low stall speed for carrier approach. The F4U approached the problem of exceeding the performance of competing Japanese fighter designs by simply putting the biggest engine available at the time into as small an airframe as possible. This meant that it swung the largest propeller ever used up to that time in a single-engined fighter. The prop's diameter was something on the order of 13.5'. To get enough tip clearance so that the aircraft could take off, they had the choice of *very* long landing gear (not so desirable for carrier service...heavier and not so rugged), "cranking" the wing to move the wheels down and still use shorter, stiffer oleos. The outboard dihedral, however, would give the F4U added roll stability without the penalty of a longer wing (also a no-no for carrier use). There were other "gull-winged" aircraft in the '30s and '40s, but most, such as the Lysander and Stinson Reliant series were bent opposite to the F4U's layout. seh ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 88 21:53:32 GMT From: pyramid!fmsrl7!eecae!crlt!russ@decwrl.dec.com (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: Stalls (Followups to rec.aviation; this isn't a space topic any longer.) In article <569820264.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >Isn't wing dihedral is also used to keep the approach to stall >characteristics honest? I believe that aircraft like the F4U Corsair >had the dual dihedral so they would have both good high speed fighter >performance and a very low stall speed for carrier approach. No, the F4U Corsair had an inverted gull wing so that the propeller would clear the ground without very long (heavy) landing gear. The bend in the wing gave another 18" or so of height at the mains. >I base the presumption on a very simple fact, known to any pilot. > > A LANDING IS A CONTROLLED STALL. Depends if you stall or not. The reason that landings are done close to the stall is to make the aircraft less likely to float, not roll so far after touchdown, and be easier on the tires and brakes. While my club teaches landings with the stall warning going (meaning that the aircraft is close to stalling), actual stalls aren't very common. >I can not say what the results of a power on stall would be on a jet, >since most of my experiences or those of friends have been at several >less horsepower. It can be pretty scary for a non-acrobatic pilot even >in a well balanced plane. "Any aircraft can be stalled at any power >setting or attitude." Are you a pilot? What scares you about a stall? Don't you know how to recover from a stall? How about a spin? If the answers to the last two questions aren't both "yes", with the comment "and I don't get too worked up about them if they're done at altitude", I wouldn't want to fly with you. Do stalls for a couple of hours in a Cessna 152 sometime (including power-on stalls and accelerated stalls) and see if you don't get more comfortable with them. (Yes, I'm a pilot. Yes, I've had a bit of aerobatic training. No, stalls, spins, critical attitudes nor hood work have never made me lose my cool, nor have in-flight electrical system failures at night.) Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. rsi@m-net ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #122 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 8 Feb 88 06:21:44 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08911; Mon, 8 Feb 88 03:18:42 PST id AA08911; Mon, 8 Feb 88 03:18:42 PST Date: Mon, 8 Feb 88 03:18:42 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802081118.AA08911@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #123 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 123 Today's Topics: How Probable are Earth-like Planets? Starship: Peeing in the Stream? Solar System Volcanos Biocentrism Re: Solar System Volcanos Re: Solar System Volcanos Re: Solar System Volcanos Re: Solar System Volcanos Re: "RE: Face on Mars" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 1 Feb 88 18:40:30 PST From: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: How Probable are Earth-like Planets? Cc: ota@galileo.s1.gov There is a fascinating article in the February 88, Scientific American on the formation of planetary atmospheres. In a nutshell, it suggests that the range of habitable orbits for a planet around a star is much wider than has previously been thought. This is due to a active feedback mechanism that controls the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere to regulate the temperature within more-or-less habitable ranges. This cycle is driven by plate tectonics which subducts and heats the planetary crust; thereby releasing through plate margin vulcanism the CO2 trapped in Carbonaceous sediments. The CO2 is removed from the atmosphere in a temperature sensitive fashion by the rain. This cycle brings to mind the policy described in David Brin's Sundiver books of locating long-lived evidence of civiliation in subduction zones so they get recycled on a million year time scale. Read this article, Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 88 05:33:00 GMT From: necntc!frog!sc@eddie.mit.edu (STartripper) Subject: Starship: Peeing in the Stream? Hilda, I'm trying to moderate my annoyance, let me know by email if I blow it, OK? The problem I have with your postings is this: I say "I feel it is our duty to save the ecosphere, to assist our lovely lady Gaea to reproduce" and you reply "Stop peeing in the stream!" Seems to me like you're not hearing what I'm saying, and are attacking me for saying what you choose (rightly, in my opinion) to attack. I agree that anthropocentric obsession on spreading man through the galaxy is not a Good Thing. I would not choose to live in a tin tank with only humans. But ghod-flaming-dammit, that's not what I'm spending my life trying to encourage. I dream of living in a ecosphere in which snail darters, mountain gorillas, slime molds, and prickly-pear cactus all have their share. How would you suggest I say "I want to reproduce the ecosystem so that we have backup copies" so that you understand that I'm not saying "pee in the stream"? I'm trying, as hard as I can, to make it clear that I think our efforts toward the stars will have to be founded on respect for all life (*especially including life as we don't know it!*), and I seem not to be getting through. Can you help me? In article <409@kaos.UUCP> hilda@kaos.UUCP (Hilda Marshall) writes: >One of my relatives got mad at another relative for selling some >cherished family property foolishly registered in his name when he had >to move away for health reasons. She said, "He had his drink from the >pond, then he pissed in it." That's sad.... but I don't see the analogy you clearly intend I should.... Back a few centuries, a male midwife (perhaps his name was Chamberlin? Can't remember for sure.) had a fairly brilliant idea -- he invented the obstetrical forceps. However, rather than giving the idea to the world, he kept the _secret_ within his family, arranged the birthing scene so that women could not see what he was doing, and ensured that only HIS family could (for a fee) save the lives of women and babies. This monopoly lasted for over a hundred years, if I recall correctly, before someone else had the same idea. During that time, women who never heard of the Chamberlins' invention _died_ because this powerful technique of life-saving was single-sourced, and only those who heard of the miracle worker and could afford his high fees were able to benefit. If the holder of the secret had died, his life-saving technology would have died with him. So far as we presently know, this one vulnerable planet, which could be stripped of most multicellular life with _very_ little effort, is the only place where matter has learned to look at itself and wonder "howcome?". We may not have a monopoly on self-awareness, and I devoutly hope we do not. But right now, the love of a mother, the cameraderie of a crowd of happy deadheads, the dedication of a Dr. Salk, are demonstrated ONLY in one ecosystem. (I believe there probably are other worlds that have given life, but that's a emotional belief, not something I could prove!) And risking all that love, all that potential for being on the ghod-committee on the hope that maybe we won't nuke us till we glow -- well, I'm kind of an idealist, but I'm not _that_ much a dreamer. Refusing to study the interactions of our mother Gaea's being well enough to reproduce it strikes me as being more comparable to keeping forceps a secret than mucking with it till it fits, and getting a new one if we break it. > 1. The expansion of the human realm and the assurance of the > propagation of the human species are paramount. Um, Hilda? I say "Gaea", you say "humans". I don't think it's either possible OR desireable to create a colony that contains only human beings. And even if it's possible, _I_ wouldn't want to live there! A world without cats and chickadees, pot plants and rosebushes, mosquitoes and earthworms? NO THANKS! > 2. When technology can assure a constant supply of something, > there is no reason to preserve the existing supply. If I grow my own roses, there's no need to take one into the house and put it on the mantelpiece? I think what I'm most confused about is that I'm not sure _what_ you think I'm saying. Would you be willing to _paraphrase_ rather than quote me if you reply to this? It might give me a better chance of understanding why we seem to be sailing our thoughts past each other.... > 3. Therefore, if a species does not directly serve humanity in > its viable state, it is expendable. _Where_ in the name of Gaea did you get this idea? Have I missed someone else's posting? If we don't take the pigmy hippopotamus to the stars, it will be _gone_ within a century or so. If we don't save the entire complexity of our mother's being, no one else will. We are the hands of the ecosystem! Please, Hilda, flame me for what I'm doing, not what I'm trying desperately to counter! Or better yet, help me understand more of what must be done. >This whole argument teeters on the brink of the purely ethical, >especially if one believes that we can reach a point where we can >thoroughly and accurately predict the extended outcome of any action. Until we can, we'd better worry about backups! Right now, we're wasting our forests, killing our co-tenants, and we cannot predict the results of our efforts. I cannot, of course, predict the effects of helping our ecosystem reproduce. However, I've learned, in the time I've played with computers, that backups are a good thing, and I believe it's our duty to help Gaea back herself up. >But then, who said we had to kick out the ethics anyway? Unless I've missed some postings, you seem to be saying those who want to back up the biosphere are _by definition_ unethical. And I still need convinced before I agree. STartripper Do what thou Suite 293 QQQCLC wilt shall be the whole 738 Main Street sc@frog.uucp of the law. Waltham, MA, 02154 (If you have a different address for me, it's still good -- but I'll _post_ my maildrop!) ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 88 01:12:35 GMT From: hplabsz!kempf@hplabs.hp.com (Jim Kempf) Subject: Solar System Volcanos I'm interested in obtaining pictures of the three largest volcanos in the solar system. These are (in order of distance from the sun): 1) Mauna Loa (Skylab) 2) Olympus Mons (Viking) 3) Sulphur Volcano on Io (name?, Voyager) Anybody know where to write to get them? Also, anybody know which of these volcanos is largest, 2nd largest, etc., and what their sizes are? I'd guess that the Sulphur Volcano on Io is the largest, since sulpher from it was detected in orbit, Olympus Mons is 2nd, and Mauna Loa third. Thanks! Jim Kempf kempf@hplabs.hp.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov Date: Mon, 18 Jan 88 14:50:47 PST From: lll-crg!ames!scubed!sdcsvax!pnet01.cts.com!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Biocentrism Ethical issues are most important to address when our natural predispositions encourage us to depart from ethical behaviors. Fortunately, evolution has provided us with a lot of common sense. Hilda's concern about the limited circle of altruism exhibited by humans -- specifically humans engaged in promoting space settlement -- is one area in which evolution has endowed us with some "ethical" predispositions. We perceive greater "kinship" with the primitive life forms than we do with a lifeless void. Perceived kinship is a major evolutionary driver of altruism. Therefore, the perspective provided by space migration will drive humanity to a larger circle of altruism, beyond nationalism and anthropocentrism, to biocentrism. Jim Bowery PHONE: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 La Jolla, CA 92038 PS: There are critiques to be made of biocentrism which are important to raise. Other important issues include the perception of abundance as a driver of waste, the trade off between diversity and caution in government participation and the appropriateness of unstustainable activities. We will be addressing these and other issues at the Mount Laguna Sierra Club Lodge on March 12. Contact me if you will be attending and need further information. We'll be publishing an abstract of the proceedings of that seminar (or "weenie roast" as it has come to be known in some circles) on the net. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 88 18:28:16 GMT From: ut-emx!poole@sally.utexas.edu (Steve Poole) Subject: Re: Solar System Volcanos In article <1426@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM> kempf@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Jim Kempf) writes: >I'm interested in obtaining pictures of the three largest volcanos in >the solar system. > >Anybody know where to write to get them? > > Jim Kempf kempf@hplabs.hp.com The Jet Propulsion Lab has an office that sell pictures. The address of that office is Jet Propulsion Laboratory ATTN: ERC, 114-104 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena, CA 91109-9990 Phone # 818-354-6120 You can call to see if they have what you want. Steve Poole ARPA: poole@emx.cc.utexas.edu ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 88 01:40:12 GMT From: skat.usc.edu!seidel@oberon.usc.edu (Starman) Subject: Re: Solar System Volcanos In article <1426@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM> kempf@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Jim Kempf) writes: >I'm interested in obtaining pictures of the three largest volcanos in >the solar system. These are (in order of distance from the sun): >1) Mauna Loa (Skylab) >2) Olympus Mons (Viking) >3) Sulphur Volcano on Io (name?, Voyager) >Anybody know where to write to get them? Also, anybody know which of >these volcanos is largest, 2nd largest, etc., and what their sizes are? >I'd guess that the Sulphur Volcano on Io is the largest, since sulpher >from it was detected in orbit, Olympus Mons is 2nd, and Mauna Loa >third. Well, actually, Mars' Olympus Mons is the biggie here. As for the other two, I'm not sure, but I'll place my bet on the bugger from Io. But Olympus Mons towers above even Mt. Everest by at least 2x. Michael Seidel seidel@skat.usc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 88 18:07:13 GMT From: hplabsz!kempf@hplabs.hp.com (Jim Kempf) Subject: Re: Solar System Volcanos Thanks to everyone (and especially Janet Walz) for their replies. Here is a brief summary of information, for those of you (like myself) who are interested in volcanos. Olympus Mons appears to be the verifiably largest volcano in the Solar System, though two on Venus, Rhea Mons and Theia Mons, could someday take over the honors. Olympus Mons is about 600 km in diameter and 26 km tall. Mauna Loa, the largest shield volcano on Earth, stands 8 km above the Pacific Ocean floor. Rhea Mons and Theia Mons on Venus are known only from radar mapping and the Soviet Venera probes. They appear to be shaped like shield volcanos, and the chemical composition is similar to that of basalt on Earth. There are no pictures of them, however. In contrast, the volcanos on Io (of which Pele appears to be the largest) are not particularly massive. There are about 200 with caldera diameters greater than 20 km, while the Earth has only 15. The Ionian volcanos do not tend to build up large lava mountains, like shield volcanos on Earth. Nine different eruptive plumes were observed during the Voyager 1 flyby, and the plumes rose to more than 300 km. The height of the plumes (some extending into orbit) is primarily due to the lower gravity. Mercury also has a number of shield volcanos. Related note. The Feburary Scientific American has an article describing how volcanos function in recycling carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, how this process differs on Venus, Earth, and Mars, and the consequences for habitability. Jim Kempf kempf@hplabs.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 88 18:52:41 GMT From: tikal!phred!daveh@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dave Hampton) Subject: Re: Solar System Volcanos Although I'm not sure about Io, the dimensions of the other two peaks are: Mauna Loa: Base = 120 km across Height = 9 km above the sea floor Olympus Mons: Base = 700 km across Height = 25 km above the surrounding plain. Olympus mons sits on a sheer pedestal 4 km high around the base. The central crater is 65 km across,surrounded by sheer walls over over 3 km high. One of the best pictures which may be returned from a Mars surface explorer could be a picture from inside the crater. The largest volcano, though, may not be any of the three that you mentioned. Radar measurements have revealed a large shield volcano on Venus: Maxwell Montes. It seems to be a large shield volcano, hundreds of km across, with a central depression (caldera?) 100 km across. Its height is 11 km above the average elevation of the surface. If the whole feature is a volcano, then it is about 25% larger than Olympus Mons. Artists renderings of the volcano can be found in most books on Venus, including Berman's Exploring the Cosmos. Dave Hampton ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 88 18:27:01 GMT From: uop!robert@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (Robert McCaul -- The Equalizer) Subject: Re: "RE: Face on Mars" I still remember the book (still in the local library) about evidences of civilization on the moon. Lots of NASA pictures in that one too. I recently had the time to go over the "Off the wall" section of the library, and looked into that particular book. It was hot air as far as I am concerned, based on the "evidence" in the book. *Someone* else *must* remember this book!? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #123 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 9 Feb 88 06:30:04 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11304; Tue, 9 Feb 88 03:25:46 PST id AA11304; Tue, 9 Feb 88 03:25:46 PST Date: Tue, 9 Feb 88 03:25:46 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802091125.AA11304@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #124 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 124 Today's Topics: Mir elements, 6 February 1988 Chicago lecture: Designing Lunar Structures RE:Face on Mars Re: Mars Face Re: Face on Mars (more funny stuff) Re: Face on Mars (more funny stuff) Re: Images on Mars Re: Mars Pictures Re: Images on Mars ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Feb 88 21:35:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements, 6 February 1988 Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 47 Epoch: 88 32.88717099 Inclination: 51.6309 degrees RA of node: 50.3592 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0016787 Argument of perigee: 46.0859 degrees Mean anomaly: 314.1993 degrees Mean motion: 15.75088096 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00019623 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 11232 Source: NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M.' ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 88 11:28 CST From: Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey Subject: Chicago lecture: Designing Lunar Structures Original_To: SPACE Chicago Space Frontier Society presents MOON MANSIONS: DESIGNING LUNAR STRUCTURES Peter Land Illinois Institute of Technology Monday, February 15, 1988 7:00 PM Chicago Academy of Sciences 2001 N. Clark Street ADMISSION FREE TO THE PUBLIC Buildings on the Moon will look very different from Earthly buildings, according to Professor Peter Land. If and when astronauts return to the Moon, they will most likely establish a permanent base with laboratory, industrial, and residential buildings. Such structures must be airtight and protect people against the temperature extremes and radiation of the lunar environment. They should be straightforward to erect. They should also make use of available lunar soil, so that a minimal weight of materials need be flown from Earth. Peter Land, a professor in the College of Architecture, Planning, and Design at the Illinois Institute of Technology, will discuss concepts for lunar construction that include arched, domed, and pneumatic structures, building methods, and directions for further research. ############################################################# The Chicago Space Frontier Society, sponsor of this event, is dedicated to the opening of the space frontier. Among its activities are monthly meetings at the Chicago Academy of Sciences (just west of the Lincoln Park Zoo) which always feature presentations on some aspect of space development. Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month at 7:00 PM. For more information call Bill Higgins at (312)293-1050 or Larry Ahearn at (312)373-0349, or send mail to HIGGINS@FNALC.BITNET. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jan 88 13:05:44 PST From: hairston%utd750%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov Subject: RE:Face on Mars X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"space@angband.s1.gov" Glenvar Harman asked about where to get a photo of the "face" on Mars that he saw on Letterman. I don't have an address, but I would suggest he start with the nearest Government Printing Office bookstore (check the phonebook under US Government in most major cities) and they could probably find it or else send him in the right direction. I'm sorry I missed the guy on Letterman, but I suppose it's better such things appear there rather than on the the six o'clock news or in the papers (and I've seen it on both). As for the "face" itself, it has been around for years and seems to be "rediscovered" about every three years or so (usually on slow news days). For those who haven't seen it, it is a small hill about a mile long on Mars with shadows at the time the Viking orbiter imaged it that make it look like half a face with a round eye, a partial nose, and a partial mouth. Later images taken at different sun angles show the hill looks nothing like a face, just an ordinary Martian hill with some wind erosion features. Somehow those photos never seem to be considered in any of these articles..... The fall 1986 issue of "The Whole Earth Review" (an interesting and lively quarterly magazine put out by the folks who gave you "The Whole Earth Catalog") was on the subject "The Fringes of Reason". It was one of the best single issues of any magazine I have ever seen and I recommend you check for that issue in your local library. Anyway, the lead article (called "Reality Shopping") examined the "face" among many other fringe claims. Facing (no pun) paranoia straight on ("it's all a NASA coverup") they wrote to NASA and asked if they had any other weird photos from Mars. NASA happily send back (and WER printed) photos showing a martian crater with a happy face in it and a lava flow bed that is a profile of Kermit the Frog. Proof positive that not only were there ancient Martians, but that they felt good about themselves and they watched "Sesame Street"! The reason there is a "face" on Mars is that the human eye and brain are wired for recognition. In other words, given random visual stimuli, we tend to see patterns in them and those patterns are drawn from our experience. That's why we see horses or faces or whatever in clouds, or why we see a face (or a rabbit or an old woman) on the Moon, or why Italy looks like a boot, or why we see human profiles in the New England mountains. The list could go on for a long time. The Kermit lava flow is a perfect example. If Jim Henson had never invented Kermit, then that flow shape on Mars would not appear as anything remarkable to anyone. But since most people (in the US and Europe at least) are familiar with the frog, then the image jumps out at them in the midst of other unfamiliar geological features. And frankly, the Kermit image is far more "realistic" than the "face" is. Harman describes the face as "symmetric" which serves as a example of this. The face is NOT symmetric, it is just the right side with the left side totally in shadow. But since most people (at least all the ones I have experience with) have two sides to their faces, then when you see half the face you automatically assume there is another side hidden in the darkness. Again, the photos taken when both sides are sunlit show no signs of eyes, mouth, etc. Carl Sagan had a great quote about all this. The astronomer Percival Lowell studied Mars at length at the turn of the century and probably saw some of the craters and other surface features we now know are there, but since they were right at the limit of resolution he saw them as forming patterns of canals all over the surface. "Lowell always said that the regularity of the canals was an unmistakable sign that they were of intelligent origin," writes Sagan. "This is certainly true. The only unresolved question was which side of the telescope the intelligence was on." Marc Hairston Center for Space Sciences--University of Texas at Dallas ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 1988 05:53-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Mars Face Go back through OMNI. There was an article on the face some years back. Someone got the original data tapes from NASA and did some enhancement work on it. Image is for real, bu explanations are probably more in line with chance. There are some pretty strange rock formations on Earth too. After all, with an entire planet full of rocks to chose from, you'd expect that something, somewhere, would...ahhh...LOOK like something!!! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jan 88 11:27:13 PST From: august@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov (Richard August) Subject: Re: Face on Mars (more funny stuff) X-St-Vmsmail-To: ST%"Space@angband.s1.gov",AUGUST For those of you interested in talking to someone about the availability of pictures from the Viking Missions you might call: Jet Propulsion Laboratory Public Information Office 818-354-5011 Manager: R.J. Mac Millin or write to: Jet Propulsion Laboratory Public Information Office 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena, CA 91109 Someone in that office should be able to help you. Recently a fellow handed me a copy of a newsletter from an individual named Alan Shawn Feinstein of Cranston, RI 02905. In his "Winter, 1988 Quarterly Report" he cites his previous predictions (of the financial persuasion) that have "come true". This is to support the following: "Now - January, 1988. Something that makes those [previous predictions] pale by comparison... Here it is: Back in the early 1970's [actually 1976], the Viking space mission took over 60,000 pictures of the planet Mars. Recently, during a more careful examination of them, there was one picture that sent shock waves throughout the scientific community. With unbelievable implications... It is a monument of a human face. It is huge - one mile wide from crown to chin. It is 1400 feet high. Exactly 6 miles from it are several 5 sided buildings. All precisely aligned. Each one large enough to house 1 million people. It is on Mars. Right now... This is no joke. I have seen the picture... What dies it mean?... Somewhere the is - there was - there could be - a level of technology capable of things never dreamed possible before. Mark my words well. This could be the greatest discovery of the century... The Russians know about it. They are working frantically to launch a space mission this July. Our space agency, NASA, has asked Congress for a special $200,000,000 appropriation for the search for extraterrestrial life. The request is public, but the reason behind it is cloaked in mystery. There is feverish excitement. Here and in Russia. Each side trying not to alert the other. But much is being planned. Much is about to happen. How will this affect you? You'll find out. We'll be keeping you apprised of the inside news in our upcoming issues. Don't miss them. This could affect your future AS NOTHING ELSE BEFORE..." OK folks don't FLAME me. I'm just transcribing this from a newsletter and thought that you would get a kick out of it. I too have seen that photo (I probably saw it first, as I was one of the designers/implementors of the Mission and Test Imaging System for the Viking Project and I was pouring-over all the images that came in, like the daily returns in at a motion-picture studio) and thought that is was interesting. However, I havn't seen the "several 5 sided buildings". What do you have to say? After all, "This could affect your future AS NOTHING ELSE BEFORE..." RIGHT! ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 88 08:10:57 GMT From: rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (Richard L. Carreiro) Subject: Re: Face on Mars (more funny stuff) In article <880117112713.3c2d@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV> august@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV (Richard August) writes: ...stuff deleted... >Recently a fellow handed me a copy of a newsletter from an individual >named Alan Shawn Feinstein of Cranston, RI 02905. In his "Winter, 1988 >Quarterly Report" he cites his previous predictions (of the financial >persuasion) that have "come true". This is to support the following: > "... stuff deleted ... >It is a monument of a human face. It is huge - one mile wide from crown >to chin. It is 1400 feet high. Exactly 6 miles from it are several 5 >sided buildings. All precisely aligned. Each one large enough to house >1 million people. > >It is on Mars. Right now..." As a resident of Cranston, RI, I am ashamed that someone from there could put out such tripe. Unfortunatley, people will believe it. It reminds me of a talk show I say once. "The Amazing" Jim Randi, debunker extraordinaire, was on the talk show _Sally Jesse Raphael_. On it was a tabloid psychic who claimed she could tell things bout people from lokking at pictures of them. Randi set up a double-blind experiment: the pictures were labeled A-J. The psychic would read off the letter, then describe the persons traits/life/etc. The ten people would rate, from 1 to 10, how well the decription fit them. This eliminated any unconscious bias on the part of the participants. At the end, Randi asked who thought the first description fit him/her well. A few raised their hands. Then he pointed out who the picture really was of. That person had rated the description only a 2. They checked 5 more pictures, and on none did the "pyschic" even come close. The audience reaction: Just as many people said they believed in psychics after the show as before, and one woman demanded Randi why he was trying "to destroy these people." His reply: "I just do the test, and if it shows them wrong, then that's the way the pickle squirts." Sometimes I really get depressed about the credulity of the American public. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 88 17:36:04 GMT From: moria!dunc@sun.com (duncs home) Subject: Re: Images on Mars This face on Mars "controversy" is an interesting phenomenon. As usual, people are divided into two camps--those who claim to know the truth, a priori, and those who propose experimental verification. The odd part is that THIS time it's mostly technical types who claim the a priori "truth"... Now *I* don't claim there's a face on Mars; I haven't studied the pictures or even talked with anyone who has. I have read one article by someone who claims to have done so, and further claims that the face is visible in two pictures taken at different angles and times of day. I have read any number of letters by people claiming that the face on Mars can't exist because it doesn't match the way they think the universe works. I have yet to hear of anyone who claims to have studied the pictures and further claims that one or more pictures of the same area show there is no face. The fact that something is unexpected, unintuitive and sounds silly does NOT mean it's false; witness the early scientific disbelief of meteroites or the predictions of relativity. The face on Mars hypothesis strikes me as unlikely. If a counterexample exists among the pictures it should be easy to disprove. Otherwise, all *available* data suggests there's evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence awaiting us on Mars. That strikes me as something worth a second look no matter HOW unlikely. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 88 16:21:09 GMT From: cos!smith@uunet.uu.net (Steve Smith) Subject: Re: Mars Pictures In article <8801150857.AA11051@angband.s1.gov> dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu writes: >There's also a picture of a Mars feature that looks like Kermit the >Frog. I can hardly wait to see the religion that forms around this! (:-) The interesting thing about the "face" is that it is symmetrical. It is very easy to find "faces" (or anything else) in random noise, but they are (almost?) never symmetrical. -- Steve S. G. Smith smith@cos.com ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 88 02:56:56 GMT From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu (Terr S. Trial) Subject: Re: Images on Mars In article <39401@sun.uucp>, dunc%moria@Sun.COM (duncs home) writes: > The face on Mars hypothesis strikes me as unlikely. If a > counterexample exists among the pictures it should be easy to > disprove. Otherwise, all *available* data suggests there's evidence > of extraterrestrial intelligence awaiting us on Mars. Now, THAT'S a giant leap of blind faith! Why should ET on Mars be responsible for the "Face"? By this *biased* view you are ignoring many other fascinating possibilities, such as... ...Atlantis astronauts had been on Mars before, and left their mark; ...Apollo astronauts were there by some navigational mistake of NASA controllers, but it was kept as a top secret. Alas, they didn't notify JPL controllers NOT to image the landing site; ...Visitors from the Andromeda galaxy did it! They did the same on every planet, but on Earth it was destroyed by erosion. Of course, they are no longer around; Clearly, the simple assumption of local Mars people waiting there is unjustified. And how do they know about Kermit the Frog? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #124 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Feb 88 06:25:41 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13890; Wed, 10 Feb 88 03:20:52 PST id AA13890; Wed, 10 Feb 88 03:20:52 PST Date: Wed, 10 Feb 88 03:20:52 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802101120.AA13890@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #125 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 125 Today's Topics: Re: TVSat 1 Solar-panel Situation International L5 Network Directory update time... LDEF satellite Mars Institute Student Contest Announced Re: Face on Mars (more funny stuff) Skyhook on Mars Re: Proxmire's stand on manned Mars mission Re: Images on Mars Re: face on Mars Pigs In Space Saturn V More Reliable than Shuttle? LDEF; another Skylab? In Memoriam Shuttle schedule ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Feb 88 18:02:18 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!kcarroll@uunet.uu.net (Kieran A. Carroll) Subject: Re: TVSat 1 Solar-panel Situation The latest rumor that I've heard about the TVSat solar-array deployment failure is as follows: apparently during transportation to the launch pad, the solar arrays are held in place by 12 bolts (to keep them from rattling around, I suppose). These were all supposed to have been removed before launch, so that the arrays would be able to deploy. Each was supposed to have been checked off of a pre-launch preparation list, as they were removed. The rumor is that only >>11<< of the 12 were checked off of the list. One of the pre-launch hold-down bolts may still be doing its job... Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!kcarroll ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 1988 22:57-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu To: "/usr/amon/Email/tmp2" Subject: International L5 Network Directory update time... The time has come to update the L5 Network Directory. If you have recieved this message directly, (ie not via a public posting on Space Digest, uucp, FIDO or whatever) then you are already listed. If you wish to update or modify your entry, please fill out the following template and return it to me. The criteria for being included is that you meet at least one of the following: 1) are, have been, or intend to become, a member of NSS/L5. 2) You are an activist in another space organization. Specify why you feel you should be included. Members of SEDS, SSI, ASF in particularl may may wish to be included. Please note the organizations you are active with. 3) You are directly involved in the space program via NASA, a contractor or an entrepreneurial company, are an officer in a space movement organization, a science writer, a science fiction writer, space artist, etc. If in doubt, just ask. This list is primarily for point to point communications among activists, and will from time to time be used as a portion of a broadcast of alerts on space issues, or as a narrow cast to members on internal society issues. Any society member should feel free to send mail to any or all listed fellow members. Sample: Amon, Dale * Pittsburgh L5 member 860920 NSS Board member NSS/L5 Life member 1st SFMSS Email coordinator PghL5 Founder CMU Computer Science Department Pittsburgh, PA Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu Template: lastname, firstname chapter affiliation, chapter office last verify date other space organization jobs, offices, accomplishments space related facts about self city, state Email path(s) * Asterisk means a primary network contact for the named chapter I'll release an updated copy of the directory in a few weeks. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 88 17:07:27 PST From: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: LDEF satellite Yesterday's AW&ST carried a story on rescheduling the first few Space Shuttle missions in order to retrieve the Long Duration Exposure Facility satellite before its currently predicted reentry date of early-to-mid 1990. It was originally expected to last until 1995 or so. No explanation was offered for the change. Parts of the satellite are expected to hit the surface if it reenters. Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 88 15:23:59 GMT From: cgs@umd5.umd.edu (Chris Sylvain) Subject: Mars Institute Student Contest Announced The Planetary Society's Mars Institute has announced its 1988 student contest. This year's topic will be: Consider the search for evidence of life (past or present) on Mars, including why life may have existed or does exist, where the evidence might be found, and how human explorers or robots could find that evidence. Entrants will be asked to submit an essay detailing their proposal, which will then be judged by a distinguished panel of planetary scientists and engineers. All high school and college students are eligible for the prize of $1,000. If you would like more information on the contest, please write: Mars Student Contest The Planetary Society 65 N. Catalina Avenue Pasadena, CA 91106 ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 88 04:39:28 GMT From: rochester!crowl@rutgers.edu (Lawrence Crowl) Subject: Re: Face on Mars (more funny stuff) If you take enough pictures of rock fields, some are bound to look like something familiar. Just as if you look at enough clouds, some are bound to look like something familiar. This whole debate is pointless. If you want to know for sure, send someone to find out! Lawrence Crowl 716-275-9499 University of Rochester crowl@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 88 18:49:22 GMT From: hxn@psuvm.bitnet (Joseph Hennessey) Subject: Skyhook on Mars I am researching into the possibility of putting a sky hook or space elevator on the planet Mars. A couple months past I remember their was a discusion on the net, about the feasiblility of this idea for use to reach earth orbit. I would be appreciate if someone who had archived these discussions would e-mail them to me. I also would like it if some one would comment on the subject of putting a skyhook on Mars and what difficulties and possibilities they forsee in the idea. I remember that the discussion on putting a skyhook on earth, had pretty much concluded that we were not capable of doing so at this time, but with the reduced gravity of Mars and its thinner atmosphere I believe Mars might have a shot. Thanks in advance. JOE HENNESSEY (HXN@PSUVM) COMPUTER GAMES EXPERT ON C-64, APPLE II, AMIGA, AND MAC II (SOMEDAY!) AND PART TIME PHYSICIST (WHEN I'M BORED) ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 88 01:55:28 GMT From: mtune!lzaz!lznv!psc@rutgers.edu (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Subject: Re: Proxmire's stand on manned Mars mission < If you lined all the news readers up end-to-end, they'd be easier to shoot. > Funny: Proxmire likes the Mars shot, because it puts the space station (which he wants to kill) in the proper framework? It's amazing how many people who don't seem to want a manned space program are for rushing right off to Mars. It's as if they think it's the fastest way to kill manned programs. -Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet psc@lznv.att.com I'm not speaking for my employer, I'm just speaking my mind. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 88 8:58:14 EST From: the Shadow Subject: Re: Images on Mars > Clearly, the simple assumption of local Mars people waiting there is > unjustified. And how do they know about Kermit the Frog? That's obvious ... We all know that any self-respecting alien creature has antennae on its head(s). They just use those to pick up our TV transmissions from earth. Newspaper columnist Dave Barry had an excellent article a few years back about how network programming is saving the earth from alien invasion. I recommend reading this article (and any others by Dave Barry) for its keen scientific and social insight. :-), Jeff Hanes jeffh@brl.mil ------------------------------ Date: 9 Feb 88 09:12:00 PST From: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" Subject: To: "space" Reply-To: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" Subject: Faces on Mars, Crosses on the Moon When I was twelve and not as well-versed in the rules of evidence or the scientific method as I am now, I read, and was enthralled with, Frank Edwards' *Flying Saucers: Serious Business*. One of the photographs it contained was of a structure (?) on the moon resembling a cross with arms of equal length. The book is in print again, in the same area where you will find such future classics as *The Geller Papers* and *Opening to Channel*, which is a must for those of you interested in augmenting your incomes with a relatively small investment. --Kevin "Mad Max" Bold |WARNING: Writing back only encourages me. (BOLD@AFSC-SD.ARPA) ------ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 88 11:36:18 EST From: nutto%UMASS.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu (Andy Steinberg) Subject: Re: face on Mars To: ota%galileo.s1.gov@mordor.s1.gov, space@angband.s1.gov With all this recent talk about whether or not the "face" on Mars is real, a hoax, or an illusion I was wondering if anyone else rememered back when Viking landed on Mars and NASA released photos to the public that showed the Pyramids of Elysium as clearly defined, regular pyramidal structures? USnail: A. Steinberg BITNet: nutto@UMass 216 Johnson Internet: nutto%UMass.BITNet@cunyvm.cuny.edu UMass nutto%UMass.BITNet@mitvma.mit.edu Amherst, MA. 01003 Phone: 413-546-3227 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 88 14:51 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Pigs In Space > Clearly, the simple assumption of local Mars people waiting there is > unjustified. And how do they know about Kermit the Frog? Clearly, Henson stole the idea of Kermit the Frog from the aliens, who look like muppets. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 88 14:32:59 EST From: ST401385@brownvm Subject: Saturn V More Reliable than Shuttle? >In summary, the Saturn V proved its reliability. It was a big, dumb >booster, using tried and proved technology for the most part. The >major innovation was the large scale of the engines. I think that we >need something like this again. By my count there were only 12 or 13 Saturn V launches. While it is a useful data point that none of them blew up, keep in mind that it took *twice* that many flights to find the flaw in the shuttle. There is no valid basis to believe that the Saturn V is more reliable than the shuttle. --Geoffrey A. Landis, Ph.D Until 23 January: Brown University, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Internet: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU After 23 January: NASA Lewis Research Center 21000 Brookpark Road, Cleveland Ohio 44135 ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 88 21:00:24 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: LDEF; another Skylab? Just heard on CNN that the Long Duration Exposure Facility has one year before it augers in. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 88 12:50:50 GMT From: cos!hadron!decuac!dolqci!stein@uunet.uu.net (Mike Stein) Subject: In Memoriam This may be one of the more unusual cross-postings ever done - but I think that on this day and in these places it is appropriate. It is a song, but I like to think it stands on its own as a poem. The Final Lesson Words and music copyright 1986 by Michael Stein e My son, I've got to tell you that a e Your mother isn't coming home again. e G6 She lifted off for outer space C6 e With another woman and five men. e G6 A teacher into space, they said, C6 B7 flat 9 To teach young children all across the land. C G And yes, she's taught us something, son, f#dim#6 B7 e But not a lesson anyone had planned. 2) The Challenger set off into The morning of a January day. A minute into launch, and all The instruments reported "A-OK". And all your classmates watched in awe As on its way your mother's mission sped. When suddenly, at Launch Control On every panel all the lights went red. 3) At first the crowd believed the flash Was separation; everybody cheered. Without a 'scope, they could not see The funny way the booster rockets veered. But then they heard the sirens wail; Their hearts grew cold, and all the cheering died. And then the grim announcement came: "The craft's exploded." Everybody cried. 4) As minutes passed without a word, A nation prayed that somehow they'd survived. But half a million pounds of fuel Burnt in one second won't leave much alive. They say that for an hour or more The pieces rained across the silent sea. And now a nation searches for Some answers in an ocean of debris. 5) The engineers, they want to know The reason that your mother's ship was lost. The businessmen are asking How much this little incident will cost. And those who sent them search their hearts: "Dear God, could this brave crew have died for naught?" They won't, as long as we can learn The final lesson that your mother taught. 6) Some people live entire lives As if a moment after birth, they died. They never lose, they never win, Because in truth they never even tried. Your mother gave her life to teach What only an example can explain. Your mother's final lesson, son: x| E arpeg. Reach for the stars, or else you live in vain. 29th January 1986 - Mike Stein { uunet!vrdxhq, decvax!decuac }!dolqci!stein Box 10420 Arlington VA 22210 (703)241-2927 ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 88 18:43:49 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Shuttle schedule Buried deep within the first section of a local newspaper (and I *do* mean local, as in Morgan Hill Dispatch) was an item to the effect that the next Shuttle launch has been (re)scheduled for @August 15. (No year mentioned.) It also said the the assembly of the system would start around the middle of May. Is this real, or did they pick up something from the floor that had been lost for a long time? seh ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #125 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Feb 88 23:34:30 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15119; Wed, 10 Feb 88 20:20:37 PST id AA15119; Wed, 10 Feb 88 20:20:37 PST Date: Wed, 10 Feb 88 20:20:37 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802110420.AA15119@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #126 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 126 Today's Topics: Administrivia Net connectivity survey (finally) Yearly Announcement of Opportunity (NASA Jargon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 88 18:34:56 PST From: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: Administrivia Due to the very large backlog (140 messages) I'm going to punt from the queue all the stuff about aircraft stalls, aerodynamics, faces on Mars, and of course the perennial SDI messages. If anyone stongly objects let me know your reasoning and I'll reconsider. Also, at least for the next few days, I'm going to produce two digests per day. Hopefully, this will reduce the delay and make the discussions a bit more relevant. Ted Anderson (space-request@angband.s1.gov) ------------------------------ Subject: Net connectivity survey (finally) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 88 00:27:44 PST From: eugene@PIONEER.ARC.NASA.GOV What can we conclude: people are willing to go to surprising, but inconsistent rates. The usual way I would have done it (steps 4&5) from one reader: 1. 800 operator - didn't even know how to spell Nasa [^^^^^^^^ well not quite, but maybe NASA should get one (seriously).] 4. Local operator - Washington D.C. is area code 202 5. 202 operator - 453-1000 total of 5 steps. Only last two should have been necessary. Great if you did this minimum. But the diversity of intepretation of instructions (I asked for NASA HQ, not the Centers or Offices) and the various numbers I received are interesting. The ingenuity of people to solve the problem is notable. Consider the following: Well, if I wanted to know, I'd ask this friend of mine who works at Ames. [Actually he has several, this one came early.] The main number at NASA HQ from my American Astronomical Society Directory is: (202) 755-2320 [old or perhaps a project office] Got it from a Xerox of some pages from a Government. . . It's sitting here over my terminal along with my congress critters numbers/addresses, etc. I'll be flabber-gasted if you get 50 responses... [From a friend and climbing partner] [I got 90!] [The response rate can be consistent with 1% estimated by other sources.] Got that from Peter Banks Do I get extra points for the main number at NASA MSFC 205-453-2121? Despite the spoiler, I got the phone number the "hard" way: looked up NASA in the World Almanac I got the number by calling the operator at Ames. I looked the Ames number up in the Palo Alto phone book. The phone number is 202-453-1000 gotten from the operator at JPL. I cheated. I called the main number at JSC ((713) 483-0123) and got it. I skipped back to Ken Jenks' list where he said Reston, VA is the HQ. The operator at that area code gave me the D.C. number above. Phone directory from the Boeing Library. called 202 information, and the first number they gave me was for the Smithsonian (presumably the National Air and Space Museum). The second call yielded First call : Houston,Texas. Got number of security of "NASA" there. Second call: Determined that NASA HQ was in DC. Should have known. Third call : Washington DC. Got number above, which has answering machine on it ( at least at 6:30PM it does ! ) So that's one person who thinks he did it ! Time and path taken: 10 seconds to pull out my xeroged copy of "A Visitors Guide to NASA" from Sky and Telescope Feb 85. NASA HQ is first place listed, but only the Public Info Office number is given. 10 seconds to call phone info at 202 555 1212 and get the general number. SEVERAL DAYS to get around to it! WHO-KNOWS-HOW-LONG to get this message from BITNET onto ARPANET, and to you, since the gateway changed. be easy, I'd just whip out my old Annual Report of Nasa (1979), or a Nasa Tech Brief. Darn, they had the field offices but no main number. Ok, so I tried the phone company. I remembered the HQ was in Washington DC, so I called local information for the area code, While one correspondent wrote: Severe cost-based disincentive for us on this side of the pond... [Pond == Altantic] But as a interesting counter, another wrote: information: 010 1 202 453-1000 The "010 1" is for calling the USA from Australia. Good to see many people have a sense of humor. I don't know what the number is, but what it *should* be is (987) 654-3210. Now, if only I knew what area code (987) is.... ;-) I don't call myself a space activist for nuthin', you know. Also notable was the frequent mention of compensation. Do I get my gold star? I want a prize, you hear me, a prize, a good prize, a fun prize... the telephone number for Bill Ballhaus, Jr.? Just pulling your leg a bit... Okay, what do I win if I get the phone number correct? A teddy bear? Well, I didn't have to get off my duff to find it. I cheated: I asked a friend at RICECSVM to look it up in the Houston phone book for me. NASA switchboard - (713)483-3111 Johnson Space Ctr- (713)483-0123 they said it was NASA HQ. I also got an address... Do I win? Well eugene I don't know if this is THE phone number you want but I found this one (619) 442-7100 also I found this one (202) 755-2480 being overseas stationed at Clark Air Base, RP makes it hard to find phone numbers and such, I found these on the SIR-NIC network by looking up NASA-HQ. if these numbers are right can I be an astronaut? [RP == Philipines] Others got their own sense of reward: Anyway, thanks for 2 minutes of amusement. All in all, an interesting excercise. Thank you for that refreshing "get-off-your-duff-ness"; I really enjoyed actually doing something (1/2 :-). Hi, the # should be (804) 865 2855. [Not correct, but okay]. Took me 3 minutes from the time I read your posting, which only reinforces my constant amazement at the availability of information of all kinds in the US. (I'm from Poland.) Some noteable "extra credits:" From: "Priscilla Frisch" (you forgot to ask for the TELEX number, which is 89530) Associate Administrator of A&ST is listed as Raymond S. Colladay. [Not any more.] Some people took advantage of special facilities: I just went down the hall here to check the HQ directory, and here is what I came up with: The commercial number for NASAHQ is: . . . The FTS number is: . . . Fletcher's office number is: . . . Just for grins, I looked you up in the ARC directory. Are you still at . . .? What does the "Computational Research Branch (RCR)" do? ;-) Technology Utilization dept, which I am familiar with) is (202) 453-1920 Are you really going to tabulate circa 7,000 messages?? !! [Especially good number. Circulation: No.] Employment is big concern: Thanks for an interesting challenge! I'm anxiously awaiting the info on NASA jobs available next summer. BTW, I *am* job hunting this year, but most likely have no chance for anything at NASA (temporary visa) even though I'd love to make a sidetrip from the academia. I would like to say that I am very interested in a summer job at NASA, particularly JPL. I would appreciate any information you could send me on this topic. I am interested in working for NASA if the opportunity presents itself, and would greatly appreciate your sending me a copy of your job postings. Of course, if you are going to put it on the net, don't go to the extra trouble of sending me a copy - I'll just read it on the net. Then this note: etc. etc.etc.... I imagine that you don't get any financial compensation for the time you spend on the Space Digest-- certainly don't pay for it; your effort is however greatly appreciated. Actually, I'm alloted a small amount of time to read news, but not just space. My main USENET groups are comp.arch, sci.space, comp.graphics, and several minor ones like comp.hypercube, comp.lang.fortran, etc. I fully believe that the USENET is a more significant network than the ARPA Internet (which I used from 73-76, then 79-81 prior to moving to Ames), CSnet, BITNET, because the bureaucracy on those networks hampers communications, but this is a digression, I'm a convert. In more serious veins: Interesting experiment - but I hope you will not draw any general conclusions about the number of readers in this group from this survey. There are many readers internationally who follow this group with interest, but are not necessary inclined to try to figure out a phone-number in the US. I appreciate all International readers, and (see note above from Australia). I wish we were not so Nationalistic. I reject the hypothesis that asking 7,000 people to do something silly will measure their "get off your duffness." I submit that the correlation between the people who respond to this with the NASA HQ phone number and the people who would get off their duffs in a given real situation is poor. No comment, but I appreciate the note. I didn't think it was silly, nor did I think the other 89, but he writes further: [same write] Furthermore, how many of those 7,000 can actually get mail to you? I don't know that this message will get to you... There are ARPA, BITNET, CSNET, and USENET readers, and getting mail from a given site to you is not exactly reliable. This is why I appeal to readers on any network to use a human readable signature line. I wonder how many tried, but could not get thru. I read and enjoyed your articles, but am too lazy to look up the numbers. But I don't want you to think I never do anything, so I am at least sending you this note. That's okay. You sent email. It will be interesting to know how many of the net actually did something. In any case, I am interested in the results of your test. Please send me the final tally. This is it! >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 88 08:50:19 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Yearly Announcement of Opportunity (NASA Jargon) [leq: in a nearby by galaxy, close, closer, closest.....] It's time for university students to realize they MUST start preparing resumes if they want the best summer opportunities: outside of NASA as well as inside. --eugene If you are a student looking for employment next summer, now is the time to prepare a resume and fill out the application form for NASA summer employment. This message is being posted for those with dreams from youth. This is your chance. Do not delay. This is a crude posting, but time is running out. Unfortunately, each of the NASA Centers is recruiting summer students using different policies from the past due to budgetary contraints. NASA Ames and Lewis are using local Universities to hire summer students, other Centers are doing other things. Those Centers using Universities such as Ames and Lewis can take restricted foreign student positions. Just ask if it's possible. Also, for mailing to other NASA centers: YOU MUST BE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES to apply. We have received several resumes from non-US citizen, sorry, we cannot take you. Do not forget to state that you are seeking summer positions! Foreign nationals with a green card are okay for JPL. NASA and its contractors are equal opportunity employers. (usually) P.S. see Ken Jenk's list of contractors and if any one know's Ken's current phone number, please send it to me. NASA is the United States civilian space agency [we are not part of the DOD]. If you have ethical qualms about working for the DOD, but want to work in high tech, consider NASA. Technically for instance, all of Ames funding is from the civilian pot. Approximately 10% of our programs have some interest to the military and are reimbersed by them. This Center does NO SDI work. I learned this information for Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility [CPSR]. Note that several Centers (Ames, Johnson, Kennedy, Langley) share land with military bases. (Other Centers do not: Goddard with USDA, Lewis with Cleveland Airport, etc.) JPL is a contracted lab to Caltech. They have choosen limited military contracts, but in all cases, it is possible to positions away from joint or direct military work if you choose. As a reminder, we have projects which deal with manned and unmanned space, near Earth orbit as well as deep space, aeronautics, and many aspects of air research. NASA is in desparate need of young computer types [You're our only hope...]. Additionally, there are non-computer openings, but I am unable to provide any special help, so you have to take pot luck. Standard Form 171. To apply for some Centers (and excepting JPL ARC and LeRC), please fill out a standard Form 171. This is the form used for all employment within the Federal Government. If you are uncertain about anything regarding summer hiring, you can mail me (preferred) or phone me before the end of December at (415)-694-6453. [Better to send me net mail as I need to take some vacation.] Problems working with NASA. Let's be truthful. Salary can be a problem, so if you would prefer working for a contractor, state that on your cover letter. We will try to forward resumes if possible. Another problem is locale. Sorry, we bought land where it was cheap (at the time). Some positions sound like they use obsolete equipment (in some cases this is true, but we recognize the problem and try to be buy state-of-the-art equipment, manpower is our biggest problem). The following descriptions are obviously biased to the Centers I have worked at and toward contacts I have. Not all of these people know or remember me, so mentioning my name won't help. Marilyn Lane Summer Programs MS 241-5 NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA 94035 Including the Dryden Flight Research Facility (Ames/Dryden) located at Edwards AFB where the Space Shuttle lands. We also have numerous contractors including the Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science. We can forward a resume if so indicated (171 for RIACS is not necessary). Ames has a Cyber 205, Cray XMP and a Cray 2, and numerous other machines. Located in the heart of Santa Clara Valley. Aerodynamics, chemistry, life sciences, SETI, space station work (AI). Our summer hires will become employees of San Jose State University. A SF 171 is unnecessary for applying to Ames, send a resume and we will mail you an additional application packet. Duane Patterson Personnel Office Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology 4800 Oak Grove Dr. Pasadena, CA 91109 Work at JPL includes VLSI CAD, image processing, general purpose computing on IBMs, Univacs, and the normal complement of VAXen and PDPs. JPL is involved in deep space missions and communications. A form 171 is not necessary. NASA's Deep space center, the DSN (Deep Space Network), the Mission Control and Computing Center (MC^3), various planetary and imaging facilities, robotics and other AI. Personnel Office NASA Headquarters Washington DC 20546 There is limited use of computers at NASA HQ, but I do know people who have summered in WDC. Personnel Office (contact has moved back to HQ) NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD 20771 GSFC has a Cyber 205, Amdahls soon to be running UTS, and performs work on unmanned near Earth space missions. They are located just outside Washington DC. Landsat, massively parallel processor, and other sats. Try Personnel Office, this may change. NASA Lewis Research Center 21000 Brookpark Rd. Cleveland, OH 44135 LeRC does work on aerodynamics. They have a Cray-X-MP, amdahls, Univacs. Summer hires will be employees of Case Western Reserve University. Amy Kennedy Mail Code AH3 NASA Johnson Manned Space Center Houston, TX 77058 The heart of all manned space operations. One of the largest NASA centers. They run on IBMs and Univacs on the large-end to HP 9000s on the small end. Gearing up for the space station. JSC is requiring an SF171. Personnel Office NASA Kennedy Space Flight Center Titusville, FL 32899 The Eastern launch complex for major flights. Many small minis and other computers such as IBMs. Gearing up for the space station. May need a 171. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL35812 The largest NASA Center. It does work on manned and unmanned space. They have a Cray, and lots of other machines. They have a separate facility known as the McCloud Computer Center which houses large IBMs. They have decided NOT to have a summer employment program (their contractors might). They will have a summer co-op program contact: Tom Holden, CM-23 Personnel Office MS 174 NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23665 LaRC has a Cyber 205 and VAXen. Those interested in numerical analysis should know that ICASE (Inst. for Comp. Appl. in Sci. and Eng.) is located at Langley. Send your resumes (if interested in ICASE) to Bob Voigt (not Personnel Office). They are doing lots of aerodynamics and space work. There are also several other NASA sites under the control of the above Centers. For instance: at the Ames Research Center, we have the Dryden Flight Research Facility 100 miles N of Los Angeles at Edwards AFB. If you are not interested in the above, perhaps there are other NASA offices nearer than you think. Ask me using the net. Some sites I can think about are near VAFB, White Sands, NM, the McCloud facility in LA (Louisuana), the Wallops Island facility, and the Goddard Space Institute near NY (uncertain about their summer policies). COOPerative work with a university or college is possible. If you have an interest in this, make this clear in your cover letter and check with your local work-study office. You must be a college student [I checked for a high school student earlier: no go.] Seniors and juniors have precedence (Lower classmen should still ask, then try contractors). A comment about odds. Last year, we appeared to average 50 network based resumes (up from 30 previous year). On the average 2,000 resumes (for all disciplines) appear per Center for about 50 openings max (does this mean the net is insignificant? well, sort of, but computers aren't everything, but the quality of net resumes for computer people I would assume to be high). Last year, no one was hired from the net at either Ames (RIACS yes) or Langley, but were hired at GSFC. I don't know about other Centers. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #126 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Feb 88 06:24:34 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15876; Thu, 11 Feb 88 03:21:48 PST id AA15876; Thu, 11 Feb 88 03:21:48 PST Date: Thu, 11 Feb 88 03:21:48 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802111121.AA15876@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #127 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 127 Today's Topics: TVSat 1 Solar-panel Situation Stofan leaving NASA Re: Stalls Lunar habitation questions Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. Shuttle-launched satellites considered unreliable? Plutonium on the shuttle Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 2 Feb 88 14:11:34 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: TVSat 1 Solar-panel Situation Re Henry Spencer's note from the 14 Dec AW&ST on the efforts then to free the jammed solar array on the German TVSat 1: I had heard on shortwave, in just the last couple weeks, that the satellite has BOTH arrays jammed -- one completely closed, and one partially open. This news differed from earlier reports which said that one array was deployed and the other jammed partially open. The radio report stated that the satellite was unusable and worthless in this condition, again a difference from earlier statements, which had indicated it was usuable in a reduced-performance mode. (I believe that this was on Radio Canada International, though it could have been on Radio Nederland instead -- I listen to communications-oriented programs on both stations.) If anyone has some current info on this, please post it! Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 88 15:14 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Stofan leaving NASA In addition to the business about LDEF, I notice the 2/8 AW&ST says Stofan (the head of the space station program) is leaving NASA. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 88 15:33:09 pst From: Eugene N. Miya Subject: Re: Stalls I have a serious suggestion: Postings about flight (in atmosphere) and aviation matters like stalls probably best belong in the aviation newsgroup. Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing. I think it's a more appropriate group because there are more pilots there to jump on questions (I would assume that most people are not aware of its existence). True, some spaceflight takes place in the atmosphere. The group is reachable (aviation-request at MIT), and I believe it's gatewayed to the Usenet. I also know other Ames and other NASA people read those groups as well. This would align itself with Henry's summarizing only space matters from Av. Week. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 88 11:06:13 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Lunar habitation questions Since there have been several moon landings, I presume answers to at least some of the following questions have been found: - What is the temperature range of the surface material on the moon? - How deep do you have to go before you find a constant temperature (no day/night cycles)? - What is the temperature at this point? - Does the temperature increase below the constant-temperature point, as on Earth? How fast? - How deep does the pulverized lunar surface go? Thanks in advance for answers to any of these questions. John Roberts roberts@icst-cmr.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 1 Feb 88 20:30:20 GMT From: amdahl!nuchat!flatline!erict@ames.arc.nasa.gov (eric townsend) Subject: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. According to activist and musician Jello Biafra, the next flight of the shuttle was to carring a payload of 46 pounds of *plutonium*. He claims this is from _The_Nation_ and _Common_Cause_, who got it from NASA, who "conveniently forgot to tell us about it." What I'd like to know is: 1. Is this correct? 2. If so, I thought there was a law or treaty or something that we're involved with that prohibits the launching of radioactive material into space; and that this treaty was the reason we don't put nuclear reactors into space. Can anyone confirm/deny/refuse to comment on any of this? [ FYI: J. Biafra's talk "Why I'm Glad the Space Shuttle Blew Up" is about 3 and half minutes long, and has to do with the 46 pounds of plutonium slated for the next shuttle mission. It can be found on _No_More_Cocoons_ (Alternative Tentacles virus 59) -- a double speach-only album by Jello Biafra; and also on The Birth of Tragedy Magazine's _Fear_Power_God_ Spoken Word/Graven Image Compilation album (CFY Records). ] J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 88 15:28:21 GMT From: kit@athena.mit.edu (Chris D. Peterson) Subject: Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. I am by no means an expert on the subject, but here is a bit of information on the subject, There are nuclear "reactors" in space. In fact the upcomming Galileo mission to Jupiter uses nuclear fission for its power systems. There is a good reason for this, as solar energy near Jupiter is pretty weak, and nothing else comes near the weight requirements for such a long mission. The fact is that when you are dealing with new things and new technology there is always some risk, it is a fact of life so live with it. Nothing in this world is free. Chris Peterson Project Athena Systems Development ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 88 19:45:12 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. In article <347@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: > > According to activist and musician Jello Biafra, the next flight of the > shuttle was to carring a payload of 46 pounds of *plutonium*. > > 2. If so, I thought there was a law or treaty or something that we're > involved with that prohibits the launching of radioactive material > into space; and that this treaty was the reason we don't put nuclear > reactors into space. There are any number of satellites zooming overhead with radioactive power components. Well, not *that* many, but several with very large power requirements, such as the Soviet RORSATs, which are radar platforms for oceanic surveys...which is another way of saying ones that look for ships and shallow-running subs. The radars on board need lots of power and solar cells aren't quite up to it. The treaty you're thinking of bans weapons of mass destruction from space, not the same thing as a power plant, exactly. The main drawback with these RORSATs and other nuclear-powered birds is that sometimes they came down in places like Canada. seh ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 88 00:28:39 GMT From: tolerant!sci!auspyr!aussjo!ausmelb!mulga!munnari!otc!metro!ipso!stcns3!dave@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Horsfall) Subject: Shuttle-launched satellites considered unreliable? An article in "Electronics Australia" Jan 88 talks about Aussat 3, and starts off with saying that Aussat 3 was launched by Arianespace, as distinct from the previous two which were shuttle-launched. Then follows this statement: "The choice of Arianespace followed the consideration of various economic factors, including the longer life expectancy of a rocket-launched satellite compared with that of a shuttle-deployed satellite." Forgive me if this has been hashed over before, but that statement does sound a little odd. Are shuttle-deployed satellites really less reliable than rocket-launched ones? How come? Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU) ACS: dave@stcns3.stc.OZ.AU STC Pty Ltd ARPA: dave%stcns3.stc.OZ.AU@uunet.UU.NET 11th Floor, 5 Blue St UUCP: {enea,hplabs,mcvax,uunet,ukc}!\ North Sydney NSW 2060 AUSTRALIA munnari!stcns3.stc.OZ.AU!dave ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 88 03:14:14 GMT From: mb2l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Marc Charles Bonin) Subject: Plutonium on the shuttle If there is a treaty prohibiting the launching into orbit of radioactive materials (I am virtually certain that there is not) , then it gets broken on a regular basis. Radioactive material (thorium ???) has been used in radioisotope generators many times, mainly for missions where solar cells are impractical or ineffective. These missions include the Viking landers, Pioneer 10 &11, Voyager 1 &2, and (eventually) Galileo. Incidently, these generate electricity by using the decay heat to produce electricity by the thermoelectric effect, rather than setting up a fission reaction and then using the heat released to power a Rankine cycle. These generators are NOT reactors. What if the launch vehicle carrying one of the generators failed?? Then the radioactive material would fall into the ocean along with the contents of the reactors aboard USS Thresher, USS Scorpion, and who knows how many sunken Soviet submarines. Marc Bonin mb2l+@andrew.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 88 04:20:27 GMT From: sj1f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Kent Jensen) Subject: Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. > 2. If so, I thought there was a law or treaty or something that we're > involved with that prohibits the launching of radioactive material > into space; and that this treaty was the reason we don't put nuclear > reactors into space. I know that some of the Soviet Cosmos series used nuclear reactors as power sources. One re-entered and rained debris over Northern Canada in the late 70's(?) and there was some concern about the radioactivity from the reactor. I do not think that any of our sats carry reactors, but I do not know about some of the other spacefaring countries satellites. Steven Jensen ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 88 01:08:10 GMT From: mtune!codas!killer!elg@rutgers.edu (Eric Green) Subject: Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. in article <347@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) says: > 2. If so, I thought there was a law or treaty or something that we're > involved with that prohibits the launching of radioactive material > into space; and that this treaty was the reason we don't put > nuclear reactors into space. There is a treaty banning nuclear WEAPONS in space. But there is no treaty banning nuclear REACTORS in space. Remember that Russian satellite that broke up over Canada a few years back, spewing low-level radiation over a wide swath? It was powered by a nuclear reactor.... Your friend the nut case might have been thinking about the SDI payload that was recently sent up on a Delta(?) rocket... it was originally scheduled for the shuttle, back when the shuttle was planned to fly, well, now. Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 88 18:33:41 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. > According to activist and musician Jello Biafra, the next flight of > the shuttle was to carring a payload of 46 pounds of *plutonium*. He's misinformed in several ways. For one thing, it wasn't the next flight; two flights circa June were scheduled to carry isotope-powered planetary probes (Ulysses and Galileo). For another thing, he's using that great scare word "plutonium" without mentioning that it would go up in an armored canister designed to survive a launch failure. (There have been some doubts expressed about whether the canisters are in fact tough enough for all possible cases, but they definitely would have survived the Challenger disaster.) This is not just speculation: such a canister went into the ocean some years ago after an expendable launcher failed; it was recovered intact, wiped clean, and re-used. > 2. If so, I thought there was a law or treaty or something that we're > involved with that prohibits the launching of radioactive material > into space; and that this treaty was the reason we don't put > nuclear reactors into space. Nope. There is no such treaty. In any case it would probably exempt armored isotope canisters, because there is just no other satisfactory way of powering outer-planet missions -- there isn't enough sunlight out there for solar panels. The US has put one reactor into space, although not recently. The Soviet Union routinely uses small reactors to power its military radarsats. Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 88 01:46:26 GMT From: nuchat!flatline!erict@uunet.uu.net (eric townsend) Subject: Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. In article <3212@killer.UUCP>, elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: > There is a treaty banning nuclear WEAPONS in space. But there is no > treaty banning nuclear REACTORS in space. Remember that Russian > satellite that broke up over Canada a few years back, spewing > low-level radiation over a wide swath? It was powered by a nuclear > reactor.... Ok, so that's it. No nuclear weapons, but nuclear reactors are just fine. If we're allowed to launch reactors into space, why not launch the waste, too? The 'what-if-it-blows-up?' answer could be applied to the launch of the reactor as well.... > Your friend the nut case might have been thinking about the SDI > payload that was recently sent up on a Delta(?) rocket... it was > originally scheduled for the shuttle, back when the shuttle was > planned to fly, well, now. My 'friend the nut case' has a very good point. What if the rocket/shuttle /whatever that's carrying 46 pounds of plutonium goes blooie in lower atmosphere? You gonna be ready to live inside for the next few years? I'm not. I'd much rather spend money getting us a base on the moon, and just mine/manufacture all the reactor fuel there.. Where there *aren't* 5 billion people, at least 3 billion of which are just minding their own buisiness. > Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Asimov Cocktail,n., A verbal bomb Hey, do you attend the University of Slow Learners, by any chance?? :-) (I used to live in La. too.... get out of the state while you still can! :-) J. Eric Townsend ------------------------------ Date: 7 Feb 88 00:44:44 GMT From: unisoft!gethen!farren@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Michael J. Farren) Subject: Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. In article <2728@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> kit@athena.mit.edu (Chris D. Peterson) writes: >In fact the upcomming Galileo mission to Jupiter uses nuclear fission >for its power systems. The power system for Galileo does NOT use fission - at least, not in the sense that is implied when you say "reactor". There is no chain reaction involved - the power is generated by thermovoltaic devices driven by the heat of Plutonium's natural breakdown processes. While this is, technically, a fission process, it's not one which requires any external control, and not one which poses any particular danger - the Pu is sealed inside VERY strong armored capsules, and the chance of it being released into the environment is minuscule. Michael J. Farren ------------------------------ Date: 7 Feb 88 22:05:13 GMT From: mtune!codas!killer!elg@rutgers.edu (Eric Green) Subject: Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. in article <365@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) says: > My 'friend the nut case' has a very good point. What if the > rocket/shuttle/whatever that's carrying 46 pounds of plutonium goes > blooie in lower atmosphere? You gonna be ready to live inside for the > next few years? 46 pounds of plutonium might irradiate a stretch of ocean pretty badly, but not much worse. It won't explode. You need very high pressures to compress plutonium to critical mass, and a shuttle explosion would tend to expand outwards (now you know why atomic bombs have heavy cases?). Even if it did explode, the global effects would be no worse than atmospheric testing in the 40's and 50's... > I'm not. I'd much rather spend money getting us a base on the moon, > and just mine/manufacture all the reactor fuel there.. The moon, like most other places in the solar system, is very short on fissionables. Be difficult to mine anything there in reasonable quantities. The moon doesn't have the seismic and tidal activities that have concentrated such materials here on Earth. There's little difference between carrying 46 pounds of plutonium and 4 tons of raw uranium ore, risk-wise, besides the costs involved... so processing it on the moon would be no help, either. > Hey, do you attend the University of Slow Learners, by any chance?? :-) No no, you got it all wrong! That's "U Stand in Line"! :-) > (I used to live in La. too.... get out of the state while you still can! :-) Believe me, I don't intend to hang around here one moment more than I have to... no smiley there. Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #127 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Feb 88 23:29:33 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17019; Thu, 11 Feb 88 20:26:02 PST id AA17019; Thu, 11 Feb 88 20:26:02 PST Date: Thu, 11 Feb 88 20:26:02 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802120426.AA17019@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #128 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 128 Today's Topics: Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. Re: Liberia of space (was Soviet space marketing moves) Re: Liberia of space (was Soviet space marketing moves) Re: Liberia of space (was Soviet space marketing moves) Private enterprise versus national administration Re: Private enterprise versus national administration Re: "What's New" 01/29/88 Condensed CANOPUS - 1987 December ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Feb 88 13:06:07 GMT From: ems!rosevax!kksys!bird@UMN-CS.ARPA (0000-Mike Bird) Subject: Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. In article <1988Feb3.133415.12432@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > [stuff deleted ] ... there is just no other satisfactory >way of powering outer-planet missions -- there isn't enough sunlight >out there for solar panels. The US has put one reactor into space, >although not recently. The Soviet Union routinely uses small reactors >to power its military radarsats. > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology I was under the impression that the experiment packages left up on the moon by the manned Apollo shots used a small Pu-powered nuclear reactor as their power source. I seem to remember a small, black, cylindrical device with radiating fins as the center imstrument deployments. Can anyone else confirm or deny this? Mike Bird ------------------------------ Date: 8 Feb 88 18:56:46 GMT From: uflorida!codas!burl!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@gatech.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. > ...It won't explode. You need very high pressures to compress > plutonium to critical mass... Besides which it is the wrong isotope anyway, and CANNOT explode. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 88 02:52:03 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Liberia of space (was Soviet space marketing moves) > By the way, about ten years ago a german private company tried to > build a launch facility in Zaire. Does someone knows about how this > story has ended ? Otrag, the company in question, is defunct. The Soviets had it in for them from the start, partly because China was a major potential customer and partly because the Soviets distrust the Germans and would prefer not to see ICBM-capable technology in German hands. The Soviets scored a major propaganda coup when some Western media people -- who should have been more careful -- swallowed their disinformation campaign whole and "exposed" Otrag's "real purpose": to develop nuclear-capable missiles for West Germany. The totally-unfounded uproar that followed resulted in Otrag getting kicked out of Zaire, and they never really recovered. It's not clear that they would have succeeded anyway, since there was some reason for doubts about their approach, but they never really got a chance to try. Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 88 00:30:02 GMT From: mmm!allen@UMN-CS.ARPA (Kurt Allen) Subject: Re: Liberia of space (was Soviet space marketing moves) In article <254@matra.matra.UUCP> ma@matra.UUCP (Michel Allair) writes: >By the way, about ten years ago a german private company tried to build >a launch facility in Zaire. Does someone knows about how this story has >ended ? I heard a rumour that a german company in Zaire was trying to develop a basic rocket system but had to close shop because of political problems / rebellions going on. This was strictly one story that I heard. Take it with a large grain of salt. Kurt W. Allen 3M Center ihnp4!mmm!allen ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 88 05:18:17 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Liberia of space (was Soviet space marketing moves) > Seems to me that it's only a matter of time before some multinational > (or American) company figures out that they can get satellites > launched by the Russians if the satellites aren't built in the U.S. Sooner than you think, maybe: the RFP for Australia's next generation of comsats specifically requests that proposals include consideration of Proton as a launcher. The US comsat companies are not happy about this. Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Sender: "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@xerox.com Date: 22 Jan 88 05:38:33 PST (Friday) Subject: Private enterprise versus national administration From: "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@xerox.com Reply-To: "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@xerox.com In his message Adam Hamilton writes: I was under the impression that this newsgroup was unanimous that the way to get the US Space program back on its feet was to turn it over to private industry as far as possible. I was also under the impression that this involves putting the profit motive first (you know, as in capitalism) rather than keeping it in check. There are certain issues arising from this proposal. Briefly: 1. Not every activity which is justifiable is necessarily profitable. To define the profit motive as the sole criterion for justification may exclude worthwhile projects unlikely to show rapid profit; navigation systems are a possible example. 2. Elsewhere in SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 110 Michael Allair writes: By the way, about ten years ago a german private company tried to build a launch facility in Zaire. Does someone knows about how this story has ended ? This was an example of one of the problems that might be associated with a free market in launch facilities. I can research this issue further, but from memory I recall that Zaire was the only country which would agree to accomodate the company, and that there were grave concerns that the launch vehicles offered might be made available to countries developing nuclear weapons, for use as ICBMs. Clearly any launch vehicle capable of delivering a worthwhile payload to LEO can also undertake at least an IRBM role, and it therefore seems inevitable that governments will be involved in supervision at the very least of any private launch facilities. 3. The link between launch vehicles and weapons systems also extends into the political sphere; politicians use astronautics as either a votecatcher / status symbol (cf. Apollo and Voshkhod) or as a soft target for budget-cutting, depending on the breaks. Is it likely that they will happily part with such a useful political object? 4. There have been numerous comments regarding treaty provisions concerning the responsibility of countries for objects launched by their inhabitants. Do not such provisions effectively prevent any government, even the most enterprise-minded, from deregulating ('privatising' is the current UK jargon) the space industry? Regards, Chaz ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 88 12:33:34 GMT From: l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@k.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) Subject: Re: Private enterprise versus national administration In article <880122-054310-1110@Xerox>, "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@XEROX.COM writes: > . . . > 1. Not every activity which is justifiable is necessarily profitable. > To define the profit motive as the sole criterion for justification > may exclude worthwhile projects unlikely to show rapid profit; > navigation systems are a possible example. Until recently, most research and development activities were done under non-governmental auspices. Only after WWII did governments attempt to control research (except military research, and not even that always) in a big way. Before 1950, Szilard (one of the scientists active in the Manhattan project) wrote about this; I am not sure whether the amount of scientific research would be less at this time if the government did not effectively take over funding of research. It is true that _in the short run_ a massive government activity can speed up research in some area. It can also slow it down. Before WWII, considerable research was funded by universities and nonprofit organizations. There were contributions from industry, in many cases with no strings attached, and some government sponsorship, in most cases directed. I do not advocate excluding government contributions to space. However, it is hard for a government to keep to a vague goal, especially when much money is concerned. We need means by which the millions of people who believe man in space is important can combine to get it done. The other millions who believe that unmanned space exploration is more important should also be able to do so. Each group should not expect the other to give financial support to its activities. Those who do not believe that efforts in space are important should not be taxed to support it. Let people support what they believe in, by financing organizations which they believe will turn a profit in a reasonable time, by giving to organizations which they believe will not, and even by having intermediate types of organizations. Also, allow these organizations to cooperate. Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (ARPA or UUCP) or hrubin@purccvm.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 88 19:14:03 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Re: "What's New" 01/29/88 In [sci.physics] article from piner@pur-phy appears: >[...] >3. REAGAN'S NEW "NATIONAL SPACE POLICY" IS STILL UNDER WRAPS, although >he reportedly signed off on it two weeks ago. It was generally thought >that it was being held up until after the State-of-the-Union Address >but, as you may have noticed, neither space nor science got even a >mention. However, in an expanded message to Congress, supplied by the >White House, the President offers his solution to the space problem -- >"privatization." > >Robert L. Park (202) 232-0189 The American Physical Society All I can say about this is that if this is really true, it's about time! Let's suck up our socks and get down to it-- and also push to have this solution implemented. I'd be tempted to start a company to do space software, and try to run it as ethically as possible-- just to see if a company can be ethical and still keep its head above water in the apparent maze of bad ethics clustered around the space efforts. Do large amounts of money automatically create financial hanky-panky, or are there actually enough people out there to form (eventually) a corporation large enough to handle all aspects of a space industry/information-network/research support structure? Considering the spate of scandals involving bribes, criminal actions, etcetera, I find my faith in human nature amply borne out. ;-( Or am I being too cynical in assuming that there is no ethics in big business, government, etc. when it comes to handling all the money and the access to all the money? [Maybe this belongs in talk.philosophy :-| ] Joe Beckenbach (CS BS '88) I'D RATHER BE ORBITING ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 88 21:03:58 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Condensed CANOPUS - 1987 December Here, finally, is the condensed CANOPUS for December 1987. There are four articles. The first is presented by title only and the other three in condensed form. The unabridged version has already been sent to its mailing list. Articles are highly condensed and rearranged; material in {braces} has been added by me. CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Send correspondence about its contents to the executive editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded). Send correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA, 1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019. Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS widely, either electronically or as printout copies. If you do, however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many others receive copies. CANOPUS is partially supported by the National Space Science Data Center. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES TO DISCUSS SPACE ISSUES - can871204.txt - 12/6/87 {Scheduled for Dec. 18. Cancelled?? --SW} E.O.S. A.O. PLANNED - can871201.txt - 12/2/87 - {condensed} Earth Observing System (EOS) is the single, largest science system planned for the international space station. It will comprise instruments on polar orbit platforms and on the manned station to provide a comprehensive view of the terrestrial environment. The U.S., European, and Japanese space agencies will release Announcements of Opportunity simultaneously in mid-January. SPACE STATION TO PROCEED WITH OR WITHOUT INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS - can871202.txt - 12/2/87 - {condensed} The U.S. Space Station program will continue as planned -- but with gaps -- if NASA and its foreign partners cannot reach an agreement on their participation, officials said Dec. 11 at a press conference announcing prime contracts. Under the current plan, ESA and Japan each will provide laboratory modules for the manned station, and Canada will provide the satellite servicing center. However, the three have balked at signing final agreements because of the Department of Defense insistence that the station be available to conduct military experiments, possibly to the extent of "blacking out" the station for the duration of the experiments. "If they're late or don't show up," {Associate Administrator for Space Station Andrew} Stofan said, "we will go ahead without them." Although the Phase C/D contracts have been awarded, NASA still faces an uphill battle to win complete authorization and appropriations funding for the current and coming fiscal years. The zeroing-out by the Senate appropriations subcommittee and partial restoration by the full committee "was close to the edge" for NASA cancelling the program, Fletcher said. AMBITIOUS SCIENCE CAMPAIGN PLANNED BY GALILEO TEAM - can871203.txt - 12/2/87 - {last article - condensed but still long} The Galileo Jupiter Orbiter/Probe mission will attempt a mini-grand tour of the solar system with visits to two inner planets and three minor bodies before arrival at Jupiter. Project Scientist Torrence Johnson said the delays "have been extremely frustrating," but the results from Voyager and other activities "have whetted our appetite to get back into the [Jovian] system." Activities taking advantage of Galileo's circuitous route to Jupiter include: o The first cruise science spanning the inner-to-middle solar system with a single set of instruments, and exploration of a large neutral hydrogen region recently found at 1 A.U., o Flyby of Venus with instruments having capabilities beyond the current Pioneer Venus Orbiter, o Two flybys of Earth, allowing outside imaging of the geocorona, and infrared imaging of the farside and north pole of the Moon, o Flybys of rocky, Type-S {as opposed to metallic or carbonaceous types --SW} asteroids Gaspra and Ida, 16 and 32 km wide, respectively. The project team has managed to stay intact during three crises all related to launch vehicles. Originally Galileo was on a three-stage version of the Inertial Upper Stage (IUS) to be launched by the Space Shuttle. Then it was split into orbiter and probe missions aboard separate IUS's, then was rejoined atop a widebody Centaur when the three stage IUS was dropped due to a combination of technical and cost problems. In the wake of the Challenger disaster the widebody Centaur was cancelled as too risky. The current plan is to launch Galileo atop a standard IUS to the inner solar system and use gravity assists at Venus and Earth to reshape the orbit so it finally stretches to Jupiter. This will take six years, more than double the travel time planned with a Centaur boost. Several design changes were required to accommodate the delay and the tour of the inner solar system, explained Project Manager John Casani. Large sunshades were added to the spacecraft bus and around the secondary reflector on the high gain antenna, and new thermal control surfaces were added elsewhere. Electrical circuitry was modified to reduce the electrical power requirement since the plutonium in the existing radioisotope thermal generators is decaying and replacements cannot be manufactured (the capability was discontinued some years ago). Small radioisotope heating units have been attached to some portions of the spacecraft to ease that power demand. The extended duration has raised concerns about the life of mechanical systems like tape recorders. "Those resources will be carefully husbanded and metered out," Casani said. Despite problems caused by launch vehicle woes and delays, "What we will do at Jupiter is everything we ever planned and more," said Science and Mission Manager William O'Neil. The delay has allowed improvements in some science instruments. There has been "no compromise, no reduction of the Jupiter science," Casani said, and the tour of the Galilean moons will have a better propellant margin than a direct mission would allow. Finally, Casani said the redesign will raise the cost of the spacecraft from $675 million to $895 million, and the longer and later cruise to Jupiter will double operational costs from $225 million to $450-$500 million. The current timetable for the Galileo mission is: Launch Oct. 8, 1989 (Launch window 45 days; second window in July 1991 loses asteroid encounters.) Venus gravity assist (1,000 km miss distance) Feb. 9, 1990 Earth gravity assist 1 (1,000 km) Dec. 8, 1990 Gaspra flyby (1,000 km) Oct. 29, 1991 Earth gravity assist 2 (300 km) {!!!} Dec. 8, 1992 Ida flyby (1,000 km) Aug. 28, 1993 Jupiter arrival Dec. 7, 1995 Io closest approach (1,000 km) Dec. 7, 1995 Probe entry and relay Dec. 7, 1995 Jupiter orbit insertion Dec. 7, 1995 Galilean satellite tour Dec. 1995- Oct. 1997 -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #128 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Feb 88 06:29:29 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17847; Fri, 12 Feb 88 03:25:46 PST id AA17847; Fri, 12 Feb 88 03:25:46 PST Date: Fri, 12 Feb 88 03:25:46 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802121125.AA17847@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #129 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 129 Today's Topics: Re: NASA tours Re: Tranquility Base Re: RFPs Pathfinder Re: Saturn V Facts? Re: Saturn V Pathfinder funding Re: RFP's Re: RFPs Re: RFPs Nasa Deep Space Images Re: RFPs reproducing Saturn V ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jan 88 00:10:27 GMT From: cartan!brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David desJardins) Subject: Re: NASA tours In article <8712032357.AA09380@galileo.s1.gov> eugene@PIONEER.ARC.NASA.GOV (Eugene Miya N.) writes: >There are other locations, but NASA gives tours as a courtesy, this >isn't Universal studios. People don't want to be disturbed in their >research, and I don't blame most. I can understand people not wanting to be disturbed in their work, but it is not accurate to describe NASA tours as a "courtesy." NASA as a Federal agency has two primary missions (identified specifically in its charter)-- one is to conduct scientific and technological investigation, and the other is to distribute information to the public (I'm afraid I don't recall the exact words). Tours and exhibitions are one way that it fulfills this latter responsibility. -- David desJardins ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 88 05:34:13 GMT From: amdahl!nuchat!flatline!sugar!peter@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Tranquility Base In article ... takahash@bnrmtv.UUCP (Alan Takahashi) writes: > In article ... djkrause@UCI.BITNET (Doug Krause) writes: > > From: me. > > >"Houston, Tranquility Base. The Eagle has landed" "Roger, Tranquility. > > >We copy you on the ground." > > I always thought it was "Tranquility Base to Houston, the Eagle has > > landed." (I know, it's minor quibble.) > > Douglas Krause > Followed by: "We copy you down, Eagle." > Just continuing the minor quibble... :-) I have the whole sequence from "Tranquility Base" to "ground" digitised. We used it in our prize-winning (well, runners up get prizes too) Amiga demo, "Workbench Lander". If you have an Amy you can get the BADGE killer demo contest disks and hear the whole thing. Actually, the guy in Houston muffed it. The last part comes out as "Roger, Trak... Tranquility. We copy you on the ground." -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 88 07:30:20 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: RFPs > Apollo 6 had major problems with each of the three stages in the > Saturn V. "Stages to Saturn" (NASA SP-4206, the authoritative history of the Saturns) disagrees to some extent; see pages 360-363 for the gory details. > The pogo effect occurred during first stage flight... StS says that, apart from a tense moment when it first showed up, nobody considered the first-stage pogo to be a "major" problem. It was relatively mild and brief (although it was definitely troublesome enough to analyze and fix) and it was a familiar problem with new boosters. The word "mild" is a direct quote from von Braun. On the other hand, everyone agreed that the upper-stage problems were serious: "With three engines out, we just cannot go to the Moon." (von Braun again) > Two of the second stage engines shut down early. This was caused by a > wiring error... No, the ultimate cause of the shutdown was the same problem that affected the third-stage engine, although a wiring error propagated the shutdown to a second engine. > liquid hydrogen line. This line had bellows to allow flexing. In > ground tests, frost forming on the bellows damped vibrations and > protected the line. In vacuum, however, no frost formed and the > bellows broke from the vibration. Basically correct but it wasn't frost, it was air liquefied by the cold of the liquid hydrogen and trapped between the bellows and their protective covering of metal braid. Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 88 10:48:31 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Pathfinder The following news item appeared on the ORACLE news pages last night. Would anyone care to confirm, deny or (until Monday) speculate? And if it is true, could someone get President Reagan to have a word with Mrs. T. Bob. --------------------------------------------------------------- President Regan has backed a new space policy aimed at restoring America's lead in solar system exploration. He will use his State of the Union address on Monday to outline the plan, said White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater. It centres on a programme called Pathfinder, which aims to put people back on the moon by the year 2000 and manned flights to Mars soon afterwards. The Whitehouse proposals would see NASA's budget jump 25% to $11.5bn in the 1989 financial year. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jan 88 04:21:24 GMT From: amdahl!nuchat!splut!stu@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Stewart Cobb) Subject: Re: Saturn V Facts? In article <1282@edison.GE.COM>, mjk@edison.GE.COM (Mark Kocher) writes: > It seems to me I read that the third stage was targeted to crash on > the back side of the moon, after it had accellerated the Apollo > package up to its necessary velocity. This is true. The third stages were crashed into the Moon to get rid of them, and to calibrate the lunar seismometers that the astronauts left behind. The ascent stages of the LEMs were also deorbited and crashed, for the same reasons. However, Apollo 10 was never staged during the manned part of its flight (down to an altitude of 6 miles, and back up - so close). The ascent stage was full up with fuel, and the descent stage was about half full. The flight controllers wanted to find out what happened when a burning engine ran dry, so (after the astros were on their way home) they fired the LEM remotely on an escape trajectory. When the descent stage ran dry, they staged it, and burned the ascent stage dry as well. The ascent stage is now in a heliocentric orbit. This is a little bit interesting, because there's a guy in my office who helped compute the trajectories for that Apollo 10 shot. According to him, when the batteries finally died on the LEM and they lost the tracking beacon, the digitals said the thing would return close by Earth in about 18 years -- which was not that long ago. I've tried to get more accurate data, but it's buried in twenty years of trajectory tapes. Anyone want a slightly used LEM? | Stewart Cobb (Hacking GNC for STS) ... sun!housun!nuchat!splut!stu | N5JXE @ KA5KTH or WB5BBW ... seismo!soma!uhnix1 / ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 88 15:35:44 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: Saturn V in article <2902@drivax.UUCP>, dambrose@drivax.UUCP (David Ambrose) says: > ... The prime thrust of DOD reforms were in the contract management > area. DOD started negotiating more fixed-price contracts, including > performance bonuses, and separating development from production. Yes, and since you can't count on getting the juicy production contract, how much incentive do you have to even bid on the development contract? Your chance of winning a development contract is strongly affected by how much of your own money you have already spent on research. Money that will not be recovered from the profits on a development contract. So you spend the money to win the developement contract. Lose money on the develoment contract hoping to make it back on the production contract. Your competion, who has spent none of their own money on research, under bids and gets the production contract. You are forced to give them the results of your internal research, since it was used in the developement of the product, for free. Thus eliminating the competitive advantage that made it possible to get the development contract in the first place. A truley enlightened approach to doing business. > By themselves, contract reforms cannot clean up the mess at either > NASA or DOD. But over the long run, they can make a difference. Contract reforms like these put an enormous burden on private companies without forcing the contracting agency to clean up their act. It also places the percieved blaim for the mess on the private companies and not on the agency. Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jan 88 02:07:54 GMT From: thorin!hayes.cs.unc.edu!leech@mcnc.org Subject: Pathfinder funding The current Aviation Week reports on a major space initiative and new National Space Policy Reagan is supposed to announce in the State of the Union address. It includes a $3.5G increase in NASA funding, to > $11 billion in FY '89, including funds for building a mixed fleet and starting work on the Pathfinder advanced technologies program. Leaving aside the near certainty of deficit pressure and a new Administration nipping this laudable initiative in the bud, I am curious why this massive funding increase is given while ~$90 million in new start funding for the Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby (CRAF) and AXAF missions is simultaneously deleted from the NASA budget, as also reported in AW&ST. The paragraph in their lead editorial lamenting these so-called short term sacrifices doesn't cut the mustard when requested funding for these projects is <3% of the proposed budget increase. Fletcher is reported to be fighting only the smaller ($30 million) AXAF cut. This is a fine way to drive yet another wedge into the space community but is otherwise unjustifiable. The Japanese model (a separate space science agency) looks real good right now. Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 88 07:26:07 GMT From: nuchat!sugar!peter@uunet.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: RFP's Sounds like I belgiumed my terminology, perhaps... In article <8801071654.AA18834@mitre.arpa>, subar%mwcamis@mitre.arpa writes: > >The government should at least send out RFPs for a station delivered > >to orbit. > > Sorry, no can do. Putting out an RFP if you don't plan to buy is > known as a felony in the gov't biz. Is this true of requests for proposals, or just for requests for purchase? Besides... I think the government should damn well plan to buy anything that can be delivered to orbit that is (a) cheaper than the station and (b) as capable as the station. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 88 17:15:07 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: RFPs [deleted alot of stuff about the reliability of the Saturn V] >The third lunar landing aborted en route due to a failure in the Apollo >service module. Skylab was nearly ruined due to a failure in the lab's >heat/meterite shielding during launch. Both were payload failures, not >launcher failures. > >> ... The numbers are too low for any statistical significance, but >> there is the possibility that Saturn V is not really any more >> reliable than the shuttle. Maybe they just quit while they were >> ahead. Don't forget the Apollo 13 launch, when the center engine of second stage cut off about a minute early. They merely extended the S-IVB burn by a few seconds to compensate for that. *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick *** ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 88 17:31:52 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: RFPs In article <1988Jan17.214028.16062@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >> ... Apollos 21-23 or so had originally been planned, but cut early >> (I read somewhere that they had been talking about going up to the >> mid 20s)... > >They were talking about going much farther. The fate of the later >missions was sealed when Congress terminated Saturn V production at 15, >though. 18-20 were cancelled after all the hardware was built; one of >the leftover Saturn Vs was used for Skylab. I have a 1967 report from a Lunar exploration working group, which developed recommendations for the Apollo program. It's enuf to make a guy cry. They called for 15 or 20 landings, going up through the mid 70s, and even give sample lunar flight-plans and exploration charts. In the back is a map of the crater Alphonses (sp?) which was one of the proposed landing sights. The lunar stay would be upwards of 2 weeks, with long rover treks every day. After liftoff, the rover would go over to ground control, exit the crater and make it's way to the next landing site picking up samples along the way. Advanced Surveyor landers would also be used heavily doing preliminary site surveys. That reminds me, that before the cancellations of Apollos 18-20, Apollo 16 was supposed to land in the highlands north of Tycho at the Surveyor 6 landing site, and Apollo 20 was targeted for a site next to the central peak in Copernicus. Oh, well. . . Apollo was originally not meant to be a one shot deal, as so many critics contend, but was supposed to mark the beginning of a massive manned solar-system exploration program. Remember Agnew talking of a Mars landing by 1980? *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick *** ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 88 16:21:52 GMT From: mmm!allen@umn-cs.arpa (Kurt Allen) Subject: Nasa Deep Space Images About a year ago, some one in this net mentioned that NASA allowed purchase of it's deep space probe imaging information for a nominal price. If anyone knows who to contact in NASA to get these images would you please mail me this info ? Thx in advance. Kurt W. Allen 3M/DIAC (DIGITAL IMAGING ACQUISITION CENTER) ihnp4!mmm!allen ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 88 05:56:15 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!CaptainDave@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: RFPs Somewhere I heard, and not that long ago, that the government was going to reproduce the Saturn V launch vehicle to supplement the STS as a heavy launch vehicle. Is there any truth to this rumor??? Any comments are appreciated. Dave Nusbaum ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 88 00:42:51 GMT From: uflorida!codas!burl!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@gatech.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: reproducing Saturn V > Somewhere I heard, and not that long ago, that the government was > going to reproduce the Saturn V launch vehicle to supplement the STS > as a heavy launch vehicle. Is there any truth to this rumor??? ... The idea has been talked about quite a bit, but as far as I know, nobody has actually decided to do it. Unfortunately, it would be quite expensive and would take quite a while. Even if tooling and plans had been preserved with care -- and they haven't been, the tooling is gone and even the plans are incomplete -- a fair amount of work would have to be done over because it didn't get into the permanent records. (For example, having the specs for some subcontractor's piece of equipment doesn't mean that the subcontractor still exists or still remembers how to make the thing to meet those specs.) At the very least, enough details would have changed to make it necessary to repeat much of the testing. An additional problem is that some key support facilities -- notably Launch Complex 39 (the VAB, launchers, and pads) -- have been modified extensively for Shuttle use. And since it was clear that the remaining Saturn Vs would never fly, nobody saw any reason to invest the extra money and effort to retain Saturn compatibility. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #129 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Feb 88 23:20:52 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00745; Fri, 12 Feb 88 20:17:55 PST id AA00745; Fri, 12 Feb 88 20:17:55 PST Date: Fri, 12 Feb 88 20:17:55 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802130417.AA00745@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #130 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 130 Today's Topics: New space camp? Re: Tranquility Base Re: Tranquility Base Re: New space camp? Astronauts' Memorial Re: Astronauts' Memorial Re: Saturn V takeoff Re: Tranquility Base Re: Astronauts' Memorial GET AWAY SPECIAL JOURNAL Employment of Foreign Nationals by NASA Re: Time Magazine story Re: New space camp? Re: Tranquility Base Re: New space camp? Re: Employment of Foreign Nationals by NASA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 2 Feb 88 09:57 EST From: RON PICARD Subject: New space camp? Hi all, I recently talked to someone who had gone to spacecamp and he told me a couple things that I haven't seen on the net. He said that another space camp is supposed to be built out in Calif. I think at Ames. Has anyone else heard about this? He also mentioned that some of the equipment has a 200 pound limit so if you're close list yourself at 195. I sent my money in to attend the Sept. 23 session. If anyone else is going at the same time let me know. Ron Picard (PICARD@GMR.COM) General Motors Research Labs ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 88 16:30:37 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Tranquility Base >Actually, the guy in Houston muffed it. The last part comes out as >"Roger, Trak... Tranquility. We copy you on the ground." To further add to this trivial discussion, Charlie Duke the CapCom continued: ". . .We got a bunch of guys about to turn blue here, thanks alot!" Now the real question here is what were Neil's actual words when he first stepped on the moon. The transmissions sez "That's one small step for man. . . "(you know the rest, I hope). But Neil claims that he said "That's one small step for A man. . .". ^ *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick *** ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 88 22:57:33 GMT From: tada@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Tadayoff) Subject: Re: Tranquility Base In article <4331@ames.arpa> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes: > [...] >Now the real question here is what were Neil's actual words when he >first stepped on the moon. The transmissions sez "That's one small step >for man. . . "(you know the rest, I hope). But Neil claims that he said >"That's one small step for A man. . .". I remember reading somewhere about an interview in which Neil said something along the lines of: I wrote one small step for a man, and I wanted to say one small step for a man, but in the excitment I forgot.... I can't remember the source, unfortunately. -michael zehr ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 88 19:47:58 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: New space camp? In article <8802021523.AA01866@angband.s1.gov>, PICARD@gmr.COM (RON PICARD) writes: > Hi all, > I recently talked to someone who had gone to spacecamp and he told > me a couple things that I haven't seen on the net. He said that > another space camp is supposed to be built out in Calif. I think at > Ames. Has anyone else heard about this? This has been in local papers here recently. As I understand it, some local legislator is trying to get funding (from where?) to start a space camp around Ames. It's very preliminary, they haven't done much more than talk about the possibility of setting one up, no real solid plans as yet. Sounds like fun, though. seh ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 88 10:18:15 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: Astronauts' Memorial The following is the caption of an illustration on the front page of the 1 Feb 88 issue of Federal Computer Week: SPACE MIRROR "The Astronauts Memorial Foundation has selected the winning design for a memorial to astronauts who have been killed on space missions. When completed in 1990, the 50- by 40-foot mirror-finished granite memorial will follow the sun's movement and track the sky. The monument was designed by the San Francisco architectural firm Holt Hinshaw Pfau Jones and is to be built on a six-acre site near the entrance to the Kennedy Center's Spaceport USA." The illustration depicts a rectangular reflective sheet tilted back at a 30-or-so-degree angle, with supporting strutwork behind it, mounted on some sort of bearing. This assembly sits on what seems to be the corner of some sort of raised platform or roof of a structure. All in all, it looks much more like an industrial or scientific device, or a component of a solar furnace, than a monument. Perhaps that effect is intentional. Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 88 22:16:56 GMT From: moria!dunc@sun.com (duncs home) Subject: Re: Astronauts' Memorial To be a really fitting memorial it should be placed on the Moon. I wonder if it's too late to change.... ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 88 21:47:41 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu!hogg@uunet.uu.net (John Hogg) Subject: Re: Saturn V takeoff In article <7049@ihlpa.ATT.COM> animal@ihlpa.ATT.COM (D. Starr) writes: >A while ago, somebody asked how long it took a Saturn V to clear the >launch tower. I had an opportunity to time it just the other night >when the PBS series "Television" re-ran the original network feed from >the Apollo 11 launch. From this program it looks like about six and a >half seconds pass between the word "liftoff" and the first stage fins >passing the crane at the top of the tower, a distance of about 400 >feet... According to the book ``Project Apollo'' (published 1971, original edition 1969) the time to clear the tower is greater than 20 seconds. That may well be starting from ignition; the context concerned the mechanism by which the upper service booms retract into their shields before five F-1 engines at full power come past. Let's see... at 15 tons/sec, that's about 300 tons of fuel to go the first ~450 feet. Working this out in my head, the initial milage is order-of- magnitude 200,000,000 l/100km. Of course, it gets better if you average over the whole trip... John Hogg | hogg@csri.toronto.{edu,cdn} Computer Systems Research Institute| uunet!csri.toronto.edu!hogg University of Toronto | hogg%csri.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net (arpa) | hogg@csri.utoronto (bitnet) ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 88 17:42:12 GMT From: mmm!ems!rosevax!carole@UMN-CS.ARPA (Carole Ashmore) Subject: Re: Tranquility Base Well, I was listening back in 1969, and he did indeed say "One small step for man, one giant step for mankind." which seemed at the time a bit trite. I remember reading in the newspaper what he was supposed to have said, "One small step for a man, one giant step for mankind." and thinking it made more sense. Carole Ashmore ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 88 21:18:11 GMT From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu (Terr S. Trial) Subject: Re: Astronauts' Memorial In article <41065@sun.uucp>, dunc%moria@Sun.COM (duncs home) writes: > To be a really fitting memorial it should be placed on the Moon. I > wonder if it's too late to change.... Or to be a *really* fitting memorial it should be placed on Pluto. I wonder when can we get there to do it... ------------------------------ From: RMORALES%WPI.BITNET@husc6.harvard.edu Date: Sat, 6 Feb 88 02:09:24 est Subject: GET AWAY SPECIAL JOURNAL I am involved in one of Worcester Polytechnic Institute's on-going space-related projects: the Get Away Special Journal. This quarterly Journal chronicles the history of WPI's development of two Get Away Special Canisters (GASCANs in NASA's lingo) donated by the MITRE Corporation. Until last year, the Journal presented only "local" events concerning these canisters. However, this year our editorial team has taken the initiative to expand this 5 1/2 year old project to encompass important aerospace events in the WPI community as well as the national and international space effort. Anyone interested can subscribe by just writing to the address below. Subscriptions are free. When writing, please mention that you saw this notice in BITNET. Get Away Special Journal c/o Robert Morales WPI Box 2502 Worcester, MA 01609 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Feb 88 12:58:10 PST From: Eugene miya Subject: Employment of Foreign Nationals by NASA I've received about 4 notes on this, so permit me to respond as one. NASA is an Agency of the US Government. It has a basic "hire home bodies" clause for several reasons: 1) "security," 2) "buy/hire American," and 3) "other miscellaneous reasons." Now 1) how many Russian agents do you think work for the Social Security Administration? Probably not many, but maybe one or two (right?) ;-). Let's not argue "deep agents," that's dumb, but the rule is inclusive of all Agencies. 2) this is a back lash to trade legistation (not the 1970s, but since the turn of the Century). The Detroit analogy still does hold; the arguments have lasted decades. (P.S. I know a Communist (I use that word for flame effect) Chinese person working at LLNL. The right signatures can approve anything.) So the only way to get one of these positions (Civil Service) is to change citizenship, wait some grace period, then apply. Those are the primary `defenses' from hiring foreign nationals. The secondary effects are as follows: NASA has about 100,000 contractor personnel working for it. A foreign national can try to get a job with one of them. This is probably subject to approval, frequently given. A good justification about "sole person capable of (blah, blah)." Co-ops sort of fall into this latter category. Rules for this category can change depending how the co-op is set up and how far someone wants to risk their signature. By historical (hysterical?) precedent, England and Canada, and the other ex-Colonies tend to have the best odds. ESSA countries follow this. Then come the other countries. Many of these people have special status as joint representatives. Note this is not an impossible situation. The grants in my Branch alone have Chinese (Hong Kong, Japanese, and Mexician (Hi Rafael, give me a call)) National students on it. Note: the high percentage of non-US citizen students in US Universities is a big worry in Washington DC. As with any job, some information remains proprietary, because we work with commercial firms (and we don't let their information out, etc.). It's really not very much different than applying to ESSA or JSA each will protect their own interests. P.S. We were just sent a note about disseminating TRs outside the US and all the approvals (up to the Director's office) to do this. People outside the US might not like this, but lots of people inside do. Rock the boat, and I stop talking. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 88 17:29:15 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: Time Magazine story in article <1988Jan31.193503.10424@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) says: > Slightly lower peak development budgets. That is the whole, complete, > entire reason why the SRBs were chosen. The reason why they remain in > service is equally simple: it would cost a lot to develop a > replacement, especially with NASA and its contractors doing it, and > there is no money. Come on, cut the contractors a little slack. I've seen too many engineers who work for those contractors grinning ear to ear at being given assignments on commercial projects. Projects where they are allowed to do work in weeks that NASA and DOD regulations would force to take years. The contractors look and act the way NASA and DOD want them to act, not vice versa. Bob P. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Feb 88 17:30:17 GMT From: pitstop!sundc!hadron!netxcom!rkolker@sun.com (rich kolker) Subject: Re: New space camp? In article <8802021523.AA01866@angband.s1.gov> PICARD@gmr.COM (RON PICARD) writes: > I recently talked to someone who had gone to spacecamp and he told me >a couple things that I haven't seen on the net. . . . Right now, the Space Camp folks have three different locations, Huntsville (the original), KSC and Japan. The last two are new and have not yet opened, but will this summer. KSC and Japan are also Space Camp Level I only for the first year. (That's 4-7 grades). There are "Space Camp Like" programs at other locations around the country, but I don't know anything about them. ++rich ------------------------------ Date: 8 Feb 88 23:52:00 GMT From: pitt!cisunx!sngst@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Sanjiv N. Gupta) Subject: Re: Tranquility Base In article <4331@ames.arpa> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes: >To further add to this trivial discussion, Charlie Duke the CapCom continued : > > ". . .We got a bunch of guys about to turn blue here, thanks alot!" > I've read and heard tapes of this historic dialouge about ten million times, so I'm fairly certain that he says: '...we got a bunch of guys about to turn blue, but were breathing again...' or something to that effect. Im quoting from memory. Here's two interesting tidbits: The 'program alarm' that occured shortly before touchdown nearly aborted the landing of Apollo 11, but actually there was no problem (false alarm). The guy in mission control who recognized the situation and acted very quickly to save the landing was along with Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins at the white house after the flight to receive a medal from Nixon. I forget his name. Right after landing a fuel line in the Eagle clogged up and the pressure in the fuel system started to build up. Again, the mission was almost aborted with an emergency liftof from the moon. You don't hear them talking about it to the crew, because they didn't tell them until after the flight. the situation cleared itself up before it became critical. It was probably caused by frozen fuel. I forget the exact reference for these, but I think its a book called "Chariots for Apollo," an excellent history of the lunar module development. Good reading. sanjiv ------------------------------ Date: 9 Feb 88 01:06:52 GMT From: devvax!jplpro!des@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Smyth) Subject: Re: New space camp? How can I get info on Space Camp? Never heard of it before, and it sounds interesting for me and my family. Mail me, or better, post as I think it will be general interest. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Feb 88 16:24:22 GMT From: devvax!jplpro!des@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Smyth) Subject: Re: Employment of Foreign Nationals by NASA eugene@AMES-AURORA.ARPA (Eugene miya) writes: >NASA is an Agency of the US Government. It has a basic "hire home bodies" >clause for several reasons: 1) "security," ... > ... Now 1) how many Russian agents do >you think work for the Social Security Administration? Probably not >many, but maybe one or two (right?) ;-). Let's not argue "deep >agents," that's dumb, but the rule is inclusive of all Agencies. When I came to work here at JPL, I was led through the typical security briefing, told not to talk to Russians, don't go to Communist countries, etc., just like at every other aerospace facility in the USA. Then, as I was being directed to my workplace by my brand new boss, he said "Oh, you don't have to worry about the Russians, you have to worry about the locals!" and he introduced me to my office mate, who is Russian from Lenongrad. There are many foreign nationals on-site here including Russians. About half the discussions my office mate has are in the Russian tongue. Cooperation is the best way to avoid strife, and of course, war. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #130 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Feb 88 06:20:06 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01295; Sat, 13 Feb 88 03:17:14 PST id AA01295; Sat, 13 Feb 88 03:17:14 PST Date: Sat, 13 Feb 88 03:17:14 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802131117.AA01295@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #131 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 131 Today's Topics: Re: Creating National Space Policy space station Lunar base station *Engines of Creation* (Re: Nanotechnology) Candidates' Space Position Re: The Church of the Holy Starship was Re: A request Re: Japan's Space "Fifth Generation" Proxmire's stand on manned Mars mission Time Magazine story Re: Candidates' Space Position Re: Time Magazine story ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jan 88 16:48:13 GMT From: devvax!jplpro!des@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Smyth) Subject: Re: Creating National Space Policy It is better to spend $$ on international cooperation than international destruction. We can achieve peace with USSR the same way Europe has achieved peace with itself over the last 43 years: COOPERATION. And a cooperative space program: USA, USSR, ESA, and JSA (sp?) can lead to epace among the "civilized" world. Peace is national security, not war. Girding for war, as the Ray-Gun administration has been doing, undermines the stability of the world, and therfore the security of the world and our nation. Focussing our efforts on the next frontier - space - will provide our children and children's children (God, do I sound like a politician or what !?! :^) with hope and a better life. As they support us on Social Security and pay off the national debt, of course :^p ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 88 17:13:19 GMT From: linus!alliant!powell@husc6.harvard.edu (Glen D. Powell) Subject: space station Space stations are boring! We need something that will ignite the imagination of the public and also offer something substantial to the business world. How about a space station on the moon? Far more exciting! On the moon we would have ready access to many raw materials. We would have room to grow. What does the net think of the idea of a moon based space station? Glen ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jan 88 19:51:18 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Lunar base station In his article Glen D. Powell (powell@alliant.COM) writes: > Space stations are boring! We need something that will ignite > the imagination of the public and also offer something > substantial to the business world. > How about a space station on the moon? Far more exciting! On > the moon we would have ready access to many raw materials. We > would have room to grow. What does the net think of the idea of > a moon based space station? Personally, I say "go for it". However, the basic support structure which must be included will probably extend to some kind of space station in earth orbit; after all, it is about 60-70 hours (at Apollo speed) to Luna. That would get me from LA to Chicago by car: a long time to go without any scenery. ;-) On looking at it again, this looks even better. Now there's a firm reason (no pun intended) to put something in space: a community on Luna that needs support-- very much like the initial serious colonization efforts of centuries ago. The New World about 300 years ago would be a comparable situation, but then everyone will have to remember that failures will happen regardless: remember Roanoake? Pardon the ramblings, but I want to see this happen too! -Joe Beckenbach (CS BS '88) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 88 15:38:00 PST From: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" To: "space" Reply-To: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" Subject: *Engines of Creation* (Re: Nanotechnology) Kurt Godden's review of K. Eric Drexler's *Engines of Creation* (SPACE DIGEST V8 #114) was an excellent summary of the book, but I would like to add the following note: namely, Drexler's discussion notes the possible *misuses* nanotechnology could have as well as its benefits. (I don't remember G. K. O'Neill mentioning possible misuses of space colonies in *The High Frontier*, for example.) This is very sharp pin for deflating the neo-Luddite myth that "science leads people away from human values;" science doesn't seem to have had that effect on Drexler. Kevin "Mad Max" Bold |When in Southern California, honk & wave at the (BOLD@AFSC-SD.ARPA) |red Fiero GT with plates that say "4DMNSNS." ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 88 00:31:26 GMT From: lmsprys@athena.mit.edu (Linda M Sprys) Subject: Candidates' Space Position After the debate amomg the democratic candidates on Sunday in Durham, NH, Babbitt was asked about his ideas on space. His response was as follows: 1: Support for developing a mix of launch vehicles, avoiding overreliance on a single vehicle. (a la Challenger) 2: He would like an eventual manned space station. Not clear if this means cancelling the present NASA concept and starting with a man-tended version like the ISF or not. 3: Supports the development of a moonbase. I found it significant that he did not mention a manned mission to Mars as a near-term goal. I would like to assume that his support for these particular aspects of space development reflects a commitment to avoiding Apollo-style oneshot missions and indicates a desire to foster the development of a viable space infrastructure, mostly because this is the basis of my support for these goals. Also, I wonder what the net thinks about Reagan's proposed new policies regarding commercial development of space. The New York Times printed the criticism that the policy might amount to little more than massive subsidies to private enterprise. Aspects that I remember include: 1. A limitation of commercial liability 2. A requirement that NASA buy launch services from private enterprises 3. Contracting out design work . . . Too bad he didn't do this seven years ago. Now, it is questionable whether this policy will survive a change of administration. Benjamin Mclemore lmsprys@athena.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 88 00:09:49 GMT From: amdahl!nuchat!sugar!peter@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: The Church of the Holy Starship was Re: A request In article <409@kaos.UUCP>, hilda@kaos.UUCP (Hilda Marshall) writes: [ re: attitudes of space buffs, I think ] > This approach makes some assumptions that I don't see as obvious facts: Neither do I: > 1. The expansion of the human realm and the assurance of the > propagation of the human species are paramount. I'll go along with this one. > 2. When technology can assure a constant supply of something, > there is no reason to preserve the existing supply. I don't see that this one follows. We can assure a constant supply of anything at some price... that doesn't mean that we should keep using everything up. Apart from aesthetic reasons it's just too expensive. > 3. Therefore, if a species does not directly serve humanity in > its viable state, it is expendable. And this assumption is pure road apples. I don't know any space enthusiast who would go along with this, except perhaps for species that directly harm humanity... like smallpox virus (the classic case, here). -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 88 21:09:30 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Re: Japan's Space "Fifth Generation" In his article Henry Spencer (henry@utzoo.uucp) writes: >Note that 2000 kg is not much of a shuttle. Unless Japan has changed >its plans radically without telling outfits like Aviation Week, this is >the proposed -- not yet approved -- small *unmanned* spaceplane that >might fly late in the century. The US need not quake in its boots yet. Also note that once a shuttle with cargo capacity of 2 metric tons is flying with frequency, all it takes to provide a major space effort is a large booster. The US ought to be seriously worried soon. -Joe Beckenbach (CS BS '88) Why the powers-that-be dumped a working system of boosters to spend years on developing an exclusive technology is beyond me. One should keep the bicycle while waiting for the volkswagen. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Jan 88 00:50:00 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1988 January 28 00:50:00 PST (=GMT-8hr) X-Date-Posted: 1988 January 28 00:50:53 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Cc: REM@imsss Subject: Proxmire's stand on manned Mars mission (I'm not on Space-Enthusiasts mailing list, so please send or CC any reply directly to me via mail.) With Proxmire traditionally being opposed to spending money on science and other worthy causes because he believes it to be a waste of valuable taxpayer money, I was concerned about his stand in favor of immediately starting work towards a manned Mars landing. I wrote to him to ask him why and to point all the other projects in space (lunar mining etc.) that would be more cost-effective uses for taxpayer money in the immediate future, with the manned Mars mission being better left for later after the other tasks are completed and our capabilities in space are more developed. Here is his reply: Dear Mr. Maas: It was good of you to let me know of your opposition to a Mars mission and your interest in learning why I supposr such a mission. I support the manned exploration of Mars primarily because of the opportunity it presents the United States to work with the Soviet Union on a project that would encourage progress toward a common goal, break down the barriers that currently exist between our two countries and result in shared costs. I also believe it provides a framework and a rationale for several of the other activities being pursued by NASA such as the development of a heavy lift launch capability and the space station program. To my mind one of the differences betwen the Apollo days and the current NASA environment is that NASA no longer has a single overriding goal but rather a number of divergent missions with differing groups of proponents. I hope this helps to explain my position. Sincerely, William Proxmire Chairman HUD-Independent Agencies Subcommittee I have a number of questions I'd like to ask him: - Is he pleased or displeased that we presently have lots of divergent missions instead of one big one? I am pleased, but he sounds like he wants to revert to the Apollo one-big-project mode. - Does he consider the Mars mission to be the only way we can get the USA and USSR to cooperate, therefore worth the immense cost at this time? - Does he think we can get other tasks done while the Mars mission is getting most of the money? Does he want anything else done except that which directly contributes to Mars mission? I'm not sure I can ask such questions tactfully, so perhaps somebody else can "pick up the ball" by sending him a letter that starts something like "I understand your position on the manned Mars mission is that ... Is that essentially correct? I have a different opinion for the following reasons ... Can you justify your position in the light of that ...?" etc. As you can see, that doesn't sound very tactful, so you gotta reword it somehow, but perhaps that basic idea would be a good way to refer to the info I gathered from the reply I received without making it obvious that we are in cahoots over the net. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 88 22:44:53 GMT From: sonia!khayo@locus.ucla.edu (Erazm J. Behr) Subject: Time Magazine story The latest (Feb 1) issue of the Time Mag. has a horror story "Putting Schedule over Safety", relating the problems that safety-conscious people working for contractors are having (Unisys & Rockwell specifically mentioned). I think that by putting 3 safety inspector next to each worker would get us flying maybe in the 22nd century, but the other extreme as described by Time is rather revolting. I haven't thought about the privatization of space very much, generally I am for privatization of whatever can be privatized without dire consequences, but this to me looks like a major argument against it (in this case at least). If there were no NASA and their "blue-ribbon" committees, what would prevent the industry from taking outrageous shortcuts? Public opinion which doesn't seem to care one whit? The old-fashioned "responsibility" in the age when abstract ideas like that are ridiculed? Fear of punishment? (A question: has anyone involved in the space program ever had to stand trial as a result of an accident or incompetence?) Any reactions? Eric khayo@MATH.ucla.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jan 88 00:29:07 GMT From: purtill@faline.bellcore.com (Mark Purtill) Subject: Re: Candidates' Space Position Well, I just got a (today) letter from SPACEPAC (asking for money, of course) that had some info along those lines. (However, this letter was dated Dec 23, 1987, so this may be a little out-of-date. Bush gave a pro-space speach in Huntsville, AL, last fall. "While no other Republican candidate has yet taken a stronger pro-space position than Bush, SPACEPAC feels Bush's position is unreasonably constrained by his concerns for the federal deficit." (That's from the letter, as are any other quotes I might throw in). As I recall, Bush was in favor of the "Mission to planet earth" scenario from the Ride report. At a "recent" Iowa debate, "Both Dukakis and Gephardt calimed to be favorably inclined toward the space program, but felt that in an era of tight budgets that priorities should be placed elsewhere." "SPACEPAC has thus far penetrated the Gore campaign substantially more than... others. ... Based on positions taken so far, Gore is clearly more pro-space than any of the other Democratic contender. However, this could change;" since most of the others haven't said anything on the issue. Aside from asking for money, SPACEPAC says that writing letters to candidates asking them what they're position is is a good idea as it gives them the feeling someone cares. Asking questions at "public forums" (like speaches) is also good. They would like to have copies of any replies you get, especially if the candidate takes a position on Space Station. SPACEPAC's address is: SPACEPAC, 2801 B Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite S, Santa Monica CA 90405 The letter has the addresses of all the presidential candidates; I'll post it if and only if there is sufficent interest. The Jan. 4, 1988, issue of Aviation Week also has an article space issues in the campaign. My impression was that no one had said much, and those who had were not the front-runners. purtill@math.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 88 09:26:34 GMT From: sonia!khayo@locus.ucla.edu (Erazm J. Behr) Subject: Re: Time Magazine story As usual, thanks go to Henry for his informed opinion. What I thought when saying that NASA's "blue ribbon committees" are better than the absence of the like: I am a total outsider, but my impression was that because of the public focus etc. NASA gets to take most of the blame for whatever (even screw-ups of the contractors) --> desire to avoid this --> stronger emphasis on safety-oriented procedures, anonymous complaints being given some attention etc. (not strong enough - granted - the Challenger was easily the biggest shock of my life to date). My impression of how things work in industry (I'm no part of it either) was that the discipline was more like the (P)Russian army kind, discouraging *any* "dissent" (the article I was referring to provides some proof - I somehow can't imagine NASA security guards snooping on their "whistle blowers", simply because such things are much harder to hide/deny when they happen in a non-private outfit). I fully agree that all this depends mainly on the people and organization; however, it also depends on the motivations and underlying principles on which an organization is based. You simply cannot *count on* having good people in any enterprise (in the long run, of course). Just look at the incompetence that is everywhere and growing. There must also be something in the system that would at least reduce the chances of big or small idiocies passing without notice. As long as there is no clear relationship between competence and profit/"good name"/respect (say, in the absence of many competitors, which is inevitable in the case of efforts of this magnitude), all the usual incentives - that make businesses good, reliable, growing - simply don't work. By the way, my question about people standing trial was also sarcastic, but I think it has more to do with the general tendency to smear responsibility around very thinly - it is now quite usual (I guess) for a victim of an electric shock to sue everyone starting from the electric company and ending with the printing shop which failed to include a warning that a heater submerged in a bathtub may cause bodily harm to those submerged with it - and nobody even laughs at it any more. If I don't see the Big Picture, it's because it doesn't exist any more. Regards, Eric khayo@MATH.ucla.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #131 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Feb 88 23:22:20 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02290; Sat, 13 Feb 88 20:19:32 PST id AA02290; Sat, 13 Feb 88 20:19:32 PST Date: Sat, 13 Feb 88 20:19:32 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802140419.AA02290@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #132 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 132 Today's Topics: Re: Japan's Space "Fifth Generation" Re: Time Magazine story Re: "What's New" 01/29/88 Re: Creating National Space Policy Re: Time Magazine story Re: Time Magazine story Civilian Space Policy Reform ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Jan 88 06:07:12 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Japan's Space "Fifth Generation" > H-II. Planned to operate from 1992-?. Payload capacity of 2000 kg. > About 47 meters tall. This would lift the Japanese space shuttle. Note that 2000 kg is not much of a shuttle. Unless Japan has changed its plans radically without telling outfits like Aviation Week, this is the proposed -- not yet approved -- small *unmanned* spaceplane that might fly late in the century. The US need not quake in its boots yet. > ... no real home-grown Japanese aerospace industry. The liquid fueled > LE-5 engine in the second stage of the H-I is produced under American > license and will be a model for the LE-7, the power train in the H-II. This sounds to me like somebody has gotten a bit confused; it's the *first* stage of the H-1 that is made under US license, since it is basically a Delta. The second stage is pretty much all-Japanese. McDonnell-Douglas, which makes Delta, tried to get US rights to the second stage; the Japanese refused to sell. > ... Also, Japan is going for 2 stage launchers, as opposed to the > three stage launchers which ESA and NASA use... Now I know somebody is confused. Ariane is indeed 3 stages, but the US boosters cover the range from 2 to 4 stages. > ... Also, the Halley's Comet flyby (Planet A) was put into orbit using > direct injection rather than an elliptical slingshot, because it would > reduce costs... Again something has been lost somewhere; as I understand it, Planet A used direct injection simply to get maximum payload out of a booster that was rather small for a planetary mission. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 1 Feb 88 00:34:58 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Time Magazine story > I understand that the SRB's were originally intended to be only > temporary solutions as shuttle boosters, and were to be replaced by > liquid fuel boosters after a (small?) number of launches. Is (was) > that correct? Perhaps in the most informal and speculative sense; nothing like that was ever official policy. NASA has been *interested* in liquid boosters from the beginning, but never had any firm plan for changeover. And no, nobody is doing anything about it now except for yet more paper studies of the idea. > What are the reasons for chosing SRB's over conventional liquid fuel > rockets?... Slightly lower peak development budgets. That is the whole, complete, entire reason why the SRBs were chosen. The reason why they remain in service is equally simple: it would cost a lot to develop a replacement, especially with NASA and its contractors doing it, and there is no money. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 88 21:50:42 GMT From: palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu (David Palmer) Subject: Re: "What's New" 01/29/88 In [sci.physics] article from piner@pur-phy appears: >[...] >3. REAGAN'S NEW "NATIONAL SPACE POLICY" IS STILL UNDER WRAPS, although >he reportedly signed off on it two weeks ago. It was generally thought >that it was being held up until after the State-of-the-Union Address >but, as you may have noticed, neither space nor science got even a >mention... According to Aviation Leak (Jan 25. '88 p. 15), the White House was going to trumpet the new policy heavily in the state of the Union Address, but then AW&ST scooped them. So instead Reagan went with his old standards: Line-Item vetos, prayer in schools, life begins at ovulation, America strong, free, proud, tall in the saddle, getting off cocaine (thank you Nancy) etc. David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer "Every day it's the same thing--variety. I want something different." ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 88 17:25:49 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Creating National Space Policy > We can achieve peace with USSR the same way Europe has achieved peace > with itself over the last 43 years: COOPERATION. > > And a cooperative space program: USA, USSR, ESA, and JSA (sp?) can > lead to epace among the "civilized" world. Europe has achieved peace with itself for precisely one reason: American and Soviet nuclear weapons hovering in the background. If you think the Europeans are marvels of cooperation, consider that the ESA member countries combined have a larger population and a bigger, healthier economy than the US... but it sure doesn't show in ESA and other cooperative projects. Why? Because cooperative activity is very low on everybody's funding-priority lists, and ESA is constantly torn by internal warfare on priorities (should we build Hermes?) and territoriality (if we expand the ESA astronaut corps, who gets the astronaut base?). The idea IS superficially appealing, but things just aren't that simple. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 88 03:22:55 GMT From: cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Charles A. Daffinger) Subject: Re: Time Magazine story >Right now, when a contractor screws up, they get more money to fix the >problem. Although Morton Thiokol isn't being paid for fixing the SRB >problems, they still have the contract for making SRBs. Rockwell and >its subcontractors have the lucrative contract to build a new shuttle. >The only losers have been the taxpayers and the seven people who died >(and their families.) I understand that the SRB's were originally intended to be only temporary solutions as shuttle boosters, and were to be replaced by liquid fuel boosters after a (small?) number of launches. Is (was) that correct? Is there any kind of effort currntly being expended at indeed replacing these troublesome SRB's with someting more controllable, if not more reliable? and wouldn't this close to 3-year grounding have been a great opportunity to do that work? Much money has been spent in studying methods of making the SRB's more controllable in an emergency situation, mostly to no avail. What are the reasons for chosing SRB's over conventional liquid fuel rockets? Certainly it cannot be safety, and certainly it cannot be controllablility. They were cheaper in the short run, but the problems now point to an ill-conceived desighn, where good money is now being thrown after bad. Or was the decision once again one mired in the politics of contracts for congressional districts? -charles ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 88 20:01:42 GMT From: ihnp4!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Time Magazine story > I haven't thought about the privatization of space very much, > generally I am for privatization of whatever can be privatized without > dire consequences, but this to me looks like a major argument against > it (in this case at least)... I see no evidence that the government can do better, especially since most government work is done through (ta da) contractors. In fact there is, I think, a negative correlation there. Working for the government seems to automatically produce the sort of overbureaucratized, micromanaged, committee-run organizations that are inherently hostile to things like quality and safety. The two specific names given (UniSys and Rockwell) are both major government contractors. To amplify a bit: the problem is not whether there is a profit motive involved. An organization cares about safety -- or doesn't -- mostly as a function of the attitude of the people in charge. This is definitely related to the organizational structure, because different structures attract different kinds of people. The sort of stifling bureacracy that is everywhere inside the government, or in major dealings with the government, is unlikely to attract the sort of honorable and courageous leader who insists that things be done right even if it takes a bit longer and costs a bit more. The same is true of a lot of large companies. Occasionally one does find the right sort of leader even in unlikely settings, but there is no guarantee that their successors will maintain the same standards. Marshall Spaceflight Center was a conspicuous example of good management under Wernher von Braun; it has fared less well since he left, to put it mildly. > If there were no NASA and their "blue-ribbon" committees, what would > prevent the industry from taking outrageous shortcuts? ... The blue-ribbon committees didn't help the Challenger crew much, did they? Remember that it was NASA that pushed for the outrageous shortcuts and bullied the industry people into cooperating, that time. The issue is what kind of people are in charge, not where their salaries come from. > ... The old-fashioned "responsibility" in the age when abstract ideas > like that are ridiculed? Responsibility can still be found, or grown, in a favorable environment. Not everyone ridicules the idea. The problem is creating the favorable environment. Unfortunately, it is not going to happen at NASA, or at the aerospace contractors: the rot has simply gone too deep, and the sort of radical reform that would fix it would be so unpopular that Congress would never permit it. As I have said before, NASA is not the solution, it is part of the problem. I agree that safety is a real concern in commercial spaceflight... but at least there is some chance of building the right sort of outfit when one starts from scratch. > Fear of punishment? (A question: has anyone involved in the space > program ever had to stand trial as a result of an accident or > incompetence?) [begin sarcasm] Of Course Not. You just don't understand the Big Picture. When we are All To Blame, it is totally unfair and inappropriate to blame the people who happened to make specific decisions. Far better to add a few committees to supervise things in more detail, rather than making it clear to the actual decision makers that they are responsible for their own stupidity. It's ridiculous to think that loyal bureaucrats might actually be *punished* for killing seven astronauts, wrecking $1G worth of equipment, and nearly ruining the space program. [end sarcasm] If you want to be unhappy, check out what happened to most of the people involved in the Challenger disaster. Early retirement on a fat pension was the worst result for most of the decision-makers. And if you really want to cry, compare what Morton Thiokol paid in penalties with what they got in new fix-the-SRBs contracts. When the next such decision comes up, which choice do you think this example will encourage? Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Reply-To: lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov Date: Sun, 7 Feb 88 14:06:06 PST From: lll-crg!ames!scubed!sdcsvax!pnet01.cts.com!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Civilian Space Policy Reform CIVILIAN SPACE POLICY REFORM By James A. Bowery February 5, 1988 I) CIVILIAN SPACE POLICY REFORM The following list of civilian space policy items are given in order of their importance. I.1) DIVERSIFY Reform the National Aeronautics and Space Administration by creating a number of independent space agencies with overlapping purviews. Do this by giving each NASA center its own independent administrator and budget. Allow Jet Propulsion Laboratory to come into the civil service system as one of these agencies. Require the use of recharge accounting. Set statutory limits the number of civil servants in each agency based on their current employee counts. This is a prerequisite for all other reforms. Without it, other reforms will eventually fail. With it, we can recapture leadership in space permanently. I.2) GIVE CONTROL TO SCIENCE Beyond fixed recurring personnel and facility costs the entirety of every agency's budget should be earmarked for unsolicited research proposals from scientists outside of NASA who receive less than one half of their funding from NASA development or operations contracts. Model proposal review after the National Science Foundation's (NSF) peer review system. Require reviews to be public, written and attributed unless the reviewer is not a civil servant and has compelling reasons to remain anonymous. A letter of acceptance or rejection giving rationale must be written, public and attributed. Require that all revenue for development or operations contracts come from research scientists who have been awarded funding for their unsolicited proposals. Allow funded research scientists to buy services, including launch and on orbit laboratory facilities, from any source they choose -- private, public or foreign. Operate private space services under the same rules of liability that airlines operate under. Allow requests for proposals to be issued only in the case of operations and development contracts. I.3) PRESERVE SHUTTLE-DEPENDENT MISSIONS As an exception to policy item 2, maintain direct funding for Shuttle flights sufficient to fly already pending missions, such as Spacelab, that require manned rating or the return from orbit of large payloads. Allow this exception to continue for a period of no more than 3 years subsequent to the execution of item 2. I.4) OFFER EARLY RETIREMENT Offer voluntary early retirement to any NASA civil servant for a period of one year subsequent to the execution of item 2. Offer enhanced retirement benefits during this year only. II) RATIONALE FOR CIVILIAN SPACE POLICY REFORM It is widely recognized that the United States is losing its leadership in space due, in part, to structural problems in our civilian space program. The extent to which increased funding can help us recapture leadership is limited by increasing budgetary pressures. Fortunately, we can recapture our world leadership without increasing the civilian space program's budget. The strategy followed in this reform is to redirect inappropriately allocated funds into creating a private space services industry whose initial market is a dramatically increased space science community, and whose later markets are yet to be discovered by that space science community. For a variety of historic reasons, there is so much funding being inappropriately allocated in NASA that the gains possible are truly astounding and more than sufficient to support a renewed world leadership in space by the United States. The following is a list of the reasons for each of the proposed policy items. II.1) WHY DIVERSIFY? Any reform of NASA that does not involve breaking it out into separate agencies is subject to a relapse of the current problems. NSF has shown itself to be an effective agency at $1.5 billion which is the approximate size each of the space agencies would be. Currently, when one NASA center accomplishes something significant, its credibility is used by the other NASA centers via headquarters to embark on dubious programs (such as Space Station) with very little funding being fed back to the credible center based on its prior performance. Programmatic "hostage taking" (such as requiring all JPL launches to go on Shuttle and similar games with Space Station) creates a political climate in which it is very difficult to kill the largest and most destructive programs. This kind of political game is possible only under coordination of headquarters. There are significant overlaps between other federal research agencies with benefits that clearly outweigh the cost of redudancy. These benefits include independent verification of scientific results, having a backup team in case of failure and the added incentive of having others in the same field who might do a better job using less money. JPL should be made part of the civil service system so it is on an equal footing with the other agencies. Space Shuttle should be terminated if its recurring costs cannot be supported by its users rather than having headquarters protect it from competition from outside launch services. (This is referring to many of the government, not commercial, payloads that NASA STILL refuses to move off Shuttle). Breaking NASA up would require Shuttle to stand on its own merits rather than the political clout of headquarters. While scientists need space laboratories, Space Station as currently envisioned, is not correctly conceived or executed and should be terminated so as to open the market for private efforts to provide such laboratories. Without the political clout of headquarters, Space Station would be terminated and the market for space facilities would be wide open. II.2) WHY GIVE CONTROL TO SCIENCE? Give control to science because NASA's main purpose is to acquire knowlege about space through exploration and research. Every dollar that goes into NASA should be under the control of science. Other activities, such as system development and operation, should be conducted only at the requirement of scientists with scientifically meritorious objectives. Scientifically meritorious objectives are best uncovered by allowing scientists to decide independently what proposals to write, and then submit them for review by independent peers with knowlege of the scientific area of the proposal. This procedure has a track record of success in other scientific fields so it should be pursued in space science as well. Specifically, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has a good track record of effective disbursement of government research funds and should be used as a model. Written, public, attributed reviews and letters of acceptance or rejection for all proposals goes a bit further than NSF's procedures. This extra care is necessary due to the current institutional culture at some NASA centers which tends to review proposals based on who is making the proposal more than on the proposal's content. Research proposals must be unsolicited in order to protect the scientific integrity and independence of the proposal generation process. Development and operations contracts must obtain all funds from funded scientists in order to ensure these contracts are serving scientific needs. Scientists must be free to purchase services, including launch and the use of on orbit facilities, from any source they choose so that these choices are based solely on scientific merit. The several billion dollars available from scientists for space activities will be sufficient to seed a domestic space services industry including launch services and on orbit facilities. Such a domestic space services industry will play on the greatest strength of the United States -- diversity and competition in the open market. Conventional aerospace contracting practices do not play on this strength because they are not "arms length" the way they would be with a wide variety of independent scientific activities providing an open market. II.3) WHY PRESERVE SHUTTLE-DEPENDENT MISSIONS? There are many scientists who have spent their careers preparing to fly missions that require a capability very similar to Shuttle. It may be that Shuttle cannot pay its own way based on these users. Since the government got them into their position of dependency on the Shuttle, it has an obligation to pick up the slack and provide Shuttle service to them in a timely manner even if it is expensive. II.4) WHY OFFER EARLY RETIREMENT? NASA, like many federal agencies, has run into the problem of having an aging staff. Many of these hard working staffers would appreciate a peaceful retirement after their productive careers and this would give the agency open slots to fill with young people with new ideas. III) AUTHOR'S ADDRESS James A. Bowery PO Box 1981 La Jolla, CA 92038 PHONE: 619/295-8868 UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #132 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Feb 88 07:21:42 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02922; Sun, 14 Feb 88 03:18:20 PST id AA02922; Sun, 14 Feb 88 03:18:20 PST Date: Sun, 14 Feb 88 03:18:20 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802141118.AA02922@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #133 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 133 Today's Topics: Space News from Hawai'i Re: Shuttle-launched satellites considered unreliable? Re: Shuttle-launched satellites considered unreliable? Re: Shuttle-launched satellites considered unreliable? Choice of launch sites for geosync. satalites Re: Choice of launch sites for geosync. satalites Choice of launch sites Re: Choice of launch sites for geosync. satalites Forward report numbers; details of antiproton annihilation Re: Proton/anti-proton annhilation Re: Mission planning (was space station editorial, part 1) Difference between RTG and nuclear reactor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Jan 88 01:16:20 GMT From: hplabsz!kempf@hplabs.hp.com (Jim Kempf) Subject: Space News from Hawai'i The Hawai'i industrial development commission is considering three sites on the Big Island for development of a Pacific Basin spaceport. The spaceport is controversial, but the industrial development commission is determined to go through with it. One obvious customer for the services it would provide is the Japanese (see posting on Japanese space program). Jim Kempf kempf@hplabs.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 88 18:43:57 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Shuttle-launched satellites considered unreliable? > Are shuttle-deployed satellites really less > reliable than rocket-launched ones? How come? Reliability is not the issue. It's station-keeping fuel, at least for geostationary satellites. Most satellites run out of fuel before their components fail and must be deliberately switched off lest they interfere with other satellites operating on the same frequencies from other orbital locations. Ariane is launched from Kourou, French Guiana, about 5.5 degrees north of the equator. Cape Canaveral is at about 28.5 degrees north latitude. Spacecraft launched on Ariane therefore require smaller kick motors to reach geostationary orbit from the launcher transfer orbit than do spacecraft launched from the Cape, and this translates directly into extra mass and volume for holding stationkeeping fuel. Another factor unique to Shuttle-launched satellites is the 45-minute (1/2 orbit) coast phase between shuttle deploy and PAM firing, intended to allow the shuttle to separate to a "safe" distance. During this period the spacecraft must continue spinning stably about its longitudinal axis. Physics says that bodies instead "prefer" to spin about the axis having the greatest moment of inertia (i.e., in a flat spin). When you combine this tendency with the gravity-gradient and drag perturbations due to the low altitude, the spacecraft must expend a nontrivial amount of hydrazine to hold attitude, fuel that will not be available later for stationkeeping. When you start looking at factors like these, you realize just how ill-suited the Shuttle is for launching satellites, and wonder just how anybody got the idea to make it our sole launcher. Some of us were even saying this BEFORE Challenger... Phil ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 88 18:53:45 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Shuttle-launched satellites considered unreliable? > ... Are shuttle-deployed satellites really less > reliable than rocket-launched ones? How come? Note that the original quote said "longer life expectancy", not "higher reliability". Barring equipment failures, the lifetime of a comsat is usually limited by its supply of maneuvering fuel. (No, it doesn't just stay where it's put, not in the presence of perturbing factors like the Moon's gravity and Earth's non-spherical shape.) Other things being equal -- they often aren't -- Ariane puts a satellite closer to its final orbit, meaning that less fuel is needed to get it up there and hence more is left for station-keeping. This is not because Ariane is somehow better, but because Kourou is much nearer the equator than Kennedy. A satellite launched from Kennedy starts out in an orbit inclined twenty-odd degrees to the equator, while launch from Kourou ends up in essentially the plane of the equator. Clarke orbit, the destination for most comsats, is in the plane of the equator. Plane changes take a lot of fuel. I don't know for *certain* that this is the underlying reasoning, but I'd be surprised if it was anything else. Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 88 19:42:53 GMT From: mmm!allen@umn-cs.arpa (Kurt Allen) Subject: Re: Shuttle-launched satellites considered unreliable? While not knowing all the facts, I think that that remark is in reference to Shuttle launched rockets being launched in an orbit that typically requires more fuel to reach Clark orbit from. The more fuel used by the satellite means less fuel for station keeping when it is in it's final position. I believe that the majority of non functioning satellites in orbit became non functional because of lack of fuel to maintain their orbital positions and attitude. Just as an aside, the shuttle was to have tried in orbit refueling of satellites to revitalize older satellites. I don't recall whether it occured or not. Kurt W. Allen 3M Center ihnp4!mmm!allen ------------------------------ Date: 8 Feb 88 23:12:55 GMT From: huntting@boulder.colorado.edu (Bradley Enoch Huntting) Subject: Choice of launch sites for geosync. satalites It occured to me the other day that when satalites launched from within the U.S., they are put into a transfer orbit which is inclined about 20 deg from the plane of the equator. This means that the net change in velocity nessary to place the payload into geosyncronous orbit (sum of the instantainious acceleration nessary to attain transfer orbit (~10.1 km/s) plus the instantainious acceleration nessary to bump the object from transfer to geosyncronous orbit (~1.45 km/s if launched from the equator, or ~4.39km/s if launched from 20 deg latitude) is higher by ~3km/s! That's a 26% increse! Add to this the fact that the mass of the delivery system increases with the net velocity change. Now it seems to me that lightening the workload by 20% would significantly decreace the cost of delivery! So why doesn't anyone launch from the equator? The climate in the south pacific or indian ocean is comparable to that of the cape. There are several Indoneasian islands near Syngapore which could be used. I understand that a government might have reservations about investing the nessary capitol for a launch facility in a forign country. However a private enterprise would be able to deliver satelites for a significant discount over what NASA could. Esspecially once one considers that near Syngapore there is a well educated workforce which one doesn't have to pay in $! So what I'm asking is: why hasn't someone with money thought of this? And if they have, what success have they had? -brad e huntting huntting@boulder.colorado.edu ...!hao!boulder!huntting ------------------------------ Date: 9 Feb 88 16:29:02 GMT From: devvax!jplpro!des@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Smyth) Subject: Re: Choice of launch sites for geosync. satalites Many people who have the choice do - they launch on Ariane from Honduras. We don't have that choice, of course. We don't need it, we have the Shuttle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 88 18:20:02 GMT From: necntc!encore!waltm@husc6.harvard.edu (Walt Mattison) Subject: Choice of launch sites Good timing, I just started my own pet project to find alternate launch sites on or near the Equator. My prerequisites were that the launch site be U.S. soil, have a natural deep water harbor, have an airfield, and be as close to the equator as possible. Lo and behold, Kingsman Reef, a coral atoll located about 1400 miles south west of Hawaii and only a few degrees north of the equator. It is U.S. territory and part of the Line Islands. The island has a 200 ft deep lagoon that extends nearly the full 9 mile length of the island, perfect for unloading boosters made elsewhere or any other equipment. Launching to the east would give you several thousand miles of uninhabited ocean to abort to. the nearest neighbors are several hundred miles away so maybe launch insurance could be lowered. There is an airfield on the island left over from the Naval use of the island which ended in 62. The island is now under control of the Interior Dept. so I think it could be bought for close to nothing. This is all I have so far but as more info comes in I can make it available if anyone wants to see it, or if anyone has suggestions send mail. Walt Mattison Encore Computer 617-460-0500 ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 88 18:00:44 GMT From: idacrd!mac@princeton.edu (Bob McGwier) Subject: Re: Choice of launch sites for geosync. satalites >From article <1264@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, by des@jplpro.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Smyth): > Many people who have the choice do - they launch on Ariane from > Honduras. We don't have that choice, of course. We don't need > it, we have the Shuttle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BULL, we have as many possibilities for near equatorial launch if we pursued them, it is just not apparent that it would be cost effective. The launch site for Ariane is in the French state, French Guiana in the town of Kourou. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 88 09:50 CST From: Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey Subject: Forward report numbers; details of antiproton annihilation Original_To: SPACE In Space Digest V.8, #116, Jon Leech recommends Robert Forward's report on antiproton annihilation for propulsion. I thought I might post information to help interested readers find it. ANTIPROTON ANNIHILATION PROPULSION is report AFRPL TR-85-034 from the Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory (AFRPL/XRX, Stop 24, Edwards Air Force Base, CA 93523-5000). It's also UDR-TR-85-55 from the contractor, the University of Dayton Research Institute. I don't know how NTIS would refer to it. Its predecessor report is at least as interesting: ALTERNATE PROPULSION ENERGY SOURCES, also by Forward, AFPRL TR-83-067. I'll list the keywords to whet your appetites: Propulsion energy, metastable helium, free-radical hydrogen, solar pumped (sic) plasmas, antiproton annihiliation, ionospheric lasers, solar sails, perforated sails, microwave sails, quantum fluctuations, antimatter rockets... It's a wide, if not deep, look at exotic energy sources which might be useful for space propulsion. It also considers various kinds of laser propulsion, metallic hydrogen, tethers, and unconventional nuclear propulsion. The bibliographic information, pointing to the research on all this stuff, belongs on every daydreamer's shelf. And by the way, re the discussion involving Jon Leech, Russ Cage, and greg@endor.UUCP (Greg): The misconception most people seem to share-- that antimatter annihilation gives rise to gamma rays and nothing else-- probably comes from the fact that when electrons and positrons, the best-known antiparticles, interact you get gamma rays. But for fancier particles such as protons and antiprotons, the situation is more complicated. When a proton and an antiproton annihilate, 92% of the time the result is three to six pions. Some are charged pions, with a mean lifetime of 26 nanoseconds (in their own reference frame), so you can grab them with magnetic and electric fields. One or two of those pions are neutral ones, so they are useless for propulsion. But even worse, the neutral pion's lifetime is 9E-17 seconds, after which it almost always decays into two hefty (67 MeV in the pion's reference frame) gamma rays. The energy spectrum of the emerging pions is broad, but averages around 250 MeV. The mean lifetime of the charged pions, as seen from the lab frame, is about 70 nanoseconds, enough to travel 21 meters. The energy spectrum of the gamma rays due to decaying neutral pions, as seen in the lab frame, averages around 200 MeV. Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET SPAN/HEPnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 88 23:31:38 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Proton/anti-proton annhilation > ... proton/antiproton annihilation does not *immediately* produce a > burst of gammas; he proposes a magnetic thrust chamber to channel the > charged mesons in the right direction during their brief lifetime... See also past papers in Interstellar Studies issues of JBIS. Proton plus antiproton gives mostly pions. The neutral ones are useless, too short-lived and there is no way to handle them. The charged ones live a little while, long enough for a compact magnetic nozzle to use them -- as I recall, their lifetime equates to a distance of a few meters. Moreover, when they decay you get muons, which live quite a bit longer, a kilometer or so worth. It's better to use the pions, because you lose energy in their decay, but using the muons still gives reasonable results. The muons decay into electrons and positrons, and they annihilate with each other (and with the ones present from the start, orbiting the protons and antiprotons, assuming you started with atoms) to give gammas. Some neutrinos also wander out of the reaction at various times, and miscellaneous gamma rays emerge at every stage, but much of the energy is available (briefly) as kinetic energy of charged particles. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 8 Feb 88 18:20:32 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Mission planning (was space station editorial, part 1) In article <1075@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@proline.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes: >In article <8802072157.AA08139@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@sdr.slb.COM ("Paul F. Dietz") writes: >>Another lesson from Galileo: launch many smaller spacecraft, rather >>than cramming all your experimental eggs into one swollen basket >>(don't tell me Galileo was cheaper!). > >It seems clear that launching one spacecraft with many instruments is >cheaper than launching many spacecraft with one instrument. Launch >costs are a significant portion of mission cost at present. > Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ This is a tough call. Friends were involved in the planning on the Galileo mission (still are). The craft went from a 3-axis stablized craft like Voyager to the rotating Pioneer class but with a stationary body (I thought the latter was dumb at the time, but the plasma people won out on this one). Also it did have a two part launch, in space assembly, but this is very complex. I won't get into details. You sit around in meetings and haggle (like shown in Nova most recently on Uranus encounter ["No Andy, you can't have more atmosphere imaging time, because Uranus has an uninteresting atmosphere..."]). There's tradeoffs both ways. It's like the one part versus many parts SRB discussion: if you have multiple parts, you have to add complexity and weight for connectors (which might fail, etc.). The advantage of one craft with many instruments is that several instruments can be correlated for (hopefully) simulataneous data gathering (ah! yet more complexity): synoptic view. Scientists would love to more than one craft going, but those are the bucks..... (or lack of). --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 9 Feb 88 00:22:05 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Difference between RTG and nuclear reactor Several postings in this newsgroup have confused the operating principles of "nuclear reactors" and "radioisotope thermoelectric generators" (RTG). Both work by using nuclear processes to create heat and then converting the heat to electricity, but the nuclear reactions used in the two cases are entirely different. A "reactor" works by allowing fission reactions, i.e. heavy nuclei are split into two roughly equal parts. A control system is present to start and stop the fission reactions. The "fission products" are extremely neutron-rich compared to stable nuclides of the same mass and continue to decay with short half-life. Also, the fission process emits fast neutrons that can induce radioactivity in the reactor shell itself. The effect is that a reactor becomes more radioactive as it is operated. However, after the fission reaction is stopped, the most radioactive isotopes decay fairly quickly, though some residue continues to be radioactive for many years. An RTG uses the heat of normal radioactive decay, generally alpha emission. There are no highly radioactive fission products, and the overall radioactivity and power generation capability just decay with the half-life of the original isotope. (Activation of the container may be possible in principle but is unimportant in practice, since adequate shielding is very easy.) There is no way to control the (thermal) power output. US outer planet spacecraft, such as Galileo, use RTG's. In fact, one serious problem for Galileo is that the launch delays and the lengthened transit time have greatly reduced the power that will be available at Jupiter. It is my understanding that some Russian satellites, including the one that crashed in Canada a few years ago, use reactors. I think the US tested one or two reactors in orbit, but I am not aware of any current program using them. (Is anyone else aware of any?) As a further note, the amount of plutonium used in either reactors or RTG's is not likely to cause detectable health problems in any plausible launch accident scenario. As several articles have pointed out, the plutonium is unlikely to escape. Even if it does escape, the release is likely to occur at sea. The amount of water needed to dilute 10 kg of plutonium to below established exposure standards is about 1/8 cubic kilometer. For the worst conceivable accident, a complete release at low altitude over New York City, an article in Health Physics estimated one death per 18 grams released, with most of the deaths occurring years after the accident. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #133 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Feb 88 23:19:40 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03954; Sun, 14 Feb 88 20:16:58 PST id AA03954; Sun, 14 Feb 88 20:16:58 PST Date: Sun, 14 Feb 88 20:16:58 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802150416.AA03954@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #134 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 134 Today's Topics: Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. SPACE Digest V8 #110, large synthesized apertures Re: satellites (resolution) Phased Arrays at Optical Frequencies?! Re: SPACE Digest V8 #110, large synthesized apertures Commercial Spy Satellites Re: Beating the diffraction limit (was Re: satellites) Re: satellites Re: satellites ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Feb 88 00:23:29 GMT From: uflorida!codas!burl!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@gatech.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. > I was under the impression that the experiment packages left up on the > moon by the manned Apollo shots used a small Pu-powered nuclear > reactor as their power source. I seem to remember a small, black, > cylindrical device with radiating fins as the center imstrument > deployments. Can anyone else confirm or deny this? Sigh. I guess I had better explain all this from scratch; there are probably others with similar misunderstandings. Everyone who isn't sure what's going on, please listen -- I'm only gonna say this once! :-) There are two ways of getting power from nuclear energy. One is with a nuclear reactor: a complex piece of machinery that maintains a controlled chain reaction in a suitable fissionable isotope, usually Uranium 235 but sometimes Plutonium 239. Non-fissionable isotopes like Uranium 238 may be present but do not participate. Reactors can yield very high power outputs, but are relatively big, heavy, and complicated, and once in operation they emit lots of radiation and have a stew of nasty isotopes inside them. The other way is to use the natural decay of a radioactive isotope. To get useful amounts of power without troublesome radiation, one picks an isotope that decays rapidly by emitting non-penetrating radiation like alpha and beta particles. Plutonium 238 (note, 238, *not* 239) is one fairly good choice. Such isotopes do not have to be fissionable and in fact usually aren't. Small isotope generators can use thermoelectric devices for converting heat to electricity, which means no moving parts. It is difficult to get high power out of isotope generators, but they are simple and reliable and (unlike reactors) can be built in small sizes. It is relatively easy to package the isotope in such generators in an armored capsule that can survive a re-entry or a launch accident; this is routinely done, and such capsules *have* survived launch accidents. An isotope generator is *not* a nuclear reactor. The US has launched only one reactor, the SNAP-10A experimental reactor of the late 60s. The Soviets use reactors to power their military radarsats, which need lots of power. That is basically it for reactors in space. Isotope generators are used in some military satellites where the vulnerability of solar panels is undesirable, but see their main use in planetary missions. The Apollo surface experiments and the Viking landers used isotope generators to continue operations despite long periods of darkness. Outer-planet probes like the Voyagers and Galileo use isotope generators because the sunlight is pretty faint out there. The waste heat from isotope generators can also be useful to keep equipment warm in cold environments. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1988 21:21 EST From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #110, large synthesized apertures It seems to me that it should be rather easy to buld synthetic apertures in microgravity, because a rigid frame is not required. Or, rather, all one needs is a dynamically servoed frame. One way to do this would be to couple the mirrors by a tetrahedral framework of this wires whose lengths are adjustable (for example, by passing small currents through them) and servoing those lengths by using simple laser-interferometers, as is done today with numerically controlled milling machines. It is not hard to make such a servo measure the order of 1/20 of a wavelength. The system might sound complicated at first, but each servo could be made to weigh only a few grams, I claim, including its computer. The hardest problem I would foresee is rotating the entire array. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jan 88 13:09:31 pst From: Eugene Miya N. Subject: Re: satellites (resolution) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.crypt >John M. Pantone writes: >O.K. - I've finally reached saturation. As a certifiable old-fart who > . . . >I can't even begin to believe that a sattelite would have trouble >resolving a person-sized thing. (Image enhancement, long-baseline >effects, microwave imaging, etc.) I can. I can think of lots of things: clouds being THE major problem of remote sensing. We have a hard timing looking thru solid-objects, too. The problem is an anthropocentric view of sensing (sort of like Reagan's comments about the "distinctive shape of 747s" [only from the side]). Night time's another problem (athough less so [for other reasons]). You need critical EMR windows thru the atmosphere. Before you say microwave (or IR) is the solution, let me tell you that we know less about radar than most people think and can think of half a dozen problems. Mis-information spread by people who don't fully understand the problems of these sensing instruments is probably a problem as great as the selling of AI in the 1960s. (Can you say, "Data fusion?"). >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 88 12:07:02 EST From: ST401385@brownvm Subject: Phased Arrays at Optical Frequencies?! Re comments by Dale Amon on using phased array techniques to simulate very large mirrors: >There are aperture synthesis techniques used in SLAR that are dependent >on the motion of the craft to generate the aperture... I see little >difference whether the original frequency was light or microwave. There >is of course the problem that there is no reference beam, but I've >heard that this is not necessarily required, that a reference signal >can be mathematically synthesized. There are many many differences. (1) optical sensors do not record the phase of the incoming signal; microwave sensors do. (2) The time scale for microwave signals is much much longer than that for light. Are you imagining a clock that runs at frequencies which are fast compared with optical frequencies? This is what you would need to provide a time base to do phase interference. (3) Electronic circuits do not work at optical frequencies. Just try to imagine a teraherz phase lock loop! (4) Phased array techniques only work for essentially monochromatic light. Filtering reflected sunlight down to a band which is monochromatic enough would make the signal so weak that I doubt you could do anything with it. >Even if the pure motion of the craft is not useable, there is still a >simple interferometry technique of taking multiple images and using the >phase differences to make an image.... On this one you got it right. To synthesize an aperture, you *must* have the phase information from the incoming signal. This information is not available in current optical sensors. You might argue that someday this will be possible, which is quite possible; but since the discussion was about the optical resolution of existing spy satellites, you are way out in left field. ....Also, since I'm here, a quick response to another posting in the same issue. >From ERCF02 Adam Hamilton: >I was under the impression that this newsgroup was unanimous that the >way to get the US Space program back on its feet was to turn it over to >private industry as far as possible. For the record, I dissent with this view. It is not (yet) clear that there exists low-risk profit in space in the short enough term that private industry will invest the amounts needed to leave this planet. Space is important enough that we should go there even if the profit is only in the long term. --Geoffrey A. Landis, Ph.D Until 23 January: Brown University, BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM Internet: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU After 23 January: NASA Lewis Research Center 21000 Brookpark Road, Cleveland Ohio 44135 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 88 04:29:48 GMT From: paul.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Stephen P. Masticola) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #110, large synthesized apertures In article MINSKY@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU writes: > It seems to me that it should be rather easy to buld synthetic > apertures in microgravity, because a rigid frame is not required. Or, > rather, all one needs is a dynamically servoed frame. A rigid frame would be preferable, though, because a non-rigid frame would vibrate when any physical motion occurred on the satellite. Such motion could come from the servos, or any moving part on the satellite. > It is not hard to make such a servo measure the order of 1/20 of a > wavelength. [ Of visible light ] This claim, strange as it may seem, is borne out by IBM's scanning tunneling microscope. This has taken images of individual tungsten atoms, essentially by running a probe across a crystal at a constant distance from the atoms themselves. References aren't handy, but I think the radius of a tungsten atom is less by a good fraction than one wavelength of visible light. (Otherwise, we'd be able to use light microscopes to see atoms.) > The system might sound complicated at first, but each servo could be > made to weigh only a few grams, I claim, including its computer. Ay, there's the rub! The servos would have to be strong enough to compensate for any vibration amplitude and frequency likely during imaging. For the sake of argument, let's say we have a cutoff of 1 KHz at an amplitude of 1 mm, and a mirror has a mass of 10 kg. (Anyone know the size and weight of the mirror on the Space Telescope?) I get a force of 39,000 newtons that the servo system would have to exert to keep the mirror stable in such a case. (If I'm wrong, please post a correction.) That, if I'm not mistaken, is one _hell_ of a servomotor. Remember that the STM is positioning only an itty-bitty needle, not a big huge mirror. Alternatively, how about a piezoelectric crystal for the mirror? Positioning might be accomplished by applying current in the right places. The mirror's surface would react against its body, which, if they were of equal masses, would not induce additional forces in the frame of the spacecraft. Forces would be applied by the entire body of the crystal mirror, reducing the strength needed in any particular position. You could build the mirror of laminated crystals to get the displacement you need to do fine aiming or compensate for vibration. This is a standard technique in building ultrasonic transducers. By using a magnetic-levitation suspension for the mirrors (as is already done in Army tank optics), the mirrors can be decoupled from the motion of the frame. I'd bet that something like this is being done in the KH-11 and 12. > The hardest problem I would foresee is rotating the entire array. As in stationkeeping or compensating for rotation to keep the array on target? Stationkeeping is nothing new. For brief periods of time, the mirrors could be rotated counter to any residual rotation of the spacecraft by warping their surfaces. This may be enough to fine-aim the mirrors or to compensate for residual rotation. Levitating the mirrors also allows them to coarse-rotate 1 or 2 degrees individually without any need to rotate the entire frame. The mechanism for coarse rotation might also be piezo, but needn't be. "Scratch a computer hack and you'll find a physics hack." - Thomas A. Bass, _The Eudaemonic Pie_. -- Steve Masticola (masticol@paul.rutgers.edu) "The more you drive, the less intelligent you become." ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 88 02:58:48 EST From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu Subject: Commercial Spy Satellites To: BBoard.Maintainer@PT.CS.CMU.EDU Stolen from AP: a011 2219 20 Jan 88 AM-Space Cameras,0256 U.S. To Allow Commercial Satellites With High-Resolution Cameras NEW YORK (AP) - The Reagan administration has dropped rules that prevented American companies from sending aloft satellites that could produce highly magnified pictures of objects on Earth, according to a published report. The change was included in an updated national space policy signed by President Reagan on Jan. 5 but was not made public at that time, The New York Times reported in its Thursday editions. It would allow advanced American satellites that could produce high-resolution pictures for use by scientists, geographers, journalists and others. The government previously has barred private companies from operating satellites that could produce pictures showing objects smaller than 10 meters wide. But the Soviet Union markets worldwide satellite photographs with a resolution of 5 meters, and French companies have satellites that produce pictures nearly that clear. Details of the new U.S. policy are classified as secret, but a White House statement said it is meant to ''encourage the development of U.S. commercial systems competitive with or superior to foreign-operated civil or commercial systems,'' the Times reported. The constraints on civilian satellites originally were imposed because of Defense Department fears that highly detailed photographs taken from space could disclose military secrets. A study last May by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment predicted the availability of increasingly sharp satellite images could lead to conflict between the government and journalists seeking to use the pictures to report on military movements, nuclear missile installations and disasters. AP-NY-01-21-88 0109EST *************** ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 88 21:09:23 GMT From: cos!howard@uunet.uu.net (Howard C. Berkowitz) Subject: Re: Beating the diffraction limit (was Re: satellites) In article <8801192122.AA06886@ames-pioneer.arpa>, eugene@PIONEER.ARC.NASA.GOV (Eugene Miya N.) writes: > Bruce, you made some excellent comments about this problem! However, > I would like to add one comment about what you said about removing > motion blurr. Rather than do it computationally or optically, it's > just much simpler to move the recording instrument or media. (If I had > a quarter for every roll of film I've hunched over, I'd be rich.) A number of photorecon satellites do exactly that, according to Dino Brignoli, a retired senior CIA recon expert who has a rather interesting "road show" on photoreconnaissance and history. I heard him a few years ago at the Washington chapter of the Society for Photographic Scientists and Engineers. He said that one of the major breakthroughs in imaging satellites, which was classified for some time, was using moving backs both to cancel motion and allow much longer exposure times. -- howard(Howard C. Berkowitz) @cos.com {uunet, decuac, sun!sundc, hadron, hqda-ai}!cos!howard (703) 883-2812 [ofc] (703) 998-5017 [home] DISCLAIMER: I explicitly identify COS official positions. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 88 18:21:36 GMT From: necntc!adelie!infinet!rhorn@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Rob Horn) Subject: Re: satellites In article <8801192222.AA08418@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@PIONEER.ARC.NASA.GOV (Eugene Miya N.) writes: >Not all the photos (these were photos) taken over Cuban were U-2, the >low-obliques were taken by F-8 Crusader pilots who had some SAM risk. >These pilots don't deserve to be placed in obscurity. Neither should the U-2 pilot who died when shot down by a SAM at the height of the crisis. They had to fly into SAM range to get the pictures. By that time no one was safe. This was one of the major motivations for accepting the numerous limitations of satellite recon. BTW: The transcripts of the Missile Crisis tapes (Kennedy's equivalent of the Watergate tapes) make fascinating reading. Rob Horn ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 88 10:12:00 GMT From: munnari!basser!jaa@uunet.uu.net (James Ashton) Subject: Re: satellites In article <1705@faline.bellcore.com> karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: >You can get extremely high resolution images if you *simultaneously* >photograph the same target from two or more widely separated >satellites, and then *coherently* add the two images with an accuracy >on the order of a small fraction of a wavelength. This is entirely >practical at radio wavelengths (VLBI and SAR being two examples), but >at optical wavelengths? Good luck! It is true that interferometry is more difficult at optical wavelengths but it is certainly not impossible. The Physics department at this university has sucessfully tested a prototype optical telescope which uses two widely spaced plane mirrors feeding into an intricate optical system. The system was able to compensate for atmospheric jitter and recombine the light to obtain very high resolution. Work is currently in progress on a full scale instrument which will have a maximum mirror separation of 240 metres and the best optical resolution of any telescope. Of course stellar images tend to be simpler than spy sat images but I guess that a spy sat, could use a similar technique to obtain very fine resolution. James Ashton. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #134 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Feb 88 06:27:03 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05209; Mon, 15 Feb 88 03:23:43 PST id AA05209; Mon, 15 Feb 88 03:23:43 PST Date: Mon, 15 Feb 88 03:23:43 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802151123.AA05209@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #135 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 135 Today's Topics: Re: Beating the diffraction limit (was Re: satellites) Re: satellites Re: SPACE Digest V8 #110, large synthesized apertures Re: satellites Re: Remote sensing Re: satellites Re: spy satellites Re: Commercial Spy Satellites Re: spy satellites, eavesdropping Re: spy satellites, eavesdropping A seminar past Re: satellites Re: FAA citizenship policy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Jan 88 02:00:21 GMT From: tektronix!orca!brucec@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Cohen) Subject: Re: Beating the diffraction limit (was Re: satellites) In article <8801192122.AA06886@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@PIONEER.ARC.NASA.GOV (Eugene Miya N.) writes: >... removing motion blurr. Rather than do it computationally or >optically, it's just much simpler to move the recording instrument or >media. (If I had a quarter for every roll of film I've hunched over, >I'd be rich.) > >--eugene Well, I may have been guilty of techi-ism here: finding the high-tech solution rather than the optimal solution. There might be reasons for doing the job computationally, though. Moving the medium or the recorder requires that you know the instantaneous velocity of the object to be de-blurred, or that you iteratively try values until you get a good enough fit (a binary search will save time). If the scene imaged by a satellite is relatively static, then in principle you know the velocity from the orbital position and the view angle (it's 2000 Zulu; do you know where your Keyhole birds are? 8:). On the other hand if things are moving around (and especially if they are not all moving at the same velocity or in the same direction), you might save a lot of trouble by using a computer. I'll bet that the surveillance images that NSA works with are analyzed digitally; military targets tend to move around; they're harder to see and hit that way. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The galaxy-spanning luminous arcs reported by M. Mitchell Waldrop in Research News on 6 February have a very simple explanation. They are part of the scaffolding that was not removed when the contractor went bankrupt owing to cost overruns." "Arthur C. Clarke, Sri Lanka" Bruce Cohen ARPA/CS-NET: brucec@ruby.TEK.COM ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jan 88 15:58:34 GMT From: cgs@umd5.umd.edu (Chris Sylvain) Subject: Re: satellites In article <2013@frog.UUCP> die@hydra.UUCP (David I. Emery) writes: + Not that it has much to do with resolution from orbit, but on the + original topic that started the discussion - NSA picking up pictures + of Waite from a satellite "over Lebanon" - This could very well have + been accomplished by satellite interception of the video signal from + one of the low altitude drones that the Israelis regularly fly over + the area. I'll take back the NaCl now.. Ahh, an elegant solution, and could well be 'dangerously' close to what really happened! That is, this solution sounds much closer to reality to me than imaging directly from orbit. ARPA: cgs@umd5.UMD.EDU BITNET: cgs%umd5@umd2 ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jan 88 17:32:34 GMT From: eecae!crlt!russ@super.upenn.edu (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #110, large synthesized apertures In article <2949@clash.rutgers.edu>, masticol@paul.rutgers.edu.UUCP writes: >The servos would have to be strong enough to compensate for any >vibration amplitude and frequency likely during imaging. For the sake >of argument, let's say we have a cutoff of 1 KHz at an amplitude of 1 >mm, and a mirror has a mass of 10 kg. (Anyone know the size and weight >of the mirror on the Space Telescope?) I get a force of 39,000 newtons >that the servo system would have to exert to keep the mirror stable in >such a case. What is going to vibrate the structure at frequencies as high as 1 KHz? The cogging effects of the momentum wheel motors? For motions which require actual *moving* of the mirror (as opposed to merely following vibrations in the structure, which requires no force), I'd estimate something closer to a micrometer at 1-10 Hz. Your force goes down 5 to 7 orders of magnitude. You'd probably want piezos that can push up to several millimeters to compensate for gross thermal distortions of the structure, but they'd do this very slowly and require little force. >For brief periods of time, the mirrors could be rotated counter to any >residual rotation of the spacecraft by warping their surfaces. This may >be enough to fine-aim the mirrors or to compensate for residual >rotation. This won't work. The entire point of all the servomechanisms is to maintain a coherent optical path from all the mirrors to the image plane. If you rotate the mirrors, the path lengths change and the system is no longer coherent (and picks up a lot of funny diffraction effects at different wavelengths). Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. rsi@m-net ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 88 23:31:50 GMT From: lawrence@bbn.com (Gabriel Lawrence) Subject: Re: satellites Knowing precious little about optical diffraction limits or advanced uses of interferometry, you can take what I have to say as having little technical merit. I do know that according to a Natl. Public Radio report I heard last month, Congress has just 'officially' lifted the ban on the 10 meter satellite optical imaging restriction due to American industrial lobbyists complaining about unfair international competition. It has been widely known that satellites giving much greater resolution have been available outside of the U.S. for quite awhile. I believe the new commercial standard is somewhere in the 3 meter range. To the best of my recollection, the commentator mentioned that while the 10 meter range was sufficient to view the individual cars located in the parking lot of the Pentagon, the new range allowed you to see the contents of the cars through the windows. This would seem to me to easily make the case for a _commercial_ satellite being able to spot an individual held hostage if the location of the prison/barracks and his physical characteristics was a known quantity. The same commentator also acknowledged that military spy satellites were, in all likelihood, quite a bit more powerful/accurate/higher in resolution than the best commercial satellites so I'll let you informed usenetter's draw your own conclusions... ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 88 01:39:18 GMT From: telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: Re: Remote sensing In article <570055327.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: > The problem with dropping a corner reflector in Lebanon is that it > doesn't really gain you much. Adaptive optics means that you have a > realtime feedback loop between you and the object being sensed. > [..] > Taking a reading on some random location gains you nothing. You might > as well put the reflector in Hawaii. Distortion is caused by > atmospheric cells that are moving, bubbling, changing and not terribly > large. Yes and no. You're describing the situation that applies if you're using adaptive optics to obtain high resolution images when looking OUT through the atmosphere. It's not necessary to use adaptive optics to get high resolution images of the earth's surface from space. The atmospheric cells that so limit earth-based telescopes occur at low altitudes, under normal conditions. The limit they impose on image resolution is no greater for a satellite than it is for a high altitude spy plane--or even one of the drones that the Israelis use. The poster who spoke of dropping a corner reflector in Lebanon was addressing the problem of getting the mirrors of a multi-mirror system properly aligned in the first place--not dynamic compensation for atmospheric effects. The latter are just not a problem. Unless, of course, you're after something like _millimeter_ resolution. - Roger Arnold ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 88 17:13:02 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: satellites In article <6309@ccv.bbn.COM> lawrence@ccv.bbn.com (Gabriel Lawrence) writes: >of the U.S. for quite awhile. I believe the new commercial standard is >somewhere in the 3 meter range. To the best of my recollection, the >commentator mentioned that while the 10 meter range was sufficient to >view the individual cars located in the parking lot of the Pentagon, >the new range allowed you to see the contents of the cars through the >windows. I know that American cars are supposed to be bigger than European cars, But 3 metres is [almost] 10 feet. What size are the the car windows you can resolve things to this scale through? :-> 3 centimetre resolution sounds more reasonable, but this is close to the minimum being mentioned by previous posters. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 88 04:55:32 GMT From: tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick) Subject: Re: spy satellites Here is an extract from "Veil", by Bob Woodward: page 30: "Another project [in 1980] was Indigo, a new highly secret satellite system in development that could be the key to verifying future arms control agreements with the Soviets. Using radar-imaging, Indigo would see through clouds and work at night, when photographic satellites were blind. This would be particularly important over Eastern Europe, where the so-called 'demon cloud cover' could sit for days or weeks." Question: Is it possible to pick up human voices from space, using satellites? I don't have the technical background to judge such questions. Thanks, -Tom tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 88 20:42:01 GMT From: tikal!hplsla!deanp@beaver.cs.washington.edu ( Dean Payne) Subject: Re: Commercial Spy Satellites >From: bobcoe@cca.CCA.COM (Robert K. Coe) >I recall that at the time the 200-in. Hale (Palomar Mtn.) telescope was >built, it was reported that if it were not for the curvature of the >earth and 3000 miles of atmosphere, the telescope has the resolving >power to read the date on a dime in New York. That must be a very big dime. A five meter optical device should be able to resolve about 0.02 arc-second in vacuum, which corresponds to about one-half meter at the above distance. Dean Payne ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 88 17:41:40 GMT From: ems!rosevax!kksys!bird@umn-cs.arpa (0000-Mike Bird) Subject: Re: spy satellites, eavesdropping In article <22782@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) writes: >Question: Is it possible to pick up human voices from space, > using satellites? I don't have the technical background > to judge such questions. If you use an optical device, like a laser, to bounce off of windows, like in the construction article last year in Radio-Electronics, you can listen to conversations. If you mount the laser and receiver in a satellite, and used the technique I read something about in Scientific American last year on correcting for atmospheric haze, you might be able to listen from a satellite. However, I don't think these techniques are reliable, or are practical at the current state of the art. However, in 50 years or so.... ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 88 14:26:45 GMT From: sj1f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Kent Jensen) Subject: Re: spy satellites, eavesdropping >If you use an optical device, like a laser, to bounce off of windows, >like in the construction article last year in Radio-Electronics, you >can listen to conversations. These devices work monitoring the beam reflected off the window. This beam will travel slightly because of the vibrations induced in the glass by sound. If you are trying to use one of them on a satellite the beam would strike the window not perpedicularly (where reflection is best), but rather almost parallel. This means that the return would be EXTREMELY small. Therefore a large laser would be needed and a power supply for said laser, etc. This would lead to a LARGE satellite. Also the travel of the reflected beam is very slight and would quickly get lost in atmospheric refraction of the beam. These devices produce only moderate quality sound when going across a street, not to mention miles worth of air, dust, and water vapor. With all this working against the system I do not think that a workable system will ever be built. Steven Jensen ------------------------------ To: graphics@ads.arpa, space@angband.s1.gov Subject: A seminar past Date: Wed, 03 Feb 88 01:29:13 PST From: eugene@PIONEER.ARC.NASA.GOV A seminar past, but the reference might be useful to some, since I used to be an ASP member: Subject: 1/26 8PM Bay Area ACM/SIGGRAPH Mtg. Digital Cartography Date: Fri, 22 Jan 88 00:19:44 PST From: siggraph San Francisco Bay Area ACM SIGGRAPH Digital Cartography Computerized Map-Making Barry Napier USGS, National Mapping Division January 26, 1988 8:00 PM XEROX Palo Alto Research Center Auditorium 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto Maps, perhaps the earliest form of graphics, are undergoing a revolution due to computer. From the collection of data using digitized aerial photos and positions using satellites to the output on laser printers and CRTs, all areas have been affected. Simulated landscapes, as in the video "LA, The Movie," are generated by combining Digital Elevation Models (DEM) and LANDSAT satellite data. Separate layers of information are combined to help researchers predict where and when landslides will occur. Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) maps are used for making public policy decisions. Many cities are converting and combining their old maps of above and below ground services into one system. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is currently converting its map library collection (over 55,000 maps for just the 1:24,000 series alone) from paper form to digital. In addition they are defining digital map standards to improve communication and resource sharing between organization. Barry Napier will describe the current conversion process and what research is being explored. Information about what digital data can be ordered now will be available. Barry Napier is a Cartographer with USGS National Mapping Division. He has been with USGS for 6 years and received his BS in Geography from Berkeley. He is a member of Bay Area Automated Mapping Association (BAAMA) and American Congress on Surveying and Mapping and is also the president of the local chapter of the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remoting Sensing. P.S. It was an excellent talk. Our chapter will be touring the USGS Menlo Park Offices in March, members only. NASA Ames was our last tour (1/26/88) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 88 11:32:52 GMT From: eecae!crlt!russ@super.upenn.edu (Russ Cage) Subject: Re: satellites In article <23760@cca.CCA.COM>, bobcoe@cca.UUCP writes: >I recall that at the time the 200-in. Hale (Palomar Mtn.) telescope was >built, it was reported that if it were not for the curvature of the >earth and 3000 miles of atmosphere, the telescope has the resolving >power to read the date on a dime in New York. Nope, can't be. Angular resolution is approximately lambda/D, which at 5 meters and 6000 Angstroms, is about 1.2e-7 radians for the Hale telescope. At 5 million meters distance, this corresponds to an object of .6 meters in size. You couldn't see the dime, much less read the details off it. (But it is a nice story even if not true.) ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 88 21:59:33 GMT From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: FAA citizenship policy. In article <4248@pucc.Princeton.EDU> ICEMAN@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >Does anyone know if the FAA would do the following: >[1] Hire a non-resident alien for "practical training". >[2] Hire a non-citizen permanent resident. >Thanks...Joakim A perfectly reasonable question, to which I don't know the answer, but it reminds me of nothing so much as a pair of entries in the MIT undergraduate association's freshman handbook from many years ago: The Non-Resident Student Organization (NRSO) -- coordinating body for off-campus living groups. The Non-Student Resident Organization (NSRO) -- _NOT_ an MIT-recognized organization. :-) Jordin (Non-Organized) Kare ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #135 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Feb 88 23:21:00 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06313; Mon, 15 Feb 88 20:17:53 PST id AA06313; Mon, 15 Feb 88 20:17:53 PST Date: Mon, 15 Feb 88 20:17:53 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802160417.AA06313@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #136 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 136 Today's Topics: Space Sex Re: SPACE Digest V8 #108, Earth's rotation Mail reply problems (UUCP paths and return addresses) Re: Spouses in space (was: Re: Astronauts and Trek) Re: space news from Dec 7 AW&ST + space-station editorial part 1 Motorola Quality Award Re: space news from Dec 7 AW&ST + space-station editorial part 1 Re: Treaties with the Russians Re: Recycling Pershing-II's (long) Progress 34 docks and more Soviet Shuttle news USSR's Mir station fully manned for one year now Re: Curved space Re: NYT article ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Jan 1988 06:35-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Space Sex Henry has stumbled across the same 'rumor' about zero G sex that I ran across a few years back. My source was a high level woman in L5 who claimed she'd heard it from one of the lady astronauts. I'd jumped to the conclusion that 0G necessarily meant 'off-planet' though. Henry's info is much more detailed than mine. I've never gotten any verification of the details. I had heard about the requirement for the helping hand though... ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 88 20:25:31 GMT From: thomson@cs.utah.edu (Richard A Thomson) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #108, Earth's rotation In article MINSKY@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU writes: >There exist fossil corals from, as I recall, 400 megayears ago, that >show both annual and diurnal growth rings - with the order of 400 days >per year! I just finished reading an excellent sci-fi book called _Inherit The Stars_ by James P. Hogan; In his book he postulates that there was a planet where the asteroid belt is now with a moon -- Earth's current moon. The civilization on the planet destroyed its own planet through warfare and the resulting explosion hurled its moon out of its orbit where is was caught by the Earth's gravitational pull. There are alot of other interesting twists in the book that I won't give away here, but I recommend the book. Rich ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 88 17:03:19 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Mail reply problems (UUCP paths and return addresses) Recently, I've read interesting articles or have received several pieces of interesting mail. Unfortunately, the return paths has been bad ones. I've corresponded with other people (most recently Peter Neumann at SRI) about this problem. It only appears to be getting worse. I feel very bad about if someone sends me mail, and I can't get an answer to them. For all of us: please figure out a return path or address if on the Internet (in particular) and put it at the end of articles or mail like a signature. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 88 02:25:43 GMT From: oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Michael McNeil) Subject: Re: Spouses in space (was: Re: Astronauts and Trek) In article <1988Jan17.001536.5136@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Both of these facts, plus the fact that NASA never scheduled them to >> fly together, prevented an important experiment in space science: >> what's boinking like in zero G? > >Surely you don't think it's an accident that NASA never scheduled them >to fly together? NASA management, collectively, is as prudish a bunch >as you'll find anywhere. > >The story I hear is that it *has* been tried in NASA's >free-fall-simulation water tanks, however. Alas, a guess I'd made some >years ago is confirmed: it is difficult for the participants to stay >together without gravity to help. Having a helper ready to contribute >an occasional shove helps. So do bungee cords. I dunno -- somehow this sounds to me like all those predictions that rockets could *never* work in a vacuum, 'cause there'd be nothing to *push* against. Just as rockets really push on their own exhaust and not on air, why can't the participants push against, and hold on to, each other? Maybe those who tried it were just groundlubbers -- they hadn't yet learned how to "fly." (Somehow I doubt that they got a whole lot of practice! And, doing it all wrapped in equipment in a water tank doesn't seem the same either.) I suppose, though, it might be desirable to design three-dimensional "beds" (padded monkey bars?) to let it all happen more easily. I sincerely doubt that we'll be disappointed.... Michael McNeil ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 88 00:40:57 GMT From: tolerant!sci!auspyr!aussjo!ausmelb!mulga!munnari!natmlab!dmsadel!augean!tnemeth@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Tom Nemeth) Subject: Re: space news from Dec 7 AW&ST + space-station editorial part 1 In article <1988Jan19.004700.4033@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >[I'm back. I've had a couple of letters asking "what's this I hear about..." > ... I have been >on vacation in Australia, completely out of touch, for a month. All I >know is: I think I resent the implication above; we are not THAT out of touch "down here"... after all, we get this newsgroup, don't we? (But then, maybe he didn't come to the right places, because I didn't see him :-) Anyway, I hope he had a good time. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 88 20:40:12 GMT From: hao!noao!mcdsun!mcdchg!heiby@gatech.edu (Ron Heiby) Subject: Motorola Quality Award Here are some excerpts from "The Roadrunner", the weekly newspaper for Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector (SPS) employees (that I get to read because my office is in one of their buildings). ---------- A team consisting of the Government Electronics Group (GEG) integrated Circuit Facility (ICF) and the SPS Motorola Integrated Circuit Applications Research Lab (MICARL) recently received the CEO Quality Award for an outstanding 10-year quality record for classified equipment. In presenting the award, Bill Weisz, Motorola Vice Chairman, said: "Motorola equipment has been on virtually every classified DoD satellite for the last 10 years. During that time, more than 900 secure systems have been delivered and none has experienced failure." The ICs used in the space secure systems were built primarily by GEG's ICF and SPS's MICARL. MICARL contributes wafer fabrication, probe and test engineering for classified LSI devices using radiation-hardened CMOS and high-speed MOSAIC technologies. ICF provides short lead time packaging and testing of the wafers to the highest IC quality levels required by DoD. Motorola has put 150 systems in space that have accumulated more than 200,000 unit-days without failure. Approximately 20,000 ICs in the systems have accumulated more than 400 million device hours. ---------- I'm glad Motorola is building good stuff for the space program, but I sure wish I knew what they were talking about. -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix "Intel architectures build character." ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 88 19:32:32 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: space news from Dec 7 AW&ST + space-station editorial part 1 > I think I resent the implication above; we are not THAT out of touch "down > here"... after all, we get this newsgroup, don't we? The house where I was staying didn't get it... :-) More seriously, being out of touch was a matter of choice rather than necessity. In retrospect, actually, I regret not having set up something to meet some of the Aussie net people. > ... Anyway, I hope he had a good time. Yup. Nice place. Now if they would only build the Cape York spaceport... Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 88 00:00:00 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: Treaties with the Russians in article <384@ablnc.ATT.COM>, rcpilz@ablnc.ATT.COM (Robert C. Pilz) says: > This time it was the ABM system at Kwajalein Island of the Marshalls > in the Pacific. We have a system of Nike X and Sprint missles designed > to knock out ICBM's. This non-nuclear weapon ^^^^^^^^^^^ Nike X and Sprint were NOT non nuclear. Both were nuclear armed. They were not intended for hostile use. They were intended to stop nuclear warheads targetted on our ICBMs. > system, purely a defensive system was deamed "provocative" by the > Soviets so their ABM system and ours were torn down. In the world of the M.A.D. defensive systems are provocative. If your defenses are good enough you could: 1) launch a first strike 2) deflect a retaliatory strike 3) Survive with enough nuclear weapons to rule the world Or so it was thought before nuclear winter was invented. Bob P. P.S. From reading the net I have learned that "what I heard" is almost always wrong. And, that what I remember is usually correct. But, that what I look up in the library is much more accurate. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 88 00:00:00 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: Recycling Pershing-II's (long) in article <8712102133.AA03140@angband.s1.gov>, wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) says: > I wonder if one of the pro-space organizations could have its lawyers > file for an injunction against the destruction of any usable missles? lots of flames deleted. > Will Martin If you haven't read the basic treaty I suggest you do so. What you are suggesting might work if the Senate does not ratify the treaty. But, I believe that a signed and ratified treaty has the force of law within the United States and would supersede any federal or state laws and regulations on the disposal of useful government property. Under the treaty we have three (3) years to destroy ALL the PIIs. We are not allowed to wait 35 months and then destroy them all in 1 month. We are required to have most of them destoryed in something like 21 months (Ok, so I read the treaty a week ago and I'm already forgetting the details). Even if we decide to destroy the missiles by using them as launch vehicles the treaty time tables don't give you much time to prepare a payload for launch. By the by, it looks like the choice of the destruction site is being determined more by local air quality boards than anyone else. It doesn't realy matter whether you fire the horizontally or vertically, you still wind up with a lot of junk in the air. Bob P. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jan 88 22:32:23 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Progress 34 docks and more Soviet Shuttle news The USSR's Progress 34 unmanned cargo craft docked with the Mir/Kvant space station today (Jan. 23). It is delivering about 2.5 tonnes of food, fuel, water, air and instruments. The total mass dilivered to Mir by the ten Progress' exceeds the total initial mass of the station (22 tonnes). In another area some interesting information has been released about the previous Soyuz TM-4/3 mission last Dec. 21 '87. Recall that TM-4 went up with Vladimir Titov and Musa Manarov (who are currently on Mir) plus Anatoly Levchenko. When the return craft (using Soyuz TM-3) came down Levchenko was the pilot for Romanemko and Alexanderov, the long duration crew being replaced. It now appears that this is all connected with their shuttle program. Levchenko was sent up to check his response to weightlessnes, ie how quickly he recovers from the space adaption syndrome. In most future missions at least one crew man will have the same purpose. In addition about an hour or so after he landed Levchenko got into a jet trainer and flew it to a air base with an escort plan. The purpose is to see how well he could preform in a standard flight situation after spending time in zero gravity and being hit by the reentry forces. Again this is related to their shuttle program. It is interesting how widespread the recognition of the power of the soviet program is becoming. There have been 3 Bloom Country cartoons on the Russians being ahead in space. The same thing was stated on Wall Street Week this last friday. Now that people are recognizing that the USSR is pushing ahead of the USA maybe they will do something about it. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 88 00:06:06 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: USSR's Mir station fully manned for one year now The Soviet Union has today achieved an important milestone in human habitation of space. As of Feb 6th there has been a human being in space every day for the past year. As of Feb. 8 their space station, the Mir/Kvant complex, has been permanently occupied. The second long term crew of Vladimir Titov and Musakhi Manarov have now been in orbit for 50 days with statements still being made that their missions will last one year. Among the things they have been working with is a new type of furnace for material processing. Called an electron/radiation reflection furnace it is described as being used in the fusion and crystallization of materials by the application of radiation. It sounds like a furnace that uses light (or perhaps electron beams) to melt the samples. The furnace was delivered by Progress 33 on Nov. 24 to the previous Mir crew, Yuri Romanenko and Alexander Alexandrov. Romanenko has been interviewed several times now by the press, and appears to be in very good shape, inspite of some statements otherwise by the Guardian Newspaper in England. (I have not read the article - would someone in the UK please give me a date reference to it). There have been several conflicting statements on how many additional "Star" modules (20 Tonne expansion unites) will be added to Mir during their watch. Aleksey Lenonov, the director of the Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center, has stated in an interview in Flight that two modules will be added to Mir this year, which would raise its mass to 90 Tonnes and nearly double its useable volume from the current about 150 to 250 cubic meters (8827 cubic feet). Other reports have said that either one or even no modules will be sent to Mir in 1988. To say the least the situation is confusing. So now the human race has now really entered the space age. Too bad this country was not the one to do it. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 88 08:43 EST From: Emanuel.henr@xerox.com Subject: Re: Curved space Cc: Emanuel.henr@xerox.com Ray, Don't we need to ask the question, "Where are we observing from?" I believe that Albert The Great taught us that observations like these are dependent on the observer's frame of reference. Are you within the space looking about you, or are you outside looking in ? Consider the case of a light ray passing through the space near a very massive gravitational body. Classical experiments have shown that the light ray seems to bend, from our point of view. BUT, if you were riding on the back of the ray of light you would not perceive the bending. WHY ? Because the light ray is moving straight through curved space. The outside observer sees a curved rays of light from his frame of reference only. From the rider's frame of reference the ray is moving perfectly straight. In your problem I wonder if the observer within the frame of occurrence could detect such an anomaly. The space within the anomaly would remain RELATIVLY consistent. I think that the outside observers only are able to detect the change. Please, if this is wrong don't scorch me for trying. Keith J. Emanuel 8-> Software Systems & Tools Xerox Corp. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 1988 16:34-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: NYT article I must admit that I have trouble disagreeing with some of the logic. The ISF gets us there NOW. At $30B I really wonder if we can hold on the the station budget, and if it is really worth it at the price. Space Studies Institute could have a working mass driver sending lunar material back to earth for less than that. The budget stretchout is going to make this thing cost even more than suggested, will bring about the same problems that the shuttle had (that is why Stofan CLAIMS he would shitcan the whole thing below a certain budgetary level), and will end up being too little too late. By the time we get this thing up it will be the LATE 90's and it will be utterly dwarfed by the massive Soviet space city that will be in place by then. You can send up some awfully big cast iron cans with Energia. I will suggest that, ASSUMING we can protect the budget for another decade against rising federal deficits, the first permanent habitation of the US space station will not occur until 1998. I want a space station as much as anyone, and I have fought as long and hard and effectively for it as anyone; but I want a cost effective, WORKING space station right now; not a paper based engineering welfare program. I think the combination of some ISF's with a bunch of tethered ET's would suit me just fine. More volume, more cost effective, and above all, sooner. Screw the goldplate and goldbrick. Lets get a big tin can up there NOW for christ sakes! ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #136 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Feb 88 06:19:54 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07084; Tue, 16 Feb 88 03:17:10 PST id AA07084; Tue, 16 Feb 88 03:17:10 PST Date: Tue, 16 Feb 88 03:17:10 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802161117.AA07084@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #137 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 137 Today's Topics: Re: NYT editorial on space Re: space-station editorial part 2 Re: space station editorial, part 1 Re: space station editorial, part 1 Re: space-station editorial part 2 Re: space station editorial, part 1 Stofan to retire ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov Date: Thu, 4 Feb 88 15:38:20 PST From: lll-crg!ames!scubed!sdcsvax!pnet01.cts.com!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: NYT editorial on space The editorial was basically correct in its direction. It failed to analyze the reasons a private company might be able to produce a facility at a fraction of the cost of NASA, much sooner and with far higher results/$. It failed to follow through on the point raised in paragraph 4, which is that NASA suffers from a systemic problem -- one not limited to Space Station. In the last paragraph, "building hardware for hardware's sake" is given as NASA's current mode. However, I have just one question: WHERE'S THE HARDWARE?? In general, it's tough on NASA from the standpoint of your typical NASA-geek. From the standpoint of a rational world, the editorial treats NASA with kid gloves. Jim Bowery PHONE: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 La Jolla, CA 92038 ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil ------------------------------ Reply-To: lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov Date: Fri, 5 Feb 88 10:38:53 PST From: lll-crg!ames!scubed!sdcsvax!pnet01.cts.com!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: space-station editorial part 2 I've heard a lot of ideas about how to increase the cost effectiveness of Space Station, and this editorial does a nice job of summing most of them up. It also, quite realistically, recognizes there is little chance of these ideas being implemented given current political/bureaucratic realities. Until we take all program funding away from NASA managers and put it in the hands of researchers with specific space science objectives so they can buy the launch and facility services they deem appropriate from whatever source they choose, we will continue to see decade after decade of disasters like Shuttle and Space Station. Leave $2billion for NASA payroll and facility costs and put the rest of the $6billion into an NSF-like peer review system with WRITTEN PUBLIC reviews REQUIRED so that the back room good ole boy politics is exposed and legitimate space science is supported at a level 4 times greater than general science is within NSF ($1.5B). Not only would this multiply the rate at which we are acquiring knowlege about space (knowlege which we MUST have before we can proceed to industrialize/develop space), but it would create a multibillion dollar market for space services including launch and on orbit facilities. The VARIETY of on orbit facilities that would spring up with this funding would be far more effective in getting us into a "space faring" mode than yet another government monument. The same can be said of launch services (keep in mind NASA allocated a whole $30 million for ELVs in the last budget -- this proposal would essentially increase that by a factor of 100 -- that's ONE HUNDRED). One additional point which applies to NSF as well: NO RFP'S SHOULD BE ISSUED -- ALL RESEARCH PROPOSALS SHOULD BE UNSOLICITED. This proposal gets closer to dealing with the root problem in NASA but it still doesn't crack the bureaucratic defenses that the aerospace establishment has constructed over the last 20 years. ANY proposed reform can't even be implemented, let alone maintained, so long as those bureaucratic defenses are in tact. This is why NASA must be broken into a number of independent programs with their own budgets and recharge accounting. Without such a breakup, all other efforts at reform will be successfully resisted and/or reversed within a few years. Please -- wake up folks. Jim Bowery PHONE: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 La Jolla, CA 92038 UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Feb 88 16:13 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Re: space station editorial, part 1 To: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net, space@angband.s1.gov In response to Henry's response... >> biological microgravity work. You don't need much of a station for >> this, though. >That's good, because we aren't getting much of one! ... Specifically, you don't need a big boom, or much power. What you need is something like a Mir. You might also do other nonmedical research, not because it's worth doing on its own, but mainly to keep the human guinea pigs from going crazy from boredom while you study how their bodies stand up to long duration spaceflight. >> (2) I am unconvinced a manned presence for the purpose of assembly >> and repair could be economical at current launch costs... >I would like to see a proper study of this before conceding the point. >Launches were not exactly cheap when Fairchild did the Leasecraft >study. I admit that I'm not confident of the result. However, note >another issue I mentioned: on-orbit assembly permits doing things that >Cannot Be Done otherwise at present. The obvious example is sending >Galileo to Jupiter on a direct, fast trajectory. I'd think Galileo would prove exactly the opposite point: don't let unmanned spacecraft depend on the manned space program. Another lesson from Galileo: launch many smaller spacecraft, rather than cramming all your experimental eggs into one swollen basket (don't tell me Galileo was cheaper!). >Eventually we will want it in a big way, and it's high time to start >sorting out how to do it. (This sort of technology development is, >after all, supposed to be a major NASA responsibility.) That means >DOING IT, not thinking about it. I don't buy this sort of argument. Sure, we want to eventually build things in space. We eventually want to send people to Alpha Centauri, too. That doesn't imply we should now build starships -- or space stations. It isn't high time to start building things in space, any more than it was 20 years ago, since less than zero progress has been made on the central problem: affordable transport to orbit. > Microgravity manufacturing definitely is not going to suddenly spring > into vigorous activity. We agree on something. > Just as well, since we're not going to be able to support vigorous > activity in the immediate future. The best we can hope for is to do a > good job on supporting basic, and some applied, research. The $64 billion dollar question is: why siphon such a large fraction of the government research budget into microgravity research? Because it has such a good potential return on investment? Nonsense. The whole area is distinctly unpromising compared to any number of fields the government could support. NASA's past history of marketing hype should make one extremely wary of the current promises. I'm willing to change my mind on this, if you can give some good examples of products that could be made in space. Be sure to tell me how large the markets are, and why earth-based competition will not be a problem (any product with sales large enough to make the development cost worthwhile will certainly attract competition). > The Soviets have not "concentrated their efforts" on low launch costs. They have, in the sense that, compared to where NASA wants to be in the late 90's, they have cheaper launchers (even ignoring Energia) and less ambitious space stations. > Finally, while I agree that massive reduction of launch costs is our > biggest priority by any reasonable measure, the chances of achieving > this objective by having NASA (or the USAF) do it are nil. I wonder why you think a NASA too incompetent to design an economical booster is capable of implementing a worthwhile space station program. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 8 Feb 88 01:38:42 GMT From: thorin!proline!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: space station editorial, part 1 In article <8802072157.AA08139@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@sdr.slb.COM ("Paul F. Dietz") writes: >Another lesson from Galileo: launch many smaller spacecraft, rather >than cramming all your experimental eggs into one swollen basket (don't >tell me Galileo was cheaper!). It seems clear that launching one spacecraft with many instruments is cheaper than launching many spacecraft with one instrument. Launch costs are a significant portion of mission cost at present. Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 8 Feb 88 19:08:46 GMT From: uflorida!codas!burl!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@gatech.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: space-station editorial part 2 > ... take all program funding away from NASA managers and put it in the > hands of researchers with specific space science objectives so they > can buy the launch and facility services they deem appropriate from > whatever source they choose... Unfortunately, those researchers are just as captive to the bureaucracy as NASA is. This will work fine for buying services that already exist, and very poorly for bringing new and innovative services into existence. Would you risk failure of your grant application because it depends on a service that doesn't exist yet but somebody is promising Real Soon Now If Enough Customers Materialize? Fermilab most assuredly would not exist if its construction had to be funded out of the research grants of its users, yet I think we can safely say that it is valuable. There is a place for centrally-organized, centrally-funded facilities. > ... NASA must be broken into a number of independent programs with > their own budgets and recharge accounting... Anyone who thinks subdivision and competition will bring efficient operation in government agencies should study the long-standing, vicious competition between the US Navy and the US Air Force, and the staggering waste and duplication of effort it produces. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 9 Feb 88 02:08:34 GMT From: uflorida!codas!burl!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@gatech.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: space station editorial, part 1 > [for biomedical work] What you need is something like a Mir... Well, preferably a bit bigger than Mir. Maybe Skylab size. > >...The obvious example is sending Galileo to Jupiter on a direct, > >fast trajectory. > > I'd think Galileo would prove exactly the opposite point: don't let > unmanned spacecraft depend on the manned space program. No, actually what Galileo proves is, don't let major time-critical missions depend on launchers which don't have adequate political support to guarantee continuous service. Galileo would still have been in trouble, although not quite as badly, if it had been manifested on Titan. (The big Titans only having started flying again recently, after their early-86 failure. That's not a trivial slip.) > Another lesson from Galileo: launch many smaller spacecraft, rather > than cramming all your experimental eggs into one swollen basket... Amen to that. In fact there is a more general principle here: spaceflight will always be expensive if losing a single launch is a catastrophe, because nibbling away at that last 0.01% of failure potential is VERY costly. How much would airline tickets cost if one airliner crash grounded them all for years? An important reason why airlines work, at affordable prices, is that both the customers and the airlines accept less-than-perfect safety. > ...doesn't imply we should now build ... space stations. It isn't high > time to start building things in space, any more than it was 20 years > ago, since less than zero progress has been made on the central > problem: affordable transport to orbit. So we must cease all space activity until transport costs are affordable? That is the logical end of this argument. > The $64 billion dollar question is: why siphon such a large fraction > of the government research budget into microgravity research? ... Please explain to me why my proposed space station (much cheaper than NASA's) is an enormous drain on the government research budget when, say, the Superconducting SuperCollider is not. Both are multi-billion projects; neither is a "large fraction" of the government research budget, especially over their considerable lifetimes. > > The Soviets have not "concentrated their efforts" on low launch > > costs. > > They have, in the sense that, compared to where NASA wants to be in > the late 90's, they have cheaper launchers (even ignoring Energia) and > less ambitious space stations. Yes, but this is not the result of concentration. It is the result of pursuing multiple goals *simultaneously*... like building your first small station before your cheap launcher is ready, because you need to gain experience before getting ambitious. > I wonder why you think a NASA too incompetent to design an economical > booster is capable of implementing a worthwhile space station program. I think NASA is capable of building a space station comparable in this regard to NASA's boosters: very expensive but too useful, for limited purposes, to abandon without replacement. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 88 20:22:22 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Stofan to retire [Following are two key paragraphs from a NASA press release, in case your local paper doesn't carry this item. The rest of the release was just background information and typical retirement comments.] __________________________________________________________________ Mark Hess Headquarters, Washington, D.C. February 8, 1988 STOFAN TO RETIRE FROM NASA ON APRIL 1 Associate Administrator for Space Station Andrew J. Stofan will retire from NASA on April 1. Stofan, 53, was appointed June 30, 1986, to the position responsible for developing a permanently manned Space Station by the mid 1990's. Stofan directed the Space Station program through a difficult period marked by significant progress. Stofan says he took the job as associate administrator for Space Station with the idea of accomplishing a set of objectives. "I've accomplished everything I set out to do when I came here," says Stofan. "We have the NASA management team in place, the development and support contractors are on board, the international negotations are in their final stages and the President has submitted a $1 billion budget for the next fiscal year which will permit the program to move into full development," says Stofan. "The program is on track now and its [sic] an appropriate time to retire from government." Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #137 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Feb 88 06:25:17 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08767; Wed, 17 Feb 88 03:16:02 PST id AA08767; Wed, 17 Feb 88 03:16:02 PST Date: Wed, 17 Feb 88 03:16:02 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802171116.AA08767@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #138 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 138 Today's Topics: space news from Jan 4 AW&ST Creating National Space Policy Space Station Docking Subsystem A NEW question - computers and space station Re: Extraterrestrial land ownership Re: Moon with orbit less than a day a bit of space humor Starchart Desparately Seeking Kermit Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Feb 88 04:47:51 GMT From: mnetor!spectrix!tmsoft!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Jan 4 AW&ST [As usual, AW&ST skipped the last issue in December.] First Titan 4 to roll out early this month. Australia and New Zealand urge polar-platform builders to equip the platforms with "direct broadcast" systems [as opposed, presumably, to systems that go via relay satellites] so that deep-southern-hemisphere countries can get real-time data. Shuttle schedule to slip due to SRB test failure. [AW&ST has a "new look" this year. I do hope the quality of the what-failed-in-the-SRB diagram is not typical of what the new look is going to be like; it is totally incomprehensible, and I *know* roughly what the insides of an SRB look like!] Test of Titan SRB successful, clearing way for first Titan 4 launch. This one incorporated a number of post-Challenger mods, including joint heaters. Romanenko and Alexandrov finally return to Earth Dec 29, with Romanenko totalling 326 days aboard Mir. They were clearly fatigued towards the end, with work-days shortened and days off provided frequently. [The Soviets have stated elsewhere that six months is now their preferred stay time for station crews, except for those involved in long-term medical experiments.] The mysterious third member of the relief crew, who went up with the new crew and down with R&A, was not a doctor as previously rumored but a test pilot. The official explanation is that it was to give him some space experience that could be helpful in Soviet shuttle work, but another factor may have been that it put a fairly fresh "safety pilot" aboard the returning Soyuz. Romanenko is going to be studied intensively for biomedical effects of his stay. Of note are calcium loss from the bones, which appears *not* to be regained on return to Earth, and general deterioration of leg muscles and cardiovascular system. Some Soviet work has suggested that the calcium problem, clearly the worst, levels off after about seven months in space, but nobody is sure yet. The new Mir crew is expected to do an EVA soon to add another solar array to Mir. Congress boosts FY88 funding for Lightsat, the Advanced Launch System, and the space-recovery program. ALS gets $150M instead of the $140M asked for, with a minimum of $70M of it going to NASA for propulsion work. Congress restricts space-station funding in FY88, notably requiring NASA to report on economy measures possible. Congress comes down hard on bad management, noting that less than 30% of FY88 station funds is going to companies actually building hardware: "This trend is unacceptable." Congress earmarks $25M for NASA to start leasing arrangements for Space Industries's Industrial Space Facility as an interim pre-station measure, sets aside $20M for microgravity payloads, urges another Spacelab materials mission in 1991, orders use of $28M to buy two Deltas for Rosat and the Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer, caps Advanced Communications Satellite funding at $35M until NASA gets cost overruns under control, approves $25M boost for Mars Observer (to be spent either on MO itself or on planetary-observer spares), and provides $5M to be spent on long-stay orbiter work. USAF planning 11 military-astronaut exercises aboard shuttle to settle the 25-year-old debate about the usefulness of manned spaceflight for military purposes. (Soviet cosmonauts have already run such tests.) Of particular note is a test to determine whether an astronaut with "simple optics" [binoculars?] can observe a missile launch and track it reasonably well; this has obvious implications for credibility of missile-warning systems. Gamma-Ray Observatory structure complete (picture), on schedule for launch in 1990. FCC continues to push a spectrum-allocation scheme for L-band that makes it very difficult for a company to run an aeronautical-safety [traffic control etc.] satellite system without belonging to the winning consortium in the great general-mobile-communications competition. This is not affecting the navsat people (notably Geostar, scheduled to put up its first [working] payload piggyback on a comsat due for Ariane launch this spring), because they were recently allocated their own separate bit of spectrum. (Geostar and such do have some limited data-communications capability, but this was considered a secondary issue.) Ground facilities built in Luxembourg for its privately-owned Astra TV satellite will be rented for use during post-launch maneuvering of Japan's Superbird A and B comsats. [And an interesting bit from Flight International: ex-cosmonaut Vladimir Shatalov, now a Star City official, criticizes "lack of purposefulness and consistency" in economically-useful aspects of the Soviet space program, remote sensing aside. He is particularly critical of the slow pace of microgravity research; read it and weep: "We carry out experiments, wait six months to get them back, spend a year studying them, and only then do we prepare the next experiment. At this pace, we won't set up orbital workshops and factories even by the year 2000."] [Another read-it-and-weep item from Flight International: China reports that high-temperature superconductors made in orbit are more uniform than those made on Earth. Note, they are not speculating on this, they are saying they've *tried it already*.] Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 88 15:52:00 PST From: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" Reply-To: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" Subject: Creating National Space Policy -- KB> A friend and I are working for one of the Democratic presidential candidates and are likely to be talking with his issues coordinator in the near future (like next weekend) on the subject of space policy. In order to build a solid case for a pro-space agenda, we'd like to solicit your ideas on concrete justifications for national space programs. In addition, we'd appreciate any suggestions for specific goals and programs that can be justified in an era of budget cutting and potential austerity. Remember, this is a Democrat we're talking about, so it would help to provide reasons that will stand up to people asking questions like "why don't we spend the money here on Earth, instead?" Specific ideas to consider might include: How do you feel about the Space Station (perhaps as opposed to the Industrial Space Facility or use of external shuttle tanks)? Possible benefits from lunar missions, near-Earth asteroid missions, or a manned mission to Mars? What role should NASA play in U.S. space policy? How can it complement, rather than hinder, commercial development of space? What other steps might the government (reasonably) take to encourage commercial space ventures? Finally, if anyone can provide pointers to official studies on space policy, such as the Ride and the National Space Commission reports, we'd also appreciate them. -- Kevin "Mad Max" Bold (BOLD@AFSC.SD-ARPA) ------------------------------ Date: 11 Feb 88 14:50:46 GMT From: cbosgd!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Space Station Docking Subsystem A Question: which of the space station contractors has the reponsibility for the space shuttle docking subsystem? Despite the several news articles decribing the recently awarded work packages, I still haven't been able to determine this. Please mail answers to this question to me directly, rather than posting news. Some related questions: what design has been chosen for the shuttle docking subsystem? Does it make use of the standardized docking equipment developed for Apollo/Soyuz? Or something new? Which pieces of hardware will the shuttle have to carry, and which will be part of the station? How will dockings proceed; will the shuttle's RMS (or the station's manipulator) be required? I've been following the space station design effort for years, but these details have managed to slip by me. Thanks in advance! Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!kcarroll ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 88 17:47:46 GMT From: unmvax!charon!hydra.unm.edu!cs3631be@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Tommie D. Daniel) Subject: A NEW question - computers and space station How many ways can computers be used to help build the sapce station ?? ( and what are they ..... ) hopefully this will inspire some new disscusions !!! ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 1988 16:18-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Extraterrestrial land ownership Realistically speaking, the treaty won't last past the third native born generation in the colonies. Imperialism didn't work forever on Earth, and it won't work forever in space. I wonder if the UN people realize that they have voted themselves rulers of a colonial empire? Ironic that the children of the subjugated will be the parents of the exploiters. Like every other attempt to rule from afar, it will fail. The locals will kick out the UN or whoever else enforces the treaty, (with more or less bloodshed, depending on the cost of stormtrooper transport to LEO) form a new nation and reject any earthly treaties and laws that do not suit local tastes. History just keeps on repeating itself, and nobody ever seems to learn. Space for the Spacers! Mars for the Martians! Luna for the Lunatics! Earthmen Go Home!! ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 88 19:52:57 GMT From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) Subject: Re: Moon with orbit less than a day In article <570223368.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.EDU writes: >I've read some recent theorizations that a number of the larger lunar >impacts may have been caused by the breakup of 2-3 smaller bodies as >they breached the Roche limit and then impacted, each series seperated >by many millions of years. I recently read a book about the formation of the moon. An article in it concluded that objects in parabolic or hyperbolic orbits do not spend enough time inside the Roche limit to break up due to tidal forces (assuming a reasonable strength, which should be valid for anything stronger than a comet). There is uncertainty to this result. --John Carr (jfc@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1988 23:44:53.30 EST From: (Jim Shaffer) Subject: a bit of space humor Date: Thu, 4 Feb 88 19:56:00 EST Reply-To: SUNY/Stony Brook Literary Underground From: "Graham P. Collins" Subject: here's that poem I mentioned To: "JIM SHAFFER, JR." BEFORE THE BIG BANG: NEWS FROM THE HUBBLE LARGE SPACE TELESCOPE The Astronomer was red-eyed, pale, his face was gray with stubble; he was 13 on a sliding scale of 1 to 10 in trouble. "Is Physics just a fairy tale?" he asked, and then began to wail, "Why DID we seek the holy grail? Why did we launch the Hubble? The launch was good (relax, exhale) the data systems did not fail we peered beyond the cosmic veil, the anti-cosmic double to back before the quarks prevail. We digitized each dark detail but it was all to no avail, it burst our pretty bubble." "WHAT did you see?" I asked "Before Beginning Big Bang lights?" (I reviews and interviews. I edits and I writes.) "Before the start of Time, before the Universe's Birth, What DID the Hubble show, ten billion years before the Earth?" He told me. Now I writes no more. I drinks a bit. I edits. "Right before the Beginning," he said, "is when THEY roll the credits!" (C) Jonathon V. Post (Previously published in "Rhysling Anthology, 1987" and "Star*line, Nov/Dec 1986") ================================================= By the way, notice the shape of the poem, anyone seen pictures of the design of the Hubble Telescope . . . ? :-) Graham P. Collins BITNET%"collins@sunysbnp" UUCP: ...icus!noether!graham ------------------------------ Date: 11 Feb 1988 00:22-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Starchart Last year in Aug or Sep someone posted that a star chart would be posted to net.sources around 1-Oct-87. I didn't see it on that date, and neglected to keep checking. Does anyone have this software or have pointers to it? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 88 11:19:58 PST From: hairston%utd750%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov Subject: Desparately Seeking Kermit X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"space@angband.s1.gov" When I first mentioned the martian lava flow that looked like Kermit the Frog that was printed in the "Whole Earth Review" , I was concerned that many folks might not be able to find such an obscure magazine. I have since found that both "Kermit" and the "face" appear in an article in the April 1985 issue of "Discover" magazine (page 92), which I hope is a bit easier for folks to locate at their libraries. Marc Hairston--Center for Space Sciences--University of Texas at Dallas ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 88 20:06:10 GMT From: milano!banzai-inst!wex@im4u.utexas.edu (Alan Wexelblat) Subject: Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. In article <1988Feb3.133415.12432@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > ...that great scare word "plutonium" without mentioning that it would > go up in an armored canister designed to survive a launch failure. > (There have been some doubts expressed about whether the canisters are > in fact tough enough for all possible cases, but they definitely would > have survived the Challenger disaster.) This is not just speculation: > such a canister went into the ocean some years ago after an expendable > launcher failed; it was recovered intact, wiped clean, and re-used. Er, yes and no. Yes, the canister is designed to survive an explosion. Specifically, it can withstand forces up to 2,000 psi. This is (as Henry notes) clearly enough to withstand a spashdown after failure of an unmanned. However, NASA tests indicate that an exploding shuttle ET might generate forces as high as 20,000 psi. What's particularly troublesome are detonation-on-pad scenarios, which involve these higher pressures. If the cannister did explode, the resulting shower of material might contaminate the entire space center. The point is that while the risk is relatively low, the potential consequences of a failure are so high that alternatives should be given more serious consideration, including the alternative of hardening the cannister to withstand 20,000 psi. (Could such shielding be jettisoned after the space probe was free-flying?) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #138 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Feb 88 06:17:31 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10449; Thu, 18 Feb 88 03:15:16 PST id AA10449; Thu, 18 Feb 88 03:15:16 PST Date: Thu, 18 Feb 88 03:15:16 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802181115.AA10449@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #139 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 139 Today's Topics: Mining fissionables, nuclear risk, etc Pu on LEM Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. Plutonium usage reactor reentry Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. Plutonium generators on spacecraft Re: reactor reentry ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Feb 1988 17:36-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Mining fissionables, nuclear risk, etc I'd place my bets on Mercury, although it's iffy whether they are accessible. Material abundances in the solar system follow a curve of volitality. That's why there are terrestrial planets close to the furnace and gas giants and iceballs out in the back yard. The difficuly with Mercury is that if may be TOO differentiated. It has a higher over all percentage of Fe than other planets, but popular theory has it that the core/mantle/crust are highly differentiated, possibly leaving the crust very depleted. The stuff is bound to be there, the question is whether it is minable or buried out of reach at 100km. There are small amounts of radioactives in some asteroids. Some actually had enough radioactivity early in solar system formation that they had partial melting or even core formation: ie that's where we get Nickel-Iron and Stony iron meteorites. However, the melting is presumed to have been caused by a short lived isotope (of Al? I can't remember whether Al or Sr is the starting point or ending point) that seeded our nebula as it was compressed on it's way to stardom by a nearby supernova. The moon does have He3 in the regolith from gigayears of solar wind. But in general, fissionables look to be pretty hard to come by. Oh well. At least the Earth will have SOMETHING worth exporting... Eugene: I wish we had a dump of the last round of the "FISSION in space/Plutonium is nasty" cycle. I seem to remember the last block covering this matter occured around 2/86. This territory has been well trampled before... But to summarize that old discussion: 1) It ain't particularly dangerous 2) Accidents have HAPPENED with no serious affects 1) USSR sat crashed in Canada. They paid (partially) for the cleanup. 2) An old US sat reentered and spread it's Pu nice and evenly. Back in the 60's I think. 3) The carrier of the type used in deep space probes has, as Henry noted, actually gone down in flames with a far more violent explosion than that from the Shuttle, which was pretty benign. Remember that the shuttle was not destroyed by the explosion, it was torn appart aerodynamically. And at least two astronauts were alive even after the shuttle disintegration. I would guess that a heavily armoured pod can survive anything that flesh and blood can handle. The splash down sure as hell won't hurt it. 1) It's awfully cold and dark out there. No RTG's, no outer planet planetary probes. PERIOD. I really get tired of anti-nuclear hysteria. It's nearly as bad as the anti-drug hysteria. Both are hysterias based on extensive disinformation campaigns by people who seem to have found 'religion' more palatable than reason. You can't tell the truth from the conveniently invented facts without a scorecard... Please note that I am not saying that things nuclear are utterly harmless. Cyanide isn't harmless either, but it can be dealt with. Industrial accidents can and will occur, and I am unconvinced that even a Chernobyl level disaster is inherently worse than a Bhopal. Given a vote on which has the worse effects, I'd have to say Bhopal... Come to think of it, I wouldn't at all mind if pesticides were manufactured off planet... The only nuclear threat that I find worrisome is the terrorist threat, one that I see little if any solution to other than getting off the planet. Every year that goes by makes the technology older and older, and new technology keeps making it cheaper and easier to do things that were expensive or impossible in the past. Laser seperation can be done in hideable facilities, and is based on a technology that will scale down over decades and whose pieces will become more and more readily available. Anyone want to bet they can control all conceivably relevant technologies over the entire planet forever? Good luck and sieg hiel. Back yard A-bombs anyone? Personally, I intend to leave first. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 88 11:02:46 GMT From: lakesys!jtk@csd1.milw.wisc.edu (Joe Klein) Subject: Pu on LEM I belive the LEM that was used to return the crew and command module in the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission, had a package of Pu in it for one of the long term experements to be deployed on the moon. The LEM (or what was left of it) crashed into the Pacific Ocean. Some place near New Zealand is now the resting place for that chunk of Pu. Joseph T. Klein ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 88 15:26:41 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. in article <365@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) says: > Ok, so that's it. No nuclear weapons, but nuclear reactors are just > fine. If we're allowed to launch reactors into space, why not launch > the waste, too? The 'what-if-it-blows-up?' answer could be applied to > the launch of the reactor as well.... Not really. A nuclear reactor that has not been operated is simply not that hot. Remember, you can build a reactor out of stuff you dig out of the ground. The high level nuclear waste produced by an operating nuclear reactor is a whole 'nuther matter. I would not like to see operating reactors being boosted into orbit. > My 'friend the nut case' has a very good point. What if the > rocket/shuttle /whatever that's carrying 46 pounds of plutonium goes > blooie in lower atmosphere? You gonna be ready to live inside for the > next few years? I'm not. I live in Utah, I'd be very surprised if less than 46 pounds of plutonium have been spread over the state. You see, we are the preferred fallout path for all the above ground, and more than a few of the below ground nuclear tests performed at the Nevada nuclear test range. The state is still quite habitable, it doesn't even glow in the dark. There are a few "statistical anomolies" in the cancer rate though. Assuming a worst case accident, parts of Florida would have to be evacuated and cleaned up. I'd be very surprised if anyone outside of the Indian River area would be affected. As for living inside for a couple of years, well I hope you have been very careful in your choice of construction materials, fuels, and so forth. If you haven't, your nice closed shelter can build up some nasty levels of Radon. Real nice for cooking your lungs. If you want to get upset about something real, look at the amounts of nuclear waste put into the atmosphere every year by coal fired power plants. Compare that to the amount released by all nuclear power plant accidents. You have to be careful with nuclear materials. But, you have to be reasonable about assesing risks. The word "plutonium" has you jumping out of your skin with fright. I'll bet the word "coal" doesn't frighten you at all. But I'll bet that the coal industry kills more people every year than the plutonium industry does. Bob Pendleton ------------------------------ Sender: "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@xerox.com Date: 12 Feb 88 10:58:03 PST (Friday) Subject: Plutonium usage From: "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@xerox.com Cc: "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@xerox.com In his 06 Feb 88 13:06 UT message Mike Bird writes: >...the experiment packages...used a small Pu-powered nuclear >reactor...with radiating fins..... This is correct. The Apollo ALSEP (Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package) was powered by a SNAP-27 RTG (Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator) which used a slug of Pu as fuel; the Pu disintegrations produced heat which was directly converted into electricity. One of the first tasks of the landing crew was to deploy the RTG and, using a long handling tool, to insert into it the Pu slug, which was carried in a cylinder on one of the LEM legs. SNAP series RTGs are one of the standard methods of powering spacecraft in general. A description of the ALSEP deployment sequence is given in Gatland: Manned Spaceflight (c. 1967). RTGs are not, strictly speaking, nuclear reactors since they do not contain either a critical or an immediately subcritical assembly. However, the Pu fuel slug is most certainly radioactive. The effects of dispersal of an RTG fuel canister's contents (either by catastrophic self-disassembly of the launch vehicle or by premature re-entry) would certainly include a radiation incident as serious as those occasionally caused by nuclear systems used on the ground. A toxic incident would also occur as a result of the very high toxicity of Pu. To distinguish between RTGs and reactors on the basis of safety is somewhat sophisticated. Henry Spencer appositely points out that the Pu isotope used in RTGs cannot explode; it would be fair to say that this also applies to reactors, since, in order to generate a nuclear explosion per se, a highly fissile isotope must be explosively compressed into a supercritical assembly in a very short time. To do this with Pu is very difficult since its high activity promotes preinitiation, forcing weapons designers to use either spherical compression with complex explosive lenses or more refined (and classified) methods. The crude gun-assembly technique, which some believe would allow terrorists to manufacture a weapon from stolen plutonium, would in fact work only with highly enriched uranium (oralloy) which is somewhat harder to obtain - though the consequences of trying it with Pu would certainly be unpleasant in the extreme; it is most unlikely that the builders of such a thing would survive to emplace it at its target. It appears that there is no greater threat to safety from spacecraft power systems than already exists as a result of ground-level nuclear power and weapons activities. There is not, in my personal view, any justification for scandal over what a given launch vehicle was, or was not, carrying on the occasion of its malfunction. Regards, Chaz ------------------------------ Date: 11 Feb 88 16:15:45 GMT From: cbosgd!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!lsuc!hcr!hcrvax!stacey@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Stacey Campbell) Subject: reactor reentry Considering all the postings regarding the proposed space station and the discussion on reactors in space vehicles I was a bit surprised to discover the only example of poorly controlled reentry of vehicles containing reactors was... In article <3212@killer.UUCP> Eric Green writes: >There is a treaty banning nuclear WEAPONS in space. But there is no >treaty banning nuclear REACTORS in space. Remember that Russian >satellite that broke up over Canada a few years back, spewing low-level >radiation over a wide swath? It was powered by a nuclear reactor.... In article <40767@sun.uucp> seh writes: >The main drawback with these RORSATs and other nuclear-powered birds is >that sometimes they came down in places like Canada. In article Steven Jensen writes: >I know that some of the Soviet Cosmos series used nuclear reactors as >power sources. One re-entered and rained debris over Northern Canada >in the late 70's(?) and there was some concern about the radioactivity >from the reactor. I do not think that any of our sats carry reactors, >but I do not know about some of the other spacefaring countries >satellites. Skylab made a spectacular reentry in Western Australia, spewing all manner of junk over a large band of desert and semi-arid land. There was a lot of concern at the time that much of this junk could be radioactive, that didn't stop people collecting it for souvenirs. mnetor!utzoo!lsuc!hcr!hcrvax!stacey Stacey Campbell, HCR Corp, 130 Bloor St W Toronto,Ont,Canada. This time we didn't forget the gravy! +1 416 922 1937 X50 ACSnet users from Australia: ubc-vision!utai!utcsri!hcr!stacey@munnari and/or mnetor!utzoo!lsuc!hcr!stacey@munnari ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 88 09:07:43 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. > alpha and beta particles. Plutonium 238 (note, 238, *not* 239) is one > fairly good choice. Such isotopes do not have to be fissionable and > in fact usually aren't. Small isotope generators can use > thermoelectric >From everything I've read about plutonium, all of its long-lived isotopes are fissionable. Pu-239 is favored for bombs because it is easy to make, and because its spontaneous fission rate is low enough to make bomb design simpler. (It was the high neutron levels caused by Pu-240 contamination that ruled out use of the gun-type bomb with plutonium during the Manhattan Project; implosion brings the fissionable material together faster than a gun can, avoiding a fizzle). Pu-238 is used in RTGs because its much shorter half-life (86 years vs 24,400 years for Pu-239) gives much more power per unit weight. It is the lack of a nonfissionable isotope of plutonium that would make the controlled destruction of the superpowers' plutonium stocks so difficult. Enriched uranium, on the other hand, can be effectively "denatured" by mixing it with depleted uranium (U-238). Refs: The Making of the Atomic Bomb, by Richard Rhodes; Stopping the Production of Fissile Materials for Weapons, by von Hippel et al, Scientific American, September 1985. Also see the CRC Handbook. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 88 08:18:34 PST From: hairston%utd750%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: Plutonium generators on spacecraft Eric Townsend wrote wanting to know about the nuclear power plants on spacecraft, but in the replies so far no one has mentioned the article about radioisotopic thermal generators and their risks that appeared in the May/ June 1987 issue of "The Planetary Report" (put out by the Planetary Society). In the article David Salisbury goes through the history of RTG use and the various risks they pose and the steps taken to minimize the risks. For anyone interested in this subject, this article is a well informed piece that sheds more light than heat on the subject. Salisbury had read the "Common Cause" article and mentions that it "left the reader with the misleading impression that such an accident [as Challenger] could cause hundreds of thousands of cases of cancer, or worse." According to the article the USSR has launched at least 30 nuclear-powered spacecraft since 1967 and the US has lauched 22 RTGs since 1961. There have been three accidents on the US side. The first was in 1964 when a Navy satellite with a RTG failed to make orbit and burned up over the Indian Ocean. Studies showed it added only 15% to the radioactive dust in the Southern Hemisphere (the rest from open air bomb testing in the South Pacific). After that the AEC changed the design of RTGs so they would survive intact without any leaks rather than burn up. Number two came in 1968 when a weather satellite launch was aborted and the RTGs fell 30 km to the Atlantic. They survived and were recovered intact. The third was on Apollo 13. The lunar module had RTGs on board (whether for the experiments, the rover, or both isn't stated) so after it served its purpose as a lifeboat, it was targeted to reenter over the South Pacific. Surveys of the area afterwards showed no signs that any radioactive release, so it is assumed the current design of RTG can with- stand a 25,000 mph reentry and hitting the ocean at several hundred miles an hour without leaking the plutonium. Last editorial comment: Eric's friend, the musician and activist, serves as a good example of the need for better science education for everyone, not just scientists and engineers. I have lots of friends that are musicians, artists, activists, and other non-tech types. They are all very bright and very curious people, but for some social/cultural reasons they have been taught to hate/fear /have disdain for/etc. science and technology. When they ask me questions about science they are surprised to find that much of it is actually understandable and even exciting, not the threatening monster they faced in school. We need to do a better job of presenting science to the general public or else we're going to face more half-informed hysteria like this. Marc Hairston--Center for Space Science--Univ Texas at Dallas ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 88 20:44:20 GMT From: uflorida!codas!burl!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@gatech.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: reactor reentry > Skylab made a spectacular reentry in Western Australia, spewing all > manner of junk over a large band of desert and semi-arid land. There > was a lot of concern at the time that much of this junk could be > radioactive, that didn't stop people collecting it... Needless concern, since there was nothing radioactive aboard Skylab. (There may possibly have been very minor amounts of radioactive materials in instruments, but there was no reactor, no isotope generator, and no other reason why any significant radioactivity would be present. Remember that men lived in the thing for months at a time.) Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #139 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Feb 88 06:20:28 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00962; Fri, 19 Feb 88 03:18:14 PST id AA00962; Fri, 19 Feb 88 03:18:14 PST Date: Fri, 19 Feb 88 03:18:14 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802191118.AA00962@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #140 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 140 Today's Topics: Re: LDEF satellite Interpreting Mir Elements Re: Apollo not intended to be one shot Condensed CANOPUS - January 1988 More breaking up NASA Reagan's new proposals Re: Reagan's new proposals ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Feb 88 22:48:36 GMT From: marque!gryphon!mhnadel@csd1.milw.wisc.edu (Miriam Nadel) Subject: Re: LDEF satellite In article <8802100107.AA05684@galileo.s1.gov> ota@GALILEO.S1.GOV writes: >Yesterday's AW&ST carried a story on rescheduling the first few Space >Shuttle missions in order to retrieve the Long Duration Exposure >Facility satellite before its currently predicted reentry date of >early-to-mid 1990. It was originally expected to last until 1995 or >so. No explanation was offered for the change. Parts of the satellite >are expected to hit the surface if it reenters. I doubt that the reentry risk is the primary reason for this scheduling. Remember that LDEF was supposed to show the effects of exposure to space debris. Since it has no telemetry, it needs to be retrieved if it is to have been at all useful. LDEF retrieval will also provide a much needed test for the heavy load capabilities of the RMS. There is considerable concern over the structural vibrations of the RMS (which have been significantly larger than had been anticipated) and nobody is all that convinced it can really do the job. Miriam Nadel ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 88 19:13:49 GMT From: irizarry@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Gil Irizarry) Subject: Interpreting Mir Elements I have seen the data on the Mir space station appear regularly in this group. I am interested in perhaps using this to see Mir for myself, but don't know much about satellite data. Can anyone explain the "Mir elements" that show up regularly and tell me how I can use them to determine where Mir is? Thanks, Gil Irizarry irizarry@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 1988 17:51-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Apollo not intended to be one shot No, the engineers did not intend Apollo to be one shot. But the engineers were politically naive, or at least most of them were. The ones that weren't, who predicted what the Apollo approach would lead to, were told to put up or shut up. Kennedy wanted a big civilian project to project the desired image that the US space program was civilian, that would remove the taint of the Bay of Pigs and would make people forget the imaginary 'missile gap' that he ran for president on. The most important thing to the upper echelons was that we do something that would show to the world that we were technologically more capable than the USSR in space. That meant we had to be first to the moon, at any cost. I understand that Kennedy personally nixed the idea of Earth Orbit rendezvous with a station because it would not get us there first. And as resources became tighter, the political goal held firm, but anything else (things intended to make the gains permanent) were eliminated from the budget one by one. So to all of you engineeers out there, just remember that all politicians are liars and scoundrels. They do things for their own political agenda and are very good at convincing you to feel good about the knife sticking in your back. Talk and the power of persuasion gets these people into office and keeps them there. They are as good at lying convincingly as you are at designing hardware and software. Apollo played into their hands. As soon as THEIR goal, beating the russians and showing the world how wonderful the US is, was completed the funding evaporated. To reach THEIR goal, no permanent presence was established, no commercial force (other than COMSATS and the usual aerospace firms) was created. So when they got to political mileage out of it, they were done USING the engineeers. They cut you off like a diseased appendage and let world experts go to work driving taxis in San Francisco. So this time around guys, don't do what is politically acceptable. Don't be obediant little lemmings running off the cliff while a smiling face with no brain behind it takes the credit. Create steps that CANNOT BE REMOVED. Stick it to the bastards. They may be our bastards, but they ARE bastards. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 88 16:53:57 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Condensed CANOPUS - January 1988 Here is the condensed CANOPUS for January 1988. There are 4 articles, 3 presented in condensed form and one short one given in full. The unabridged version has gone to the special mailing list. Don't expect the February issue before the middle of March, because my travel schedule is very heavy right now. The articles below are heavily condensed, but for simplicity ellipses (...) are not inserted. Material in {braces} is from me and is signed {--SW} if wholly new or if my opinion only. CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Send correspondence about its contents to the executive editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded). Send correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA, 1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019. Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS widely, either electronically or as printout copies. If you do, however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many others receive copies. CANOPUS is partially supported by the National Space Science Data Center. PERSONNEL - can880101.txt - 1/6/88 - {condensed} Astronaut OWEN GARRIOTT has joined Teledyne Brown Engineering. LAWRENCE ROSS has been named deputy director of NASA's Lewis Research Center. SOLAR MAX GUEST INVESTIGATOR PROGRAM - can880102.txt - Jan. 6, 1988 {condensed} NASA has released a Research Announcement for the Solar Maximum Mission Guest Investigator Program (NRA-87-OSSA-12). Solar Max is in outstanding condition given that its eighth anniversary will be on Feb. 14. Its instruments have been used for only five years since the attitude control system failure in late 1980 left it unable to point at the sun until after the Shuttle repair mission in 1984. According to the NASA announcement, four of the eight instruments are fully functional: the gamma ray/neutron spectrometer (GRS), the hard x-ray burst spectrometer (HXRBS), the coronograph/polarimeter (C/P), and the solar constant monitor (ACRIM). The ultraviolet spectrometer and polarimeter (UVSP) is rated at only 10 percent since its wavelength drive failed and it can only return UV continuum burst observations and aeronomy. The hard x-ray imaging spectrometer (HXIS) failed before 1984 and could not be repaired. The soft x-ray polychromator (XRP) {is nearly fully functional but very low on expendable gas.} To extend the life of XRP as far into solar cycle 22 as possible, it will be left off unless there is significant solar activity or an important multi-instrument campaign. {Programs similar to the one above exist for HEAO-1, Einstein, IRAS, IUE, various planetary missions, and no doubt more. NASA is becoming very good at milking existing and past satellites for maximum data return. It's a good thing, since there are so few new ones. --SW} TWIN SOLAR ROCKET FLIGHT - can880103.txt - 1/6/88 - {condensed} X-ray and ultraviolet instruments were launched on Dec. 11 at White Sands, N.M., in an attempt to correlate features observed in the solar transition zone and the corona. The two rockets were launched 30 minutes apart. Ground-based observations were made at Kitt Peak (N.M.) National Observatory, Big Bear Observatory near Pasadena, Calif., Sacramento Peak (N.M.) Observatory, the Very Large Array at Socorro, N.M., and the Solar Vector Magnetograph at Marshall Space Flight Center. VIDEO TOUR OF MIRANDA - can880104.txt - 1/6/88 - {in full} The Jet Propulsion Laboratory has generated a one-minute computerized cartoon trip over the "bizarrely contoured terrain" of Miranda, one of the moons of Uranus. The cartoon was made using Voyager 2 imagery taken in January 1986 and elevation data from the U.S. Geological Survey. The footage shows a flight around Miranda at an altitude of 9 miles and with vertical scale exaggerated three times for clarity. {I have no idea where to get the film - I'd like to see it myself --SW} Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa2 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 17 Feb 88 01:06:56 GMT From: thorin!unc!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: More breaking up NASA In article <8802161916.AA08422@crash.cts.com> lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov writes: Subject: Re: Reagan's new proposals Newsgroups: sci.space >Reagan has announced a new space policy. According to the CNN & CBS news >coverage I heard, it includes: > > Increased funding for NASA > Space station as vital part of program > Something called 'Pathfinder' No this is just a nice sounding bureaucratic term to stir the emotions. > Buying unmanned launches from private companies (I'll bet American > Rocket Co likes that!) > Continued use of shuttle for manned flights > An 'Industrial Space Facility' with NASA as cornerstone tenant > (This is a commercial research/production facility) > Return to the moon sometime after 2000 > Possible manned mission to Mars after 2000 > >There's probably more. Does anyone have any details?? Reactions from >Aerospace industry/congress? Article 392 of nasa.telemail.larc: From: agprice@nasamail (AUBREY G. PRICE) Newsgroups: nasa.telemail.larc Subject: SPACE POLICY STATEMENT Message-ID: Date: 11 Feb 88 19:34:00 GMT Sender: telemail@ames.arpa Lines: 204 (edited to remove blank lines and pagination) Approved: telemail Forwarded message: Posted: Thu Feb 11, 1988 11:06 AM PST Msg: RJII-2728-1532 From: HQNEWSROOM To: PAO.LOOP, L CC: [L/GSFCMAIL] GSFC/USA Subj: SPACE POLICY STATEMENT Following is Dr. Fletcher's statement in connection with the new national space policy STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES C. FLETCHER, NASA ADMINISTRATOR PRESS BRIEFING; WASHINGTON, D.C.; FEBRUARY 11, 1988 Thank you, Marlin, and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Today President Reagan issued a new National Space Policy designed to guide United States' activities in space well into the future. This policy confirms the basic goal of United States' leadership in space, and the President's strong commitment to the Space Station as the key to such leadership. The policy reaffirms that space activities serve a variety of vital national goals and objectives. Among them are the strengthening of United States' scientific, technological, political, economic and international leadership. In fact, the new policy stresses that civil space activities contribute significantly to enhancing America's world leadership. The President's new space policy is a comprehensive statement. It was derived from a long and thorough review of previous Presidential directives, and of assessments of current and future opportunities. Secretaries Verity, Burnley and Aldridge and many others in the Administration were involved in this process, as was NASA. With the new policy, President Reagan has added a major new thrust to the objectives and directions that have guided the civil space program for the past three decades. The policy clearly establishes that, for the first time, the United States has a long-range goal of expanding human presence and activity beyond Earth orbit into the solar system. This is a goal of enormous significance with potentially historic future implications. This is a policy of investment in the future. It lays the necessary groundwork now for the decisions of the next century. It puts a challenge squarely on NASA. And it is a challenge we accept. The new policy reaffirms the President's strong support for the Space Shuttle and for the permanently manned Space Station the United States is developing with the expected participation of its allies. The President's policy stresses the unique and vital role of the Space Shuttle in the nation's Space Transportation System. It calls for further enhancing the system's capabilities, as new requirements emerge; and for NASA and the Department of Defense to work together to develop new, cost-effective launch systems, one of which is the Advanced Launch System, to enhance national capabilities for transportation to, from and within space. The policy also states that the national security sector will continue to use the STS in response to that sector's specific mission requirements. With regard to the Space Station, the policy states that the station is to contribute directly to the preservation of United States' preeminence in manned spaceflight and to the goal of expansion of human presence and activity into the solar system. But to prepare for that development, the policy focuses appropriately on the near-term - on the development and testing of the emerging, innovative "Pathfinder" technologies that will make future decisions possible. The Pathfinder program will permit a future Administration to act with confidence in deciding on specific manned exploration goals and timetables to meet them. In this area, as in several other areas, the policy recognizes the critical role that technology advances have played and will continue to play in preserving this nation's leadership in vital areas of space activity and on Earth, as well. The policy recognizes the existence of a separate commercial sector, as well, and reaffirms the President's strong commitment to encouraging a healthy and expansive commercial space industry. I stress that last point because, although I've been addressing primarily the civil sector portions of the National Space Policy, the policy also says a great deal about commercial space. And in that regard, there has been a related effort underway to develop special initiatives in support of the President's thrusts to develop the commercial use of space. NASA has long been in the forefront of this effort and supports the goals of those initiatives whole-heartedly. In this regard, NASA will take the lead in implementing many of these initiatives, including Government actions to lease space on a new, commercially financed, developed and managed on-orbit space facility. I believe that Secretaries Verity and Burnley will also want to speak about these important new initiatives in just a moment. But let me sum things up by saying that the President's new National Space Policy has recharged the nation's space program by giving it new momentum and the prospects of new challenges and new opportunities. Time and again, Americans have demonstrated that we can lead in exploring new frontiers and in developing their potential for the benefit of humankind. This new policy charts a clear course on the greatest frontier of all - space. Thank you very much. And now, I'll turn it over to Secretary Verity. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #140 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Feb 88 06:19:30 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02317; Sat, 20 Feb 88 03:17:23 PST id AA02317; Sat, 20 Feb 88 03:17:23 PST Date: Sat, 20 Feb 88 03:17:23 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802201117.AA02317@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #141 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 141 Today's Topics: Where the US stands in space [BLUNT] re: space station editorial part 2 New US Space Policy Coercive Space Exploration Re: Reagan's new proposals re: Civilial Space Policy Reform Re: Choice of launch sites for geosync. satalites Re: Choice of launch sites for geosync. satalites DSN & In-Flight Reprogramming Re: DSN & In-Flight Reprogramming Navigation Systems ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Feb 88 11:02:23 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Where the US stands in space [BLUNT] In article <1282@lznv.ATT.COM> psc@lznv.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes: >Funny: Proxmire likes the Mars shot, because it puts the space station >(which he wants to kill) in the proper framework? It's amazing how >many people who don't seem to want a manned space program are for >rushing right off to Mars. It's as if they think it's the fastest way >to kill manned programs. Surprise. This is exactly the way to kill all space activity- place some men into Mars insertion orbit, then be unable to get them back in one piece since the support structures were not funded. Another poster, talking about the Apollo debacle, said in no uncertain words what is going on. To paraphrase him, are we going to sit back with politicians' knives between our shoulder blades and kiss them for it? I'm a man of tact, but I've been pondering for a year. I think that this is common consensus (and has been for months): THE U.S. SPACE PROGRAM IS DEAD. It's all over but the murmur of the Space Station proponents and of the interested aerospace contractors. No one in any position of power wants to wake up and smell the maggots. Cases in point: 1- This SDI business. Reliability is the top set of worries. If the proposals were for automobiles, the manufacturer could not sell any of the cars. 2- NASA chucked several extremely good designs and facilities to concentrate on the Shuttle. No Saturn V is left; no plans are extant for any non-Shutle system launcher. [As far as I've been able to gather, the only serious boosters still running are all Russian, or fitted with megatons of nuclear death.] 3- As with Apollo, the politicians who want some sign of life to demonstrate the "innate American superiority" over the rest of the world wish to put a man on Mars. We don't even have the facilities to ready a booster capable of putting any part of the mission into space. Much as I hate to say it, a single country will be Earth's representatives in space. Once human presence in space is large and routine enough for history to repeat itself (the colonies break away), then we can sit back and laugh at the Russians. But they tried, while we sat with our hands up our asses and our mouths running triple speed with double talk. I mourn the inability to work within the current system to do something about this. All I can hope for is that some country will be kind enough to set humans into space and not abandon them until they have proven completely self-sufficient. I as an American will not live to see that goal unless something rises Phoenix-like out of the corpse. If Australia or Europe offers the chance, the vital men and women of space efforts will emigrate with their talents and their children. If Russia opens the doors wide enough, the same thing will happen. The past is dead and gone. The glory is for the history books. The US is safe and comfortable, secure and stagnant. Rest in peace. Joe Beckenbach (CS BS '88) I'D RATHER BE ORBITING I'm serious, folks. Wake up before it's too late. ------------------------------ Reply-To: lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov Date: Tue, 16 Feb 88 10:58:37 PST From: lll-crg!ames!scubed!sdcsvax!pnet01.cts.com!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: re: space station editorial part 2 > Would you risk failure of your grant application because it depends on > a service that doesn't exist yet but somebody is promising Real Soon > Now If Enough Customers Materialize? Ultimately, this may be a valid criticism. In the current situation, however, it is not reasonable to expect that directly funded development programs will do anything but grow to the maximum size allowed by Congress and waste all the money allocated thus ensuring that any future attempts to obtain funding for valid purposes are politically resisted. Also, the current situation represents about 20 years of pent up potential for private involvement. IDF, AMROC and the renewed interest in sounding rockets and remote sensing are just the tip of the iceberg coming as they do, in an environment that is quite hostile to such enterprise. Give us a decade to exploit this pent up potential while dismantling the rotting aspects of NASA's development structure before forcing us to act as if NASA and the markets it has suppressed can be treated with conventional logic. > Anyone who thinks subdivision and competition will bring efficient > operation in government agencies should study the long-standing, > vicious competition between the US Navy and the US Air Force, and the > staggering waste and duplication of effort it produces. There are several serious flaws in this analogy. Science is a very different type of activity from military operations. As I have stated before on a number of occasions in this very forum, centralized management and planning with cooperation inside a monolithic structure is appropriate for short-term emergency projects (such as Manhattan and Apollo) and the military. Science is the very embodiment of the competition of ideas and thus requires diversity, variety, independence, redundancy and a certain amount of controlled chaos from which mutant ideas arise to feed the evolutionary process. Only after we have evolved the technical maturity necessary to create and manage plans should we attempt to do so. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 88 00:19:18 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!mtunk!io!granjon!edsel!dxa@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (DR Anolick) Subject: New US Space Policy Does anyone out there have any comments on the new United States Space Policy announced by the President last week? I've only seen one newspaper article on it, and it wasn't that detailed. Maybe the NY Times had something, but I couldn't get out and get it due to a snow storm that morning. Would someone who has a good source post details on the new policy? droyan David ROY ANolick ihnp4!edsel!droyan ^ ^^^ ^^ ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 88 22:58:36 GMT From: hyper!guest@UMN-CS.ARPA (guest) Subject: Coercive Space Exploration > I am becoming increasingly irritated by the simplistic attitude often > expressed here that "competitive free enterprise" can solve all our > problems. The world just isn't that simple. ... Space exploration like any other human endeavor ought to be conducted without resorting to coercion. Arguments can and have been made that governments can do some things better, safer, faster, and cheaper than free enterprise. But even if that were true (which I personally doubt) it does not ameliorate the underlying fault of all government action; the use of coercion -- the initiation of force, to achieve social or political goal. Arguments of efficiency cannot justify acts of coercion. Neither majoritarian or elitist arguments can justify acts of coercion. The arguments of the efficiency of the slave state are well known. Yet they do not justify it (at least not to people who reject coercion.) If you believe that space exploration may be coercively conducted, the burden forced on to an unwilling majority (or minority), then you are no friend of liberty. So do not bother to cover up your true motivations with pathetic assertions of efficiency. You really just want the world to be forced to accomplish your own selfish goals. John M. Logajan umn-cs!hyper!ns!logajan Network Systems Corporation, Brooklyn Park MN 55428 ------------------------------ Date: 17 Feb 88 08:19:12 GMT From: imagine!pawl20.pawl.rpi.edu!jesup@itsgw.rpi.edu (Randell E. Jesup) Subject: Re: Reagan's new proposals In article <8802121721.AA09398@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@PIONEER.ARC.NASA.GOV (Eugene N. Miya) writes: , huntting@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Bradley Enoch Huntting) writes: > It occured to me the other day that when satalites launched from > within the U.S., they are put into a transfer orbit which is inclined > about 20 deg from the plane of the equator. This means that the net > change in velocity nessary to place the payload into geosyncronous > orbit (sum of the instantainious acceleration nessary to attain > transfer orbit (~10.1 km/s) plus the instantainious acceleration > nessary to bump the object from transfer to geosyncronous orbit (~1.45 > km/s if launched from the equator, or ~4.39km/s if launched from 20 > deg latitude) is higher by ~3km/s! That's a 26% increse! [..] Whoa! I don't know where you got that 4.39 km/sec figure, but it's way off. (Actually, I can guess: it sounds like what one might come up with by figuring the plane change first, in LEO, rather than at GEO). There is definitely a penalty for launching from higher latitudes, but it's not nearly that bad. (Figure, figure). Uhm, the back of the envelope numbers I get--taking your 10.1 km/s and 1.45 km/s as correct--is about 1.65 km/s for the appogee burn from a launch at 20 deg. That's still a significant penalty, but not unbearable. The vector diagram for the two appogee burns looks something like this (pardon my ascii): ^ |\ | \ | \ 1.45 km/s | \ 1.65 km/s | \ | \ ^ \ | 20 ^ | deg./ 1.55 km/s | / | / 1.55 km/s | / | / o - Roger Arnold ..ucsd!telesoft!roger ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 88 13:54:19 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!kcarroll@bellcore.bellcore.com (Kieran A. Carroll) Subject: Re: Choice of launch sites for geosync. satalites The following is quoted from a rather timely article in the February, 1988 >Space World< issue, entitled "The Pros and Cons of Launch Sites," by Lawrence Suid. The context is a discussion of the choice of Cape Canveral as the launch site for the Apollo moon program: "...the decision to locate the Apollo launch facilities at the Cape came only after deliberation and debate... Christmas Island in the central Pacific was a contender because of its location near the equator...launching... from an equatorial location could take advantage of the Earth's rotational velocity...Most important, launching from an equatorial base avoided the costly dogleg technique, a prerequisite for placing rockets into an equatorial orbit from a site such as Cape Canaveral...There were also disadvantages in locating Apollo facilities outside the United States. Construction costs would be about 100% higher. NASA would have logistics problems and face the uncertainties of setting up an American base on foreign soil." It seems to me that most near-equatorial countries are either politically unstable, or lack much industrial infrastructure, or both. Lack of infrastructure will increase the costs of both the initial construction of facilities (launch, assembly and checkout, employees' housing, etc.), and of operations (shipping satellites, boosters, rocket fuel, etc., from several thousand miles away). This additional cost need not force the decision against an equatorial launch site, of course; the French are doing just fine in South America. However, they undoubtedly had some infrastructure in place before Ariane came along. Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!kcarroll ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 88 03:57:24 GMT From: rochester!daemon@bbn.com Subject: DSN & In-Flight Reprogramming Hi, I am looking for literature pointers to (1) the Deep Space Network, and (2) in-flight reprogramming of satellites and exploratory probes. I am interested in articles that provide either general discussion or report on specific features or uses. The more "archival" in nature, the better, but articles in magazines such as Aviation Week and Space Technology would be OK. I'd do an INSPEC title search, but can't think of keywords that are both descriptive and sufficiently restrictive. Can anyone help me out with references? Failing that, what are the most likely journals to find such things in? Stu Friedberg {ames,cmcl2,rutgers}!rochester!stuart stuart@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 88 19:44:19 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: DSN & In-Flight Reprogramming One title I can think of is "Deep Space Telecommunications Techniques". It contains a wealth of information about communications with deep-space probes like Voyager and Pioneer, with emphasis on the details like coding schemes. It was edited by a guy at JPL; unfortunately I can't be more specific because my copy disappeared some time ago... Phil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Feb 88 09:35 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Navigation Systems "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@xerox.com, in his message about private industry in space, wrote > 1. Not every activity which is justifiable is necessarily profitable. > To define the profit motive as the sole criterion for justification > may exclude worthwhile projects unlikely to show rapid profit; > navigation systems are a possible example. Actually, navigation systems are a very good example of the advantages of private enterprise. The Navstar system is more expensive than the private Geostar system because it must cover the entire globe and because the ground units must not emit radio signals (very bad on a battlefield). Also, the government has crippled Navstar's accuracy for civilian users; Geostar will have no such restriction, because all navigation fixes go through a ground computer and so are useless to a hostile power. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #141 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Feb 88 06:43:45 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03473; Sun, 21 Feb 88 03:16:43 PST id AA03473; Sun, 21 Feb 88 03:16:43 PST Date: Sun, 21 Feb 88 03:16:43 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802211116.AA03473@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #142 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 142 Today's Topics: Re: Navigation Systems Re: Navigation Systems Question about National Radio Astronomy Observatory Re: Question about National Radio Astronomy Observatory Free-fall sex Posting for Cindy@idis@cadre IN ORBIT 7th Feb. Re: Amateur Rocketry in England RE: National Radio Astronomy Observatory New EVA planed on USSR's Mir station Mir elements, 14 February 1988 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Feb 88 17:30:41 GMT From: ulysses!thumper!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Navigation Systems > Also, the government has crippled Navstar's accuracy for civilian > users; Geostar will have no such restriction, because all navigation > fixes go through a ground computer and so are useless to a hostile > power. GPS/Navstar in the C/A (Clear Access, i.e., civilian) mode has consistently demonstrated horizontal errors of less than 10 meters and vertical errors of 30 meters. I would hardly call this "crippled". I am becoming increasingly irritated by the simplistic attitude often expressed here that "competitive free enterprise" can solve all our problems. The world just isn't that simple. The notion of a free market is based on the following fundamental assumptions: 1. The variable costs of production dominate the fixed costs. 2. There are no economies of scale. 3. It's very easy for others to enter the market (a restatement of #1 and #2). 4. Charging mechanisms for services and/or products are cheap and easy. 5. There are no limits imposed by availability of natural resources. There are many places where these assumptions are mostly true, and private enterprise works just fine. But satellite navigation isn't one of them! Not only is there a large economy of scale in having one common system (there is no limit on how many simultaneous GPS users there can be) but charging is usually impossible, at least in systems with passive receivers (which I'd prefer for both cost and reliability reasons). Also, the radio spectrum is a limited natural resource; multiple, incompatible systems, each with their own chunk of RF spectrum, are just plain wasteful. Global optimization of resources is not a strong point of free enterprise. The characteristics of satellite navigation put it squarely in the category of a service that is best provided by the government, just like the vast majority of existing navigation aids for aviation and boating. The fact that the DoD happens to run the system primarily for its own purposes is unfortunate; it says a lot about our national priorities. However I don't see anything wrong with subverting technology designed for death and destruction into more constructive uses. :-) The only possible justification I can see for Geostar would be if it did something that GPS can't do, or if it was inherently far cheaper. I doubt either of these are true; position reporting could be done just as effectively by combining a GPS receiver with a land-mobile satellite transceiver (which can be used for other things as well), and production economies of scale are making GPS receivers quite affordable. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 88 20:57:24 GMT From: uflorida!codas!burl!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@gatech.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Navigation Systems > The only possible justification I can see for Geostar would be if it > did something that GPS can't do, or if it was inherently far cheaper. > I doubt either of these are true; position reporting could be done > just as effectively by combining a GPS receiver with a land-mobile > satellite transceiver (which can be used for other things as well), > and production economies of scale are making GPS receivers quite > affordable. A Geostar terminal is basically just a digital transceiver with flourishes. Other things being equal (which they aren't, at present), it would indeed be inherently far cheaper than a GPS receiver. Also more reliable. Geostar can indeed do things that GPS can't do. For one thing, it can be self-financing, since it can deny service selectively. For another, it can be used for (limited) digital communications. For a third, its communications capability can be used to warn of impaired accuracy -- there is no provision in GPS for real-time warnings about satellite degradation. (The Europeans are talking about an international civilian equivalent of GPS that would include provisions for warning *GPS* users that their system is broken!) Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 88 17:42:48 GMT From: daveb@eneevax.umd.edu (David Bengtson) Subject: Question about National Radio Astronomy Observatory Does anyone know if the National Radio Astronomy Observatory is 1) located in Charlotsville Va ? 2) Has a net feed? I'm graduating from U Maryland this summer with a MSEE and am interested in talking with them about employment. Thanks for any information David Bengtson Laboratory for Plasma Fusion University of Maryland College Park Md 20742 {your keyboard} !uunet!mimsy!eneevax!daveb eneevax.umd.edu ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 88 06:46:47 GMT From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) Subject: Re: Question about National Radio Astronomy Observatory Last time I was there, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory was in Greenbank, West Virginia, well up in the Appalachian Mountains, in the middle of nowhere. But extraordinarily beautiful. If you go, take a lot of reading material and plan on doing a lot of hiking in your spare time. It's four or more hours to anywhere with more than a few thousand people. --Rod ------------------------------ Sender: "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@xerox.com Date: 16 Feb 88 04:36:46 PST (Tuesday) Subject: Free-fall sex From: "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@xerox.com Cc: "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@xerox.com I haven't heard all these rumours that people discuss darkly on the newsgroup. However, on this one point I'm inclined to disagree with Mr. Arthur C. Clarke (who seems to think it would be fun) - it seems to me that the energy expended in the process would be likely to wind up partly as heat and mostly as angular momentum. In a water tank there's a lot of drag; in air there isn't. I suggest that both (Calif: all) parties to the contract would rapidly acquire an impressive spin, in an axis determined by their mechanical configuration, which could be nauseating. And, of course, in free fall you can't throw UP, you can only throw OUT.... I am, of course, prepared to volunteer for an experimental proof of my hypothesis. Regards, Chaz PS If one can model things like 747s crashing into PWRs on one's supercomputer then surely one can model a simple mechanical system like this. What are all those well-paid people doing with their Crays? I think we should be told. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 88 09:20:05 PST From: Eugene miya Subject: Posting for Cindy@idis@cadre Sorry our hosts don't talk to one another. Send a telephone number so I can answer your question. Darn mailers! >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 9 Feb 88 12:49:10 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: IN ORBIT 7th Feb. Item from "IN ORBIT" of 7th February. IN ORBIT is Channel 4's ORACLE service weekly space news pages. For thise who can get C4, it can be found on p618 on Saturday and Sunday. I only occasionaly reproduce articles I think could be interesting to a wider audience. The articles were written by Dr David Whitehead. Bob. ----------------------------------------------------------- India's IRS1a satellite has arrived at the USSR's Baukonur cosmodrome to begin a test period before a proton rocket puts it into space in mid-march. India also hopes to test it's ASLV rocket to orbit a satellite in March or April. Last year it failed just one minute into its maiden flight. Japan's CS3a domestic communications satellite is due to be launched from the Tanegashima complex sometime on or after February 16. It will be launched by a H1 rocket. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Feb 88 12:06:47 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Amateur Rocketry in England I suppose I should have made this clearer. I have been told that technically it is against the law to have or to set off even fireworks. Typical fireworks contain very small amounts of gunpowder. Only two companies are licenced in the UK to make fireworks, and they do so under very strict regulations controling what they can make and sell. The police and other government bodies don't bother about people letting off commercially made fireworks in a responsible manner. Any attempt to make your own fireworks or any action deemed irresponsible, e.g. launching rockets with a payload, will make you liable to prosecution. And if you think that this is a strange way to apply the law, you should hear some of the others in this country. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 88 15:17:42 GMT From: steinmetz!ge-dab!ge-rtp!edison!rja@uunet.uu.net (rja) Subject: RE: National Radio Astronomy Observatory The NRAO administrative offices are located in Charlottesville, VA. They are physically located on the grounds of the University of Virginia, but are completely separate in all other respects, except that the NRAO computers in C'ville are directly on the UVa LAN. (But addressed separately from the Internet: .Virginia.EDU for UVa and .NRAO.EDU for NRAO according to UVa Academic Computing.) There is a NRAO observatory in Green Bank, WV as previously noted. I don't know if there are any others. I am not affiliated in any way with NRAO or UVa, but am acquainted with some folks at both institutions. ...hope this helps ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 88 00:23:07 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: New EVA planed on USSR's Mir station The USSR has announced that the current Mir/Kvant space station crew of Vladimir Titov and Musakhi Manarov will being doing a space walk later this week (about Feb. 17 or so - though in one report they said it may as late as the next week). The purpose of this EVA is to replace one of the solar panels on the third (vertical) solar array that was erected by Yuri Romanenko and Alexander Laveikin (the second Mir crew) last June 13/16th. This 22 square meter (237 sq. ft.) solar cell addition consists of 4 sections attached to 10.5 meter (34.5 ft.) tower. According to the reports one of these sections is to be replaced with a new panel using "new semiconductor" cells. This may suggest that the replaced section will use Gallium Arsenide solar cells, such as were installed in additions/repairs to the previous Salyut 7 station by Vladimir Layakhov and Alexander Alexandrov on 1/3 Nov. '83. If so this should increase the power produced by the third panel from 2.5 KW to 3.1 KW on the basis of the Salyut 7 results, yielding a total station power of 13.6 KW. The panels were probably brought up on Progress 34 last month. This will be the first space walk for either crew member. They have accumulated 57 days of orbital time on this flight so far, and will exceed the Skylab 3 mission of 59 days on Feb. 17th (that is the second longest US mission). EVA construction, repair or space station improvement is now a standard feature of every long duration Soviet space mission. Such extravehicular activity has occurred on every long duration Russian crew on Mir. Indeed, every main crew manning Salyut 7, starting with Soyuz T-5 in 1982, also did such space walk work with the exception of the Soyuz T-14 flight (Sept. '85) which had to come down after just two months due to the illness of the mission commander. That is exactly what you would expect for true permanent manned space station operations. The Soviets are now constantly expanding the "envelope" of their space station operations. Meanwhile the next shuttle launch has been delayed at least to Aug. 14th. I hope that by the end of this year this country will finally again have put men and woman in space. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 88 22:59:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements, 14 February 1988 Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 49 Epoch: 88 34.85393094 Inclination: 51.6305 degrees RA of node: 40.2415 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0016974 Argument of perigee: 53.2769 degrees Mean anomaly: 306.9644 degrees Mean motion: 15.75171232 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00022560 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 11263 Semimajor axis: 6722.24 km Apogee height*: 355.49 km Perigee height*: 332.67 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #142 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Feb 88 06:20:25 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04705; Mon, 22 Feb 88 03:18:19 PST id AA04705; Mon, 22 Feb 88 03:18:19 PST Date: Mon, 22 Feb 88 03:18:19 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802221118.AA04705@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #143 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 143 Today's Topics: What are Mir elements? What are Mir elements? matter/antimatter propulsion Re: Lunar habitation questions NASA SPACELINK Where the US stands in space [BLUNT] Re: Where the US stands in space [BLUNT] Richard Feynman passes away Re: matter/antimatter propulsion Re: What are Mir elements? Re: NASA SPACELINK Erector-set: Let's build a company ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Feb 88 23:01:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: What are Mir elements? Answers to commonly asked questions about the posting of the MIR elements. 1) WHAT IS MIR? Mir (The Russian word means both `peace' and `world') is the first space station permanently staffed by a human crew. It was launched in November of 1986, and has had men on board continuously since February of 1987. One crewman recently returned from a tour of duty exceeding 300 days. 2) WHAT ARE THE ORBITAL ELEMENTS? The orbital elements of a body are a set of parameters that completely describe its motion according to Newton's laws of motion. Given an accurate set of elements, and assuming that no maneuvering has been done since the elements were posted, a program can calculate the position of the body at any given time. 3) WHY POST THE ORBITAL ELEMENTS? The elements for Mir are interesting not only because Mir is interesting in itself, but also because Mir is a highly visible object; when it makes a close approach, it can be as bright as the brightest stars. If you know where to look, it is easy to see Mir. Moreover, some radio experimenters have been able to listen in on Mir's operational communications and telemetry. 4) HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THE ORBITAL ELEMENTS? The epoch day is the reference time for which the orbital elements were calculated. It is expressed as yyddd.ffffff, where yy is the year, ddd is the number of the day within the year (1 January = 1, 1 February = 32, etc.) and ffffff is the fraction of a day. The times are in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, also [inaccurately] called GMT). The inclination is the angle between the plane of the orbit and the plane of the Earth's equator, in degrees. The line where these planes intersect is called the nodal line. The right ascension of the ascending node is the angle, measured from west to east along the Earth's equator, between the Sun's position at the vernal equinox and the point on the nodal line where the satellite crosses the Earth's equator from south to north. Taken together the RA of the ascending node and the inclination define the orbital plane uniquely. The eccentricity of the orbit is a pure number that determines how much it varies from a circle. If a is the distance from the center of the Earth to the satellite at apogee and p is the distance to the satellite at perigee, then the eccentricity is (a - p) / (a + p). The argument of periapsis is the angle, measured along the plane of the satellite's orbit, between the ascending node and the point where the satellite reaches perigee. The mean anomaly is somewhat difficult to explain. Imagine an unusual clock with one hand moving at a uniform rate of speed, completing one revolution for each revolution of the satellite. Imagine further that the hand reaches noon just as the satellite reaches perigee. The mean anomaly is the angle from noon to the position of the hand at the epoch time, measured in degrees. Given the imaginary clock just described, the mean motion is the rate of speed at which the hand turns, measured in revolutions per day. A satellite in low Earth orbit experiences a certain amount of drag from the upper atmosphere, which causes its orbit to decay and spiral in toward the Earth. Paradoxically, as the orbit decays the satellite moves faster; the acceleration of the mean motion describes how fast the orbit is decaying. It is measured in revolutions per day per day; the posting actually gives half the acceleration of mean motion. 5) HOW DO I USE THE ORBITAL ELEMENTS TO SEE MIR? First, you should probably forget about attempting to do hand calculations. The calculations are messy, since a number of effects such as the Earth's non-spherical shape (it's flattened at the poles) and the drag from the upper atmosphere. The only really effective way to do orbit predictions is to use a computer program. There are several programs available to do the job. One source for them is T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M', which operates 24 hours a day and is accessible at +1 512 892 4180, 300/1200 baud, 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. The program that I use is SGP4-C, written by Bob Wallis (amdcad!cae780!weitek!wallis); please don't ask me to mail you a copy, as mine is obsolete and doesn't have all of Bob's latest bug fixes. The program *is* available on Kelso's bboard, and that is probably the best source for it. The National Space Society also provides a Mir prediction service for its membership, run out of the DC office. I can't vouch for the predictions, since I've never tried them, but I have on occasion telephoned them to get the latest orbital elements. They can be reached by voice at +1 202 543 1900 (the front desk) or +1 202 543 4487 (the Mir Watch hotline). I understand that they also make an IBM PC program for Mir prediction available to chapter leaders; I have never tried it. If you're feeling really ambitious and want to write your own program, be prepared to learn a fair amount of physics. I am willing to help out, *as time permits*, with serious inquiries; I have a `cookbook' description of one fairly simple (as such things go!) prediction algorithm that might be used as a starting point. I can also recommend a couple of textbooks that I found useful. 6) HOW DO I OBSERVE MIR? Observing Mir is fairly simple -- it's a naked-eye object. Find a spot with as little interference from city lights as possible (as with all sky-watching, the less man-made light, the better). Allow some time for your eyes to become dark-adapted, and to familiarize yourself with the stars along the projected path of the spacecraft through the heavens. Begin watching for the overflight several minutes before the predicted time, and continue until several minutes after, if you haven't spotted it. The crew maneuvers the spacecraft fairly frequently, reboosting it as its orbit decays. The usual effect of these maneuvers is to make overflights later than expected; this effect is somewhat offset if a period of high solar activity has made atmospheric drag greater than expected. If you're watching with a party of several people, have someone watch near the point of closest approach; the spacecraft brightens as it approaches the viewing site, and can be missed while it is still far away. The spacecraft will be a moving, starlike object; some people have mistaken it for a high-flying jet. It has some behaviors that no jet has, though: the most obvious one is that it reddens and passes from view as it enters the shadow of the Earth. Watch for this effect; Mir is bright enough that the gradual eclipse is noticeable for a period of several seconds. Good hunting, and clear skies! Kevin Kenny UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny Department of Computer Science ARPA: kenny@B.CS.UIUC.EDU (kenny@UIUC.ARPA) University of Illinois CSNET: kenny@UIUC.CSNET 1304 W. Springfield Ave. Urbana, Illinois, 61801 Voice: (217) 333-8740 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 88 08:44:26 PST From: ota@galileo.s1.gov Cc: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu, ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: What are Mir elements? I have successfully used the NSS Mir Watch program to find Mir. In all three cases I tried it was easy to find and the time and location numbers given by the program were quite close. I found that the most reliable way to distinguish between satellite and a high flying jet (after the fact) is that the Satellite will quite suddenly disappear from view as it passes into the Earth's shadow. This is quite striking. I got my copy of the Mir Watch program as an object-only program that runs on an IBM PC from a local NSS chapter coordinator. So calling the two NSS numbers Kevin Kenny gave is probably the best approach: They can be reached by voice at +1 202 543 1900 (the front desk) or +1 202 543 4487 (the Mir Watch hotline). Cheers, Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 88 16:50 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: matter/antimatter propulsion In addition to neutral pions from p/pbar annihilation, one should also worry about fast neutrons if the normal matter is more than ordinary hydrogen. Also, if the density of reactants is high enough one might also see reactions between positive and negative pions, as well as reactions like pi- + p --> n + pi0. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 88 17:15:47 GMT From: mtune!lzaz!lznv!psc@rutgers.edu (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Subject: Re: Lunar habitation questions In article <8802101606.AA02462@icst-cmr.arpa.ARPA>, roberts@ICST-CMR.ARPA (John Roberts) writes: > - What is the temperature range of the surface material on the moon? > - How deep does the pulverized lunar surface go? > > John Roberts, roberts@icst-cmr.ARPA The answers to these and other questions (but not the ones about temperature vs. depth) can be found in Ben Bova's book, WELCOME TO MOONBASE. I heard him plugging it at Boskone, bought it, and enjoyed it. WELCOME TO MOONBASE is *not* a particularly technical book; it's aimed at the young adult (and non-technical adult) popular science audience. But it does contain some useful information. More, it collects a bunch of neat ideas on how (and why!) we could build a permanent lunar colony. It reads like a nice hybrid between a science fiction novel and a proposal. If that sounds like your cup of tea, I highly recommend the book. -Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 88 22:26:00 GMT From: uflorida!codas!novavax!ankh!John_Emmert@gatech.edu (John Emmert) Subject: NASA SPACELINK * Forwarded from 18/23, The Byte Buck of S.E./Caribbea, Huntsville AL * Originally to All on 18/0 * Original: FROM.....Bill Anderson (18/23) * Original: TO.......All (18/23) * Forwarded by.......OPUS 18/23 NASA Spacelink is a data base of information designed to be used by teachers but it is open for public use. The number is 895-0028. It's operating at 300, 1200 or 2400 baud, and we have eight phone lines. Enjoy... * Forwarded by Christopher Baker on 135/14, 11:28 2/13 --- TBBS v2.0 * Origin: The John Galt Line -- (305) 235-1645 (135/13) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Feb 88 14:51:21 PST From: ota@galileo.s1.gov To: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Where the US stands in space [BLUNT] There is an interesting article in the Feb 88 Space World (the National Space Society magazine) by Frank White from his book called "The Overview Effect: Space Exploration and Human Evolution". The point he makes that struck a chord with me was that there is a distinction between the space movement and the space program in the United States. The US Space Program is dead: it lasted from 1958 to January 28, 1986. At the moment the US has no space program, but of course the space movement was there before the US Space Program was created and continues after its demise. If anything the space movement is stronger now, more committed and more self-aware. The space movement is also international, and though that has always been true it is even more obvious now. Perhaps those outside the US have always realized this but I think that Americans have had real trouble in distinguishing between the two. As painful as it was, that link has been cut. And it is for the best. Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Feb 88 14:57:38 PST From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) To: beckenba@mordor.s1.gov, ota%galileo.s1.gov@mordor.s1.gov Subject: Re: Where the US stands in space [BLUNT] Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Thanks for the book reference and your very perceptive observation; this is important enough [I think] to be posted. [Caveat: I've not read sci.space yet today, so I don't know if you've already posted the contents of your letter to me. If you wish, I could repost it for you.] ------------------------------ Date: 17 Feb 88 18:48:11 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Richard Feynman passes away Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate and member of the Rogers Commission that investigated the Challenger accident, passed away Monday night from cancer. Some time ago I read Feynman's autobiography ("Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman!") and developed an instant liking for him. I had always hoped to meet or hear him speak in person some day. We need many more people like him. People who are unafraid to think for themselves and to publicly proclaim the emperor to be without clothing whenever it becomes necessary. The world is a better place because of Richard Feynman. Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: 17 Feb 88 02:29:52 GMT From: uflorida!codas!burl!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@gatech.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: matter/antimatter propulsion > In addition to neutral pions from p/pbar annihilation, one should also > worry about fast neutrons if the normal matter is more than ordinary > hydrogen... On the other hand, there was some speculation that reacting antiprotons with heavier normal nuclei might tend to trap more of the annihilation energy in charged fragments. I don't know if anything has come of this idea yet. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Feb 88 04:52:22 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: What are Mir elements? An excellent set of inexpensive orbit tracking programs for a wide variety of personal computers is available from AMSAT, the Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation. Write to them for details: AMSAT PO Box 27 Washington, DC 20044 ------------------------------ Date: 17 Feb 88 22:14:14 GMT From: sonia!khayo@locus.ucla.edu (Erazm J. Behr) Subject: Re: NASA SPACELINK In article <4863@ames.arpa> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes: >In article <3.2219060F@ankh.UUCP> John_Emmert@ankh.UUCP (John Emmert) writes: >> NASA Spacelink is a data base of information designed >> to be used by teachers but it is open for public use. >> The number is 895-0028. >Is there an area-code associated with this number??? The first one I tried (205, Alabama) had a carrier tone, so I guess that's it. Eric ___________________________________________________________ Please use khayo@MATH.ucla.edu instead of CS.ucla.edu ------------------------------ Date: 17 Feb 88 07:29:07 GMT From: tektronix!reed!lnclark@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (LewisAclark) Subject: Erector-set: Let's build a company With all this talk of private industry flying around on the net, I was wondering what exactly you people think should go into a private company. The basis of the American economic system is that some on who can do something better, hopefully for cheaper, should win. Lets see if we can build a company that would survive in the baby space industry on a national and inter-national scope. Of course, we also want to build a company which will stand up under scrutiny, that means protecting the environment and playing by the rules of what ever country we happen to locate in. Assuming we can get reasonable funding for this venture, lets go ahead and select a launch site, shall we? BTW, I looked into Kingman Reef as a launch site, it's great, except for the fact that the average hight above sea level is 1 meter, and in high sea s, it submerges completly. We might want use it for a base to build on, tho... ( Sorry, Walt... ) David Reeck @ Reed (at least until we get Usenet back up at Lewis and Clark) !tektronix!reed!lnclark or !tektronix!reed!lclark!reeck ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #143 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Feb 88 06:19:47 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06273; Tue, 23 Feb 88 03:17:41 PST id AA06273; Tue, 23 Feb 88 03:17:41 PST Date: Tue, 23 Feb 88 03:17:41 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802231117.AA06273@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #144 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 144 Today's Topics: MIR predictions MIR predictions for San Francisco, CA Re: Mir elements, 20 February 1988 MIR: More predictions space news from Jan 18 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Feb 88 07:25:23 GMT From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard Brezina) Subject: MIR predictions Hello, fellow space enthusiasts! In a recent letter (02/18), Mr. Joe Dellinger of Stanford University has asked whether anyone could post predictions for MIR instead of just posting the elements. Well, I am a member of a small but serious group of satellite observers based in Toronto, Canada (I am presently an undergraduate at MIT). The group has created its own software for various aspects of satellite tracking, and I have available the necessary programs to make MIR predictions for anywhere in the world. (Note: if you have more questions about our group feel free to address them here on the net or to me privately at snowdog@athena.mit.edu - this address should work from most nets.) Anyway, I am willing to give this a shot, as an experiment. The task could easily get out of hand, however, since due to MIR's relatively low orbit, the predictions are very position-sensitive and I will have to make up predictions separately for pretty much everyone who asks. But, let's see how it goes anyway! For most places, MIR is only visible for 2 periods lasting only a few days and separated by about 2 weeks - then the satellite remains unobservable for a month. So, at least, I will not have to make up the predictions continuously. So, for those who are _moderately_ to _seriously_ interested in seeing MIR, please let me know soon, so I can include you on the list. Also, do not forget to mention your location - it is VERY important. If you are experienced in astronomy, you can also mention what format you would like the prediction in. I'll be glad to help you out! To Mr. Dellinger: Actually, right now we are just on the beginning of one of the 'observing windows' - California will get good passes next week, so you haven't missed out. I will prepare the prediction first thing tomorrow and it will appear on sci.space by early afternoon. This will be fun! -Richard Brezina P.S. Gee, I guess I will have to get a wise quotation from somewhere! ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 88 18:10:59 GMT From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard Brezina) Subject: MIR predictions for San Francisco, CA Hello again! Here are the predictions Mr. Dellinger asked for: (explanation follows) |----------------------------------------------------------------| | Date | Time (PST) | Azimuth | Elevation | Magn | Shadow Time | |--------|------------|---------|-----------|------|-------------| | Feb 23 | 18:35:00 | 020 deg | 33 deg | 2 | 18:37.7 | | Feb 24 | 18:58:00 | 220 | 61 | 0 | 19:00.3 | | Feb 26 | 18:08:00 | 250 | 62 | 0 | No shadow | |----------------------------------------------------------------| Explanations: Date: I selected passes that reach a culmination elevation of more than 30 degrees above the horizon, as these are the passes that are most easily observable. If you would like a different minimum elevation limit, please specify and I'll keep it in mind. Time: This is the integral minute, during each pass, that is closest to the culmination (max. elevation) time for that pass. Azimuth: The "bearing" of the satellite at the aformementioned time. This is an angle measured clockwise from North along the observer's horizon, so 0=N, 45=NE, 90=E, etc. Elevation: Angular elevation of the satellite above the horizon. Together with the azimuth, this completely describes the position of the satellite on the sky. For instance, if the prediction says Az=220, El=61, you would look for the satellite in the South-Western sky, about 2/3 of the way up from the horizon to the overhead point. Note: Because of parallax, these values will vary even from different parts of the city but should hold to +- 10 degrees within 30 miles of downtown SF. Magn: Predictied visual astronomical magnitude when the satellite is at it's brightest. Shadow T: The time of predicted Earth shadow entry on that pass. Accuracy of the predicitions will depend on whatever orbital manouevres the Russians will decide to make. If nothing major happens, expect a +- 1 minute accuracy but it is advisable to start looking about 5 min before. I will observe it myself (even the bad passes which I did not post because they are much more difficult) and keep you informed on the expected accuracy. Customization: if you want things like RA & Dec, distance of the satellite, phase angle, and other such junk, these things are available so just say so. Note that RA and Dec predictions will be especially prone to parallax and other errors due to earth's rotation if the satellite is early or late. Just today I already got three feedback letters - thanks! I will make up predictions for those who asked and post them sometime within the next 24 hours. I will also reply to each letter separately via e-mail. Well, enough for now...got to run off to class! Good luck in observing Mir! -Richard Brezina "Hackito Ergo Sum." (How's that?) ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 88 05:50:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Mir elements, 20 February 1988 Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 70 Epoch: 88 46.84067118 Inclination: 51.6300 degrees RA of node: 338.5221 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0015156 Argument of perigee: 103.5465 degrees Mean anomaly: 256.8131 degrees Mean motion: 15.76272428 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00035159 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 11452 Semimajor axis: 6719.11 km Apogee height*: 351.13 km Perigee height*: 330.76 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' Note that predictions for the overflights this week will HAVE to be recalculated; atmospheric drag has been significantly greater than estimated, resulting in overflight times that are up to ten minutes late. * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. Kevin ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 88 09:15:50 GMT From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard Brezina) Subject: MIR: More predictions Hi everyone! I was delighted to see that I got no less than 11 letters in response to the satellite information I posted a short while ago. I realized (through preparing the predictions today, which only took me 15 minutes, for 5 different location requests) that I'd probably be able to handle even up to 20 different locations. So, for those interested, keep'em coming! I will now post the present predictions here, although in the future I might send them separately to each person who requested them. But I figure that many more potentially interested people than wrote to me might be interested, so posting predictions here for the large cities might be of some use. Here goes: Location: Pasadena, CA (good for all of LA) Time: Pacific Standard |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Date | Time (PST) | Azm | El | Magn | Shadow Time | Comment | |--------|------------|-----|----|------|-------------|-----------------------| | Feb 24 | 18:59:00 | 264 | 59 | 0 | 19:00.3 | Passes near overhead | | Feb 26 | 18:09:00 | 284 | 53 | 0 | None | Overhead pass too | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| Location: New York, NY Time: Eastern Standard |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Date | Time (EST) | Azm | El | Magn | Shadow Time | Comment | |--------|------------|-----|----|------|-------------|-----------------------| | Feb 20 | 18:59:00 | 022 | 27 | 2 | Forgot this | Rel. difficult pass | | Feb 21 | 19:21:00 | 314 | 34 | 1 | 19:21.4 | Mod. difficulty | | Feb 22 | 18:10:00 | 041 | 26 | 1 | 18:12.3 | Difficult | | Feb 23 | 18:32:00 | 325 | 54 | 0 | 18:34.7 | Best pass | | Feb 24 | 18:55:00 | 229 | 29 | 2 | 18:57.5 | Not great | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| Location: Bloomington, IN Time: Eastern Standard |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Date | Time (EST) | Azm | El | R.A. | Dec. | M | Shadow | Comment | |--------|------------|-----|----|-------|-------|---|---------|--------------| | Feb 22 | 19:42:00 | 336 | 30 | 21:52 | +67.9 | 1 | | RA, Dec is | | | 19:43:00 | 029 | 49 | 08:38 | +67.5 | 0 | 19:43.5 | Epoch 1950 | |--------|------------|-----|----|-------|-------|---|---------| | | Feb 23 | 20:05:00 | 266 | 32 | 01:22 | +16.5 | 2 | | | | | 20:06:00 | 208 | 40 | 04:06 | -06.8 | 0 | 20:06.2 | | |--------|------------|-----|----|-------|-------|---|---------| | | Feb 25 | 19:16:00 | 228 | 43 | 02:36 | +02.8 | 1 | | | | | 19:17:00 | 173 | 30 | 05:15 | -20.5 | 1 | None | | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| Note: this person wanted Right Ascension and Declination in addition to the usual info. In your letters, most of you are interested in whether the sources of our software are available. Well... Let me put it this way: we have had some sad experiences with things like that before. Therefore, we'd rather not release our new software - we put too much work into it and we definitely don't want it to get into the wrong hands. However, I'll see if I can somehow transfer my old BASIC program to this system - I'd be willing to share that one with you. It's bug-free, almost as accurate as SGP (NORAD's orbital model) and it has some documentation with it. It will probably take me a while to figure out how to down-load it, however. Anyway, have fun observing MIR; tell me how it goes! -Rich "Hackito Ergo Sum." -borrowed from MIT **Third East** Hackers (my apologies for getting it wrong the first time). ------------------------------ Date: 17 Feb 88 08:02:08 GMT From: uflorida!codas!burl!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@gatech.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Jan 18 AW&ST Big story this week is AW&ST scooping Reagan on his own new space policy. A policy backed up with money: NASA FY89 budget to be $11.5G, a $3G boost from FY88... if Congress approves. Included is early funding for a long-stay orbiter and an uprated SRB to boost shuttle payload by 12klbs. Key words in the new policy are "preeminence in manned Earth orbital flight" and "extending US manned operations beyond Earth". Technology development gets underway at once, with specific mission recommendations due in 1991. Technology development includes the "Pathfinder" program that has already been discussed to death: rover technology, automatic sample analysis, automatic rendezvous and docking, advanced oxyhydrogen rocket engines, aerobraking, power systems, closed-cycle life support, and materials production from lunar soil. The new policy was approved by SIG-Space in December, after a long fight against opposition from OMB. Lots of pretty pictures of possible missions. Now the bad news: CRAF and AXAF aren't included in FY89. Fletcher is appealing the AXAF exclusion, with CRAF expected to slip to next year (which will mean considerable delays in the actual mission). Serious talk about major joint US-Soviet projects expected at planned summer summit in Moscow. [Lest there be too much euphoria at all this, remember that the next administration in Washington will have much more say in whether this all comes to fruition.] Total count of Soviet launches in 1987: 95. NASA assessing plan to conduct flight-readiness firing of Discovery engines after stacking non-flight SRBs. This would permit continued progress despite SRB delays. Unfortunately it would also mean having to unstack and then restack the whole system after the FRF, a major complication. Tentative launch date either way is August. Amroc resumes full operations including engine tests. Unfortunately it cannot meet the spring-88 date for the first launch it had hoped to sell to SDI; Amroc still hopes for SDI business soon, though. First Titan 4 rolls out and is shipped to the Cape. Launch October. Congress tells USAF to either do something with the Vandenberg shuttle complex or mothball it completely, on grounds that $50M/yr maintenance funding cannot be justified on grounds of *possible* use in late 1990s. Heavy reductions in SDI budget hit ground-based free-electron laser work hard. [This is space-related because the FEL is the number one possibility to drive a laser launcher, and the laser-launcher people at Livermore are relying on SDI for the laser development.] "Aerospace Forum" piece by Michael Lisagor, aerospace program manager at "a major American aerospace firm". "Our government has an unwritten policy of engaging in projects promising only short-term return. American's space program (or lack of one) illustrates this fact... an overabundance of 'short-termitis' also is prevalent in corporate America." NASA is running test flights with an F-104 to investigate using fast aircraft rather than balloons for pre-launch weather assessment; the big win is the ability to get data 1 hr before launch instead of 3.5. NASA picks Northrup Strip, at White Sands, as primary alternate shuttle landing site, after the Edwards lakebed. In particular, White Sands is preferred over the Edwards concrete runways, due to concern over the limitations of the orbiter's brakes. KSC comes fourth, except for launch aborts. This policy will be reassessed after the first three launches. One complication with landing at White Sands is that the fine sand there caused some thruster problems after STS-3 landed there in 1982. Letter from Glenn Reynolds, Washington DC: "Space activists should emulate successful groups like the environmental and civil-rights groups, who fill the halls of Congress with citizen-supporters for weeks and months before crucial votes, instead of simply trying to generate mail and phone calls in the final days." Letter of the Month, possibly the year, concerning the enthusiasm for Space Industries' Industrial Space Facility as a station alternative: "I am distressed to learn of, and must take serious issue with, those members of Congress who believe that an ISF could be 'preferable' to NASA's space station. "Nothing could be further from the truth. Astronaut crews can work in, or tend, an ISF only when a space shuttle is attached. They cannot live there. For that reason, ISF cannot provide the US with permanent occupancy of space, nor can any number of ISFs prepare us to travel or live beyond low Earth orbit... "The ISF project initially complements the space station project in an obvious way and can serve as a catalyst for the development of equipment and users of the space station... the ISF provides the US with added and complementary capabilities for in-orbit services just as the country maintains added and complementary transporatation services with both ELVs and shuttles... "Over 12 years ago, as director of engineering and development at the Johnson Space Center and as a member of the 'Outlook for Space' study group, I stated that the US must work toward a permanently occupied outpost in space. Four years ago I participated on a presidential advisory committee that recommended the US pursue the design and construction of an international space station. In the next century the very viability of Space Industries, or any other US commercial space company for that matter, will be possible only if there is a permanent space station. "Maxime A. Faget President and CEO Space Industries Inc." Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #144 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Feb 88 06:20:55 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07877; Wed, 24 Feb 88 03:18:38 PST id AA07877; Wed, 24 Feb 88 03:18:38 PST Date: Wed, 24 Feb 88 03:18:38 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802241118.AA07877@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #145 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 145 Today's Topics: Re: Richard Feynman passes away Feynman's *Challenger* experiences in *Physics Today* Mir passes space news from Jan 25 AW&ST Soviet space marketing successes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Feb 88 22:12:46 GMT From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) Subject: Re: Richard Feynman passes away I know this isn't really the appropriate newsgroup for this, but I can't resist because the man touched my life so deeply in such a brief period. Sorry it's so long, and yet there's so much more that ought to be said, mostly by people who new him better than I did. Feynman was known affectionately around the Caltech campus as God. His "Lectures on Physics" are referred to as the Bible. There are many bright people on the faculty there, but none have influenced the life of the campus to such a degree. His excellent teaching skills, genuine interest in people, and personality contributed to this. Everyone who knew him liked him. His unorthodox, irreverent attitude toward anything and everything and his unusual manner of seeing things made him unique among all the individuals I have ever met (and I've met other Nobel laureates). I have never met an individual whose intelligence shone as brightly as did Feynman's. He had a way of looking at the world which went beyond everything we are normally taught. Equations were not crutches to him as they are to so many of us. We hide behind them when we're uncertain where we're headed, hoping something will fall out which will enlighten us. To Feynman, they were a natural way of expressing what he already understood. The clarity of his vision went well beyond physics. It extended to whatever topic caught his fancy. In his last few years, he became interested in computer science. What might have come out of that incredible mind in the next few years, we will never know. He had already laid the theoretical groundwork for a quantum mechanical computer. (I'll digress just a bit: A calculation is made by shifting around a single electron in appropriate patterns. The result is read by checking your result bin (sort of an electron trap). If the electron shows up, the answer is yes. If it doesn't, the answer is no. Unfortunately, in the QM world, things are never 100% certain. You improve the certainty of your answer by either increasing the amount of energy you put into the process at the start, or by waiting longer for your answer. So you can run your computer without any power at all, but then you have to wait forever to be certain of your answer. The math is very complex, but that's a simplistic view.) I was a student in a class Feynman was teaching on the potentialities and limitations of computers. He had (no surprise) a different view of logic, von Neumann machines, etc. One reason his view was so different and his understanding so deep (and his teaching so good) was that he insisted on figuring everything out for himself. He would read a researcher's conclusion, then work it out himself to see whether or not he believed it. Then when he taught, he made it sound clear and simple. Yet it never was that easy for us... Unfortunately, in January of that year the Challenger accident occured. He was dragged away to Washington to spend many months telling people what took him only a few days to figure out. He returned for visits, though, and kept us appraised as best he could. He saw many thingswrong with NASA, and wanted to correct them all. Unlike some of the career bureaucrats on the panel with him, he would say anything to anyone. He was the only commission member who actually talked to the people who put the whole system together. Without his input, the commission might still be muddling around, trying to figure out what happened. He was active in his home community and was involved, when he had the time, with student drama productions. His interests were many, including travel, painting, and music. He also took a warmhearted interest in his students. His lectures on physics (for that matter, his lectures on ANYTHING) will always stand out as a model against which poorer teachers will be compared. His personality, on the other hand, invites no comparison. He was a man alone, perhaps in all the world, in many ways, and anyone whose life he touched will never forget him. Richard Feynman, we will miss you. --Rod ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 88 14:55 CST From: Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey Subject: Feynman's *Challenger* experiences in *Physics Today* Original_To: SPACE Richard P. Feynman, the uncle of all physicists, died last week. How timely, then, that his picture appears on the cover of the February *Physics Today*, illustrating his article "An Outsider's Inside View of the Challenger Inquiry." The article is an oral account of his experiences on the Rogers Commission, and gives a very readable glimpse of the interaction between NASA, the press, and the commission's members. It's obligatory for readers of this newsgroup, I should think. Also in this issue is Gloria Lubkin's account (p. 69) of the Space Future Forum in Moscow last October-- the most detailed I've seen-- as well as other meetings with space scientists in the Soviet Union. And Irwin Goodwin reports on the Shuttle problems and NASA-bashing on page 49, probably old stuff to you. *Physics Today* has pretty long deadlines, but when they do cover a story, they often do it very well indeed. It's one of those magazines you should scan to keep up with good science and technology journalism. Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET SPAN/HEPnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 88 13:58:51 GMT From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard Brezina) Subject: Mir passes Hi everyone! Mr. Kenny was correct; Mir is way ahead of schedule. I saw it yesterday - it was 10 minutes early compared to my predictions, and 7 minutes early compared to the most recent elements given on sci.space. The error will likely get worse with time; expect this. Unfortunately, I do not have time to recompute the predictions; however, here are a few guidelines: It is reasonable to assume Mir will be about 12 minutes early today and about 14 minutes early tomorrow. Keep this in mind as you schedule your observing times. For passes in the north, below 40 degrees elevation, expect Mir to come about 5 to 10 degrees lower than predicted. For high elevation passes in the north, expect Mir to come 20 to 30 degrees lower. For overhead passes, expect the path to be shifted considerably (30 degrees) towards the northern horizon. Expect predicted southern passes of 60 degrees elevation to come overhead in- stead. And low southern passes will be shifted 10-20 degrees higher. Good luck, -Rich ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 88 02:21:15 GMT From: ukma!uflorida!codas!burl!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@NRL-CMF.ARPA (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Jan 25 AW&ST NASA's Advanced Communications Technology satellite is having serious cost overruns. Soviet cosmonauts aboard Mir are expected to demonstrate a manned maneuvering unit this year. Australia signs space-cooperation agreement with USSR. AW&ST advance scoop on Reagan's new space policy changes Reagan's plans to announce it in his State of the Union address. New space policy stresses government use of commercial services rather than doing the work itself (for civil spaceflight, that is), endorses use of government contracts to guarantee a market for commercial space services, and incidentally removes resolution limits from commercial remote-sensing satellites. JPL presents Mars lander concept using a cruise-missile guidance system, programmed with landing-site terrain data obtained by an orbiter, to permit a pinpoint landing. NASA considers system changes to space station to cut costs. Most potential changes were rejected on grounds that they would yield much higher operating costs. One still under consideration is deferring the mobile base for the Canadian arm, meaning that the arm would have to handle its own movement -- the so-called "inchworm" concept that was rejected earlier. This is politically touchy since Canada is the only firm international partner so far, and will have to approve. Karl Doetsch, Canadian space-station-program manager, says he doesn't think eliminating the transporter is a good idea, but there is time to review the idea again. Another idea being thought about is starting with a hydrazine propulsion system rather than the waste-water-electrolysis oxyhydrogen system currently planned. The trouble is, the waste water still has go somewhere, and lifting considerable amounts of hydrazine to the station will increase demands on the already-strained supply system. One idea that was rejected was shortening or getting rid of the truss structure; it doesn't cost very much. One thing that may be added is a substantial number of small "resource ports" providing power and data hookup; they would be necessary for an "inchworm" arm and could also hold small payloads. Attitude control lost on French Telecom 1B comsat due to system failures. Its workload has been transferred to Telecom 1A. The design of 1C, due for launch in March, is being reviewed. European aerospace contractors are unhappy: "Here we are trying to prove that we are viable competitors in two important international bids [Aussat + Intelsat 7], and two of our spacecraft [the other being TVSat 1] come up with major in-orbit problems. The timing simply couldn't be worse." SDI begins parcelling out funding cuts to its programs. At least two of its space-based projects may die or be put on hold. Japan boosts space budget 15% in FY88. Japan postpones next H-1 launch a few weeks due to problems in the comsat payload. France postpones launch of TDF-1 direct broadcast satellite, opening an Ariane payload slot which will probably be filled by Insat 1C and Europe's ECS-5, to modify its solar panels against a recurrence of the problems with TVSat 1 (which used the same panel design). NRC says that NASA has been so preoccupied with short-term goals that its technology base is in dismal shape, recommends major increases in funding for technology research. "For the past 15 years less than 3% of the total NASA budget has been invested in space research and technology. Of that virtually none has been spent on technology development for missions more than five years in the future." NRC says current initiatives toward more technology work are good but insufficient. Propulsion is cited as a particular disaster area, especially since much information from earlier programs is being lost as people retire. Manned spaceflight is number two needing attention, notably long-term effects of spaceflight, closed- cycle life-support, and better EVA technology. ESA proposes Navsat: an international civilian system to supplement Navstar and eventually evolve into a complete independent navsat system. It would start with satellites in elliptical and Clarke orbits to give full capability in specific areas, notably the North Atlantic. It will also include a capability to warn users of Navstar and Glonass [the Soviet equivalent] of failures in *their* systems, something that Navstar and Glonass cannot do! ESA would not operate Navsat in the long run; the responsibility for operations would be transferred to an international body like Inmarsat (which is interested). The civilian nature of Navsat is seen as a strong selling point; the airlines in particular distrust the US military's control of Navstar, and fear restrictions on access in time of crisis, or even outright abandonment: "something like this already is happening with the US Navy's Transit satellite-based navigation system -- which will be abandoned in the 1990s because they won't have a use for it any longer". ESA is trying to sort out issues like Navsat/Navstar/Glonass signal compatibility and the added complexity of Navsat capability in a Navstar receiver. Navsat will do most of its work in its ground stations, which will track the satellites and send position/time information to the satellites for relay to users. This will also make it practical to detect and turn off a malfunctioning satellite, and to include data transmissions such as warnings of failures in Navstar and Glonass. Bruce Murray criticizes current space-station plans as a "giant WPA in the sky", says it will be nearly useless unless it is designed for a role in a manned Mars mission. He also claims that there is no real scientific interest in a return to the Moon. [Can you say "tunnel vision"?] Harris Corp. proposes an SDI software-test project involving launch of six small satellites as a simulation testbed. The idea has support but is on hold pending funding and launch availability. TVSat 1 program officials say the satellite is probably a writeoff. Its stuck solar panel is firmly stuck; attempts to free it with motor firings failed. (Officials note that it's hard to nudge a 1.2-ton satellite hard enough to shake a lightweight solar panel much.) Other methods are being examined, but nobody is optimistic any more, especially there is still no good idea of the cause of the trouble. The various tests aimed at figuring out how many clips are holding the panel have not been conclusive; the satellite was not designed for such measurements, and the data is down in the noise range of the sensors. However, if the outer panel is open at all, it's not by much. There is some concern that the satellite was not designed to stay in this configuration for any length of time, but overall there doesn't seem to be much of a hurry. If the stuck array stays stuck, the satellite's receiving antenna can't fully deploy, making the satellite useless unless it can be tilted to point the antenna at the ground station; again, people are pessimistic. TVSat 2, originally meant to be an on-orbit spare, is on schedule for launch early in 1990. "Aerospace Forum" piece by James Van Allen, urging "re-balancing" of the space program. [Actually this one is surprisingly mild for him; maybe he's realizing that his strident no-manned-spaceflight position is not popular.] Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 88 12:08:16 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soviet space marketing successes The Soviet marketing program has scored two notable successes in the past month. First, a West German firm, Kayser Threde, has signed up for 3 launches of materials science processing experiments on the Russian's "Foton" spacecraft. It appears that "Foton" is a modification of their standard short duration return capsule, which in turn is a reworked version of the Vostok craft that Yuri Gagarian first flew in. The satellite weighs about 5-7 tonnes, and the return portion is spherical in shape. Each launch will contain about 100 - 150 kilograms (220 - 330 pounds) of material processing and life science experiments. Kayser Threde, which makes hardware for the West German Aerospace Research Establishment (DFVLR), has previously done 25 experiments on the space shuttle, including laser experiments on the West German D1 spacelab mission (interesting as some reports say that at least some of the experiments will be devoted to developing instruments to measure atmospheric pollution from space). However the very long wait for the next shuttle opportunity has made then seek contracts with the Soviets. The USSR's Litsenzintorg agency won over the People's Republic of China in a competition for those launch contracts. Negotiations have been going on with both countries for the past year, with the Russians getting the contract in December, but the information only being announced in the past month. They are apparently paying $15,000 per Kilogram for the experiments (note that is cheap - the numbers here are per Kilogram of equipment, excluding the capsule mass). Launches will occur between 1989 and 1992. The second contract was with Payload Systems of Wellesley, Mass. to do some biochemical crystal growth processing on board the Mir space station. The Soviets will grow crystals, which will then be used to do X-ray crystallography research to help determine the crystal structure of the samples. The materials are basically proteins produced by biotech firms which are trying to synthesis drugs and the like. The Russian work will be limited to processing materials in sealed containers, making observations on how the crystals are growing, and returning the samples to earth. The X-ray analysis would be done by the companies involved. Payload Systems is acting as a broker for several such firms. The company was founded by Byron Lichtenberg (who flew on STS-9 in Nov. '83), and was originally orientated towards doing the same work on the shuttle. They have received both Defense and Commerce department approval for these flights that will take place starting in 1989. Life has not been all good for the Soviets though in this field. A large photographic satellite (Cosmos 1906) failed on Jan 31, and was destroyed by the Russians. It was producing Landsat type pictures for their Soyuzkarta marking agency. Also on Feb. 17th they lost a Proton booster when the third stage failed to separate, destroying the 3 Glonass military communications satellites on board. That will make more difficulties for them in marking the Proton. Nevertheless the USSR is the place to go these days if you want to get a product quickly from space. I thought it was supposed to be Free Enterprise that would commercialize space first? Something is wrong here. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab.  ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #145 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Feb 88 06:21:44 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00756; Thu, 25 Feb 88 03:19:33 PST id AA00756; Thu, 25 Feb 88 03:19:33 PST Date: Thu, 25 Feb 88 03:19:33 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802251119.AA00756@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #146 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 146 Today's Topics: Payload Systems+USSR AMROC, Where is it? Re: face on Mars Re: LDEF satellite Re: LDEF satellite Paul Simon on NASA and Space Policy -- Official Statement Re: Where the US stands in space [BLUNT] Re: Where the US stands in space [BLUNT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: lll-crg!ames!ucsd!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov Date: Mon, 22 Feb 88 19:22:00 PST From: lll-crg!ames!scubed!ucsd!pnet01.cts.com!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Payload Systems+USSR I heard a very sketchy news item on the nightly business report about a company called "Payload Systems" somewhere in Massachusetts which has entered into a contract with the USSR to sell US firms space for experiments and processing on MIR. Does anyone have any more detailed information on this? Where are they exactly (city? address? phone?). Do they have any customers lined up? Who is financing them? etc. Jim Bowery PHONE: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 La Jolla, CA 92038 UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 88 23:08:43 GMT From: gaserre@athena.mit.edu (Glenn A. Serre) Subject: AMROC, Where is it? Does anyone out there know where AMROC (American Rocket Company) is located? If so, can you e-mail me their address or home town? Thanks. --Glenn Serre gaserre@athena.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 88 13:53:12 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: face on Mars This story finally reached this side of the water yesterday (Monday). One of the more sensational UK tabloids, The Star, had as it's front page headline in 30 point type "THE FACE ON MARS". This was beside a copy of the actual photo (image). It then reports "... it could have been put there by an extra-terestrial civilisation" and "Scientists are hysterical about it." Hysteria mounts as the report goes on. "Now the Americans and Russians are working against the clock to mount a manned flight to the Red Planet, 35 million miles from earth, so they can take a closer look at the face." and on... "... America, Russia and France are all collaborating in the race to reach Mars, and the US congress has agreed to spend an extra #50 million on the project." Then goes completely over the top. "An atomic powered spaceship is being prepared for the flight to mars... Viking Orbiter took 11 months to reach the mysterious planet, the spaceship will cover the journey in 130 days [by using] the sun's gravitational pull to hurtle through space using a technique known as 'celestial mechanics'". I know the some parts of the press are somewhat lacking in the technical accuracy of their reports, but as a front page story, the above must take some beating. If the above is the sort of drivel that the public is being fed about space exploration, is it really surprising that it is so difficult to persuade both them and the government that space is worth funding. (by whatever means). But on second thoughts, rational argument has had so little effect on the UK government, perhaps it is time to scare them into action with the little greem men? :-> Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 88 19:40:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: LDEF satellite /* Written 4:48 pm Feb 16, 1988 by mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM in uiucdcsb:sci.space */ /* ---------- "Re: LDEF satellite" ---------- */ In article <8802100107.AA05684@galileo.s1.gov> ota@GALILEO.S1.GOV writes: >Yesterday's AW&ST carried a story on rescheduling the first few Space >Shuttle missions in order to retrieve the Long Duration Exposure >Facility satellite before its currently predicted reentry date of >early-to-mid 1990. It was originally expected to last until 1995 or >so. No explanation was offered for the change. Parts of the satellite >are expected to hit the surface if it reenters. I doubt that the reentry risk is the primary reason for this scheduling. Remember that LDEF was supposed to show the effects of exposure to space debris. Since it has no telemetry, it needs to be retrieved if it is to have been at all useful. /* End of text from uiucdcsb:sci.space */ There's just something that doesn't jibe in all this. I pulled the two-line elements for LDEF and ran my own calculations, giving a re-entry date of late 1994 when either SGP4 or SGP8 perturbation theory was used. The elements that I used were for an epoch date of 29 January, and are included following this message. The only thing that I can think of that would affect this prediction substantially is that we're in a period of increasing solar activity, and so the atmospheric drag might be expected to increase correspondingly. But I would doubt that it would increase enough to throw the calculations off *that* far; moreover, the art of predicting solar weather is not far enough advanced to have that much confidence in the prediction. Perhaps what NASA are doing is rushing to retrieve it against a low (but still unacceptably high) probability of its re-entering ahead of the predicted time? For those that want to check my calculations, here's the element set that I used. I'd like to hear from anyone who does check them, particularly if you use another model. I'd also like to hear from anyone with some idea where I went astray. ----- Two-line form -------------------------------------------------- LDEF 1 14898U 88 29.75646613 0.00003245 92639-4 0 5043 2 14898 28.5098 67.6969 0001898 345.2740 14.7734 15.33860958213659 ----- AMSAT format --------------------------------------------------- Satellite: LDEF Catalog id 14898 Element set 504 Epoch: 88 29.75646613 Inclination: 28.5098 degrees RA of node: 67.6969 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0001898 Argument of perigee: 345.2740 degrees Mean anomaly: 14.7734 degrees Mean motion: 15.33860958 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00003245 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 21365 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Semimajor axis: 6842.40 km Apogee height*: 465.54 km Perigee height*: 462.94 km ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Kenny UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny Department of Computer Science ARPA: kenny@B.CS.UIUC.EDU (kenny@UIUC.ARPA) University of Illinois CSNET: kenny@UIUC.CSNET 1304 W. Springfield Ave. Urbana, Illinois, 61801 Voice: (217) 333-8740 ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 88 18:47:29 GMT From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard Brezina) Subject: Re: LDEF satellite Hello again! Kevin Kenny mentioned a calculation of the LDEF re-entry time, using the SGP orbit models, and that he came up with 1994. Well, I know where the error is: SGP takes the ballistic coefficient as constant whereas in reality is is a function of atmospheric density and therefore the height of the satellite. It increases VERY rapidly with decreasing height, especially in the lower layers of the atmosphere (below 250 km). Therefore, by assuming it constant one can easily overestimate the lifetime of the satellite by even a factor of ten. What is needed here is a heavy duty numerical integration... of course one must also simulate how the air density varies with time now as the solar activity is climbing uphill.... -Richard Brezina snowdog@athena.mit.edu "Hackito Ergo Sum." (Borrowed from the MIT 4E Hackers...) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 88 02:14:22 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!EWTILENI@princeton.edu (Eric Tilenius) Subject: Paul Simon on NASA and Space Policy -- Official Statement The following is out of Democratic Presidential candidate Paul Simon's official "position book" and was obtained from the Simon campaign. This statement was written on 11/12/87. - - - - - - - - - PAUL SIMON ON NASA AND SPACE POLICY "The 1986 Challenger disaster has forced us to reexamine our previous directions in civilian space policy. Now that we are building a replacement shuttle, we have to make decisions about America's long-term access to space. We need different launch vehicles so that we're not caught again in the present situation of not being able to get into space in a timely fashion. "Budgets will continue to dominate the space agenda. The space station, for example, will be very costly if we adopt a go-it-alone attitude. An international effort will reduce costs and ensure that it will be used only for peaceful ends. We should also pursue joint U.S.-Soviet research and planetary missions, as well as missions with other nations, as an alternative to placing weapons in space. "Our space science efforts have lagged. We should study our solar system and galaxy, through such missions as the Mars Observer, Magellan, Galileo, and Ulysses. We should study comets and asteroids up-close, as we are now able to do. We should not rule out manned missions, but neither should we allow them to continue to drive NASA's major programs. As a rule, it is more cost effective and efficient to conduct missions without people aboard. "NASA should be restored to its original mission of studying the universe. NASA should not be forced to use its scarce resources to carry out the Pentagon's military space missions. NASA can reclaim its legacy of excellence in research. "As President, I will chart a long-range civilian space policy that will provide technological and research leadership into the 21st century." - - - - - - - For more information, write to: Paul Simon for President, 302 Fifth Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20002. - ERIC - BITNET:ewtileni@pucc | ARPA:ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU | ColorVenture | ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 88 16:52:08 GMT From: oliveb!intelca!mipos3!td2cad!jreece@ames.arc.nasa.gov (t patterson) Subject: Re: Where the US stands in space [BLUNT] In article <5457@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> beckenba@cit-vax.UUCP (Joe Beckenbach) writes: >THE U.S. SPACE PROGRAM IS DEAD. It's all over but the murmur of the >Space Station proponents and of the interested aerospace contractors. Ever heard of Voyager? Galileo? The Space Telescope? The Soviets, after all, have yet to get a spacecraft past Mars orbit or inside Venus, much less perform multiple missions to Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Nor do they have any announced plans to do so. >No one in any position of power wants to wake up and smell the maggots. >Cases in point: > 2- NASA chucked several extremely good designs and facilities > to concentrate on the Shuttle. No Saturn V is left; > no plans are extant for any non-Shutle system launcher. > [As far as I've been able to gather, the only > serious boosters still running are all Russian, or > fitted with megatons of nuclear death.] Both the Air Force and NASA are floating competing proposals for a heavy lift booster, the NASA proposal being essentially an unmanned version of the shuttle system. As to the Shuttle, if it's such a inherently flawed concept, why did the Russians copy so much of it for their shuttle and their Energia heavy booster? Furthermore, the Soviets have yet to launch a single mission of their Shuttle-clone, much less carry out 24 successful launches. And the first Energia launch was about as successful as the Challenger, since the final stage failed to fire. Close doesn't count with launch vehicles. > We don't even have the facilities to ready a booster > capable of putting any part of the mission into space. What about the assembly building and launch pad for the Saturn V and Space Shuttle? > [More hysteria deleted] >The past is dead and gone. The glory is for the history books. The US >is safe and comfortable, secure and stagnant. Rest in peace. Really now, this NASA-bashing is beginning to not just resemble, but exceed the original and unjustified panic over Sputnik. And all because they kept up the funding for a Skylab-type space station and launched *one* interplanetary mission to Halley's comet which we did not duplicate. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 88 01:19:50 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Re: Where the US stands in space [BLUNT] Dramatis Personae: >> beckenba@cit-vax [me; initial BLUNT article] > jreece@td2cad [John Reece] beckenba@cit-vax [me] I. ****** >>THE U.S. SPACE PROGRAM IS DEAD. It's all over but the murmur of the >>Space Station proponents and of the interested aerospace contractors. >Ever heard of Voyager? Galileo? The Space Telescope? The Soviets, >after all, have yet to get a spacecraft past Mars orbit or inside >Venus, much less perform multiple missions to Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, >Uranus and Neptune. Nor do they have any announced plans to do so. Yes, I've heard of all these. True, we are still getting data from the Voyager, and the Soviets have made far fewer planetary missions. But my point was that they are getting their goals accomplished. We are sitting down, waiting to see if there will be government money to do our projects. We're paying somewhere around $1e6 to keep the Space Telescope ready for its launch vehicle, with not definite launch date in sight. Regardless, the number of planetary missions of us versus them is not relevent. The American space goals have been planetary and successful until all the eggs were placed in the Shuttle basket. The Russian space goals have seemed to be near-earth space presence, and successful because their boosters were not taken away from them. {In fact, I'm inclined to think that the Apollo push may have caused a slight feeling of Russian inferiority. That would give them a bit more drive to do something different but lasting to one-up the US. Good for them- they're doing it.} II. ****** >> 2- NASA chucked several extremely good designs and facilities >> to concentrate on the Shuttle. No Saturn V is left; >> no plans are extant for any non-Shutle system launcher. >> [As far as I've been able to gather, the only serious >> boosters still running are all Russian, or fitted >> with megatons of nuclear death.] >Both the Air Force and NASA are floating competing proposals for a >heavy lift booster, the NASA proposal being essentially an unmanned >version of the shuttle system. Good to hear. However, NASA had a good booster already: Saturn V. It was relegated to oblivion; too little remains in design archives to bring it back, the manufacturing facilities are gone, and my gripe was that NASA decided to re-invent the wheel. Not wise to throw away the bicycle while waiting for the motorcycle to come back from the shop. >As to the Shuttle, if it's such a inherently flawed concept, why did >the Russians copy so much of it for their shuttle and their Energia >heavy booster? Furthermore, the Soviets have yet to launch a single >mission of their Shuttle-clone, much less carry out 24 successful >launches. And the first Energia launch was about as successful as the >Challenger, since the final stage failed to fire. Close doesn't count >with launch vehicles. I apologize if I was inarticulate in the first article. The Shuttle is by no means flawed, in concept or execution [except the Challenger loss]. However, the Russians do not have as extensive a technological base [it seems] nor has the project been worked on as long [again, apparently]. My complaint was that the unmanned boosters which were proven in Apollo launches were discontinued completely in favor of a manned booster, even though the need for unmanned boosters remained. I do not know about the status of any of the other NASA boosters; since the press and computer net groups have not said word one about them either way, I can only assume that said boosters are in limbo or rusty oblivion right now. Close indeed does not count with launch vehicles. The US has close to one somewhat working launch system. >> We don't even have the facilities to ready a booster >> capable of putting any part of the mission into space. >What about the assembly building and launch pad for the Saturn V and >Space Shuttle? Concerning the Shuttle facilities: I stand corrected. Anyone care to comment about the conditions of the Cape? If my memory serves me correctly, about a year ago here in sci.space several articles lamented the lack of upkeep in the Apollo-involved areas of the Cape. If someone has definitive information, please post. As far as the Shuttle facilities: it's here but not being used. III. ******* >> [More hysteria deleted] Sometimes it takes hysteria to get people to sit up and realize that something's going wrong. >>The past is dead and gone. The glory is for the history books. The US >>is safe and comfortable, secure and stagnant. Rest in peace. >Really now, this NASA-bashing is beginning to not just resemble, but >exceed the original and unjustified panic over Sputnik. And all >because they kept up the funding for a Skylab-type space station and >launched *one* interplanetary mission to Halley's comet which we did >not duplicate. The Sputnik panic initially prompted the US into space efforts. So they sent a comet probe. So? We sent craft to Jupiter and beyond. So what? Different goals. I could care less if the Soviets accomplish their space goals or not. I hope they do. I do care whether one organization is monopolizing the means to accomplish our space goals, providing only one method of accomplishing those varied goals, and then botching the job. [The Challenger explosion was not "botching the job"; not implementing several independent methods of accomplishing goals IS "botching the job".] Joe Beckenbach (CS BS '88) I'D RATHER BE ORBITING Realities to come: L5 University. Orbital living spaces. "Welcome to the Colony _Don Quixote_, a.k.a. The Moon of La Mancha." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #146 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Feb 88 06:18:58 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02426; Fri, 26 Feb 88 03:17:08 PST id AA02426; Fri, 26 Feb 88 03:17:08 PST Date: Fri, 26 Feb 88 03:17:08 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802261117.AA02426@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #147 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 147 Today's Topics: Re: Where the US stands in space [BLUNT] Source of plutonium for RTG's Re: reactor reentry Re: Navigation [Non]fissionables. Re: Free-fall sex Re: Free-fall sex Re: Coercive Space Exploration Re: Free-fall sex Re: Coercive Space Exploration Re: SPACE Digest V8 #145 Dry run of Soviet Mir station space walk + Bulgarian crew list H-fussion ramjets No wonder we're in trouble... Re: Erector-set: Let's build a company ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Feb 88 14:04:11 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!kcarroll@uunet.uu.net (Kieran A. Carroll) Subject: Re: Where the US stands in space [BLUNT] td2cad!jreece writes : >...The Soviets...have yet to get a spacecraft inside Venus... >...they...launched *one* interplanetary mission to Halley's comet which >we did not duplicate. Sorry; the Soviets launched **two** interplanetary missions to Halley's comet. The two Vega spacecraft first dropped landers and balloon probes off at Venus, before flying by the nucleus of comet Halley (at a distance of < 10,000 km). I believe that the rendezvouses occurred within the orbit of Venus, by the way. >Really now, this NASA-bashing is beginning to not just resemble, but >exceed the original and unjustified panic over Sputnik. And all >because they kept up the funding for a Skylab-type space station... I do not wish to denigrate NASA; it has achieved many great things, and will probably continue to do so. Its political lords and masters, though, are another matter. The U.S. has tremendous potential opportunities in space, and is >wasting< them. The decision-makers have shown time and again that they have >no< interest in space, except inasmuch as it can be used to support their own political careers; thus, all the nonsensical talk about `national prestige' and `American leadership in space' (like the Puppeteers in Niven's stories, they `lead from behind', perhaps?); these goals can justify only the most shallow and ephemeral space programs. The Soviets, on the other hand, have stated again and again that they are committed to putting people in space; they prove that be doing it on a regular and continual basis. Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!kcarroll ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 88 09:28:00 EST From: "R2D2::BRUC" Subject: Source of plutonium for RTG's To: "space" Reply-To: "R2D2::BRUC" In the recent discussion of radioactive thermal generators, it's been mentioned that reactor source for the plutonium is no longer available. Does anyone know what we are going to use for RTG's when we build the next outer planet spacecraft? Bob Bruccoleri bruc%r2d2.decnet@mghccc.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 88 21:31:32 GMT From: ubc-vision!attvcr!jroberts@beaver.cs.washington.edu (John Roberts) Subject: Re: reactor reentry > In article <3212@killer.UUCP> Eric Green writes: > >There is a treaty banning nuclear WEAPONS in space. But there is no > >treaty banning nuclear REACTORS in space. Remember that Russian > >satellite that broke up over Canada a few years back, spewing > >low-level radiation over a wide swath? It was powered by a nuclear > >reactor.... And last time I heard, the USSR is still refusing to pay for the cost of the cleanup undertaken by the Canadian government. Don't want to set a precendent, I guess. John M. Roberts ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 1988 20:27-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Navigation Geostar provides a VERY important additional service to many of us: the choice of a non government supplier. To some of us this is as an important as the availability of 'ethical investment' mutual funds are to some who wish to avoid their money going to companies investing in South Africa, etc. I would pay a premium price for a service rather than see extra one penny of my income go to ANY government for ANY purpose. Although I don't get silly about making exceptions when the need is really major, I personally boycott the use of any publicly owned tranport system. If there is a private alternative available, I will almost invariably use it. I avoid the use or support of any government tainted service if it is humanely possible to stay clear of it, even if the alternative service is more costly. That is my choice and I'm perfectly happy to be utterly irrational and emotional about it. I'm out to keep their (government) slimy hands off of every penny I possibly can. And I lobby for the most reasonable use possible for every penny that I CAN'T keep out of their hands. Even if Geostar didn't supply more features at a lower price, they would still supply a premium service to many of us. The simple fact that the money doesn't go into the hands of people we utterly despise is worth a great deal. That is freedom of choice. Those who wish to pay for it via taxes may do so. I refuse. Free Minds and Free Markets Dale Amon MYOB-IW ============================================================================= Government kills ============================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 88 18:20:25 -0500 (EST) From: Chris Beasley Subject: [Non]fissionables. How do you go about detecting the composition of objects like this? ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 88 07:49:24 GMT From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard Brezina) Subject: Re: Free-fall sex >However, on this one point I'm inclined to disagree with Mr. Arthur C. >Clarke (who seems to think it would be fun) - it seems to me that the >energy expended in the process would be likely to wind up partly as >heat and mostly as angular momentum. Hmm...interesting problem indeed! Gee, we didn't get anything like THIS on our physics exams! But one thing I do seem to remember from my physics class is the law of conservations of angular momentum, that is, that the product of the moment of intertia tensor and the angular velocity remains constant in no external torques are present. Now, the two persons engaged in the "experiment" form a pretty good isolated system - I can't see any NET torques acting on them both! Therefore, so far as I can see, their angular momentum would remain constant. So, maybe it IS fun after all! -Richard Brezina snowdog@athena.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 88 00:41:06 GMT From: ssc-vax!lee@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Lee Carver) Subject: Re: Free-fall sex In article <880216-043642-2877@Xerox>, "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@XEROX.COM writes: > it seems to me that the energy expended in the process would be likely > to wind up partly as heat and mostly as angular momentum. ...[everyone > would] ... rapidly acquire an impressive spin ... Fortunately, you can't create angular momentum. All you can do is redistibute it. So, if you let go in a big enough room, you might have a little spin from the release process, but it can't radically change during any activity. (Obviously, if you curl up, you will go faster -- but it stops as soon as you straighten out). > I am, of course, prepared to volunteer for an experimental proof of my > hypothesis. :-) :-) :-) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 88 16:38:31 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Coercive Space Exploration > ... But even if that were true (which I personally doubt) it does not > ameliorate the underlying fault of all government action; the use of > coercion -- the initiation of force, to achieve social or political > goal. Just what is it about space interest groups that attract so many anarchists? Who's to say that coercion is the exclusive province of governments? Phil ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 88 21:01:10 GMT From: decvax!dartvax!eleazar!seldon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Joe Walker) Subject: Re: Free-fall sex ....(first posting...please be patient).. well...If someone really wanted to find out what it's like..find a willing partner and get some diving belts to make yourself nutraly boyant..and jump into a pool. I'm not suggesting the REAL act, but you could really see what positions would work.. (nutral boyancy (sic) is where an object submereged in water niether sinks or floats..thus simulating zero-gee.) ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 88 22:56:51 GMT From: sgi!daisy!wooding@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Wooding) Subject: Re: Coercive Space Exploration In article <957@thumper.bellcore.com>, karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > > ... But even if that were true (which I personally doubt) it does > > not ameliorate the underlying fault of all government action; the > > use of coercion -- the initiation of force, to achieve social or > > political goal. > > Just what is it about space interest groups that attract so many > anarchists? Who's to say that coercion is the exclusive province of > governments? > > Phil Anarchy?? Is that what distrust of gov't motivation and wisdom is? Then sign me up. Coercion is what gov't does. It has the monopoly! Its about all it can do well (except maybe collect tax, wage war,.....) sorry, seems like wrong news.group for this kind of diatribe. ????????????????? I have heard several proposals for SkyHooks. Anyone care to update the news on this? Mike Wooding ------------------------------ Sender: "Carol_A._Locicero.rochX2"@xerox.com Date: 24 Feb 88 11:27:36 PST (Wednesday) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #145 From: "Carol_A._Locicero.rochX2"@xerox.com Would anyone out there care to give me a summary of the article in "Physics Today" on the Challenger Inquiry and also a summary on the Rogers Report. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 88 11:57:12 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Dry run of Soviet Mir station space walk + Bulgarian crew list The current crew on the Soviet's Mir station, Valdimir Titov and Musakhi Manarov, held a dry run of their upcoming space walk on Feb. 19th. They put on and checked out their space suits, but did not enter the air lock. The walk will occur sometime next week now. They have also released the crew members of the June 21, '88 mission bringing the Bulgarian cosmonaut to Mir. The scheduled guest is Alexander Alexandrov (who was the backup for the Soyuz 33 mission of Apr. '79) and his backup is Krasimir Stoyanov. Anatoly Solovyov is the mission commander (he was the backup commander for the Soyuz TM-3 flight in July '87). Viktor Savinykh the flight engineer has an interesting background, with a flight on Soyuz T-4/Salyut 6 74 day flight in Mar. '81, and the Soyuz T-13 100 day mission in June '85 (which repaired the frozen Salyut 7). Yuri Romanenko, the long duration crewman (326 days on Mir), is stated to have recovered except for some weakness in some muscles. He has offered to come to Europe to refute the published stories that he was very weak, provided that the papers there pay for his trip. Todate the papers have not accepted his offer. The soviet program continues to move ahead. Some day ours will too. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 88 23:07:10 GMT From: huntting@boulder.colorado.edu (Bradley Enoch Huntting) Subject: H-fussion ramjets Can anyone point me toward articles, or books about the theory of "hydrogen fussion ramjets"? All I've read on the subject comes from fiction. Many thanx in advance... -brad huntting huntting@boulder.colorado.edu ...!{hao,cires}!boulder!huntting ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 1988 19:10-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: No wonder we're in trouble... I was chatting with Jim Bennet from AMROC the other night and thought I'd pass along some anecdotes. If you want to build a new gantry on an EXISTING government test range, the EPA rigamarole will take from 1.5 to 2 years to complete. THEN you can start building. I was told that it would be far, far longer to file for creating a private launch site. Of the existing facilities at Vandenburg, a number are classified 'Historic Landmarks'. This means that you can't modify or upgrade them, and you'd better be careful using them. An area of the base that would be good for building new launch facilities is off limits because it could potentially endanger another historic landmark: "General Curtis LeMay's Summer Cottage". Jim noted that General Lemay would probably have driven the bulldozer himself if he'd been told any such thing. (Another friend of mine suggested Curtis would have had a regrettable accidental bomb release from an entire SAC wing... Personally I think the targetting should be on EPA and the National Historic Landmarks HQ's) It appears that there will be a severe shortage in launch facilities in this country in the near future, and it is ENTIRELY a government created shortage. Of course one could make the point that the american space program only exists in the history books anyway. Maybe we need to preserve the gantry's so Russian kids can crawl on them when they come to see the place's where historic things happened. The tourist trade from visitors gawking at the quaint and old fashioned life style of america may be the only import we have by then... ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 88 00:40:12 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Re: Erector-set: Let's build a company In article <8287@reed.UUCP> lnclark@reed.UUCP (LewisAclark) writes: . . . >Assuming we can get reasonable funding for this venture, lets go ahead >and select a launch site, shall we? >BTW, I looked into Kingman Reef as a launch site, it's great, except >for the fact that the average height above sea level is 1 meter, and in >high seas, it submerges completly. We might want use it for a base to >build on, tho... Well, where can you/we/anyone get a hold of the companies which actually design and put together oil platforms? A forest of platforms could make a good working base. Or, in a slightly wilder vein, how about a relatively free-floating platform? These could be combined into a community of facilities to be the terrestrial launch base for national or international space efforts. Can we get the participants of the International Space University in on this? [MIT is hosting the inaugural sessions this summer.] If a completely free platform system is chosen for one site, it could be placed actually on the Equator in international waters (or some eastern coastal waters for a national effort). Intense efforts would have to be made in order to prevent environmental damage; this can be minimized by wise selection of rocket fuels and materials. Would wave swells cause satellite uplinks to lose tracking? The list of design questions grows. Lord help me, I'm going to volunteer myself to try to be a clearinghouse for questions and some information. As one respondant to my BLUNT article has said, it's now very apparent that the space movement and the space program are two completely different cats. More philosophizing in later articles. Joe Beckenbach (CS BS '88) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #147 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Feb 88 06:19:21 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03874; Sat, 27 Feb 88 03:17:37 PST id AA03874; Sat, 27 Feb 88 03:17:37 PST Date: Sat, 27 Feb 88 03:17:37 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802271117.AA03874@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #148 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 148 Today's Topics: Re: Erector-set: Let's build a company Re: space station editorial, part 1 response to Forbes article Arecibo Re: Fletcher's press briefing Re: Fletcher's press briefing Reagan's "privatization" policy Erector sets, private companies, and everything Operant conditioning ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Feb 88 06:40:23 GMT From: killer!elg@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eric Green) Subject: Re: Erector-set: Let's build a company Well, some views from the oil patch: Current oil platforms are only useful in shallow waters (conteniental shelf), although the new free-floating/anchored ones can be placed deeper. Shallow-water oil platforms are fairly inexpensive. There's about 200 of them sitting in drydock in Houston, waiting for anybody with 100K (it's not worthwhile to go drilling with them, since the Arabs can suck oil out of the desert much cheaper than underwater oil can be obtained). But a deep-water platform can easily cost $100,000,000. They are very complex and very experimental at the moment, mainly due to the need to keep them EXACTLY in one place (wouldn't do to have the drillbit joggling up and down in the hole, after all). As far as I know, there's only 4 or 5 of those in American hands, a bunch of white elephants that major oil companies keep hanging around simply because they paid so much for them (it's certainly not economically feasible to DRILL with them!). Since contenental-shelf areas are generally under the protectorship of ajoining nations (at least fisheries-wise & environmental regulation), a free-floating spaceport is pretty much out of the question. Land is a lot cheaper ($5,000/acre, as vs. 100k or more for a teeny oil platform). Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Asimov Cocktail,n., A verbal bomb {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg detonated by the mention of any Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 subject, resulting in an explosion Lafayette, LA 70509 of at least 5,000 words. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 88 16:48 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Re: space station editorial, part 1 In response to a message by Henry Spencer: > Galileo would still have been in trouble, although not quite as badly, > if it had been manifested on Titan. (The big Titans only having > started flying again recently, after their early-86 failure. That's > not a trivial slip.) No, because it would have been launched years before the failure, and it could still have used Centaur upper stages. > So we must cease all space activity until transport costs are > affordable? That is the logical end of this argument. Uh, how did "not build space stations" turn into "cease all space activity"? There are lots of things we can do in space without building things there (or putting people there). We should cease space activities that do not make economic or scientific sense at current launch costs. Would it be sensible to build a space station if launch costs were (say) $100,000/pound? I'm sure you'd agree it wouldn't. The question is where to draw the line. I draw it well below $5000/lb. >> The $64 billion dollar question is: why siphon such a large fraction >> of the government research budget into microgravity research? ... > Please explain to me why my proposed space station (much cheaper than > NASA's) is an enormous drain on the government research budget when, > say, the Superconducting SuperCollider is not. Both are multi-billion > projects; neither is a "large fraction" of the government research > budget, especially over their considerable lifetimes. But you also think NASA's space station is "too useful ... to abandon without replacement", so I feel entitled to use its projected cost. It would consume a nonnegligible fraction of government basic research funds (which amount to $21G/year in Reagan's new budget) for a decade or more. The comparison to the SSC (which I am also skeptical about) is unfair, since the SSC is intended to answer fundamental questions about the nature of matter. The importance of microgravity research to basic science is much lower, and does not warrant spending several $G/year. The benefits of either project to the economy at large are likely to be small, fabulous predictions about microgravity manufacturing notwithstanding. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 88 00:00:37 GMT From: mtune!mtgzz!dls@rutgers.edu (XMRP50000[jto]-d.l.skran) Subject: response to Forbes article Editor, Forbes Magazine Dear Editor: In the February 8, 1988, Forbes article ("It's Time to Bust Up NASA"), Howard Brooks proposes a child's approach to fixing NASA - if it is not working right, hit it hard with a hammer. Mr. Brooks maintains that NASA cannot be believed because they overstate benefits and understate costs fairly consistently. Such behavior is to be expected from an embattled, eviscerated agency struggling to build a compromise shuttle on steadily diminishing funds. NASA is frequently attacked for choosing single, large programs as the focus of its efforts. This phenomenon is mainly a function of our political system - every program that is funded must have a part manufactured in practically every state to maintain Congressional support, naturally creating pressure toward large programs. Mr. Brooks states that the Space Station cannot be used as a stepping off point to Mars because humans cannot last the 14-month trip in zero gravity. This reasoning ignores the following facts: 1)going to Mars is not the major justification of the Space Station, merely one of many things it could be used for, 2)it is not necessary to be in zero gravity all the way to Mars due the rotation of the ship to create the sensation of gravity(see the movie 2001 for an nice visualization of this idea), and 3) Soviet Cosmonaut Yuri Romanenko is back after a record-breaking 326 days in orbit and was walking around almost immediately, contrary to Mr. Brook's predictions(TIME/Feb. 1, pg. 48). Mr. Brooks belittles Soviet space efforts by describing MIR(an in-use, permanently staffed space station), as "only half a generation ... ahead of Skylab" (currently a pile of junk in the Australian desert) while ignoring the years of Soviet experience with the Salyut space station. The reality is that America is many years behind the Soviets in space station operations and research, and that the full extent of this deficit cannot be known since the Soviets probably do not make their most intriguing materials- processing techniques known to the West. The lesson of the Soviet and the American space program is that both humans and machines are needed in space. Pro- machine rhetoricians such as Van Allen tend to forget how American astronauts saved Skylab and numerous Shuttle experiments by improvisation and to ignore the failure of the Viking probe to answer unambiguously the question "Is there Life On Mars?" when a human scientist on Mars with a lab would almost certainly have succeeded. Mr. Brooks leaves unaddressed the important questions we must answer as a nation. Suppose we, in frustration, break up NASA and shut down the surplus centers, while funding only a few planetary probes now and then. Who, if anyone, would run the shuttles? What, if anything, would be the role of humans in space? Who will fund projects like Space Industries' ISF, which has been unable to find private funding and is looking for $700 million from NASA? How could private corporations compete with heavily subsidized ESA, Chinese, and Soviet satellite-launching and remote- sensing operations? When the Europeans, Japanese, and the Soviets start selling products manufactured in zero-gravity, how will private American companies compete with state- supported operations? Does anyone really believe that American industry, now widely recognized as short-sighted and narrowly bottom-line driven, is going to step forward to exploit the "high frontier" of space? Finally, is there a real industrial future for America in space, one involving lunar mines, orbiting factories, solar power satellites, and even tourism, or is space going to be a spectator sport limited to a tiny elite of scientists such as Van Allen and their pet robots? Rather than being a useful reform, Mr. Brook's plan for shutting down NASA would leave the detailed and feasible plans of Sally Ride and the National Commission on Space(Paine Commission) on paper -- and the Soviets on Mars laughing at the skeptical Mr. Brooks. Sincerely, Dale Skran ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 88 19:07:48 GMT From: irizarry@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Gil Irizarry) Subject: Arecibo >> You're right, my brain locked. I think they also administer the big >> dish at Arecibo, though I wouldn't swear to that. > >Hmmm, sorry to keep doing this to you :-) :-) ... I believe Arecibo is >administered by Cornell University astronomy, not NRAO. Used to be >Frank Drake and Carl Sagan as co-directors, currently only the latter, >unless I am out of date (an update, someone from Corny U. ?). I am from Cornell and can safely say that the Cornell astronomy department does indeed administrate the Arecibo dish. >As far as I know, NRAO sites perform purely *radio* astronomy (i.e., no >transmitters). Arecibo, however, is capable of, and has been known to >perform, monostatic *radar* astronomy. I am unsure of the difference between the two, but I do know that Arecibo has been used to bounce signals off Venus in order the radar map the surface. Yes, Arecibo can transmit signals, as opposed to just listening. I believe that it was Arecibo that transmitted Sagan's message to extra-terrestials out in the galaxy in 1977(?). Gil Irizarry irizarry@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 Feb 88 19:06:38 GMT From: tektronix!orca!brucec@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Cohen) Subject: Re: Fletcher's press briefing In article <8802171951.AA03413@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@PIONEER.ARC.NASA.GOV (Eugene N. Miya) writes: > Subject: Re: Fletcher's press briefing > > That is a press release. > > ACK! > > --eugene The text of the briefing was onomatopoetic: the sound of thousands of heels dug firmly into the ground while their owners are dragged down a path which offends them greatly. On a less emotional, but still bitter, note, I'm very curious how long it will be before the NASA bureaucracy commits itself to the new policy, and ceases attempts to sabotage and/or divert it back to the old policy. Bruce Cohen ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 88 02:16:20 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Fletcher's press briefing In article <2483@orca.TEK.COM> brucec@orca.UUCP (Bruce Cohen) writes: >On a less emotional, but still bitter, note, I'm very curious how long >it will be before the NASA bureaucracy commits itself to the new >policy, and ceases attempts to sabotage and/or divert it back to the >old policy. I don't know Bruce, but I wish I knew myself. Perhaps the same time we get mail systems to talk to one another. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Reply-To: lll-crg!ames!ucsd!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov Date: Sat, 20 Feb 88 14:22:28 PST From: lll-crg!ames!scubed!ucsd!pnet01.cts.com!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Reagan's "privatization" policy In response to Fletcher's "bureaucratese" about how NASA is at the forefront of promoting commercialization of space, Randell E. Jesup writes: > So, what does this really mean? ... It means that NASA has caught onto the fact that Americans are fed up with its bureaucratic style of running things. NASA is taking steps to preempt reforms by providing token gestures toward privatization of space even though the cash flows will be almost totally unaltered. Any thinking sociopath would do the same thing in Fletcher's position. NASA will continue to do this sort of thing until it is dismantled into separate independent agencies. In fact, it will grow stronger and more difficult to reform. We must act soon or give up on America as the seashore of the universe. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 88 00:59:35 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Erector sets, private companies, and everything [Damm, some things are so hard to articulate!] Time to get the ball rolling! Reagan's new space policy about space privatization has been announced; it will be some time before the policy really percolates into the governmental systems, but let's get started now! 0. Setting up the Clearinghouse I'm getting ready to postpone my graduation anyway, and there's going to be a need for a clearinghouse for ideas and information. Much of this could be best handled in E-mail, or (idea!) another newsgroup: sci.space.entrep [sci.space.entrepeneur]. I'm collecting votes to see if people think it's a good idea. {Note: not a final vote for newsgroup creation unless voters care to specify their votes as going for the newsgroup creation process itself.} I. Re: Erector sets Time to grease up the engineering thought. We've had some figures about skyhooks for the Earth thrown around. Pandora's Box has just opened: I need a basic idea on how to figure values for any other natural body's attendant skyhooks. I need more information on free-floating oil platforms, continental shelf platforms, etcetera. Oh, to heck with it. Send me any information regarding launch site selection, supply, design requirements, and mission requirements on a launch site. {I know Cape Canaveral has the best combination of weather, clear groundspace and airspace under the launch path, and access to technical and academic abilities. Where could this be duplicated?} As Joseph Klein suggested to me in a letter, "Perhaps an E-mail discussion group could be set up. Perhaps papers should be filed. The net is a great place to get this rolling." II. Other Business There needs to be some clearinghouse for many other things involving sci.space and related concerns. Areas I have general (and soon specific) questions include: Government Policy and Guidelines to Policy-Making Lines of Development for Space-related Industries Computer and Noncomputer and Human Division of Labor Reliability Testing and Verification Ground Siting, Support, and Monitoring Permanent Space Presences Mission Policies Role of NASA and USA and UN in Private Space Efforts (or rather, national and international government involvement) International Cooperation: Materials, Manufacturing, Informational and several others. Needless to say, any space effort is going to be hopelessly interdisciplinary, but it must start somewhere. The network is the world's largest potential think tank. Let's tear into it! The brainstorming is easy- e-mail and postings do well; it's the collating and synthesis which so far has not been in evidence. Go ahead; send me mail. How many of us can get together to form a company to do this? My mailing address: Joe Beckenbach beckenba@cit-vax.caltech.edu Caltech 1-58 (818) 578-9769 & leave a message Pasadena, CA 91125 If there are any companies currently planning to do new or additional work in private space efforts, please notify sci.space or me; if a new company comes of this article, being able to work together would make standardizations and later cooperations much easier. -- Joe Beckenbach (CS BS '88) I'D RATHER BE ORBITING ------------------------------ Reply-To: lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov Date: Fri, 19 Feb 88 10:46:04 PST From: lll-crg!ames!scubed!sdcsvax!pnet01.cts.com!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Operant conditioning Jonathan Leech writes: > Since NASA's primary mission is not science, your comments are not >wholly relevant even if they are correct. You're right. NASA's primary mission is to waste taxpayer's money and inhibit free enterprise. Reagan's recent policy announcement will aid them in this by bolstering funding to STS and Space Station while providing relatively no money for purchase of private launch services, despite the wonderful sounding rhetoric to the contrary. > NASA does not operate on the profit/competition model and never will. And I never said NASA should operate on the profit/competition model. I said NASA should operate on the competition of ideas and should be able to justify any space services it provides in terms of scientific merit as measured by cashflow from scientists with their own scientific agendas. This is not profit -- it is operant conditioning. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #148 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Feb 88 06:19:05 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04975; Sun, 28 Feb 88 03:17:21 PST id AA04975; Sun, 28 Feb 88 03:17:21 PST Date: Sun, 28 Feb 88 03:17:21 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802281117.AA04975@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #149 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 149 Today's Topics: NASA Select TV Re: reactor reentry Re: Ever heard of Voyager? Galileo? The Space Telescope? A modestly sleepy proposal, yawn! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Feb 88 06:42:27 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!Paul_L_Schauble@uunet.uu.net Subject: NASA Select TV I'm trying to talk the local cable TV company into carrying the NASA Select TV channel that was mentioned here some time ago. Can anyone give me a contact person connect with this operation that I can pass on to them? Thanks, Paul ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 88 03:28:11 GMT From: bw0r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Bryan Webb) Subject: Re: reactor reentry Henry Spencer mentioned that there was no substantial amount of radioactive material aboard Skylab when everybody was concerned about it coming down. This is true. What they were worried about was a heavy lead vault used to store the photographic material aboard the station. It was heavy enough that they were sure it was going to survive re-entry, or at least a big chunk of it would. --Bryan Webb ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 1988 18:28-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Ever heard of Voyager? Galileo? The Space Telescope? Voyager: an outer planet probe launched a decade ago. Galileo: An outer planet probe holding the world's time duration record for exploration of the Earth's surface. The Space Telescope: A large telescope that has for many years delivered the best images ever of the wall of the storage facility. > The Soviets, after all, have yet to get a spacecraft past Mars orbit > or inside Venus, much less perform multiple missions to Mercury, > Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Nor do they have any announced > plans to do so. Neither has the US returned pictures from the surface of Venus, one of the nastiest natural environments in solar system. > Both the Air Force and NASA are floating competing proposals for a > heavy lift booster, the NASA proposal being essentially an unmanned > version of the shuttle system. None of which will be flying in less than 5 years (or more), and both of which have a capacity less than half of Energiya. > As to the Shuttle, if it's such a inherently flawed concept, why did > the Russians copy so much of it for their shuttle and their Energia > heavy booster? The soviet craft is not a copy of the shuttle, other than aerodynamic similarities. Whether they used our design for this or not makes little difference because they would have come up with the same basic structure for the task regardless. Form follows function. Additionally, the soviet shuttle has jet engines which are deployable for landing go arounds. Their computer technology is admittedly less sophisticated, so they prefer not to trust themselves to a philosophy of 'land your brick the first time or screw the pooch'. In addition, the booster it rides on may be fully reusable. It is certainly fully recoverable, INCLUDING the main tank. The boosters are liquid fueled, not solid fueled, thus flight is abortable at any time. The cargo port may be in the rear rather than the top since the main engines are on the booster, not on the shuttle. > Furthermore, the Soviets have yet to launch a single mission of their > Shuttle-clone, much less carry out 24 successful launches. At current schedules, I would not be surprised if it has first flight before we restart. Soviet pilot-astronauts have been testing it in approach and landing, and at least one has recently been on the soviet permanently manned space station for zero G training. > And the first Energia launch was about as successful as the > Challenger, since the final stage failed to fire. Close doesn't count > with launch vehicles. The Energiya is the BOOSTER rocket, not the upper stage. An older style upper stage failure certainly means the overall mission failed, but the engineering test of the NEW flight hardware was evidentally quite successful. Additionally, there is just no comparison between the Energiya throw weight and the shuttle, or for that matter with anything we have proposed or even on the drawing boards. It's capacity with the maximum number of straps is estimated to be about 2.5 times the Saturn 5. 270 tons versus 120(?) tons versus 35(?) tons. And the 120 tons is from one of the paper vehicles the poster proudly proclaimed earlier. Energiya will be operationally delivering 230-270 tons at a crack to LEO before the paper settles in the appropriations committees. > Really now, this NASA-bashing is beginning to not just resemble, but > exceed the original and unjustified panic over Sputnik. Maybe it is for real this time. By the time we get our paper space station up in 1997 or so, they will have Star City with a hundred or more people in orbit full time. With Energiya they can launch sheet steel if they want. Screw the high tech alloys and weight savings. > And all because they kept up the funding for a Skylab-type space > station and launched *one* interplanetary mission to Halley's comet > which we did not duplicate. Yep, those wonderful skylabs. I have a chunk of one of them for a desk ornament, and I walked through the other in the Air and Space Museum. A simply marvelous example of american preeminence in space in 1988. A damn fine paper weight too. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 88 15:14:32 GMT From: xanth!kent@mcnc.org (Kent Paul Dolan) Subject: A modestly sleepy proposal, yawn! [This is posted to places that know and love/hate the poster. Followups firmly directed back to talk.bizarre, where they will stay unless readers act. It goes to talk.bizarre because that is where this nonsense started, to talk.politics.misc to respond to the "for whom should I vote" articles, to soc.women to attract Mikki Barry to the campaign for women's rights, to soc.men for all the socially conscious types who flame or cheer me on me from there, to sci.space because that is what this campaign is all about, to rec.humor because trying to do anything about the mess this country is in is pretty funny, to comp.sys.amiga because that is what the article is being written upon, to talk.rumors because a previous note there got a friendly response and a vote pledge, to rec.games.frp because running for president on USENet is indeed a fantasy role playing game, and to ra.slug to show that the author of _1001_Ways_to_Roast_a_Slug hasn't forgotten you. ] Folks, there is something fun, and possibly important, going on in talk.bizarre that has every chance of dying on the vine without your input. So, gang up, join in, flame, agree, broadcast, campaign, be involved. Please excuse a one time trashing of your favorite newsgroups with a big cross-post; I have taken my civic responsibility to direct follow ups back to the parent newsgroup seriously. Word was just going out too slowly as was. In article <7029@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> silverio@brahms.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Chris Silverio) writes: >In article <891@elmgate.UUCP> ram@elmgate.UUCP (Randy Martens) writes: >>Well, it's time to consider the major Presidential candidates : [...lots of cute flames of current candidates omitted...] >>Kent, the man from Xanth : Promises to spend money on useful things >>like deep space exploration instead of nuclear weapons and contras. >>Promises to sleep a lot, and therefore not cause trouble. hmmm..... >>and the winner is ..... > >>KENT THE MAN FROM XANTH, FOR PRESIDENT !! >>SUPPORT THE BIRTHRIGHT PARTY !!! >>VOTE KENT !!!! >> > >The advertising firm of Silverio, Silverio, and Silverio (greg) wishes >to announce its whole-hearted support of Kent, the Man from Xanth, as >the Bizarre Party candidate in the 1988 presidential elections. > >Anything we can do, Kent, just let us know. > >The preceding announcement paid for by the Xanth Man for President >Committee. > >| C J Silverio | Identify the following: . >| ucbvax!bosco!silverio | >| | "AAAIIIGH!" Chris, The unborn children of the human race, whose future existence you have done a little bit to assure by you support, send you a huge wet kiss from the future. Keeping a race as unbalanced as ours on a single base of operations when we have the capability to destroy the utility of that base is taking too big a chance with extinction. We need to get our seed stock spread out at least to the planets, asteroids, and major moons while we try to puzzle out the requisites of star travel and surviving our own orneriness. The economic benefits of a planet sized chunk of high grade iron ore, already broken down into usable sized pieces, and with the energy to smelt it nearly free for the capture as it streams by are beyond calculation. We have whole planet sized moonfulls of fresh water, gas giants from which to harvest carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen, a planet crusted with sulphur, all just waiting for us to go out and pick up the bounty. We have the choice of spending our seed corn on being able to murder the planet one more time over than the Russians while we quarrel over the diminishing resources of a limited planet, and spending it on trying to prevent poverty for everyone in a shrinking economy with an aging, growing population, or we can instead take large parts of that same money, and begin a program of moving mankind corporeally and economically off this small planet and into space, with the resultant expanded job market, increased resources, decreased energy costs, and all the other well known benefits. Our present path is doomed to fail; no one yet has proved Malthus wrong, only delayed him a bit. We can accept our failure, act as if it were inevitable, thereby making it so, and putter our way to national unimportance, or we can choose a new pathway and follow it to the stars. The choice is simple, but the path is not easy. What can you do? Stop treating this as a game, start circulating copies of notes like this where they will spread far and fast, and add your own. You all know I'm not much as a presidential candidate, but neither was Junior Senator John Kennedy. What is needed is a leader with vision, and the people willing to work with him to make that vision reality. I have that vision clearly, but I cannot do the job alone. I need you, and the rest of our audience. I need people elected with me whose _first_ priority is expanding our economy into space. Not the next water project, not protecting an antiquated military base, not protecting fools from the consequences of their own planning for poverty, not highway funds, not urban renewal, not siphoning education money from the states, not providing Social Security to able bodied, bored, and willing to work senior citizens, but getting this country going again. Cross-post, download and upload to BBS's, write your own copy, flood the newspaper editors and the magazine editors with letters, make things happen. Find out what it takes to register a new political party in your own state, convince enough of your technocrat friends that the time is now and they have to pay if they want to play, gather the funds, the signatures, stump door to door, go without sleep, get laughed at and reviled and beat up and threatened, dream the dream and fight the good fight. You need to know two things about me I may not have made clear; I am passionately committed to this cause, and I would step aside in a minute if this campaign brought forth a truly superior candidate. I just don't see one waiting in the wings, but that doesn't mean one can't be found. In the mean time, I stand as a placeholder for another person, or as a possible choice myself. Next, it is unlikely that this will happen in 1988; time is short; not impossibly short, but short. We can establish a new party, elect Congressmen and Senators (male/female, black/brown/tan/yellow/red/pink/albino, hairy/bald, young/old, gay/straight/don't-care, religous/atheist/agnostic, whoever is best qualified and most committed), make our presence felt. We are the people who understand the electronic network media, we are the ones who can spread the word faster and with less resources than the vidiots, but we are a small group; each person who hears the call must go out personally and recruit a hundred who don't share our electronic village, by power of persuasion. If this year doesn't find us ready to elect a president, I'm only 44, we can build toward it, and when this starts to look like a movement, the power hungry will come out of the woodwork like termites from a rotting house to tell you they should have the top slot, so you won't lack for other choices. So, children, can you set aside your enmity, and your napalm, and your egos big as a planet, and make a concerted effort to make this work? I have 17 vote pledges; WE need 10,000,000 times that many. Who feels like taking on the job? I am looking for a Vice Presidential candidate. She should be a minority person, to lend credence to this being a movement for the good of the whole nation. Any takers? Kent, the man from xanth, rolled over and went back to sleep, sure in his mind that not a one of them would ever realize he was serious, and, besides, he'd missed a nap and both his cats were already asleep. Kent, the (sympathetic or sarcastic, you just can't tell) man from xanth. Keep those Birthright Party presidential vote pledges coming in, kiddies. Still looking for that big #18! Just 99,999,983 to go for a win in '88! "That man sleeping in the gutter? Yeah, him, that's the one. I'm trying to get him honest work. Could you sign this petition to put his name on the ballot for 1988? Sure, the presidency. We have a tradition of sleeping presidents. The safest kind, if you ask me. Wake 'em up and they invade defenseless Caribbean islands. Last time I saw _him_ awake, he muttered something about spending _his_ invasion budget on space exploration. Hey, come back, it's not that unlikely! Damn, lost another one! What have people got against spending money where there's some chance of return, anyway?" Kent, the man from xanth. -^-" -^-" -^-" -^-" -^-" -^-" -^-" -^-" Cullinary specialist in the preparation and enjoyment of Greater Seattle Tiger\ Slug treats. Author of _1001_Ways_to_Roast_a_Slug_. Greater Seattle Tiger / Slugs (tm) are the official diet of the Birthright Party: "A food best sent " far into space." Be the first on Europa to serve Slug Dodgers! Support the \ man in space, slug in space program! Help get those slugs out of here! "-^- "-' Kent, the (Birthright Party's Choice for Chief Somnambulist) man from xanth. "The Birthright of Mankind is the Stars!" +-------------------------------------------------------+ |\~ | | |~ . o o . :;: () -O- 0 . O | | |~ ^ | |/~ | | | You are Here | | | |Wouldn't you rather be out there --> | | | |Support the Birthright Party Today! | | | |(Note: Above diagram NOT to scale.) | +-------------------------------------------------------+ [This lovely banner, available at a terminal near you for a donation of a mere 3 5/7 Quatloos, brought to you through the keyboard talents of Michael P. Seidel, Press Secretary Nominee to the Administration of the Chief Somnambulist Candidate.] ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #149 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Feb 88 06:20:52 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06324; Mon, 29 Feb 88 03:18:59 PST id AA06324; Mon, 29 Feb 88 03:18:59 PST Date: Mon, 29 Feb 88 03:18:59 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8802291118.AA06324@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #150 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 150 Today's Topics: ADAM SMITH'S MONEY WORLD Re: H-Fusion Ramjet Re: Operant conditioning Re: H-Fusion Ramjet Re: NASA SPACELINK Re: Arecibo Re: Coercive Space Exploration Re: Navigation Re: Source of plutonium for RTG's Re: Free-fall sex ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Feb 88 21:22:30 GMT From: ihnp4!homxb!hropus!ki4pv!codas!novavax!ankh!Peter_Glaskowsky@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Peter Glaskowsky) Subject: ADAM SMITH'S MONEY WORLD "Adam Smith's Money World", a public-television financial news show, devoted a show this week to the United States space program. There was a recap of the US space program to date; problems with the space shuttle were attributed to conflicting requirements imposed by NASA and the Department of Defense, a "shoestring budget", the requirement that the shuttle program should be self-supporting, and efforts by NASA to gain and maintain a "monopoly on the space launching business". Not much was said about the Challenger accident per se; it was pointed out that the Shuttle was never expected to be perfectly safe, and they left it at that. The show went on to describe the current status of the US space program (poor) and the status of the foreign competition (generally good). "If you absolutely, positively have to get into space", the show said, you can't do it here. The Shuttle is out of action, and booked well into the future once it gets going again. US defense contractors are beginning to develop a private launch capability (the Titan IV program was mentioned), but they won't be ready for a while. The American Rocket Company (AMROC) was portrayed very favorably; there was a lot of footage of AMROC facilities, test firings, etc., and NASA was represented as AMROC's main obstacle to further progress. However, AMROC doesn't expect a launch before mid-1989 at the earliest. The ARIANESPACE operation was presented as the only real operational launch operation in the West, but they're booked through 1991. Japan's progress was briefly noted. China was also mentioned. The Soviet Union's successful space program was a major topic in the show. Once again, the US government was criticized for interfering with private companies in the US which have tried to get permission to launch satellites on Soviet boosters. Arthur Dula was interviewed about his efforts to get the US government to reverse its position on this issue. He said that the laws intended to limit technology transfer from the US to the Soviet Union, being used to deny export licenses for US satellites, should not apply; he said the Soviet Union has agreed to allow US scientists and military personnel to accompany US satellites through the launch procedure to ensure that these laws are not violated. There were additional interviews with George Koopman of AMROC, Joseph Allen and Maxime Faget of Space Industries, Inc., John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists, and Gregg Fawkes of the US Department of Commerce. The future of the US space program was discussed, with emphasis on the recent White House proposals. The Space Industries, Inc. Industrial Space Facility (ISF) was discussed as an inexpensive way to get the US back into space quickly. The ISF was projected to cost about $500 million, and could be operational by 1991. While John Pike of the FAS opposed the ISF (a "questionable" expenditure, quoted NASA study purporting to show that the ISF was only useful for one "refrigerator-sized" materials-processing experiment, claimed private industry wouldn't be willing to finance it without a government "subsidy"), Gregg Fawkes of the US Department of Commerce supported the concept (and mentioned a Teledyne-Brown study showing the ISF to be suitable for many different sorts of experiments). Joe Allen of Space Industries, Inc. made the point that the ISF was not intended as an alternative to NASA's larger space station; he drew an analogy between a motor home without plumbing, and a house "where people could live". James Rose of NASA and Edward Hudgins of the Heritage Foundation were also brought in to make favorable comments about the ISF. NASA's own space station design was not explored in detail; a few mostly-negative comments were made (the high cost, ranging up to $32 billion, and the long delay until it becomes operational, possibly not until the turn of the century), and in general it was not represented as a Good Thing. The last part of the show was a Q&A session between Adam Smith, John Pike, and Gregg Fawkes. Pike came down hard on space in general, and the ISF, the NASA space station, and NASA itself in particular. He made many favorable comments about the Soviet space program. Fawkes charged the Soviets with offering launch services below cost (Adam Smith used the terms "dumping" and "loss leader" pricing, with which Fawkes agreed). Pike characterized Soviet launch pricing as "promotional pricing", and said they are "just competing" with NASA and private enterprise launch facilities, and that they would have to recover their costs eventually. A transcript of the show is available from: Adam Smith's Money World 267 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Transcripts are $3.00; be sure to mention the date of the show (2/21/88) and the subject (the space program). Standard disclaimers. I taped the show, but haven't reviewed it yet. Any errors are probably mine, and I have tried to keep my own opinions to myself. Peter N. Glaskowsky, Sysop, the John Galt Line TBBS. Voice: 305-235-1421 uucp: !uunet!gould!umbio!pglask Data: 305-235-1645 --- TBBS v2.0 * Origin: The John Galt Line -- (305) 235-1645 (135/13) SEEN-BY: 135/7 13 369/6 ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 88 03:29:40 GMT From: pasteur!agate!saturn!ucscb.UCSC.EDU!etrigan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (The Fantasy Demon) Subject: Re: H-Fusion Ramjet This was quite sometime ago that I heard/read this, but I believe that a ramjet would not work per se; or at least not in the way that I have seen it configured. Rather, it would act as a starship braking system (all those cute little molecules 'impacting' upon the ramjet surface/whatever). And a rather good brake at that... Any comments? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucscc!ucscb!etrigan | All my life, | |ARPA: etrigan@ucscb.ucsc.edu | I wanted to be somebdy... | |BITNET: etrigan@ucscb@ucscc.BITNET | I guess I should | |U.C.S.C. - Uncle Charlie's Summer Camp | have been more specific... | |R.S.V.P - Joe Di Lellio | -Anon | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | These opinions are mine. Mine, Mine, Mine! Hee hee hee he eheheheheheh... | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 88 00:43:52 GMT From: sdcrdcf!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@burdvax.prc.unisys.com (John L McKernan) Subject: Re: Operant conditioning In article <8802191856.AA24807@crash.cts.com> lll-crg!ames!sdcsvax!bass.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov writes: >You're right. NASA's primary mission is to waste taxpayer's money and >inhibit free enterprise. Reagan's recent policy announcement will >aid them in this by bolstering funding to STS and Space Station while >providing relatively no money for purchase of private launch services, >despite the wonderful sounding rhetoric to the contrary. Au contraire. As I understand it, the Reagan administrations new space policy (whatever that's worth coming all of nine months before the end of his presidency (we're talking bold leadership here!)) does more to provide a guarenteed market for private space companies than anything previously proposed. John L. McKernan. Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Servant's gossip in Aillas's castle: "Have you heard the latest?, GREEN jewelry is the new fad among the ladies of the court." ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 88 23:53:15 GMT From: cos!smith@uunet.uu.net (Steve Smith) Subject: Re: H-Fusion Ramjet In article <2052@saturn.ucsc.edu> etrigan@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Demonicus Fantasia) writes: >This was quite sometime ago that I heard/read this, but I believe >that a ramjet would not work per se; or at least not in the way that >I have seen it configured. Rather, it would act as a starship braking >system (all those cute little molecules 'impacting' upon the ramjet >surface/whatever). And a rather good brake at that... >Any comments? What you need to do is configure your magnetic fusion area as a travelling wave. That way, you don't have to bring the interstellar hydrogen up to the ship's speed before you burn it - it burns at rest. If I knew exactly how to do it, I would be writing patent applications instead of news articles! (:-) -- -- Steve (smith@cos.com) ({uunet sundc decuac hqda-ai hadron}!cos!smith) "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense." ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 88 20:32:59 GMT From: cooksys!walt@uunet.uu.net (Walt Cooksey) Subject: Re: NASA SPACELINK In article <1004@its63b.ed.ac.uk> bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) writes: :In article <4863@ames.arpa> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes: ::In article <3.2219060F@ankh.UUCP> John_Emmert@ankh.UUCP (John Emmert) writes: ::: NASA Spacelink is a data base of information designed ::: to be used by teachers but it is open for public use. ::: The number is 895-0028. ::Is there an area-code associated with this number??? :: :Or a country code, even? : Bob. :: 205 - Alablama -- Walt Cooksey COOKSEY SYSTEMS, INC (404) 469-2321 uunet!cooksys!walt CIS 76010,522 gatech!dscatl!cooksys!walt ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 88 19:07:38 GMT From: devvax!tomc@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tom Clodfelter) Subject: Re: Arecibo The Arecibo Observatory is part of N.A.I.C (The National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center) . N.A.I.C. is headquarted at Cornell University. It is operated by Cornell University for the NSF. *** Although NAIC works closekly with the Cornell astronomy department it is not responsible to it. It is a a different organization. *** Frank Drake was once Director of NAIC but I do not believe that Carl Sagen has ever held a post with the organization other than as a consultant. The current director is Thor Hagfors (sp!) and Riccardo Geovanelli (sp!) is the acting director at the observatory site. Although NRAO and NAIC often work together, they are very seperate organizations. NAIC is made up of a bunch of good people. I know...I used to work there and I miss them. =============================================================================== _#_ | W. Thomas Clodfelter . * # . . * . * . | JPL Systems Eng. Tech. Support _____#_____ *. . . . . | Jet Propulsion Laboratory . \ / . . . * . . . | California Institute of Tech. ____\_______/____ . . . . | MS 301-260/350 ###===|Galileo|===================######|## | 4800 Oak Grove Drive |_______| * . . * . . . | Pasadena, California 91109 * . O| |O . . . * . . | ucbvax!ames!elroy!jpl-devvax!tomc /___\ * . . . | tomc@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 1988 10:35-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Coercive Space Exploration > Just what is it about space interest groups that attract so many > anarchists? Who's to say that coercion is the exclusive province of > governments? The same thing that attracted our great-grandfathers to America and our grandfathers to the West. Space is the only place left. The only place where we can escape the vile clutches of statists. It shouldn't be the least bit surprising to find nearly ALL of us interested in space. I may be forced to live out my life under tyranny, but at least I can ensure that those who come after will live in freedom. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 88 19:31:43 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Navigation > ... I personally boycott the use of any publicly owned > tranport system. If there is a private alternative available, I will > almost invariably use it... I'm always amused by the people who boycott government-owned transit systems in favor of privately-owned cars... driven on government-owned roads patrolled by government police who demand that all cars display government license plates and all drivers have government-issued licences and obey the latest set of government rules. The street/road/highway system is just as much a government-owned transit system as a subway is. Sure, the cars are privately owned; so are the shoes I wear when I ride the subway. I do agree with Dale's original point, though, that the non-government nature of Geostar is an advantage for it. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 88 11:45:36 -0500 (EST) From: "George H. Feil" X-Andrew-Message-Size: 737+0 Subject: Re: Source of plutonium for RTG's I believe one of the reasons behind scrapping Hanford's N-plant is that the Pentagon has a "large" stockpile of Plutonium. Also, the dismantling of nuclear missile warheads in accordance with arms treaties with the Soviets should make some more fission material available. Has anyone heard about any plans for a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant recently? There is a tremendous stockpile of high-level waste in this country. Such a plant could extract plutonium from the spent fuel rods all the nuclear power plants are spewing out. Since we do have all this plutonium-rich waste sitting about, it would make much more sense to have an operating reprocessing plant than to be fissioning it out of uranium. -hal (gf08+@andrew.cmu.edu) ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 88 15:30:26 GMT From: ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Roger J. Noe) Subject: Re: Free-fall sex I've cross-posted this to rec.scuba to follow-up this specific topic. The whole subject should be understood to be partially humorous. (Yes, I know that's obvious to 98% of you, but the other 2% . . .) In article <8218@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU>, seldon@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU (Joe Walker) writes: > well...If someone really wanted to find out what it's like..find a willing > partner and get some diving belts to make yourself nutraly boyant..and jump > into a pool. > > I'm not suggesting the REAL act, but you could really see what positions would > work.. > (nutral boyancy (sic) is where an object submereged in water niether sinks or > floats..thus simulating zero-gee.) Why do you think warm-water scuba diving and snorkeling are so popular? Somewhat more seriously, Joe Walker is correct that neutral buoyancy is one of the best ways to simulate free-fall for extended periods of time without going into orbit. (I guess you could try a quickie on NASA's "vomit comet", a converted cargo plane that makes repeated parabolic dives to produce free-fall conditions - for something like 30 seconds at a pop. Oops, sorry.) The NASA astronauts spend a pretty fair amount of time in one of their facilities designed for weightless simulation: large "swimming pools", something like 25 feet deep (all around) and large enough to accommodate astronauts and quite a bit of gear. Astronauts who have actually been in EVA (extravehicular activity) situations have reported this to be a very good simulation. This leads me to believe that this suggestion might be pretty much on the mark. It sure would give new meaning to the terms "skin diving" and also "buddy breathing". I can see some problems with it: 1. You would have to include breathing apparatus (an air tank and regulator) since true neutral buoyancy requires complete submersion, not just enough to keep everything below your neck underwater. Breath-holding without such apparatus is not an optimal solution, because you'd have to keep coming up for air. (No additional comment.) 2. You'd need masks to see what's underwater. Fins would not be necessary but a snorkel could prove interesting. 3. If scuba gear is to be used, your mouth would be otherwise occupied for at least most of the time. You'd also have to remember to keep breathing normally and never hold your breath. That could be difficult. 4. If in open water, environmental conditions would have to be nearly perfect as you'd have to do without a BCD (buoyancy compensating device, for you non-divers; basically an inflatable vest) and so much as a skin-tight Lycra suit, as both would be frustrating obstructions. The temperature of the water would need to be up around 30C (86F) to remain comfortable for any length of time. (Goose flesh is such a turn-off.) I guess a private pool is the only really good alternative. If properly chlorinated you also wouldn't have to worry so much about infections as you would in open water. 5. Given the lack of BCD and wet suit you would only need minimal weights (e.g. ankle weights) to counteract natural buoyancy. Given a full tank on your back, you may in fact be negatively buoyant rather than neutrally. Being able to dispense with weights is definitely an advantage! Given sufficiently motivated individuals it's still possible. Even a small positive buoyancy by jumping in a pool with absolutely nothing on would be pretty close to free-fall (maybe 0.1g?) and avoids many of the problems that complete submersion necessitates. While I have heard vague and loose talk on dive boats on the way out to a dive site, I don't really know anyone who reports with credibility having had first-hand (hmm..) experience in this particular aquatic activity. Any volunteers? -- What does it sound like when someone shouts "Oh, god" underwater? Roger Noe {ihnp4|clyde}!uniq!rjnoe Uniq Digital Technologies +1 312 879 1566 Batavia, Illinois 60510 41:50:56 N. 88:18:35 W. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #150 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 1 Mar 88 06:20:14 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07861; Tue, 1 Mar 88 03:18:25 PST id AA07861; Tue, 1 Mar 88 03:18:25 PST Date: Tue, 1 Mar 88 03:18:25 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803011118.AA07861@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #151 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 151 Today's Topics: Mir elements Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. Re: Starchart Re: No wonder we're in trouble... Re: Free-fall sex Re: H-Fusion Ramjet Re: Free-fall sex Third Stage Engine: Ariane Rocket German Satellite declared dead Looking for solar insolation data Re: Free-fall sex Re: No wonder we're in trouble... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Feb 88 21:07:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements Mir 1 16609U 88 48.86895274 0.00071701 43307-3 0 737 2 16609 51.6324 328.0640 0014085 113.6084 246.8195 15.76829672114845 Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 73 Epoch: 88 48.86895274 Inclination: 51.6324 degrees RA of node: 328.0640 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0014085 Argument of perigee: 113.6084 degrees Mean anomaly: 246.8195 degrees Mean motion: 15.76829672 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00071701 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 11484 Semimajor axis: 6717.52 km Apogee height*: 348.83 km Perigee height*: 329.90 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 88 21:48:06 GMT From: pyramid!oliveb!amdahl!nuchat!flatline!erict@decwrl.dec.com (eric townsend) Subject: Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. In article <713@esunix.UUCP>, bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes: > You have to be careful with nuclear materials. But, you have to be reasonable > about assesing risks. The word "plutonium" has you jumping out of your skin > with fright. I'll bet the word "coal" doesn't frighten you at all. But I'll > bet that the coal industry kills more people every year than the plutonium > industry does. My worries about the plutonium (at the time of the posting) were directly related to my misunderstanding of the isotope generaters and all the stuff that I've received so much email about... I am worried about coal. I think coal and hydrocarbon fuels in general are a really bad idea. I also wish solar powered everything would become economical... I've read a lot of stuff on alternative energy that leads me to beleive it'd be quite easy. Solar powered launch vehicles, anyone? > Bob Pendleton > Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland > UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet > Alternate: {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet > I am solely responsible for what I say. -- Just say NO to skate harassment. | Just another journalist with too much If I wish really hard, will IBM go away forever? | computing power.. Girls play with toys. Real women skate. -- Powell Peralta ad J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 88 10:59:00 PST From: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" Subject: To: "space" Reply-To: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" Government has no *practical* monopoly on coercion. People tolerate being "governed" (see the footnote in Robert Nozick's *Anarchy, State, Utopia* quoting Proudhon on what it means to be "governed") because they rely on governments to protect them from coercive individuals (criminals) and coercive groups (organized crime, foreign powers). The problem: governments stay in power by means of the things from which they are supposed to protect their clients (citizens), i.e., force and fraud. Anarchism appeals to many in the space colony movement because it is a strong ingredient of the "pioneer spirit," as government was one of the things the pioneers were fleeing; today, space is the only frontier left. (The government operated schools don't tell this to the kids because anarchists are "bad," but pioneers are "good.") The Soviets, who lead us in space, have a rich anarchist heritage. (Some of L. Neil Smith's characters are named after Russian anarchists.) It would be a gas if their expansion to space triggered a renewed interest in the works of Bakunin, Kropotkin, et al. Not impossible; many would-be space colonists in the US have enjoyed Ayn Rand, on whom anarchism has had more influence than her "Randroid" followers care to admit. -- Kevin "Mad Max" Bold |When governments are outlawed, only (BOLD@AFSC-SD.ARPA) |outlaws will want to govern. ------ ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 88 04:53:49 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watcgl!awpaeth@uunet.uu.net (Alan W. Paeth) Subject: Re: Starchart In article <571555366.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >Last year in Aug or Sep someone posted that a star chart would be >posted to net.sources around 1-Oct-87. I didn't see it on that date, >and neglected to keep checking. Does anyone have this software or have >pointers to it? The original StarChart was posted in early 1987 and provided output for the Tektronix, Pic format and TTY devices. It was upgraded throughout 1987 to include Greek star symbols, PostScript output and other niceties. It was posted to net.sources in Sep 88, and appeared in late November. This version (2.0) can be obtained by the moderator of net.sources, Rick Salz. Old articles in newsgroup net describe how to locate and request archived files. A set of upgrades and minor bug fixes to generate a version 2.1 was posted to sci.astro and crossposted to net.sources where it joined version 2 as an archive. Version 3.0 is due up in a few months -- this will add some new cartographic projections. Long term plans include upgrading from 9000 stars (to about magnitude 6.5 - a bit beyond visual) to about 250K stars (~mag 8.5). /Alan Paeth (author and poster) Computer Graphics Lab University of Waterloo ------------------------------ Sender: Wegeng.WBST207V@xerox.com Date: 26 Feb 88 14:58:44 PST (Friday) Subject: Re: No wonder we're in trouble... From: Wegeng.WBST207V@xerox.com To: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov, Wegeng.WBST207V@xerox.com There was one item in Dale's message that disturbed me. >It appears that there will be a severe shortage in launch facilities in >this country in the near future, and it is ENTIRELY a government >created shortage. Why? If it takes a couple years to get EPA permission to build a new gantry on an existing test range, then why not start the process NOW? Let's apply to build a whole bunch of the things while were at it. This seems so obvious that I must have missed something... /Don ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 88 16:59:13 GMT From: erc@tybalt.caltech.edu (Eric R. Christian) Subject: Re: Free-fall sex If you are really interested in underwater sex, I suggest you check out the X-Rated movie "Lure of the Triangle" (I'm serious). I've never actually seen the movie (no, really), but I have seen clips from it and they clearly explore a range of activities. The participants are wearing tanks and masks, and it appears to be filmed in a lake or ocean as opposed to a pool. I apologize if this message is a repeat, but from my end, it appears the original article did not get out. Please send me mail if you read this (also tell me if you got my previous posting). Eric R. Christian erc@tybalt.caltech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 88 15:09:12 GMT From: s.cc.purdue.edu!ain@h.cc.purdue.edu (Patrick White) Subject: Re: H-Fusion Ramjet In article <1012@cos.COM> smith@cos.UUCP (Steve Smith) writes: >What you need to do is configure your magnetic fusion area as a >travelling wave. ... - it burns at rest. I can see how one might get all of this idea to work except for getting enough H together to fuse.. only way I can think of requires moving it around. Can anyone think of any way around this? -- Pat White UUCP: k.cc.purdue.edu!ain BITNET: PATWHITE@PURCCVM PHONE: (317) 743-8421 U.S. Mail: 320 Brown St. apt. 406, West Lafayette, IN 47906 ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 88 03:02:03 GMT From: decvax!dartvax!eleazar!seldon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Joe Walker) Subject: Re: Free-fall sex Well...The ACTUAL act might be tough to do (as you stated above), but to just get arough idea of a workable position and *grimace* what the motion would be like, you could try it in water that was just below your chin and try holding your breath. *Don't look at me!! I didn't start this conversation!* On a more serious note: NASA has considered the possibilities of sex on long duration missions (Mars mission for example.) They were wondering if they should take into account the privacy required for intamacy in the design of crew modules. *Between two MARRIED couples of course!!* Such measures as this might be necessary to preserve an astronaut's sanity. *Oh well...* ( No flames please..I know this is a touchy subject for some people...) ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 88 09:54:04 GMT From: phri!dasys1!patth@nyu.edu (Patt Haring) Subject: Third Stage Engine: Ariane Rocket THIRD-STAGE ENGINE FOR ARIANE ROCKET PASSES TEST ARIANE ENGINE PARIS (FEB. 25) - A third-stage engine for the European rocket Ariane was test-fired Tuesday for a record time of 16 minutes and 40 seconds, without problems, an informed source said here Thursday. The test was carried out on a test-bench of the European Propulsion Company. The motor is to undergo two more identical tests in the next few days, the source said. The engine burns oxygen and liquid hydrogen, and ignites only at high altitude. In normal flight, it is supposed to operate for only 720 to 725 seconds. The testing is part of a program requested by the French National Space Studies Center (CNES) and the European Space Agency (ESA) following failure of Ariane flights blamed on the motor. -- Patt Haring {sun!hoptoad,cmcl2!phri}!dasys1!patth Big Electric Cat Public Access Unix (212) 879-9031 - System Operator Three aspects of wisdom: intelligence, justice & kindness. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 88 09:29:21 GMT From: phri!dasys1!patth@nyu.edu (Patt Haring) Subject: German Satellite declared dead GERMAN TV SATELLITE DECLARED DEAD AFTER FAILURE TO DEPLOY PANELS GERMAN SATELLITE PARIS (FEB. 25) - The West German television satellite TV-SAT1 has been officially declared dead after it failed to deploy its two solar panels, its French builders said. One solar panel failed to open up when the satellite was placed into orbit by the European rocket Ariane on November 21 and has remained blocked despite two months of efforts by West German scientists. Scientists had hoped to operate the satellite with one panel only but the eloped by West Germany and France under a programme launched in 1980. France's first television satellite, TDF-1, is to be launched by the Ariane rocket next September while the second West German satellite is scheduled for launching in February 1990. Foreseeing the loss of TV-SAT, the West Germany's postal service Bundespost, the operator of the satellite, had been negotiating with France's broadcasting body TDF for the possible leasing of several channels on the French satellite. -- Patt Haring {sun!hoptoad,cmcl2!phri}!dasys1!patth Big Electric Cat Public Access Unix (212) 879-9031 - System Operator Three aspects of wisdom: intelligence, justice & kindness. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 88 07:48:00 GMT From: orstcs!mist!koff@rutgers.edu (Caroline N. Koff) Subject: Looking for solar insolation data I need solar insolation data, preferrably AM0, for my solar cell modelling program. I am looking for data already in a file, so that I don't have to type it in! (I don't have an access to a scanner to automate this process.) Please reply to me directly at: UUCP: {tektronix, hp-pcd}!orstcs!koff CSNET: koff%cs.orst.edu@relay.cs.net Thanks in advance! ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 88 17:35:02 GMT From: thomson@cs.utah.edu (Richard A Thomson) Subject: Re: Free-fall sex In article <8262@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU> seldon@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU (Joe Walker) writes: > On a more serious note: NASA has considered the possibilities of sex on >long duration missions (Mars mission for example.) They were wondering if they >should take into account the privacy required for intamacy in the design of >crew modules. *Between two MARRIED couples of course!!* Such measures as this ^^^^^^^ >might be necessary to preserve an astronaut's sanity. Surely you meant two married persons? Perhaps you were trying to start a thread about free-fall orgies? Now that does increase the possibilities, doesn't it.... Rich Thomson ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 1988 17:56-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu To: Wegeng.WBST207V@xerox.com, space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: No wonder we're in trouble... > Why? If it takes a couple years to get EPA permission to build a new > gantry on an existing test range, then why not start the process NOW? > Let's apply to build a whole bunch of the things while were at it. > This seems so obvious that I must have missed something... What you are missing is very, very obvious if you happen to be (or have been) an entrepreneur. First, one must define who is the 'we' implied by the 'let us' in your statement. The large aerospace companies don't particular care, and can use political pressure and 'national defense' urgency unavailable to the smaller operator FOR THEIR OWN NEEDS. The government agencies don't need it for their own purposes, so they would rather spend the money on other things rather than be accused of underwriting private ventures. If 'we' is the entrepreneurial companies I was discussing, the problems are immense. The 2 year process is not certain to end in a license. I also noted that this is the time for an EXISTING test test range, assuming you can FIND a place to do it. I also noted that many suitable areas on those existing ranges have been removed from the running due to 'national historical landmarks of areas at both the Cape and Vandenberg. It also happens to be the case that large portions of KSC are a bird sanctuary. (The meat and bones type, not the aluminum and titanium birds we're interested in.) With limited possibilities on the existing national ranges, those who attempt to significantly expand capacity will be forced to search for new ranges. God only knows how many years and millions in legal fees it will take to get the permit, remove the demonstrators for the preservation of the anopholes mosquito, fight the injunction by the committee to remove radium from watchfaces, etc. 7-10 years would not surprise me at all if attempted on the coasts of the continental US. It is very difficult to justify the time cost of money to a venture capitalist when the success or failure of your entire operation is dependant upon the arbitrary whims of beauracrats and the possibility of many years of legal battles. Nothing scares them off faster than 'regulatory uncertainty'. I would go so far as to say that anyone stupid enough to invest millions of dollars for building gantry capacity for an unproven market, for an unknown future launch technology, requiring court and regulatory battles, with no possibility of a return on investment for 10 years, does not have the money to invest in the first place. Anyone who is familiar with feedback control systems can think this through quite clearly. The regulatory requirements are sticking a very large delay line in the feedback loop, and we all know this can lead to an unstable system. Capacity will tend to oscillate between massive undercapacity and massive overcapacity. The more violent the swings, the more severe the damage it will do to businesses on both ends of the swing. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #151 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 2 Mar 88 06:23:17 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09464; Wed, 2 Mar 88 03:21:20 PST id AA09464; Wed, 2 Mar 88 03:21:20 PST Date: Wed, 2 Mar 88 03:21:20 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803021121.AA09464@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #152 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 152 Today's Topics: New Road to Mars: Chicago-area lectures Mir predictions and Software Re: Choice of launch site (was Re: Erector set) data and long distances United Nations Press Releases ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 29 Feb 88 21:30 CST From: Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey Subject: New Road to Mars: Chicago-area lectures Original_To: SPACE *ahem* Ladies and gentlemen of the Net, I beg your indulgence while I toot my own horn a little... A number of groups in the Chicago area have asked me to reprise my slideshow on Mars exploration. I'll be giving this talk twice in March, and again on "Astronomy Day," April 23, though I don't have the location yet. All presentations are open to the public. Come if it sounds interesting. Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET SPAN/HEPnet: 43011::HIGGINS THE NEW ROAD TO MARS William S. Higgins Chicago Space Frontier Society Human exploration of Mars is emerging as a possible goal for the U.S. space program after more than a decade in eclipse. The third Case for Mars conference surveyed current technical ideas for robot probes, piloted missions, science objectives, Martian bases, Phobos and Deimos exploration, and obtaining useful resources-- such as fuel, air, water, metals, and building materials-- from the vicinity of Mars. This presentation will also cover combined rover and sample return missions, new mission profiles and trajectories, and possible hiding places for native Martian life. Friday, 4 March 1988 7:30 PM Northwest Suburban Astronomers Eisenhower Junior High School Hoffman Estates, Illinois *** AND ALSO *** Sunday, 13 March 1988 1:00 PM Chicago Society for Space Studies Adler Planetarium Auditorium Chicago, Illinois ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 88 10:03:23 GMT From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard Brezina) Subject: Mir predictions and Software Hello everyone! Well, today is the end of the Mir observing window for Florida and Texas; the window ended a few days ago for more northern parts of the States. The next window starts approximately March 28 to April 4, depending largely on your latitude. For those of you in other parts of the world (especially latitude-wise), you might have a window coming right now, so if you want to see Mir, don't put off asking! I now have 38 people on my prediction list, with more requests still coming. I have modified my tracking program so it runs by itself for everyone, and all I have to do is retype the predictions onto e-mail. During the next window, I'll be prepared and organized, and each of you who signed up will receive predictions well ahead of time. I am also thinking (following the suggestions of a few of you) about setting up a mail-response program that would send predictions automatically. Of course, it'll take a while to implement this. Many of you reported seeing Mir. It was most gratifying to receive letters filled with excitement from you, and they made my whole effort worth the while. Thanks for your interest! For those of you who requested software, I have to download it somehow onto this computer system, before I can sent it. Once I do that, I will notify you. -Rich (snowdog@athena.mit.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Sun 28 Feb 88 11:10:44-PST From: ~ Victor Von Doom ~ Subject: Re: Choice of launch site (was Re: Erector set) Many thanks to Eric Lee Green for providing some numbers on the cost of offshore oil platforms (Sumarry: Shallow Water: $100K, Deep Water: $100M, Land: $5K per acre). I do wish he (and everyone else) would be a little less quick on the draw when shooting down an idea: > Since contenental-shelf areas are generally under the protectorship of > ajoining nations (at least fisheries-wise & environmental regulation), > a free-floating spaceport is pretty much out of the question. Land is > a lot cheaper ($5,000/acre, as vs. 100k or more for a teeny oil > platform). Isn't it possible that a deep sea spaceport could be cheaper than a deep sea oil rig? Extreme stability may not be strictly necessary. And the environmental/legal/insurance hassles associated with land basing may well outway the hassles (plus additional cost) associated with a shallow water launch site (such as the Kingman Reef site under discussion). Like they say at 3M, an idea should never be killed, only deflected. > Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Joe Brenner J.JBRENNER%Macbeth@Stanford.edu ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 88 00:10:39 GMT From: uop!todd@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (Dr. Nethack) Subject: data and long distances Ok, with all the talk of space stations and moon bases, how are the data protocols going to be set up for deep space? I mean, you can hardly have a duplex conversation if the data is several minutes in getting there. What work is being done in this area? How are the problems overcome? Just waiting, I suppose? ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 88 02:38:43 GMT From: phri!dasys1!patth@nyu.edu (Patt Haring) Subject: United Nations Press Releases Reposted from: United Nations Information Transfer Exchange BBS (1:107/701 on the FidoNETwork) 1-212-764-5912 (3/12/2400 baud, 24 hrs) James Waldron, Ph.D. - Sysop Dorothy Nicklus - NGO Rep N.B. Items 1,5 posted to soc.women " 2-4,8,10,11,18 posted to misc.headlines " 6 posted to soc.culture.indian " 7 posted to talk.politics.mideast " 9,14,16,17 posted to sci.space " 12,13,15 soc.culture.african ************************ UNITED NATIONS PRESS RELEASES ************************ FRIDAY FEBRUARY 26, 1988 1 WOM/430 ------------------------------- Issued: 23 February 1988 COMMITTEE TO ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN COMMENTS ON INITIAL REPORT OF AUSTRALIA 2 HR/3231 ------------------------------- Issued: 24 February 1988 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION TAKES UP QUESTION OF RIGHTS OF DETAINEES AND PRISONERS (PART 1) 3 HR/3231 ------------------------------- Issued: 24 February 1988 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION TAKES UP QUESTION OF RIGHTS OF DETAINEES AND PRISONERS (PART 2) 4 HR/3231 ------------------------------- Issued: 24 February 1988 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION TAKES UP QUESTION OF RIGHTS OF DETAINEES AND PRISONERS (PART 3) 5 WOM/432 ------------------------------- Issued: 24 February 1988 STATUS OF MALIAN WOMEN DISCUSSED AS COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN CONSIDERS INITIAL REPORT OF MALI 6 BIO/2307 ------------------------------ Issued: 25 February 1988 NEW PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF SRI LANKA PRESENTS CREDENTIALS 7 BIO/2308 ------------------------------ Issued: 25 February 1988 NEW PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF SYRIA PRESENTS CREDENTIALS 8 HR/3232 ------------------------------- Issued: 24 February 1988 COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS CONSIDERS REPORT OF SESSIONAL WORKING GROUP 9 OS/1338 ------------------------------- Issued: 24 February 1988 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SUB-COMMITTEE DISCUSSES LIFE SCIENCES, PLANETARY EXPLORATION, ASTRONOMICAL RESEARCH 10 HR/3235 ------------------------------- Issued: 25 February 1988 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION CONTINUES DEBATE ON HUMAN RIGHTS OF DETAINEES AND PRISONERS 11 ICAO/710 ------------------------------ Issued: 25 February 1988 DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE ON AIR LAW ADOPTS PROTOCOL ON AIRPORT VIOLENCE 12 IB/4895 ------------------------------- Issued: 25 February 1988 PROJECTS IN CAMEROON, CYPRUS, REPUBLIC OF KOREA RECEIVE WORLD BANK SUPPORT; NIGER, MALAWI, BURUNDI GET IDA CREDITS 13 GA/AP/1838 ---------------------------- Issued: 25 February 1988 ANTI-APARTHEID COMMITTEE CALLS FOR DENUNCIATION OF 'NEW WAVE OF REPRESSION' BY SOUTH AFRICA AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS AGAINST REGIME 14 IAEA/1119 ----------------------------- Issued: 25 February 1988 INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY DEMONSTRATES EARLY NOTIFICATION SYSTEM FOR NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS 15 HR/3234 ------------------------------- Issued: 25 February 1988 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ADOPTS RESOLUTION ON SITUATION IN SOUTHERN AFRICA 16 OS/1339 ------------------------------- Issued: 25 February 1988 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SUB-COMMITTEE HEARS PRESENTATION ON SUPERNOVA 1987 17 OS/1340 ------------------------------- Issued: 25 February 1988 OUTER SPACE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SUB-COMMITTEE PREPARES REPORT 18 DC/2167 ------------------------------- Issued: 25 February 1988 CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT ON PRESENT STAGE OF WORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OS/1338 ------------------------------- Issued: 24 February 1988 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SUB-COMMITTEE DISCUSSES LIFE SCIENCES, PLANETARY EXPLORATION, ASTRONOMICAL RESEARCH The Scientific and Technical Sub-Committee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space this afternoon continued consideration of items on life sciences and planetary exploration. It then took up consideration of its agenda item on astronomy. Statements were made by the representatives of the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the United States, the Soviet Union and Australia. Following the meeting, the representatives of the Soviet Union and the United States presented slide presentation on life sciences, specifically with respect to biorhythms in outer space. The Sub-Committee will meet again at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow, 25 February. Statements ROBERT KNUTH (German Democratic Republic) said his country's activities in the field of space physics covered planetary exploration, planetology, planetogony and space plasma. A planetogonistic scenario had been developed that made it possible to describe any eventual sequence of the processes making up the planetary system and its evolved satellite systems, he continued. Scientific interpretation of the data received on Halley's Comet from the Vega spacecraft had led to remarkable progress in the visualization of the cometary nucleus, identification of its surface features, interpretation of the spectra of the cometary dust and reinterpretation of magnetic field and plasma measurements. Future activities envisaged by the German Democratic Republic would be carried out within the Soviet Phobos space research project, which was open to international participation, he added. KAROLY SZEGO (Hungary) said that last October the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union had organized a seminar to commemorate the anniversary of the first Sputnik and to consider future space activities. The seminar, in which Hungary had participated, had concluded that international co-operation must be promoted with regard to the peaceful use of outer space. Participants had agreed on the necessity of studying Mars, including sending a mission there before the end of the century. Stressing the advantages derived from bilateral and multilateral co-operation in outer space, he said the only current East-West co-operation in the field of space was in the joint activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) of the United States, European Space Agency, Japan and the Soviet Intercosmos programme. Hungary supported the Soviet proposal to establish a world space organization, which would prove to be indispensable. PETR LALA (Czechoslovakia) said the research conducted by his country had produced significant results in the field of X-ray astronomy and space solar physics. Those results had been made concrete with the development and production of instruments, such as the X-ray photometer and telescope. Evaluation of the data obtained from the EXOSAT experiment was now complete, he stated; the results were interesting. Interesting results had also been obtained with regard to the interplanetary magnetic field, solar wind and its interaction with the earth's magnetosphere, he continued, thanks to the Intershock project carried out from the Interkosmos Prognoz 10 satellite. HANS JOACHIM HAUBOLD (German Democratic Republic) said international co-operation in the field of astronomy was an excellent example of world-wide scientific co-operation. Scientists from a number of countries, including his own, had for years been involved in joint experiments, using balloons, rockets and satellites. That co-operation should be continued and enhanced. The Central Institute for Astrophysics of the Academy of Sciences of the German Democratic Republic was continuing its research on extragalactic astrophysics and cosmology, stellar physics, particularly solar physics and physics of the earth's magnetosphere, he went on. The Central Institute co-operated with observatories throughout the world. Astronomic studies from outer space, although still in their infancy, had already opened up new visions of the universe and provided new ways to promote peaceful international co-operation in outer space, he added. PETER G. SMITH (United States) stated that the goal of his country's activities in the field of space astronomy and astrophysics was to understand the origin and evolution of the universe and the fundamental physical laws governing cosmic phenomena. In 1987, there had been a rare opportunity to understand the phenomena born from the death of a star and the resultant rebirth of matter, he continued, thanks to the joint efforts of scientists from his and other countries. The discovery of a Supernova by the astronauts [Astronomers] Ian Shelton and Oscar Duhalde in the Las Campanas observatory of Chile had generated intense, world-wide scientific interest. No one had seen a supernova so close and bright since 1604, which was before the invention of the telescope. That discovery had enabled scientists to study the supernova in all the radiation wavelengths from the moment of its explosion. Last April, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) of the United States, in co-operation with a number of other countries, had launched a major scientific effort to detect and analyze the emissions from Supernova, he went on. That programme would continue until 1989 or later, and would facilitate satellite observations, balloon and sounding rocket missions, aircraft flights and radio observations. In order to link scientists together and analyze the data, the programme would rely on a computer communications network. B. KHABIROV (Soviet Union) said the Soviet planetary exploration programme had concentrated in recent years on the study of Venus. A station had been set up in Venus's atmosphere by landing modules and "Vega" probes in order to study the dynamics of that atmosphere. The "Vega" probe had passed alongside Halley's Comet. The goal of another international project, "Phobos", currently in the testing stages, was to examine from a distance Phobos, by overflying it at 50 or 70 metres. The project would enable scientists to study Mars from its orbit and to make plasmic studies. The Soviet Union's programme for the study of the solar system was currently involved in an intensive study of Mars, he continued. A satellite would be sent into the orbit of Mars, and a device equipped to take samples of the Martian soil would be sent to Mars. There were plans to make a brief landing on Mars by the year 2000. Reaffirming the importance of international co-operation in that field, he said that all scientists world-wide, particularly from the United States and the Soviet Union, should combine their efforts. Noting that those two countries had already agreed to co-operate in the study of Mars, he said other countries, especially developing countries, should take part in that research, both as observers and as participants. The Soviet Union, he continued, was planning to develop the "Vesta" programme in 1994 for the study of small celestial bodies. Probes would be sent to Mars, or near Mars and Venus. A probe would be sent to the asteroid belt and placed on one of the asteroids in order to take samples. In 1999, a study was planned of Jupiter, Saturn and Titan, one of Saturn's satellites. He drew the attention of the Outer Space Affairs Division to the fact that, in response to the request of the Sub-Committee and of the Working Group on the Implementation of the Recommendations of the United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNISPACE 82) to hold further colloquia for developing countries, the Soviet Union had said it was willing to organize a colloquium next year or in 1988 and, again this year, to organize one for 1989. The United Nations Space Applications Programme had turned down those two offers. The Secretariat should take due consideration of his country's offer. JILL COURTNEY (Australia) summarized the experiment in space medicine conducted by Dr. Leopold Dintenfass of the Department of Medicine of the University of Sydney within the framework of the space shuttle "Discovery" flight. That experiment involved testing the reactions of eight human blood samples to weightlessness, she continued. The samples were obtained from donors suffering from heart disease, cancer and kidney disorders. The analyses were done in the space shuttle and on the ground. The experiment had shown that red cells did not change shape under zero gravity, that the morphology of the blood remained normal and that platelet aggregation was evident on the ground but not under zero gravity. Dr. Dintenfass planned to fly another experiment on the shuttle during 1988. She also mentioned the research programme of Westmead Hospital on respiratory function during weightlessness, and enumerated two other collaborative programmes in space medicine, one with the United States and the other with Europe. She then referred to her country's pre-eminent role in the research conducted following the discovery of the supernova, and particularly the Woomera launching range. At the time of the supernova's appearance, Australia possessed the only flyable high energy gamma-ray detector operative in the world. VLADIMIR KOPAL, chief of the Outer Space Affairs Division, responded to comments by Mr. Khabirov (Soviet Union) on his country's offer to hold colloquia, saying he deeply appreciated the active participation of the Soviet Union in the Division's programmes, especially its offer to grant scholarships and organize seminars and training courses in co-operation with the United Nations. The Secretariat's report on the United Nations seminars, workshops and training courses scheduled for 1989 called for the organization, in co-operation with the Soviet Union, of an international training course on remote sensing applications in June 1989. ADIGUN ADE ABIODUN, a specialist in space technology applications, said a three-week training course would take place in the Soviet Union in 1989. Consultations could be held with that country to develop other joint projects. IAEA/1119 ----------------------------- Issued: 25 February 1988 INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY DEMONSTRATES EARLY NOTIFICATION SYSTEM FOR NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS VIENNA, 24 February (IAEA) -- A communications system designed to rapidly notify responsible national authorities about nuclear accidents having potential transboundary consequences was effectively demonstrated today to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors, the 35-member policy-making body of the IAEA. The system has been established by the IAEA pursuant to its responsibilities under the Convention on early notification of a nuclear accident, which was adopted in September 1986 by the IAEA's 113 member States. The demonstration included the use of the Global Telecommunication System (GTS) of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), which has been supporting the IAEA's work under the Convention. The demonstration was the fifth in a series of trials since 20 January 1988 to check the functioning of the modes of communication that the IAEA would use to provide information to national authorities under terms of the Convention. During the demonstration, test information was received by the IAEA from a nuclear station in the Federal Republic of Germany and immediately relayed through the GTS to designated contact points in countries around the world, which then confirmed their receipt of the information to the IAEA for purposes of the demonstration. During an actual emergency, the early notification convention requires States parties to provide the IAEA with specified information which the Agency would then transmit to its member States by Conventional and other modes of communication. The GTS is regarded as the most appropriate mode of communication for rapid transmission of large amounts of recorded meteorological and radiological data to a large number of contact points. The IAEA's early notification system is expected to become fully operational later this year following the Agency's issuance of a system manual and guidebook. Until the full operation of the system, the Agency will continue to utilize the same conventional modes of communication that have enabled its timely and reliable responses to actual or hypothetical events in the past. It should be emphasized that the primary responsibility for notification and emergency planning and preparedness remains with national authorities. The demonstration was part of the IAEA Board of Governors' consideration of the Agency's nuclear safety and radiological programme, and in particular measures that have been taken and are planned to further strengthen international co-operation in this area. The Board is expected to conclude their meetings, at which other Agency programmes and matters of international co-operation also are being discussed on 24 February. OS/1339 ------------------------------- Issued: 25 February 1988 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SUB-COMMITTEE HEARS PRESENTATION ON SUPERNOVA 1987 The Scientific and Technical Sub-Committee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space this morning heard a presentation on the Supernova 1987 by David Helfand of Columbia University. The Chairman of the Sub-Committee, John Carver (Australia), announced that the draft report of the Working Group on the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space had just been issued (document (A/AC.105/C.1/WG.5/L.19), and should be adopted this afternoon. Also, the Working Group of the Whole was to conclude its report and present it to the Sub-Committee. This afternoon, the Sub-Committee will also consider other matters, including the report of the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR), of the International Council of Scientific Unions on progress in space research during 1986-1987 and of the International Astronautical Federation (IAF) on notable achievements in space technology during 1987. The Sub-Committee will also consider its future role and work. OS/1340 ------------------------------- Issued: 25 February 1988 OUTER SPACE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SUB-COMMITTEE PREPARES REPORT The Scientific and Technical Sub-Committee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space held a brief meeting this afternoon, during which the Chairman, John Carver (Australia), announced that the Sub-Commitee would meet again tomorrow morning, 26 February, immediately following a 10:30 a.m. meeting of the Working Group of the Whole. The Sub-Committee will also meet at 3 p.m. tomorrow to adopt its report on the work of the current session, which began 16 February. -- Patt Haring {sun!hoptoad,cmcl2!phri}!dasys1!patth Big Electric Cat Public Access Unix (212) 879-9031 - System Operator Three aspects of wisdom: intelligence, justice & kindness. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #152 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 3 Mar 88 06:19:44 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11251; Thu, 3 Mar 88 03:17:35 PST id AA11251; Thu, 3 Mar 88 03:17:35 PST Date: Thu, 3 Mar 88 03:17:35 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803031117.AA11251@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #153 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 153 Today's Topics: Space and Anarchy: Statists eye Moon lasciviously Re: Space and Anarchy: Statists eye Moon lasciviously Soviets install new solar array on Mir in EVA Re: H-Fusion Ramjet Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. Object composition Re: sanity in space Re: sanity in space (was Free-fall sex) Re: Free-fall sex Re: sanity in space (was Free-fall sex) Re: Arecibo Re: Arecibo Arecibo Anybody going to Houston for Lunar Bases? Centrifuges on the moon Re: Free-fall sex ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Mar 88 04:33:21 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov (MacLeod) Subject: Space and Anarchy: Statists eye Moon lasciviously :> ... But even if that were true (which I personally doubt) it does not :> ameliorate the underlying fault of all government action; the use of :> coercion -- the initiation of force, to achieve social or political :> goal. :Just what is it about space interest groups that attract so many :anarchists? Who's to say that coercion is the exclusive province of :governments? :Phil Seen any land lately that isn't wearing a flag? Governments have such a sick craving for sovreignty that they'll claim every coral atoll that sticks up a foot over low tide, and spend gigabux fighting over the Falklands, which are utterly without natural resources, have miserable weather, and consist mostly of elephant seal wallows and thorny gorse. If you want to sit under your fig tree without anybody making you afraid, you'll have to do it on L5 or one of its brethren. While on this subject, I see that Harrison Schmitt, former astronaut and former State operative, has proposed the formation of a multinational (= lots of envious Statist dictatorships that have no conception of republican government, democracy, or civilization in general) body to divide up the Moon amongst countries desiring to colonize it, and to >draft laws and rules and governmental agencies< for those on the Moon. I suppose that our best hope is that such a body will have built-in conflicts of interest sufficient to assure that they will never get off square one, but it is >really< depressing to see Statists rubbing their hands in glee while dreaming about slave camps in the sky. Michael Sloan MacLeod ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 88 19:10:05 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Space and Anarchy: Statists eye Moon lasciviously In article <3128@drivax.UUCP>, macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: > ...and spend gigabux fighting over the Falklands, which are utterly > without natural resources, have miserable weather, and consist mostly > of elephant seal wallows and thorny gorse. The Falklands produce some very fine wool (and mutton, I suppose, from expired sheep), center on an extremely rich fisheries area which is currently being managed by the Brits so that the squid don't get over... umm...squided? (they're not fish, surely!), and a population that claims British citizenship. (But what do they know, right?) The squid (oh, all right...) fishery, btw, is being managed in an interesting fashion: the limits are being set well below the currently- assumed ability of the squid to replenish their numbers. Better safe than sorry. Sort of behavior that should be encouraged, I'd think. > While on this subject, I see that Harrison Schmitt, former astronaut > and former State operative, has proposed the formation of a > multinational (= lots of envious Statist dictatorships that have no > conception of republican government, democracy, or civilization in > general) My, my. Who are we referring to here? Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Adolph Schicklegruber, ...? Let's throw these rascals out before they can do any damage. Put our own rascals in instead, I suppose. > ...but it is >really< depressing to see Statists rubbing their hands > in glee while dreaming about slave camps in the sky. Interesting picture. (Are they all issued black cloaks and stovepipe hats?) I suppose that if you had the funds you could build your own slave camps in the sky. As far as that goes, if you can't get your funding together, you're not going to be making any sort of islands in the sky...you'll be stuck with either riding on their coattails, or never going beyond the dreaming stage. At least they're doing some- thing other than merely complaining. (Though, admittedly, there's a lot of that going around.) Until something better can be implemented (where're your boosters?), better to use them to advance your own goals than to drag them down because you don't approve of their choice of breakfast cereal. I haven't seen any evidence that *anyone* is getting into space (or is likely to do so in the forseeable future) sans "repressive coercion". > Michael Sloan MacLeod Excuse the bluntness, but either contribute something constructive or quitcher bitching. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Feb 88 18:37:19 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soviets install new solar array on Mir in EVA The current crew on the Soviet's Mir station, Valdimir Titov and Musakhi Manarov, held their first space walk on Feb. 26th. This four hour EVA was used to replace one of the quadrants of the third (verticle) set of solar panels on the Mir/Kvant complex. There was no statement exactly as to what type of solar cells were added (Silicon or Gallium Arsenide). Parts of the space walk were broadcast live on Soviet television. The crew is now into its 68th day in orbit. By the way it has just come to my attention that Owen Garriott, the Skylab 3 crewman which held the most hours of zero G time for currently active US astronauts retired recently (due to the shuttle problems). That leaves just John Young with 34 days experience and Paul Weitz (Skylab 2 & STS-9) with 33 days as the maximum time for active American space travelers (all higher time ones have left the program). An interesting point will develop if Jean-Loup Chretien, the French spationaut which spent 7.8 days on Soyuz T-6/Salyut 7 in June 1982, makes the expected 30 day flight to Mir at the end of this year. Then France will become the nation which has an active astronaut with the most orbital experience outside of the Russian cosmonauts, and the USA moves into third place there. One point - all his time will be obtained on Soviet space stations. While people here are still trying to put up the Industrial Space Facility, a man tended free flyer with no life support system, the Soviets have continued to gain experience on board a real space station. Let us not assume that ISF can every let us do what the Russians are doing now. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 88 00:29:06 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: H-Fusion Ramjet > This was quite sometime ago that I heard/read this, but I believe that > a ramjet would not work per se; or at least not in the way that I have > seen it configured. Rather, it would act as a starship braking system > (all those cute little molecules 'impacting' upon the ramjet > surface/whatever). And a rather good brake at that... This is the standard objection to the interstellar ramjet by people who feel qualified to comment but haven't bothered to read any of the technical papers about the concept. The problem has been understood for a long time, and solutions to it are not (conceptually) difficult. You just have to decelerate the incoming gas (with respect to your ship) in a reversible way, so you can accelerate it again as it leaves your exhaust nozzle. For example, assuming the input gas is ionized and the protons are the only thing you care about (they carry most of the momentum), just charge your ship to a high positive voltage. This will decelerate the protons as they approach, and then accelerate them again as they leave. Yes, there are drag problems with ramjets, but they just make the design harder; they don't make it impossible. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 88 00:30:34 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Payload of shuttle flight directly after last Challenger. > Solar powered launch vehicles, anyone? Sure: a solar power satellite is the obvious power supply for a big laser launcher! Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Mar 88 12:31:07 -0500 (EST) From: Chris Beasley Subject: Object composition Well, my last message seems to have been truncated a bit. The line eater is getting sneakier all the time. :^} What I was questioning about was how do you go about detecting the composition of objects in space. If I want to form a company that is going to mine asteroids for their metals, how do I remotely measure their compositions? Chris ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 88 16:28:53 pst From: Eugene N. Miya Subject: Re: sanity in space Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: >In article <8262@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU> seldon@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU (Joe Walker) writes: >>Such measures as this might be necessary to preserve an astronaut's sanity. >Forcing the crew to deal with each other on more levels might detract >from the success of the mission. I don't think it's appropriate for me to discuss the orginal topic which brought this up. I discussed some of it in private communication with another net person about 3 years ago since it was one of his desires. {I was going to say something else, but, naw....} Take celebate astronauts ;-). Regarding sanity, married couples, etc. We have some knowledge of this from Antarctic and expedition research. The general concensus is that it tends to increase tension. Friends back from K2, Everest, and other places ABSOLUTELY refuse to take women on their climbs. Arlene Blum, another climbing partner in year past, won't take men on some of her bigger trips. This contrasts which mixed crews at the South Pole who do seem to adapt and get along. A college roommate was the only woman an a 12 person crew of a boat for 3 months. So you had better listen to female responses more than male responses. This is a major problem. I should disclaim any policy statement for the Agency on this one. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 88 22:12:29 GMT From: huntting@boulder.colorado.edu (Bradley Enoch Huntting) Subject: Re: sanity in space (was Free-fall sex) In article <8262@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU> seldon@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU (Joe Walker) writes: >On a more serious note: NASA has considered the possibilities of sex on >long duration missions (Mars mission for example.) They were wondering >if they should take into account the privacy required for intimacy in >the design of crew modules. *Between two MARRIED couples of course!!* >Such measures as this might be necessary to preserve an astronaut's >sanity. About this... What has been proposed for dealing with the group dynamics of long space missions. It isn't a trivial problem. It would seem that maintaining functional *working* relationships would be enough of a chore. Forcing the crew to deal with eachother on more levels might detract from the success of the mission. :-) -brad huntting huntting@boulder.colorado.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Feb 88 15:44:59 GMT From: decvax!dartvax!eleazar!seldon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Joe Walker) Subject: Re: Free-fall sex > *Between two MARRIED couples of course!!* YES I did make a grammerical mistake!!!! I APOLOGISE *sniff*..... Geez!!! You people are harsh....My thesaurus is going to commit suicide... FOR SANITY'S SAKE, Here is how it SHOULD read: *Between A MARRIED COUPLE of course!!* ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ AAAAAAUUUUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHH.... Joe Walker ------------------------------ Date: 29 Feb 88 15:52:02 GMT From: decvax!dartvax!eleazar!seldon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Joe Walker) Subject: Re: sanity in space (was Free-fall sex) Yes, I see your point. But I don't think NASA was thinking of coersing (sic) the astronauts into a relationship, they were considering the possibilities of one developing. Of course, this is all speculation. I don't trust my data too much because it's just stuff I remember reading a long time ago, I may have my facts crooked. I do think that it is a valid subject for thought... Joe Walker E-Mail: | BITNET: Seldon@D1.Dartmouth.EDU | UNIX:seldon@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU| ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 1988 18:58-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Arecibo Actually, I think it was Drake (Sagan may well hve been involved too) who used Arecibo to transmit a message in the direciton of the Hercules cluster back around 1962. It may have been done as a part of the 'christening' of the facility. My reference is at home so I can't check at the moment, but I'm pretty sure it was not done in 1977. I'm open to authoritative correction. Henry?... ------------------------------ Date: 29 Feb 88 01:21:36 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Arecibo Frank Drake did it as part of the re-dedication ceremony held in 1974 when Arecibo was upgraded with a new dish surface and a high-powered transmitter (for planetary radar astronomy). Sagan was peripherally involved. Target was M13 in Hercules. A quick look at references doesn't reveal anything of note happening in 1962. This is possibly confusion with some of Drake's early SETI work, notably the first actual attempt to listen for extraterrestrial signals, his Project OZMA in 1960. (Ref: Drake's chapter in "Murmurs of Earth", Sagan et al., Random House 1978.) Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 29 Feb 88 14:09:58 GMT From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org (James Symon) Subject: Arecibo So how far away is M13 in Hercules? When is the reply due? Jim Symon Internet:symon@cs.unc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Feb 88 20:44 CST From: Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey Subject: Anybody going to Houston for Lunar Bases? Original_To: SPACE I am planning to attend the Second Symposium on Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century, which will be held in Houston the first week in April. I'd like to hear from anyone who also plans to be there. Please send me e-mail if you can; don't post to the newsgroup unless your message is of general interest. Bill Higgins HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET SPAN/HEPnet: 43011::HIGGINS PaperMail: Mail Station 355 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Box 500 Batavia, IL 60510 (312)293-1050 ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 88 02:04:54 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!Mitchell_K_Hobish@uunet.uu.net Subject: Centrifuges on the moon Can anyone suggest any *good* rationale for placing a life sciences-rated centrifuge on the Lunar surface, as opposed to (or, perhaps, in addition to) having one or more in orbit? ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 88 00:22:53 GMT From: devvax!jplpro!des@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Smyth) Subject: Re: Free-fall sex In article <4184@blia.BLI.COM> heather@blia.BLI.COM (Heather Mackinnon) writes: >What do you do about lubrication underwater? It works, don't worry. I would demonstrate it for you, but my wife would object. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #153 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 4 Mar 88 06:17:52 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12905; Fri, 4 Mar 88 03:16:06 PST id AA12905; Fri, 4 Mar 88 03:16:06 PST Date: Fri, 4 Mar 88 03:16:06 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803041116.AA12905@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #154 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 154 Today's Topics: Re: data and long distances Re: sanity in space Mir predictions and Software Progress 34 leaving USSR's Mir and more Soviet marketing moves Re: space news from Feb 1 AW&ST RE: Space and Anarchy Solar power launching John Glenn's heat shield ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Mar 88 04:32:47 GMT From: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) Subject: Re: data and long distances In article <1154@uop.edu> todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) writes: > >Ok, with all the talk of space stations and moon bases, how are >the data protocols going to be set up for deep space? > >I mean, you can hardly have a duplex conversation if the data is >several minutes in getting there. > >What work is being done in this area? > >How are the problems overcome? Just waiting, I suppose? Batch processing? ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 88 01:23:47 GMT From: devvax!jplpro!des@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Smyth) Subject: Re: sanity in space eugene@PIONEER.ARC.NASA.GOV (Eugene N. Miya) writes: > >Regarding sanity, married couples, etc. We have some knowledge of this >from Antarctic and expedition research. The general concensus is that >it tends to increase tension. Friends back from K2, Everest, and other >places ABSOLUTELY refuse to take women on their climbs. Arlene Blum, >another climbing partner in year past, won't take men on some of her >bigger trips. This contrasts which mixed crews at the South Pole who do >seem to adapt and get along. A college roommate was the only woman an a >12 person crew of a boat for 3 months. So you had better listen to >female responses more than male responses. This is a major problem. I've spent my whole life sailing yachts, and have sailed transoceanic 5 times, and countless other extended adventures which have some of the sociological problems of an extended space voyage. I have yet to observe the need for such sexist regulations as "nobody except those of the same sex" except when some of the participants are social retards. True, a very large percentage of the population is socially retarded, so there have been voyages where such a rule just might have filtered out the most offensive participants. For example, when there are 10 men and 2 women, a "no men allowed" rule would have significantly reduced the problems on-board :-) What I HAVE found is that when people get along easily for one extended voyage, they tend to on repeated extended voyages, even when a decade or more separates the voyages. What I have NOT been able to do, however, is predict with any great accuracy which people will be compatible, and which people will not. The best way is just to give it a try. If most of the people on any given voyage have worked well together on a previous voyage, a few "unknowns" can safely be introduced without the likelyhood of too much grief. The best rule of thumb is to do any adventure with the very fewest people possible. Regarding the issue that really started this entire string of articles (sex on space missions) I would assume it is as important in space on an extended mission as it is to the participants in extended times of stress and overwork on Earth. If sex is not important to them on Earth in such situations, then it probably will not be important to them on space missions. If it is, then it will be on a mission too. For me, I like it. It is not something so important that I would refuse a trip to Mars if I couldn't take my wife along ... but it sure would be nice!!! Only the Russians know for sure! Unmanned probes will never let on :-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Mar 88 10:09:50 EST From: loeb@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU To: snowdog@athena.mit.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Mir predictions and Software I'd like to see Mir too. (Cambridge, MA) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Mar 88 15:01:34 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Progress 34 leaving USSR's Mir and more Soviet marketing moves The Soviet crew on the Mir/Kvant complex, Valdimir Titov and Musakhi Manarov, have just finished refueling the station with from Progress 34 tanker, adding about 1 tonne of oxidizer/fuel. Currently they are filling the vehicle with garbage and in about a day or so they will separate the Progress from Mir, sending it for a reentry destruction. When that happen they will boost the station using the Progress' rockets. NOTE to Mir watchers: any Mir visibility times after Mar 3rd are probably suspect until the data from these maneuvers appears in the station's orbital parameters. There is now information from several sources now that the Russians will launch two 'Star' expansion modules (20 tonne, 50 cubic meter additions) to Mir this fall/winter. These will be sent up very close together in time, probably so that the station will have only a limited period with one module docked. That would make the station asymmetric and produce difficulties in balancing it against the gravity gradient of the earth, where as two module would make it symetric about the axis of the Mir core. There are indications that this will occur before the French cosmonaut flies to Mir later this year. The West German firm, Kayser Threde, which signed up with the Russians for material processing on their "Foton" (or Photon) satellites has now paid them a non-refundable 100,000 Marks ($150,000 US) up front money for the first flight. With regard to the recent purchase by Payload Systems of processing time on Mir for crystal growth experiments a snag has occurred. Rep. Nelson (from the Florida district of the Kennedy Space Center if I remember correctly) has vowed to hold committee meetings on this to try and block the sale. He has been quoted as saying that if it turns out that the project is legal under the current laws then new laws should be made to make it illegal. European and Japanese biotech companies will just love that - they will be able to do such work in Zero G for years before American business can do so. Since the crystals are proteins which are used to obtain the structure of materials slated for bioengineering production it will give them a real advantage down on earth. It may be embarrassing to have to do such deals with the Russians, but if these prove that useful products come from orbit then it will be for the best in the long run. Somehow the idea of selling them US surplus grain (which is piling up in bins) and getting back orbital processing time on a space station seems like a great deal to me for this country. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 88 20:19:09 GMT From: microsoft!mikewa@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Walma) Subject: Re: space news from Feb 1 AW&ST Pardon my ignorance, but what is scheduled to go up on the August fourth launch? Mike Walma ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Mar 88 09:45 EST From: GODDEN%gmr.com@relay.cs.net Subject: RE: Space and Anarchy In Space 8/153, amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov (MacLeod) writes: >Seen any land lately that isn't wearing a flag? Governments have such a >sick craving for sovreignty that they'll claim every coral atoll that >sticks up a foot over low tide, ... I noticed something long ago of interest here. At the intersection of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait there is a large diamond-shaped chunk of land NOT enclosed by anyone's borders. In my atlas it has 'neutral zone' written in it. I'm sure there's some story behind it, but I don't know what it is. In any case, maybe the anarchists can set up shop in the desert. They could even build themselves a spaceport! -Kurt Godden ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1988 11:18 EST From: Bob - GWU SEDS Subject: Solar power launching To: Solar power launching can be accomplished in a number of ways. The problem of collection of the needed solar power is only really available from a solar power station (SPS). All other systems that I am familar with lack the concentration of energy to get out of the Earth's gravity well. Assuming the existence of an SPS (5-20 Gigawatts) there are a few options: 1. Lazer launch - current and best designs only allow a small payload on the order of 2 kilograms. Additionally a reasonable quantity of fancy (impure & expensive) ice must be thrown into the upper atmosphere as reaction mass. The offsets the environmental concerns that prompted the question. 2. Beam Power - would use microwave or laser to power an electric engine, maximizing the payload as percentage of launch mass. I'm not convinced the the engines will be powerful enough for launch. Air to space and intraspace transport, this is great. 3. Mass Driver - a large scale mass driver (electromatic catapult) from the upper atmosphere has promise, but drag and other inherent problems seem to negate the function of this method from the ground to air realm. This method is incidently economic and clean given an SPS. 4. Storage of Solar Power for non-direct use - This basic idea, is that the form of the energy may be inconvienent as the sun provides it. If we take that energy and store it in some form (as in fact most of our energy is), preferablly clean and renuable. This might include the separation of water into hydrogren and oxygen for latter burning. Unfortunately, hydrogen doesn't store well, and it may not be a good idea to dump large amounts of (admittedly ultra-pure) water into the upper-atmosphere. The shuttle is only a tiny amount, but if we multiply that by a hundred or a thousand, things might turn nasty in terms of greenhouse effects. 5. Directly riding an SPS lazer - the nuttiest idea I've seen, if you have a hollow centered beam, it is possible to build a two-man vehicle to ride up the power shaft based on the reflecting of the beam. I personally won't go near it. If your intersest is propultion in free space -where environmental impact is a non-sequitor- ion, electric, solar sails, and mass drivers are the obvious solar powered technics. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 88 00:11:35 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: John Glenn's heat shield Just saw a NASA AT WORK episode on my local cable concerning John Glenn's Mercury orbital mission. In the book THE RIGHT STUFF there is a bit of discussion about the cover up that ground did with regard to the warning light that showed that the heat shield has detached from the capsule. I don't remeember how late in the three orbit mission the light was discovered, but the decision to keep the retro pack and straps connected came less than five minutes before Glenn had to retract the scope manually and to override pack jettison. Ground told him what to do and told him that they coldn't tell him then when he asked what the trouble was. After he went to work on the pressing matters, they told him. Is that how it was or was there more to it than that? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #154 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 5 Mar 88 06:19:07 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14509; Sat, 5 Mar 88 03:17:14 PST id AA14509; Sat, 5 Mar 88 03:17:14 PST Date: Sat, 5 Mar 88 03:17:14 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803051117.AA14509@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #155 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 155 Today's Topics: NASA SpaceLink sample ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Mar 88 08:43:25 GMT From: sonia!khayo@locus.ucla.edu (Erazm J. Behr) Subject: NASA SpaceLink sample I'm going to be flamed for posting a 14K pile of propaganda ... :-) Here is a sample (short) session on the SpaceLink BBS; the phone # (*including* the area code) is (205) 895 0028 [Huntsville, Alabama] W E L C O M E to NASA SPACELINK A Space-Related Informational Database Provided by the NASA Educational Affairs Division Operated by the Marshall Space Flight Center On a Data General ECLIPSE MV7800 Minicomputer ******IMPORTANT!****** Do not press RETURN until you have read the following information. You are about to be asked to provide a Username and a Password. If this is your first call to NASA Spacelink, Enter NEWUSER as your Username and enter NEWUSER as your Password. If you have called before, enter your assigned Username and Password. You may now press RETURN, or To redisplay this message press CONTROL-D. AOS/VS 7.57.00.00 / EXEC-32 7.57.00.00 2-Mar-88 2:19:26 @CON3 Username: XXXXX Password: -------- Last previous logon 2-Mar-88 2:16:00 NASA/SPACELINK MENU SYSTEM Revision:1.13.00.00 NASA Spacelink Main Menu 1. Log Off NASA Spacelink 2. Review Introduction to NASA Spacelink 3. Current NASA News 4. Aeronautics 5. Space Exploration: Before the Shuttle 6. Space Exploration: The Shuttle and Beyond 7. NASA Installations 8. NASA Educational Services 9. Materials for Classroom Use 10. Space Program Spinoffs Enter your choice: 3 Current NASA News 0..Previous Menu 1..Main Menu 2..NASA Educational Programs 3..NASA News Releases 4..Shuttle Status Reports 5..Current NASA Speeches 6..Space Shuttle Manifest (Baseline October, 1987) 7..1987 In Review Enter your choice: 3 Current NASA News Releases 0..Return to Previous Menu 1..Return to Spacelink Main Menu 2..ASTRONAUT GROUP PROVIDES INTERFACE WITH SPACE SHUTTLE CUSTOMERS 3..NASA TO ACQUIRE SECOND SPACE SHUTTLE CARRIER AIRCRAFT 4..MAJOR MILESTONE REACHED IN RETURNING SHUTTLE TO FLIGHT 5..NASA TO SEEK SPACE ABOARD COMMERCIALLY DEVELOPED FACILITY 6..SHUTTLE CREW POLE ESCAPE SYSTEM TEST 7..SPACE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY GROUP FORMED CHAIRMAN NAMED 8..SHUTTLE SOLID ROCKET MOTOR NOZZLE JOINT TEST SCHEDULED 9..NASA BUDGET PRESS CONFERENCE 10..NASA CONTINUES ROCKETBORNE STUDIES OF SUPERNOVA FROM AUSTRALIA 11..SAN MARCO ATMOSPHERIC SATELLITE SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 18 LAUNCH 12..SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE ESTABLISHED 13..ADVANCED IMAGING SPACE RADAR COMPLETES FIRST FIELD TESTS 14..National Space Policy Press Briefing 15..NASA EXAMINES 72 NOZZLE BOLTS 16..PROPOSALS SELECTED FOR NEW SPACE EXPLORATION STUDIES 17..STOFAN TO RETIRE FROM NASA ON APRIL 1 18..NASA SUPERCOMPUTER STUDIES AIRCRAFT CONTROL PHENOMENON Enter your choice: 0 Current NASA News 0..Previous Menu 1..Main Menu 2..NASA Educational Programs 3..NASA News Releases 4..Shuttle Status Reports 5..Current NASA Speeches 6..Space Shuttle Manifest (Baseline October, 1987) 7..1987 In Review Enter your choice: 4 Current Kennedy Space Center Shuttle Status 0..Return to Previous Menu 1..Return to Spacelink Main Menu 2..KSC SHUTTLE PROCESSING REPORT FOR - Tuesday Feb. 23 1988 3..KSC SHUTTLE PROCESSING REPORT FOR - Thursday Feb. 18 1988 4..KSC SHUTTLE PROCESSING REPORT FOR - Friday Feb. 12 1988 (...) 18..KSC SHUTTLE PROCESSING REPORT FOR - Tuesday Dec. 15 1987 Enter your choice: 2 KSC SHUTTLE PROCESSING REPORT FOR - Tuesday, Feb. 23, 1988 DISCOVERY (OV 103) - OPF BAY 1 The left hand orbital maneuvering system pod was transferred to the Orbiter Processing Facility yesterday evening and is now on the hook in preparation for installation. Preparations are continuing to install the forward reaction control system (FRCS). Technicians have about 15 thermal blankets to install along with carrier panels and testing of a radio frequency wave guide in the FRCS cavity prior to installing the FRCS. Systems testing continues to prepare the orbiter for the upcoming August mission. The main engine controller on engine one was removed last Friday after a problem with its internal power supply was discovered. Another controller is being shipped to KSC and is scheduled to arrive this week. The engine flight readiness test (FRT) will be conducted after the spare controller has been installed. ATLANTIS (OV 104) - OPF BAY 2 The check valve line in the main propulsion system (MPS) was installed and passed the leak test. Preparations are underway today for the test of the MPS helium regulators. The regulators regulate the amount of helium pressure to the main engines during powered flight. The test is scheduled to be conducted Wednesday through Friday. Deservicing of one of the water coolant loops is continuing along with orbiter modifications. Technicians are scheduled to install the rudder speed brake's power drive unit today and tomorrow. The PDU directs the speed brake hydraulically. COLUMBIA (OV 102) - OMRF Removal of cold plates is continuing today along with scheduled orbiter modifications and inspections. STS-26 SOLID ROCKET MOTORS - RPSF Yesterday, the left aft skirt was transferred from the Assembly and Refurbishment Facility to the Rotation Processing and Surge Facility. The forward center segments are scheduled to arrive later this week. # # # # Current Kennedy Space Center Shuttle Status 0..Return to Previous Menu 1..Return to Spacelink Main Menu 2..KSC SHUTTLE PROCESSING REPORT FOR - Tuesday Feb. 23 1988 (...) Enter your choice: 0 Current NASA News 0..Previous Menu 1..Main Menu (...) Enter your choice: 1 NASA Spacelink Main Menu 1. Log Off NASA Spacelink 2. Review Introduction to NASA Spacelink 3. Current NASA News 4. Aeronautics 5. Space Exploration: Before the Shuttle 6. Space Exploration: The Shuttle and Beyond 7. NASA Installations 8. NASA Educational Services 9. Materials for Classroom Use 10. Space Program Spinoffs Enter your choice: 7 NASA Installations 0. Previous Menu 1. Return to Main Menu 2. NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. 3. Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif. 4. Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, Calif. 5. Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. 6. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. 7. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas 8. Kennedy Space Center, Fla. 9. Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va. 10. Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio 11. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. 12. Michoud Assembly Facility, New Orleans, La. 13. National Space Technology Laboratories, Miss. 14. Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, Md. 15. Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Va. Enter your choice: 2 NASA HEADQUARTERS Washington, D. C. 20546 NASA Headquarters is located at 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C., and also occupies other buildings in the District of Columbia. It has more than l,500 employees and administers the total NASA budget, which for FY l987 amounted to $10.5 billion. Dr. James C. Fletcher is administrator. NASA Headquarters exercises management over the space flight centers, research centers and other installations that constitute the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Responsibilities of Headquarters cover the determination of programs and projects, establishment of management policies, procedures and performance criteria; evaluation of progress; and the review and analysis of all phases of the aerospace program. Planning, direction and management of NASA's research and development programs are the responsibililty of six program offices which report to and receive overall guidance and direction from an associate or assistant administrator. The Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST) is responsible for the planning, direction, execution, evaluation, documentation and dissemination of the results of all NASA research and technology programs. These programs are conducted primarily to demonstrate the feasibility of a concept, structure, or component system which may have general application to the nation's aeronautical and space objectives. OAST has institutional management repsonsibility for Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.; Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va.; and Lewis Research Center, Cleveland. Dr. Raymond S. Colladay is associate administrator. The Office of Space Flight is responsible for developing and applying a capability that will permit man to explore space and perform missions leading to increased knowledge of man and the quality of life on Earth. To achieve this goal, the office directs the development of space transportation and the required supporting systems for man to perform missions in space. A major program now underway is the Space Shuttle, a space transportation system. The office is responsible for scheduling Space Shuttle flights, including the Spacelab, developing financial plans and pricing structures, providing necessary services to users, management of the expendable launch vehicles and upper stages, and management of NASA's advanced program activities. Space Flight also is responsible for institutional management of Kennedy Space Center, Fla.; Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.; Johnson Space Flight Center, Houston; and the National Space Technology Laboratories, near Bay St. Louis, Miss. Rear Admiral Richard H. Truly is associate administrator. The Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA) is responsible for the NASA automated space flight program directed toward scientific investigations of the solar system using groundbased, airborne and space techniques including sounding rockets, Earth satellites and deep space probes; for scientific experiments to be conducted by humans in space; directing the NASA scientific portion of the Spacelab program; and for the NASA contacts with the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences and other advisory groups. OSSA is responsible for the conduct of research and development activities leading to programs that demonstrate the application of space systems, space environment, and space-related or derived technology for the benefit of the world. These activities involve disciplines such as weather and climate, pollution monitoring, Earth resources survey and Earth and ocean physics. OSSA has institutional management responsibility for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and Goddard Flight Center. Greenbelt, Md. Dr. Lennard A. Fisk is associate administrator. The Office of Space Station is responsible for managing and directing all aspects of the Space Station program and to achieve the goals established by President Reagan in his State of the Union message of Jan. 25, l984. These goals include the development of a permanently manned Space Station by the early l990s; to encourage other countries to participate in the Space Station program; and to promote private sector investment in space through enhanced space-based operational capabilities. The Office of Space Station has overall policy and management responsibilities for the program. NASA centers responsible for developing major elements of the Space Station are the Johnson Space Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Goddard Space Flight Center and Lewis Research Center. Andrew J. Stofan is associate administrator. The Office of Space Tracking and Data Systems is responsible for all activities incident to the tracking of launch vehicles and spacecraft and for the acquisition and distribution of technical and scientific data from them. This office is also responsible for managing NASA's communications systems and for operational data systems and services. Robert O. Aller is associate administrator. The Office of Commercial Programs is responsible for managing and directing all aspects of the commercial use of space. The office has overall policy and management responsibilities for the technology utilization transfer program; the small business innovation research program; new commercial application of existing space programs to the private sector; and the establishment and management of the Centers for the Commercial Development of Space. Isaac T. Gillam IV is assistant administrator. NASA Installations 0. Previous Menu 1. Return to Main Menu (...) Enter your choice: 1 NASA Spacelink Main Menu 1. Log Off NASA Spacelink 2. Review Introduction to NASA Spacelink 3. Current NASA News 4. Aeronautics 5. Space Exploration: Before the Shuttle 6. Space Exploration: The Shuttle and Beyond 7. NASA Installations 8. NASA Educational Services 9. Materials for Classroom Use 10. Space Program Spinoffs Enter your choice: 1 EXIT THE SYSTEM? (Y/N) y LEAVE A MESSAGE FOR NASA? (Y/N) n Thank you for calling NASA/SPACELINK. Call again soon! Process 4 terminated Connect time 0:03:02 User 'XXXXX' logged off @CON3 NO CARRIER Eric ___________________________________________________________ Please use khayo@MATH.ucla.edu instead of CS.ucla.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #155 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 6 Mar 88 06:18:38 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15801; Sun, 6 Mar 88 03:16:57 PST id AA15801; Sun, 6 Mar 88 03:16:57 PST Date: Sun, 6 Mar 88 03:16:57 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803061116.AA15801@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #156 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 156 Today's Topics: Re^2: Free-fall sex Re^2: sanity in space (was Free-fall sex) RE: SPACE Digest V8 #153 When Stars Collide Re: Free-fall sex Info on the NASP Biosphere II project Let's Build a Space Station!!!! Re: data and long distances Hearing LaRouche Need info. on current fuel technology. Horizontal ascent into orbit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Mar 88 15:16:16 GMT From: mcvax!diku!ambush!kimcm@uunet.uu.net (Kim Chr. Madsen) Subject: Re^2: Free-fall sex In article <2696@emory.uucp> vicki@emory.uucp (Vicki Powers) writes: >Sounds kinky to me! I didn't realize that NASA would allow four >people to have sex together .... Funny it never occurred to me that NASA had to approve sex in space - it just seemed that too few women was ever sent into space and the first one to go there really was fucked up by NASA (-; Best Regards Kim Chr. Madsen. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 88 15:11:22 GMT From: mcvax!diku!ambush!kimcm@uunet.uu.net (Kim Chr. Madsen) Subject: Re^2: sanity in space (was Free-fall sex) Well, I never thought that it would come to this but here it goes ... Why are you suggesting that astronauts going on a long voyage is going to have problems with their sanity because of lacking sex! I mean sex is a wonderful thing, but you can manage without for long periods of time even for years - it has been practiced by a number of people including catholic priests. Well my main point is that whether to have sex or not in space should not be planned beforehand and as a cure for eventual break-downs or the like, but it should neither be banned or made impossible by sending crews on only one sex on a voyage. Lastly if free-fall-sex proves not to be such a great sensation one can either generate artificial gravity or use magnetic boots (though they might not be sexy) Best Regards Kim Chr. Madsen. ------------------------------ From: deskevich@bluto.scc.com Date: 3 Mar 88 17:46:00 EST Subject: RE: SPACE Digest V8 #153 To: "space" THIS IS MY FIRST ATTEMPT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SPACE DIGEST DIALOG OR WHAT EVER LOG YOU WANT TO CALL IT AND I WAS WONDERING WHAT GEOGRAPHIC AREA IS COVERED BY THE PARTICIPANTS. I SEE CANADIAN INPUTS AND AN CURIOUS IF INPUTS FROM AREAS OTHER THAN THE NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT ARE POSSIBLE. I DO HAVE A REASON AND MAY BE WILLING TO DISCUSS IT IF THIS INTERFACE WORKS. JOE D. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 88 01:35:22 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!CaptainDave@uunet.uu.net Subject: When Stars Collide What would be the effect of two stars colliding? Would the total mass and gravitational energy be enough to prevent a cosmic explosion, or would one, if it was much larger, just assimilate the other? What if the binarys are roughly the same mass? Does anyone have any opinions on these questions? David Nusbaum@cup.portal.com Dis claimer, Dat claimer, We all need claimers!!! ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 88 15:02:57 GMT From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) Subject: Re: Free-fall sex I have it on good authority that lubrication in underwater sex is not a problem. Regulating your breathing, on the other hand, is :-). kwr "Jest so ya know..." ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 88 20:16:00 GMT From: sundc!pitstop!texsun!texsun.central-relay.sun.com!convex!trsvax!authorplaceholder@seismo.css.gov Subject: Info on the NASP Dr. Max Waddoups, director of the General Dynamics NASP project (National Aero-Space Plane), gave a lecture about that plane to our IEEE meeting last night. Much of what he said I haven't seen posted to sci.space, although it may be available from other sources. Of course, much of what he said also had all sorts of qualifiers like "I can't tell you the exact numbers" or "I'm not authorized to reveal that compound", etc. The builder of the NASP, also known as the X-30, will be decided amongst collaboration/competition from three contractors for the airframe, and two contractors for the engines. He said this has resulted in much confusion on the who gets what data, with "many packages going to the wrong doorstep." This has resulted in many of the people on the project being more relaxed and open with ideas between contractors and NASA, much to the horror of GD and the DoD. This airplane will be one of the least dense aircraft ever built. Full loaded with fuel, it could quite literally float on water. This is because the fuel used is supercooled hydrogen slush, "about the same consistency as a snow cone", with a density of 6 lbs/cubic foot. This has earned the plane the nickname of "The Hypersonic Hindenburg". The outer skin will be a carbon-silicate polymer almost like the black tiles used on the shuttle. The inner fuel tank will be constructed of a material that has a zero coefficient of expansion, which will hopefully not spring leaks that have to be traced down by soap bubbles, like they do on the Atlas/Centaurs. The first design prototype will be rather small, "large enough for two passengers and a box of Cheerios." They plan having an initial fleet of three aircraft. He showed us several slides, one of which was the flight envelope of the X-30. On a chart with time on the y axis and speed on the x axis, the shuttle flight envelope was almost vertical on the ascent, with a more gracefull curve on the descent. That shuttle descent curve will be followed almost exactly by the X-30 on ascension as well as descension, meaning it will be traveling at Mach 15-20 from about 100,000 ft. until it achieves orbit. The other slide he showed us some projected test flights from Edwards AFB, each having a leisurely 2-G turn. The first was at Mach 10, and encompassed a circle over northern Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona. The second flight was at Mach 15 and included going over Nevada, Idaho, southern Canada, Lake Michigan, Mississippi, Texas and back to Edwards! They are looking into the possibility of using some of the new high temperature superconducting materials onboard for power transmission/ storage, since they have this really nice source of a very cold material available. The hardware for the computers will be massively redundant so that any stray radiation doesn't kill something. The operating system for the plane will probably be a derivative of a real-time Unix, with many Ada applications thrown in, as per DoD spec. They want to try to keep the software costs down to "no more than 25% of the cost of the plane." Another real problem they are having is sampling/sensing of the airflow outside. There would be no way they could just stick a Pitot tube out without it melting, so they are looking into ways of doing remote sensing of such things behind transparent panels. And speaking of transparent panels, they don't really want to have to figure out a way to put windows in the thing, causing much uproar with the pilots. He stressed this will be a very experimental and dangerous plane, fully deserving the "X" designation. Much of the data for the airflow and and such isn't available yet, and will require years of testing. He said, "we won't be sending any school teachers up in it anytime soon." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I hope I haven't butchered the details too badly, since I am doing this from memory. If so, perhaps you more knowledgeable types could correct me. -George Moore (gm@trsvax.UUCP) "Ok...which way to Ft. Lauderdale?" "How should I know? I only know what's inside your head, and you don't know the way from your house to a 7-11." ------------------------------ Subject: Biosphere II project Date: Sat, 20 Feb 88 13:48:34 CST From: stevens%antares@ANL-MCS.ARPA Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Does anyone have any information about the Biosphere II project ? I would like any information but in particular a mailing address for the project and/or e-mail address. Thanks. Rick Stevens Advanced Computing Research Argonne National Laboratory stevens@anl-mcs.arpa {ihnp4,decvax,sequent,mcvax}!anlams!stevens ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@bass.nosc.mil Date: Thu, 3 Mar 88 13:25:10 PST From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Let's Build a Space Station!!!! Glen Chapman writes: > Let us not assume that ISF can ever let us do what the Russians are >doing now. I agree. So let's build a properly conceived and executed space station! To bad NASA isn't doing anything remotely related to such a space station and isn't about to start. Maybe if the government would take that $30 billion and spread it around to several agencies including NOAA, NSF and guaranteed markets for certain kinds of space facilities, we might get SEVERAL properly conceived and executed space stations. Too bad we don't have any leadership in this country... maybe it's time to pack it up and move west (I live in California). Ah shucks... I like the U.S. I guess I'll just continue to work within the political system for real leadership. What are YOU doing to see a properly conceived and executed space station built? Jim Bowery PHONE: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 La Jolla, CA 92038 UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 88 08:09:23 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Re: data and long distances The distance problem applies to satelites in geosynchonous orbit, as well. radio wave take a noticeable fraction of a second to get there and back. That would play hell with high baud rates if not accounted for. A comsat expert might know how it's done. -- Doug Reeder USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!douglas Box 502 Reed College BITNET: douglas@reed.UUCP 3203 S.E. Woodstock 122 38' W 45 28' N, planet Earth, sol system Portland, OR 97202 `Seldon helps those who help themselves.' ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Mar 88 15:10:10 PST From: BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa Subject: Hearing Date: Fri, 4-MAR-1988 14:38 PDT X-VMS-Mail-To: SPACE After reviewing a tape recording of the House Subcommittee on Space Science Applications several times, I'm more convinced than ever that the function of Reagan's new space policy is to continue business as usual in our space program while giving lip service to privatization. When confronted about some of these issues by Rep. Packard (Ca), Fletcher hemmed and hawed until he finally admitted that there would be one commercial launch in 1989 and another in 1991. Also, Packard questioned the management of ALS booster development that sets up a business as usual relationship between NASA and a contractor rather than letting private industry take the existing technology and reduce it to practice in a HLV. While I'm no great fan of ISF (now known as CDSF or commercially developed space facility), it is one area that Fletcher seemed to be saying the right things about -- specifically that we need an early facility whose primary users are scientists funded by the government to accomplish specific scientific objectives, as opposed to immediate production runs of various materials. Of course, I think Fletcher had this one rammed down his throat and was making the right noises about it only because those are the noises necessary to justify the position he has to take. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 88 20:10:27 GMT From: agate!wheatena!web@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) Subject: LaRouche Did any one else see Lyndon LaRouche expounding the merits of space exploration on prime time television last night? I saw only the last 15 minutes of his presentation, in which he laid out his plan to build infrastructure, colonize and develop industry on the moon, and ultimately to colonize Mars. His plans were long range and visionary, extending well into the next century. This was broadcast on ABC between 8 and 8:30pm PST, and the portion that I saw was uninterrupted. The address, for those brave enough to risk it, is: The LaRouche Democratic Campaign PO Box 17068 Washington, DC 20041 Disclaimer: I am endorsing neither this candidate nor his views, but merely reporting the event. William Baxter ARPA: web@bosco.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {cbosgd,sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,ihnp4,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!bosco!web ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 88 22:24:08 GMT From: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) Subject: Need info. on current fuel technology. I would like some technical information about the different fuel technologies that currently exist. In particular: EXPULSION SPEED: of the fuel during thrust, FUEL/DEAD MASS RATIOS for the Shuttle and several boosters. It would help to clarify the questions too, since I know, for example, that the expulsion speed is as much a function of engine design as it is of the fuel being used. Is fission (or fusion?!) being seriously considered? ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 88 22:38:11 GMT From: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) Subject: Horizontal ascent into orbit Consider the following method for achieving orbit: STAGE 1: The craft takes off EASTWARD from a runway as a jet, rising to the upper stratosphere and attaining Mach 10 or thereabouts, STAGE 2: The boosters are activated for a short period to achieve a high elliptic orbit, with the starting position being the low point of the orbit ^^^ (*** This is why the flight is horizontal ***) STAGE 3: The boosters are activated again at the high point in orbit to circularise the orbit. (*** The flight is horizontal here, too ***) Has such a method been considered (say, in the old Dynasoar project)? What is wrong with it? The question is more pointed when it is considered that this method uses the energy from the boosters in the most efficient way possible (i.e. boosting during horizontal flight gives you the most angular momentum per expended energy). ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #156 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 7 Mar 88 06:19:52 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17125; Mon, 7 Mar 88 03:18:13 PST id AA17125; Mon, 7 Mar 88 03:18:13 PST Date: Mon, 7 Mar 88 03:18:13 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803071118.AA17125@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #157 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 157 Today's Topics: A conference space news from Feb 1 AW&ST The Public Consciousness name games Re: Coercive Space Exploration Re: Coercive Space Exploration ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Mar 88 19:59:09 GMT From: ndsuvax!ndsuvm1.bitnet!ud140469@uunet.uu.net Subject: A conference Hello folks! Below is a conference announcement I got from the Space Studies department at my school. Even though it doesn't mention it, papers for the conference are still being accepted, with paper briefs due March 15th. I'm not involved with the conference other than knowing the people who are setting it up. ******************************************************************************* First International Conference on Hypersonic Flight in the 21st Century The Center for Aerospace Sciences at the University of North Dakota, in cooperation with NASA, ESA, NAL/STRG, IEEE/AEES, AIAA, AAS and other government and professional agencies, will host the First International Conference on Hypersonic Flight at the University of North Dakota on September 20-23, 1988. Conference Committee members are: David C. Webb, General Chairman; Jerry Grey, Program Chairman; Ian Pryke, Coordinator of European Participation; and Tatsuo Yamanaka, Coordinator of Japanese Participation. All aspects of flight in the Mach 2 - Mach 25 regime will be discussed by speakers and panelists from around the world: vehicle designs, propulsion, artificial intelligence, materials, fuels, avionics, economics, markets, scheduling, airspace control issues, international cooperation and competition, environmental issues, human factors, social/legal/political issues, and other interests and concerns. For registration information contact: Mary Higbea Box 8216 University Station Grand Forks, ND 58202-8216 phone: (701) 777-3197 ************************************************************************ I don't think anyone involved with the conference is on the net, but I'd be happy to pass on any messages or questions to Mary. Scott Udell UD140469@NDSUVM1.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 88 03:32:11 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Feb 1 AW&ST [For the benefit of those who haven't been paying attention :-) and have complained because I don't always explain abbreviations, CRAF is Comet Rendezvous / Asteroid Flyby and AXAF is Advanced X-ray Astronomy Facility. I get very tired of typing the full names every time. (These are the top items on NASA's new-start wishlist, so they get mentioned a lot.)] Future of SDI's proposed quick-and-dirty heavylift booster for its Zenith Star space laser experiment is unclear, because people are accusing SDI of really wanting it as an early-SDI-deployment booster. Space station pressurized modules will not be built to a standard diameter. The US diameter will be the biggest that will fit in the shuttle, the European diameter will match that of Spacelab to permit reuse of equipment, and the Japanese would like to use the US diameter but their ground- transportation facilities can't handle something that size, so they will use an intermediate choice. [Just when you think you've heard the worst possible screwups, a still bigger one comes along...] Albert Gore (Dem. presidential candidate) comes out in favor of an international manned Mars mission and of "reversing the imbalance" in funding between DoD's space budget and NASA's. Pictures of the latest SDI Delta mission, being readied for launch. NASA will run out of space-station money by the end of Feb, and cancel the four prime contracts [!], unless NASA either gets its act together on leasing SII's Industrial Space Facility (Fletcher says NASA has no need for it [!]) or Congress relents on its insistence on this as a condition of station funding. So far NASA is firmly saying "no". As a result, there is talk of moving control of a government-leased ISF away from NASA. Congress says it cannot approve the large NASA funding boosts requested by Reagan unless, under the administration/Congress budget compromise, Reagan takes the money out of something else. NASA sets August as new STS-26 launch target, with Aug 4 the tentative specific date. This puts final stacking in early May, rollout in mid-May, and flight-readiness firing in mid-June. Various minor problems have turned up, but none seem unmanageable. Reagan sends new space-leadership proposals to Congress, but postpones release of the new Space Policy until a commercial-space-initiatives review is complete. The new commercial initiatives will include yet more pressure on NASA to lease ISF as an interim pre-space-station step and limits on third-party liability insurance required for commercial space activities [now THAT is an important initiative]. GE Space Division signs with Martin Marietta to launch 15 commercial comsats on Commercial Titan. This is 7-8 launches. The probable result is price breaks for GE customers due to the volume deal. [Only in space would an order for 8 of something count as "volume", sigh.] This is not yet a cast-in-concrete binding agreement, but it's solid enough to have cancellation penalties. Rockwell and two ex-Rockwell managers charged with fraud over Navstar contracts. As recommended by Langley, NASA will smooth the ends of the KSC shuttle runway to reduce tire wear on landing. Progress 34 tanker docks to Mir. SDI cancels its big in-space neutral-particle-beam experiment due to shortage of money. Japan and NASA sign agreement allowing NASA to receive data from Japan's ERS-1 earth-resources satellite (launch 1992). Big set of articles on DoD's space recovery program, notably Titan 4. Long-term plans call for two Titan 4 pads on each coast, for redundancy. DoD establishes space test-range organization to coordinate all orbital testing activities. Previously such organizations had to be assembled on an ad-hoc basis every time a major space test was planned. Eventually the organization may have its own satellites for tracking and/or data relay. USAF studies proposal from Rowan Companies of Houston to use its "Gorilla" mobile drilling rig as an offshore launch platform for heavylift boosters. Building new pads at Vandenberg is hard because of all the regulatory bureaucracies that have to be placated first. An equatorial site has been thought about, but building it would be costly. Transferring big rockets to a floating platform would also be tricky. The "Gorilla" would be towed into a loading facility at Vandenberg, would jack down its legs until it was resting on the bottom, and would then pick up a mobile launcher platform on a sort of giant forklift. It would then retract its legs, be towed out to sea, extend its legs again to provide firm support, and extend the launcher out over the water on the forklift. After final checkout, the crew would evacuate and the launch would be done by remote control from the shore. One big asset: it would use existing launch-control facilities. Main problem: security and logistic problems of launching from a mobile platform. NASA is also interested. SDI alters two of its midcourse-sensor-satellite projects to cut costs. Space-nuclear-power programs are in trouble because of SDI budget cuts. Article giving more details about proposed projects, not very interesting. GAO expresses some doubts about some of the projects, too, saying that there are major technological challenges in the programs as now conceived, and that there is a lack of specific applications. (They do note the chicken-and-egg problems involved here: specific applications are reluctant to commit to unproven technology.) McDonnell-Douglas to deliver first operational in-space laser communications system this summer, for a military inter-satellite application. (There have been earlier projects for laser communication in space, including one for the NASA Advanced Communications Technology satellite, but all were cancelled.) JPL studies lasers for deep-space communications; one study suggests a transmission rate of 700kbps from Saturn with about a watt of laser power. [This is lots better than radio systems.] Letter of the week, from Lannon Stafford (Phoenix AZ), criticizing AW&ST editorial that called for NASA to control US space activities: "Enduring exploitation of space will occur only under the banner of free enterprise and individual activities, which NASA (or any other government agency) cannot control and can only hamper with intervention... devotion to government handouts and control still seems very difficult to cure..." Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Mar 88 22:21:06 PST From: ota@startide.s1.gov Subject: The Public Consciousness I was watching a new sitcom last night, Thursday March 3rd called "Day by Day". Its about these ex-Yuppies running a day care. At one point near the end one of the adults said something about believing things. Then three of the kids did this free association gag line: Kid 1: I believe in the Tooth Fairy. Kid 2: I believe in Santa Claus. Kid 3: I believe in the future of the space program. Are things bad or what? Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 88 00:51:55 GMT From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org (James Symon) Subject: name games >Shouldn't that be *Alan* instead of Scott. (Scott Glenn played Alan B. >Shepherd in "The Right Stuff", though.) and Sam Shepard played our hero (at least until the Voyager comments). Shepard, Glenn, Glenn, Shepherd. Holy cow! ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 88 02:24:55 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!yunexus!maccs!gordan@uunet.uu.net (gordan) Subject: Re: Coercive Space Exploration In article <572888117.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: - -Space is the only place left. The only place where we can escape the -vile clutches of statists. [...] - -I may be forced to live out my life under tyranny, but at least I can -ensure that those who come after will live in freedom. I can't help but feel that there's something slightly unreal with this attitude. Space after all is an extremely hostile environment, and sending humans up the gravity well in large numbers and keeping them alive out there will remain extremely expensive for a very, very long time. Given the unforgiving nature of space, it seems far more likely that life would be more, rather than less, tightly controlled. Consider a hypothetical space colony of the future, one that declares itself independent of any Earth government. To be as self-sufficient and independent of Earth as possible, everything is very carefully recycled -- air, water, nutrients. The total oxygen and hydrogen supply is limited and must be closely monitored. Therefore the air in your lungs, the water in your body tissues do not belong to you, but are considered community property. Tomorrow, they will recirculate, and will be your neighbor's drinking water. How your body handles the resources it temporarily has custody of is everyone's business. Smoking of course will be strictly forbidden; however, taking any sort of drug or medicine, whether for "legitimate" or recreational purposes, will be very closely controlled. In fact, any activity that alters your body's normal metabolism could be subject to restrictions because of its capacity to poison community resources. Alcohol consumption is regulated or banned outright. Certain foods are forbidden because they contain compounds that make some people allergic, and it would be prohibitively expensive to remove all trace quantities of such compounds during the recycling process. Regular medical examinations are mandatory, and anyone who is "metabolically incompatible", even through no fault of their own, can be required to leave the colony. Regular psychological evaluations are mandatory as well. After all, the colony would be extremely vulnerable to sabotage by a disturbed individual (poisoning the water supply, opening an airlock, crashing the life-support controller software). Etcetera. -- I am the Lizard King "Vous cherchez Jim, Monsieur?" and I can do anything -- caretaker at Gordan Palameta -- Jim Morrison Pere Lachaise mnetor!lsuc!maccs!gordan ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 88 02:27:45 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!yunexus!maccs!gordan@uunet.uu.net (gordan) Subject: Re: Coercive Space Exploration In article <572888117.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: - -Space is the only place left. The only place where we can escape the -vile clutches of statists. [...] - -I may be forced to live out my life under tyranny, but at least I can -ensure that those who come after will live in freedom. Just another followup to the same article. If anyone out there _really_ wants to be free of any world government, there's a place on Earth where it can be done. The high seas. Outside the 200-mile territorial limits, you're free of any government interference (of course, some national government could try to extend its jurisdiction to the middle of the ocean; but then again, some government could try to extend its jurisdiction to space). The point is, colonization of the seas seems far more plausible than colonization of space, at least in the near term, so why don't the anarchist, libertarian masses yearning to breathe free consider this option? Why the allure of space? Consider this scenario. Peace has broken out, and the superpowers need some spare cash to help with the budget deficits. They'd gladly sell you an aircraft carrier (sans armaments) for a billion dollars or so. The point is, those things are already practically floating cities. A lot of R & D has already gone into how to build them and keep them self-sufficient for long periods of time. They even come with their own built-in airport. If you eliminate the need for them to be battleworthy, and cut out the gold-plated toilet seats, you could build them much cheaper. Can't afford an aircraft carrier? Well, maybe someone'll sell you an old oil supertanker, after fusion/solar/you-name-it energy makes them obsolete. Use your imagination to subdivide and redecorate the interior. Impractical, technologically infeasible, too expensive, too uncomfortable, you say? Name any reason along those lines, and I can turn around and apply it a hundredfold to space stations. At any level of technology, a floating city will always be several orders of magnitude less expensive to build and operate than a comparably sized space station. The environment is far more forgiving (you can take the air you breathe for granted, for starters). Resupplying the city by container ship will always be far less expensive than sending a rocket up a gravity well. The point is, we are already at the point where thousands of people could live in this way -- by contrast, it will be many decades before more than a few dozen people could live permanently in space, and a century or more before thousands could. Not that I personally would wish to consider such an option. Life on land is more comfortable and far less expensive. Only groups that are sufficiently ideologically committed in finding government interference intolerable could be expected to consider such an idea. The only point in bringing up the whole idea is simply to provide a counter-perspective -- space is certainly _not_ the only place left. If you're just plain bored with planet Earth, and see humanity's destiny as "inheriting the stars", that's another matter -- but if it's simply government you can't stand, then space is the _least_ practical option. -- I am the Lizard King "Vous cherchez Jim, Monsieur?" and I can do anything -- caretaker at Gordan Palameta -- Jim Morrison Pere Lachaise mnetor!lsuc!maccs!gordan ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #157 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 8 Mar 88 06:20:48 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA18998; Tue, 8 Mar 88 03:19:06 PST id AA18998; Tue, 8 Mar 88 03:19:06 PST Date: Tue, 8 Mar 88 03:19:06 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803081119.AA18998@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #158 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 158 Today's Topics: NASA Prediction Bulletis Lyndon's Space Policy Highlights of President Reagan's new Space Policy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Mar 88 20:19:20 GMT From: ut-emx!tskelso@sally.utexas.edu (TS Kelso) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletis For those of you who are interested in satellite tracking, the most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (512) 892-4180, and are updated several times weekly. As a service to the amateur satellite community, the most current of these elements are uploaded weekly to rec.ham-radio. The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. -- TS Kelso ARPA: tskelso@emx.cc.utexas.edu The Center for Space Research The University of Texas at Austin UUCP: {ihnp4,allegra}!ut-emx!tskelso ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 88 15:00:00 GMT From: killer!ninja!sys1!trsvax!reyn@eddie.mit.edu Subject: Lyndon's Space Policy For those of you die-hard "I wanna get to space sooo bad" types, have I got a Presidential Candidate for you. Lyndon LaRouche, of "the Queen of England is a drug pusher" fame, is running on the "establish a permanent colony on Mars by 2027" platform. Here in the Dallas/Ft Worth Texas area, he ran a 30 minutes of Prime Major Network Time outline of his plans to colonize outer space. To summarize, he proposes a totally reusable "Scramjet" which can take off from normal runways, an interplanetary 1g constant acceleration spacecraft powered by a "one terra- watt fusion reactor designed by Lawrence Livamore Labs" and mining of the moon for valuable "Helium 3" to fuel the craft. To add weight to his argument, the viewer was treated to some stock footage from SDI support films and some coloful illustrations which probably came from the Golden Book Encyclopedia. He was even clever enough to include a Hispanic female as the first woman on Mars. Lyndon has always been a very effective speaker, and last night was no exception. Switch off your brain for a while and you too can live in outer space. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 88 16:50:39 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!rwb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Robert Brumley) Subject: Highlights of President Reagan's new Space Policy Someone a while back asked for details on President Reagan's new "Space Policy and Commercial Space Initiative to Begin the Next Century." To that end I have typed up two documents: one is a five-page summary and the other an eleven-page complete version (contained in next message). They should provide a good basis for discussion. I hear it's not doing so hot in Congress, but at least Congress has something to work with! Robert Brumley Post: 4661 S. Vivian Street Morrison, CO 80465 Tel: (303) 978-1838 UUCP: (isis,hao)!scicom!rwb "Though my soul may rest in darkness, it will rise to perfect light. I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night." - THE OLD ASTRONOMER TO HIS PUPIL ==================================================================== The White House Office of the Press Secretary February 11, 1988 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S SPACE POLICY AND COMMERCIAL SPACE INITIATIVE TO BEGIN THE NEXT CENTURY FACT SHEET ---------- The President today announced a comprehensive "Space Policy and Commercial Space Initiative to Begin the Next Century" intended to assure United States space leadership. The President's program has three major components: o Establishing aa long-range goal to expand human presence and activity beyond Earth orbit into the Solar System; o Creating opportunities for U.S. commerce in space; and o Continuing our national commitment to a permanently manned Space Station. The new policy and programs are contained in a National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) signed by the President on January 5, 1988, the FY 1989 Budget the President will submit shortly to Congress, and a fifteen point Commercial Space Initiative. I. EXPANDING HUMAN PRESENCE BEYOND EARTH ORBIT In the recent NSDD, the President committed to a goal of expanding human presence and activity in the Solar System. To lay the foundation for this goal, the President will be requesting $100 million in his FY 1989 Budget for a major new technology development program "Project Pathfinder" that will enable a broad range of manned or unmanned missions beyond the Earth's orbit. Project Pathfinder will be organized around four major focuses: -- Exploration technology; -- Operations technology; -- Humans-in-space technology; and -- Transfer vehicle technology This research effort will give the United States know-how in critical areas, such as humans in the space environment, closed loop life support, aero braking, orbital transfer and maneuvering, cryogenic storage and handling, and large scale space operations, and provide a base for wise decisions on long term goals and missions. Additional highlights of the NSDD are outlined in Section IV of this fact sheet. II. CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR U.S. COMMERCE IN SPACE The President is announcing a fifteen point commercial space initiative to seize the opportunities for a vigorous U.S. commercial presence in Earth orbit and beyond -- in research and manufacturing. This initiative has three goals: o Promoting a strong U.S. commercial presence in space; o Assuring a highway to space; and o Building a solid technology and talent base. PROMOTING A STRONG U.S. COMMERCIAL PRESENCE IN SPACE 1. Private Sector Space Facility: The President is announcing an intent for the Federal Government to lease space as an "anchor tenant" in an orbiting space facility suitable for research and commercial manufacturing that is financed, constructed, and operated by the private sector. The Administration will solicit proposals for the U.S. private sector for such a facility. Space in this facility will be used and/or subleased by various Federal agencies with interest in microgravity research. The Administration's intent is to award a contract during mid-summer of this year for such space and related services to be available to the Government no later than the end of FY 1993. 2. Spacehab: The Administration is committing to make best efforts to launch within the Shuttle payload bay, in the early 1990s, the commercially developed, owned, and managed Shuttle middeck module: Spacehab. Manifesting requirements will depend on customer demand. Spacehab is a pressurized metal cylinder that fits in the Shuttle payload bay and connects to the crew compartment through the orbiter airlock. Spacehab takes up approximately one-quarter of the payload bay and increases the pressurized living and working space of an orbiter by approximately 1,000 cubic feet or 400 percent in useable research volume. The facility is intended to be ready for commercial use in mid-1991. 2. Microgravity Research Board: The President will establish, through Executive Order, a national Microgravity Research Board to assure and coordinate a broader range of opportunities for research in microgravity conditions. NASA will chair this board, which will include senior-level representatives for the Departments of Commerce, Transportaion, Energy, and Defense, NIH, and NSF; and will consult with the university and commercial sectors. The board will have the following responsibilities: o To stimulate research in microgravity environments and its applications to commercial uses by advising Federal agencies, including NASA, on microgravity priorities, and consulting with private industry and academia on microgravity research opportunites; o To develop policy recommendations to th Federal Government on matters relating to microgravity research, including types of research, governement/ industry/and academic cooperation, and access to space, including a potential launch voucher program; o To coordinate the microgravity programs of Federal agaencies by: -- reviewing agency plans for microgravity research and recommending priorities for the use of Federally-owned or leased space on microgravity facilities; and -- ensuring that agencies establish merit review processes for evaluating microgravity research proposals; and o To promote transfer of federally funded microgravity research to the commercial sector in furtherance of Executive Order 12591. NASA will continue to be responsible for making judgments on the safety of experiments and for making manifesting decisions for manned space flight systems. 4. External Tanks: The Administration is making available for five years the expended external tanks of the Shuttle fleet at no cost to all feasible U.S. commercial and nonprofit endeavors, for uses such as research, storage, or manufacturing in space. NASA will provide any necessary technical or other assistance to these endeavors on a direct cost basis. If private sector demand exceeds supply, NASA may auction the external tanks. 5. Privatizing Space Station: NASA, in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget, will revise its guidelines on commercialization of the U.S. Space Station to clarify and strengthen the Federal commitment to private sector investment in this program. 6. Future Privatization: NASA will seek to rely to the greatest extent feasible on private sector design, financing, construction, and operation of future Space Station requirements, including those currently under study. 7. Remote Sensing: The Administration is encouraging the development of commercial remote sensing systems. As part of this effort, the Department of Commerce, in consultation with other agencies, is examining potential opportunities for future Federal procurement of remote sensing data from the U.S. commercial sector. ASSURING A HIGHWAY TO SPACE 8. Reliance on Private Launch Services: Federal agencies will procure existing and future required expendable launch services directly from the private sector to the fullest extent feasible. 9. Insurance Relief for Launch Providers: The Administration will take administrative steps to address the insurance concerns of the U.S. commercial launch industry, which currently uses Federal launch ranges. These steps include: o Limits on Third Party Liability: Consistent with the Administration's tort policy, the Administration will propose to Congress a $200,000 cap on noneconomic damage awards to individual third parties resulting from commercial launch accidents; o Limits on Property Damage Liability: the liability of commercial launch operators for damage to Government property resulting from a commercial launch accident will be administratively limited to the level of insurance required by the Department of Transportation. If losses to the Government exceed this level, the Government will waive its right to recover for damages. If losses are less than this level, the Government will waive its right to recover for those damages caused by Government willful misconduct or reckless disregard. 10. Private Launch Ranges: The Administration will consult with the private sector on the potential construction of commercial launch range facilities separate from Federal facilities and the use of such facilities by the Federal Government. 11. Vouchers for Research Payloads: NASA and the Department of Transportation will explore providing to research payload owners manifested on the Shuttle a one time launch voucher that can be used to purchase an alternative U.S. commercial launch service. BUILDING A SOLID TECHNOLOGY AND TALENT BASE 12. Space Technology Spin-Offs: The president is directing that the new Pathfinder program, the Civil Space Technology Initiative, and other technology programs be conducted in accordance with the following policies: o Federally funded contractors, universities, and Federal laboratories will retain the rights to any patents and technical data, including copyrights, that result from these programs. The Federal Government will have the authority to use this intellectual property royalty free; o Proposed technologies and patents available for licensing will be housed in a Pathfinder/CSTI library within NASA; and o When contracting for commercial development of Pathfinder, CSTI and other technology work products, NASA will specify its requirements in a manner that provides contractors with maximum flexibility to pursue innovative and creative approaches. 13. Federal Expertise on Loan to American Schools: The President is encouraging Federal scientists, engineers, and technicians in aerospace and space related careers to take a sabbatical year to teach in any level of education in the United States. 14. Education Opportunities: The President is requesting in his FY 1989 Budget expanding five-fold opportunities for U.S. teacher to visit NASA field centers and related aerospace and university facilities. In addition, NASA, NSF, and DoD wil contribute materials and classroom experiments through the Department of Education to U.S. schools developing "tech shop" programs. NASA will encourage corporate participation in this program. 15. Protecting U.S. Critical Technologies: The Administration is requesting that Congress extend to NASA the authority it has given the Department of Defense to protect from wholesale release under the Freedom of Information act those critical national technologies and systems that are prohibited from export. III. CONTINUING THE NATIONAL COMMITMENT TO THE SPACE STATION In 1984, the President directed NASA to develop a permanently manned Space Station. The President remains commited to achieving this end and is requesting $1 billion in his FY 1989 Budget for continued development and a three year appropriation commitment from Congress for $6.1 billion. The Space Station, planned for devlopment in cooperation with U.S. friends and allies, is intended to be a multi-purpose facility for the Nation's science and applications programs. It will permit such things in space as: research, observation of the solar system, assembly of vehicles or facilities, storage, servicing of satellites, and basing for future space missions and commercial and entrpreneurial endeavors in space. To help ensure a Space Station that is cost effective, the President is proposing as part of his Commercial Space Initiative actions to encourage private sector investment in the Space Station, including directing NASA to rely to the greatest extend feasible on private sector design, financing, construction, and operation of future Space Station requirements. IV. ADDITIONAL HIGHLIGHTS OF THE JANUARY 5, 1988 NSDD o U.S. Space Leadership: Leadersip is reiterated as a fundamental national objective in areas of space activity critical to achieving U.S. national security, scientific, economic and foreign policy goals. o Defining Federal Roles and Responsibilities: Governement activities are specified in three separate and distinct sectors: civil, national security, and nongovernmental. Agency roles and responsibilities are codified and specific goals are established for the civil space sector; those for other sectors are updated. o Encouraging a Commercial Sector: A separate, nongovernmental or commercial space sector is recognized and encouraged by the policy that Federal Government actions shall not preclude or deter the continuing development of this sector. New guidelines are established to limit unnecessary Government competition with the private sector and ensure that Federal agencies are reliable customers for commercial space goods and services. o The President's launch policy prohibiting NASA from maintaining an expendable launch vehicle adjunct to the Shuttle, as well as limiting commercial and foreign payloads on the Shuttle to those that are Shuttle-unique or serve national security or foreign policy purposes, is reaffirmed. In addition, policies endorsing the purchase of commercial launch services by Federal agencies are further strengthened. o National Security Space Sector: An assured capability for national security missions is clearly enunciated, and the survivability and endurance of critical national security space functions is stressed. o Assuring Access to Space: Assured access to space is recognized as a key element of national space policy. U.S. space transportation systems that provide sufficient resiliency to allow continued operation, despite failures in any single system, are emphasized. The mix of space transportation vehicles will be defined to support mission needs in the most cost effective manner. o Remote Sensing: Policies for Federal "remote sensing" or observation of the Earth are established to encourage the developement of U.S. commercial systems competitive with or superior to foreign-operated civil or commercial systems. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #158 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 9 Mar 88 06:25:50 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA20679; Wed, 9 Mar 88 03:23:46 PST id AA20679; Wed, 9 Mar 88 03:23:46 PST Date: Wed, 9 Mar 88 03:23:46 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803091123.AA20679@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #159 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 159 Today's Topics: President Reagan's new Space Initiative - Long Version ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Feb 88 17:01:29 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!rwb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Robert Brumley) Subject: President Reagan's new Space Initiative - Long Version Here is the long version to President Reagan's new Space Initiative. Enjoy. Robert Brumley Post: 4661 S. Vivian Street Morrison, CO 80465 Tel: (303) 978-1838 UUCP: (isis,hao)!scicom!rwb "Still round the corner there may wait A new road or a secret gate; And though I oft have passed them by, A day will come at last when I Shall take the hidden paths that run West of the Moon, East of the Sun." - J.R.R. Tolkien ==================================================================== THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary February 11, 1988 PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVEE ON NATIONAL SPACE POLICY FACT SHEET ---------- The President approved on January 5, 1988, a revised national space policy that will get the direction of U.S. efforts in space for the future. The policy is the result of a five-month interagency review which included a thorough analysis of previous Presidential decisions, the National Commission on Space report, and the implications of the Space Shuttle and expendable launch vehicle accidents. The primary objective of this review was to consolidate and update Presidential guidance on U.S. space activities to provide a broad policy framework to guide U.S. space activities well into the future. The resulting Presidential Directive reaffirms the national commitment to the exploration and use of space in support of our national well being. It acknowledges that Unites States space activities are conducted by three separate and distinct sectors: two strongly interacting governmental sectors (Civil, and National Security) and a separate, non-governmental Commercial Sector. Close coordination, cooperation, and technology and information exchange will be maintained among sectors to avoid unnecessary duplication and promote attainment of United States space goals. GOALS AND PRINCIPLES The directive states that a fundamental objective guiding United States space activities has been, and continues to be, space leadership. Leadership in an increasingly competitive international environment does not require United States preeminence in all areas and disciplines of space enterprise. It does require United States preeminence in key areas of space activity critical to achieving our national security, scientific, technical, economic, and foriegn policy goals. - The overall goals of United States space activities are: (1) to strengthen the security of the United States; (2) the general population and to improve the quality of life on Earth through space-related activities; (3) to encourage continuing United States private-sector investment in space and related activities; (4) to promote international cooperative activities taking into account United States national security, foreign policy, scientific, and economic interests; (5) to cooperate with other nations in maintaining the freedom of space for all activities that enhance the security and welfare of mankind; and, as a long-range goal, (6) to expand human presence and activity beyond Earth orbit into the solar system. - The directive states that United States space activities shall be conducted in accordance with the following principles: -- The United States is committed to the exploration and use of outer space by all nations for peaceful purposes and for the benefit of all mankind. "Peaceful purposes" allow for activitites in pursuit of national security goals. -- The United States will pursue activities in space in support of its inherent right of self-defense and its defense commitments to its allies. -- The United States rejects any claims to sovereignty by any nation over outer space or celestial bodies, or any portion thereof, and rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of sovereign nations to acquire data from space. -- The United States considers the space systems of any nation to be national property with the right of passage through and operations in space without interference. Purposeful interference with space systems shall be viewed as an infringement on sovereign rights. -- The United States shall encourage and not preclude the commercial use and exploitation of space technologies and systems for national economic benefit without direct Federal subsidy. These commercial activities must be consistent with national security interests, and international and domestic legal obligations. -- The United States shall encourage other countries to engage in free and fair trade in commercial space goods and services. -- The United States will conduct international cooperative space-related activities that are expected to achieve sufficient scientific, political, economic, or national security benefits for the nation. The United States will seek mutually beneficial international participation in its space and space- related programs. CIVIL SPACE POLICY The directive states that: - The United States civil space sector activities shall contribute significantly to enhancing the Nation's science, technology, economy, pride, sense of well-being and direction, as well as United States world prestige and leadership. Civil sector activities shall comprise a balanced strategy of research, development, operations, and technology for science, exploration, and appropriate applications. - The objectives of the United States civil space activities shall be (1) to expand knowledge of the Earth, its environment, the solar system, and the universe; (2) to create new opportunities for use of the space environment through the conduct of appropriate research and experimentation in advanced technology and systems; (3) to develop space technology for civil applications and, wherever appropriate, make such technology available to the commercial sector; (4) to preserve the United States preeminence in critical aspects of space science, applications, technology, and manned space flight; (5) to establish a permanently manned presence in space; and (6) to engage in international cooperative efforts that further United States space goals. COMMERCIAL SPACE POLICY The directive states that the United States government shall not preclude or deter the continuing development of a separate, non-gevernmental Commercial Space Sector. Expanding private sector investment in space by the market- driven Commercial Sector generates economic benefits for the Nation and supports governmental Space Sectors with an increasing range of space goods and services. Governmental Space Sectors shall purchase commercially available space goods and services to the fullest extent feasible and shall not conduct activities with potential commercial applications that preclude or deter Commercial Sector space activities except for national security or public safety reasons. Commercial Sector space activities shall be supervised or regulated only to the extent required by law, national security, international obligations, and public safety. NATIONAL SECURITY SPACE POLICY The directive further states that the Unites States will conduct those activities in space that are necessary to national defense. Space activities will contribute to national security objectives by 1) deterring, or if necessary, defending against enemy attack; 2) assuring that forces of hostile nations cannot prevent our own use of space; 3) negating, if necessary, hostile space systems; and 4) enhancing operations of United States and Allied forces. Consistent with treaty obligations, the national security space program shall support such functions as command and warning, and surveillance (including research and development programs which support these functions). INTER-SECTOR POLICIES This section contains policies applicable to, and binding on, the national security and civil space sectors: - The United States Government will maintain and coordinate separate national security and civil operational space systems where differing needs of the sectors dictate. - Survivability and endurance of national security space systems, including all necessary system elements, will be pursued commensurate with their planned use in crisis and conflict, with the threat, and with the availability of other assets to perform the mission. - Government sectors shall encourage, to the maximum extent feasible, the development and use of United States private sector space capabilities without direct Federal subsidy. - The directive states that the United States Government will: (1) encourage the development of commercial systems which image the Earth from space competitive with or superior to foreign-operated civil or commercial systems; (2) discuss remote sensing issues and activities with foreign governments operating or regulating the private operation of remote sensing systems; and (3) continue a research and development effort for future advanced, remote sensing technologies. Commercial applications of such technologies will not involve direct Federal subsidy. - The directive further states that assured access to space, sufficient to achieve all United States space goals, is a key element of national space policy. United States space transportation systems must provide a balanced, robust, and flexible capability with sufficient resiliency to allow continued operations despite failures in any single system. The goals of United States space transportation policy are: (1) to achieve and maintain safe and reliable access to, transportation in, and return from, space; (2) to exploit the unique attributes of manned and unmanned launch and recovery systems; (3) to encourage to the maximum extent feasible, the development and use of United States private sector space transportation capabilities without direct Federal subsidy; and (4) to reduce the costs of space transportation and related services. - The directive also states that communications advancements are critical to all United States space sectors. To ensure necessary capabilities exist, the directive states that the United States Government will continue research and development efforts for future advanced space communications technologies. These technologies, when utilized for commercial purposes, will be without direct Federal subsidy. - The directive states that it is the policy of the United States to control or prohibit, as appropriate, exports of equipment and/or technology that would make a significant contribution to a foreign country's strategic military missile programs. Certain United States friends and allies will be exempted from this policy, subject to appropriate non-transfer and end-use assurances. - The directive also states that the United States will consider and, as appropriate, formulate policy positions on arms control measures governing activities in space, and will conduct negotiations on such measures only if they are equitable, effectively verifiable, and enhance the security of the United States and its allies. - the directive further states that all space sectors will seek to minimize the creation of space debris. Design and operations of space tests, experiments and systems will strive to minimize or reduce accumulation of space debris consistent with mission requirements and cost effectiveness. IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES The directive states that normal interagency procedures will be employed wherever possible to coordinate the policies enunciated in this directive. To provide a forum to all Federal agencies for their policy views, to review and advise on proposed changes to national space policy, and to provide for orderly and rapid referral of space policy issues to the President for decisions as necessary, a Senior Interagency Group (SIG) on Space shall continue to meet. the SIG(Space) will be chaired by a member of the National Security Council staff and will include appropriate representatives of the Department of State, Department of Defence (DoD), Department of Commerce (DoC), Department of Transportation (DoT), Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Science and Technolgy Policy. Other Executive agencies or departments will participate as the agenda of meeting shall dictate. ****************************************************************************** POLICY GUIDELINES AND IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS The directive also enumerates Policy Guidelines and Implementing Actions to provide a framework through which the policies in the directive shall be carried out. Agencies are directed to use this section as guidance on priorities, including preparation, review, and execution of budgets for space activities, within the overall resource and policy guidance provided by the president. Within 120 days of the date of this directive, affected Government agencies are directed to review their current policies for consistency with the directive and, where necessary, estaablish policies to implement the practices contained therein. CIVIL SPACE SECTOR GUIDELINES - The directive specifies that in conjunction with other agencies: NASA will continue the lead role within the Federal Government for advancing space science, exploration, and appropriate applications through the conduct of activities for research, technolgy, development, and related operations; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will gather data, conduct research, and make predictions about the Earth's environment; DOT will licence and promote commercial launch operations which support civil sector opration. - Space Science. NASA, with the collaboration of other appropriate agencies, will conduct a balanced program to support scientific research, exploration, and experimentation to expand understanding of: (1) astrophysical phenomena and the origin and evolution of the universe; (2) the Earth, its environment and its dynamic relationship with the Sun; (3) the origin and evolution of the solar system; (4) fundamental physical, chemical, and biological processes; (5) the effects of the space environment on human beings; and (6) the factors governing the origin and spread of life in the universe. - Space Exploration. In order to investigate phenomena and objects both within and beyond the solar system, the directive states that NASA will conduct a balanced program of manned and unmanned exploration. -- Human Exploration. To implement the long-range goal of expanding human presence and activity beyond Earth orbit into the solar system the policy directs NASA to begin the systematic development of technologies necessary to enable and support a range of future manned missions. This technolgy program (Pathfinder) will be oriented toward a Presidential decision on a focused program of manned exploration of the solar sytem. -- Unmanned Exploration. The policy further directs NASA to continue to pursue a program of unmanned exploration where such exploration can most efficiently and effectively satisfy national space objectives by among other things: acieving scientific objectives where human presence is undesirable or unnecessary; exploring realms where the risks or costs of life support are unacceptable; and providing data vital to support future manned missions. - Permanent Manned Presence. The directive states that NASA will develop the Space Station to achieve permanently manned operational capability by the mid- 1990s. The directive further states that the Space Station will: (1) Contribute to United States preeminence in critical aspects of manned spaceflight; (2) provide support and stability to scientific and technological investigations; (3) provide early benefits, particularly in the materials and life sciences; (4) promote private sector experimentation preparatory to independent commercial activity; (5) allow evolution in keeping with the needs of Station users and the long-term goals of the United States; (6) provide opportunities for commercial sector participation; and (7) contribute to the longer term goal of expanding human presence and activity beyond Earth orbit into the solar system. - Manned Spaceflight Preeminence. the directive specifies that approved programs such as efforts to improve the Space Transportation System (STS) and return it to safe flight and to develop, deploy, and use the Space Station, are intended to ensure United States preeminence in critical aspects of manned spaceflight. - Space Applications. The policy directs NASA and other agencies to pursue the identification and development of appropriate applications flowing from their activities. Agencies will seek to promote private sector development and implementation of applications. The policy also states that: -- Such applications will create new capabilities, or improve the quality or efficiency of continuing activities, including long-term scientific observations. -- NASA will seek to ensure its capability to conduct selected critical missions through an appropriate mix of assured access to space, on-orbit sparing, advanced automation techniques, redundancy, and other suitable measures. -- Agencies may enter cooperative research and development agreements on space applications with firms seeking to advance the relevant state-of-the-art consistent with United States Governmental space objectives. -- Management of Federal civil operational remote sensing is the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The Department of Commerce will: (1) consolidate Federal needs for civil operational remote sensing products to be met either by the private sector or the Federal government; (2) identify needed civil operational system research and development objectives; and (3) in coordination with other departments or agencies, provide for the regulation of private sector operational remote sensing systems. - Civil Government Space Transportation. The policy states the unique Space Transportation System (STS) capability to provide manned access to space will be exploited in those areas that offer the greatest national return, including contributing to United States preeminence in critical aspects of manned spaceflight. The STS fleet will maintain the Nation's capability and will be used to support critical programs requiring manned presence and other unique STS capabilities. In support of national space transportation goals, NASA will establish sustainable STS flight rates to provide for planning and budgeting of Government space programs. NASA will pursue appropriate enhancements to STS operational capabilities, upper stages, and systems for deploying, servicing, and retrieving spacecraft as national and user requirements are defined. - International Cooperation. The policy guidelines state that the United States will foster increased international cooperation in civil space activities by seeking mutually beneficial international participation in its civil space and space-related programs. the SIG(Space) Working Group on Space Science Cooperation with the U.S.S.R. shall be responsible for oversight of civil space cooperation with the Soviet Union. No such cooperative activity shall be initiated until an interagency review has been completed. The directive provides that United States cooperation in international civil space activities will: -- Be consistent with United States technology transfer laws, regulations, Executive orders and presidential directives. -- Support the public, nondiscriminatory direct readout of data from Federal civil systems to foreign ground stations and the provision of data to foreign users under specified coonditions. -- be conducted in such a way as to protect the commercial value of intellectual property developed with Federal support. Such cooperation will not preclude or deter commercial space activities by the United States private sector, except as required by national security or public safety. COMMERCIAL SPACE SECTOR GUIDELINES - The directive states that NASA, and the Departments of commerce, Defense, and Transporation will work cooperatively to develop and implement specific measures to foster the growth of private sector commercial use of space. A high-level focus for commercial space issues has been created through establishment of a Commercial Space Working Group of the Economic Policy Council. SIG(Space) will continue to coordinate the development and implementation of national space policy. - To stimulate private sector investment, ownership, and operation of space assets, the directive provides that the United States Government will facilitate private sector access to appropriate U.S. space-related hardware and facilities, and encourage the private sector to undertake commercial space ventures. The directive states that Governmental Space Sectors shall, without providing direct Federal subsidies: -- Utilize commercially available goods and services to the fullest extent feasible, and avoid actions that may preclude or deter commercial space sector activities except as required by national security or public safety. A space good or service is "commercially available" if it is currently offered commercially, or if it could be supplied commercialy in response to a government service procurement request. "Feasible" means that such goods or services meet mission requirements in a cost-effective manner. -- Enter into appropriate cooperative agreements to encourage and advance private sector basic research, development, and operations while protecting the commercial value of the intellectual property developed; -- Provide for the use of appropriate Government facilities on a reimbursable basis; -- Identify, and eliminate or propose for elimination, applicable portions of United States laws and regulations that unnecessarily impede commercial space sector activities; -- Encourage free trade in commercial space activities. The United States Trade Representative will consult, or, as appropriate, negotiate with other countries to encourage free trade in commercial space activities. In entering into space-related technology development and transfer agreements with other countires, Executive Departments and agencies will take into consideration whether such countries practice and encourage free and fair trade in commercial space activities. -- Provide for the timely transfer of Government-developed space technology to the private sector in such a manner as to protect its commercial value, consistent with national security. -- Price Government-provided goods and services consistent with OMB Circular A-25. - The directive also states that the Department of Commerce (DOC) will commission a study to provide information for future policy and program decisions on options for a commercial advanced earth remote sensing system. This study, to be conducted in the private sector under DOC direction with input from other Federal Agencies, will consist of assessments of the following elements: (1) domestic and international markets for remote sensing data; (2) financing options, such as cooperative opportunities between government and industry in which the private sector contributes substantial financing to the venture, participation by other government agencies, and international cooperative partnerships; (3) sensor and data processing technology and; (4) spacecraft technology and launch options. The results of this study will include an action plan on the best alternatives identified during the study. NATIONAL SECURITY SPACE SECTOR GUIDELINES - General. The directive states that: -- The Department of Defense (DOD) will develop, operate, and maintain an assured mission capability through an appropriate mix of robust satellite control, assured access to space, on-orbit sparing, proliferation, reconstitution or other means. -- The national security space program, including dissemination of data, shall be conducted in accordance with Executive Orders and applicable directives for the protection of national security information and commensurate with both the missions performed and the security measures necessary to protect related space activities. -- DOD will ensure tha the military space program incorporates the support requirements of the Strategic Defense Initiative. - Space Support. The directive states that: -- The national security space sector may use both manned and unmanned launch systems as determined by specific mission requirements. Payloads will be distributed among launch systems and launch sites to minimize the impact of loss of any single launch system or launch site on mission performance. The DOD will also continue to enhance the robustness of its satellite control capability through an appropriate mix of satellite autonomy and survivable command and control, processing, and data dissemination systems. -- DOD will study concepts and technologies which would support future contingency launch capabilities. - Force Enhancement. The directive states that the national security space sector will develop, operate, and maintain space systems and develop plans and architectures to meet the requirements of operation land, sea, and air forces through all levels of conflict commensurrate with their intended use. - Space Control. The directive also states that: -- The DOD will develop, operate, and maintain enduring space systems to ensure its freedom of action in space. This requires an integrated combination of antisatellite, survivability, and surveillance capabilities. -- Antisatellite (ASAT) Capability. DOD will develop and deploy a robust and comprehensive ASAT capability with programs as required and with initial operational capability at the earliest possible date. -- DOD space programs will pursue a survivability enhancement program with long-term planning for future requirements. The DOD must provide for the survivability of selected, critical national security space assets (including associated terrestrial components) to a degree commensurate with the value and utility of the support they provide to national-level decision functions, and military operational forces across the spectrum of conflict. -- The United States will develop and maintain an integrated attack warning, notification, verification, and contingency reaction capability which can effectively detect and react to threats to United States space systems. - Force Application. The directive states that the DOD will, consistent with treaty obligations, conduct research, development, and planning to be prepared to acquire and deploy space weapons systems for strategic defense should national security conditions dictate. INTER-SECTOR GUIDELINES The directive states that the following paragraphs identify selected, high priority corss-sector efforts and responsibilities to implement plans supporting major United States space policy objectives: - Space Transportation Guidelines. -- The United States national space transportation capability will be based on a mix of vehicles, consisting of the Space Transportation System (STS), unmanned launch vehicles (ULVs), and in-space transporation systems. The elements of this mix will be defined to support the mission needs of national security and civil government sectors of United States space activities in the most cost effective manner. -- As determined by specific mission requirements, the national security space sector will use the STS and ULVs. In coordination with NASA, the DOD will assure the Shuttle's utility to national defense and will integrate missions into the Shuttle system. Launch priority will be provided for national security missions as implemented by NASA-DOD agreements. Launches necessary to preserve and protect human life in space shall have the highest priority except in times of national security emergency. -- The STS will continue to be managed and operated in an institutional arrangement consistent with the current NASA/DOD Memorandum of Understanding. Responsibility will remain in NASA for oprational control of the STS for civil missions, and in the DOD for operational control of the STS for national security missions. Mission management is the responsibility of the mission agency. -- United States commercial launch operations are an integral element of a robust national space launch capability. NASA will not maintain an expendable launch vehicle (ELV) adjunct to the STS. NASA will provide launch services for commercial and foreign payloads only where those payloads must be man-tended, require the unique capabilities of the STS, or it is determined that launching the payloads on the STS is important for national security or foreign policy purposes. Commercial and foreign payloads will not be launched on government owned or operated ELV systems except for national security or foreign policy reasons. -- Civil Government agencies will encourage, to the maximum extent feasible, a domestic commercial launch industry by contracting for necessary ELV launch services directly from the private sector or with DOD. -- NASA and the DOD will continue to cooperate in the development and use of military and civil space transporation systems and avoid unnecessary duplication of activities. They will pursue new launch and launch support concepts aimed at improving cost-effectiveness, responsiveness, capability, reliability, availability, maintainability, and flexibility. Such cooperation between the national security and civil sectors will ensure efficient and effective use of national resources. - The directive lists guidelines for the federal encouragement of commercial unmanned launch vehicles (ULVs): -- The United States Government fully endorses and will facilitate the commercialization of United States unmanned launch vehicles (ULVs). -- The Department of Transportation (DOT) is the lead agency within the Federal Government for developing, coordinating, and articulating Federal policy and regulatory guidance pertaining to United States commercial launch activities in consultation with DOD, State, NASA, and other concerned agencies. All Executive departments and agencies shall assist the DOT in carrying out its responsibilities, as set forth in the Commercial Space Launch Act and Executive Order 12465. -- The United States Government encourages the use of its launch and launch- related facilities for United States commercial operations. -- The United States Government will have priority use of Government facilities and support services to meet national security and critical mission requirements. The United States Government will make all reasonable efforts to minimize impacts on commercial operations. -- The United States Government will not subsidize the commercialization of ULVs, but will price the use of its facilities, equipment, and services wit the goal of encouraging viable commercial ULV activities in accordance with the Commercial Space Launch Act. -- The United States Government will encourage free market competition within the United States private sector. The United States Government will provide equitable treatment for all commercial launch operators for the sale or lease of Government equipment and facilities consistent with lease of Government equipment and facilities consistent with its economic, foreign policy, and national security interests. -- NASA and DOD, for those unclassified and releasable capabilities for which they have responsibility, shall, to the maximum entent feasible: --- Develop, in consultation with the DOT, contractual arrangements covering access by commercial launch firms to national launch and launch-related property and services they request in support of their operations; --- Use best efforts to provide commercial launch firms with access, on a reimbursable basis, to national launch and launch-related facilities, equipment, tooling, and services to support commercial launch operations; --- Provide technical advice and assistance to commercial launch firms on a reimbursable basis, consistent with the pricing guidelines herein; and --- Conduct, in coordination with DOT, appropriate environmental analyses necessary to ensure that commercial launch operations conducted at Federal launch facilities are in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. - The directive lists government ULV Pricing Guidelines. The price charged for the use of United States Government facilities, equipment, and service, will be based on the following principles: -- Price all services (including those associated with production and launch of commercial ULVs) based on the direct costs incurred by the United States Government. Reimbursement shall be credited to the appropriation from which the cost of providing such property or service was paid. -- The United States Government will not seek to recover ULV design and development costs or investments associated with any existing facilities or new facilities required to meet United States Government needs to which the U.S. government retain title; -- Tooling, equipment, and residual ULV hardware on hand at the completion of the United States Government's program will be priced on a basis that is in the best overall interest off the United States Government, taking into consideration that these sales will not constitute a subsidy to the private sector operator. - The directive also states that commercial launch firms shall: -- Maintain all facilities and equipment leased from the United States Government to a level of readiness and repair specified by the United States Government; -- Comply with all requirements of the Commercial Space Launch Act, all regulations issued under the Act, and all terms, conditions or restrictions of any license issued or transferred by the Secretary of Transporation under the Act. - The directive establishes the following technology transfer guidelines: -- The United States will work to stem the flow of advanced western space technology to unauthorized destinations. Executive departments and agencies will be fully responsible for protecting against adverse technology transfer in the conduct of their programs. -- Sales of United States space hardware, software, and related technologies for use in foreign space projects will be consistent with relevant international and bilateral agreements and arrangements. - The directive states that all Sectors shall recognize the importance of appropriate investments in the facilities and human resources necessary to support United States space objectives and maintain investments that are consistent with such objectives. A task force of the commercial Space Working Group, in cooperation with OSTP, will conduct a feasibility study of alternate methods for encouraging, without direct Federal subsidy, private sector capital funding of United States space infrastructure such as ground facilities, launcher developments, and orbital assembly and test facilities. Coordinated terms of reference for this study shall be presented to the EPC and SIG(Space). - The directive notes that the primary forum for negotiations on nuclear and space arms is the Nuclear and Space Talks (NST) with the Soviet Union in Geneva. The instructions to the United States Delegation will be consistent with this National Space Policy directive, established legal obligations, and additional guidance by the President. The United States will continue to consult with its Allies on these negotiations and ensure that any resulting agreements enhance the security of the United States and its Allies. Any discussions on arms control relating to activities in space in fora other than NST must be consistent with, and subordinate to, the foregoing activities and objectives. - Finally the directive states that using NSC staff approved terms of reference, an IG(Space) working group will provide recommendations on the implementation of the Space Debris Policy contained in the Policy section of this directive. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #159 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Mar 88 06:26:41 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01327; Thu, 10 Mar 88 03:18:02 PST id AA01327; Thu, 10 Mar 88 03:18:02 PST Date: Thu, 10 Mar 88 03:18:02 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803101118.AA01327@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #160 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 160 Today's Topics: Re: the LaRouchians are coming (again) Bill Nelson Geography and Typography AL GORE ON SPACE POLICY - Where the candidates stand, Part II Re: Free-fall sex Re: SPACE Digest V8 #153 (re: this news group) Re: When Stars Collide Re: More about John Glenn Re: Next Arianne launch Re: Colonization of the seas ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Mar 1988 14:13-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: the LaRouchians are coming (again) I too made a point of watching the LaRouche telecast. I was fortunate in being forwarned by a radio station engineer while going through sound checks for a talk show. A great deal of what he presented was accurate information. There was also a small percentage of bent truth and pseudo science stuck in where few non technical people would spot it. Like any would-be world dictator, he made it sound like he personally generated all the ideas and got others to follow up on them. I do not agree with a 2 trillion dollar federal budget and a government constructed space colony on a planetary surface. Nonetheless, it was one of the better presentations on space possibilities that I have seen in prime time in 25 years. And that is a crime. It means that the american media have done such a pathetic job in preparing the public for the 21st century that a person like this can come along and take credit for the ideas and work of thousands. By failing to inform, they have given him the high ground in bold proposals. Those who point out (after the fact) he had nothing to do with any of these developments will appear as simple detractors (to the previously uninformed). I've already heard some statements from people who don't realize what LaRouche is. LaRouche gets points this time because the media utterly failed at the performance of it's sacred duty: to inform the electorate. They are too busy trying to photograph politicians in bed with models and whores to bother with the future of humanity. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 1988 15:05-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Bill Nelson As some previous posters have noted, Bill Nelson has decided on a one congressman campaign to stop Payload Systems Inc from doing materials processing experiments on MIR. I feel that it is simply sour grapes on his part that american companies have to go to the 'evil empire' in order to run experiments. Maybe if our space program wasn't an utter failure, PSI would not have to. Nonetheless, I feel Congressman Nelson is attempting a gross interference with private business. Anyone who feels likewise should write him. 307 Cannon House Office Building, Wash. DC 20515 Incidentally, he and many of the others in his Space Science and Applications Subcommittee are out to stop NASA from putting out an RFP for a 'Commercially Developed Space Facility'. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Mar 88 17:03:49 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Geography and Typography To: deskevich@bluto.scc.com Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > THIS IS MY FIRST ATTEMPT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SPACE DIGEST DIALOG OR > WHAT EVER LOG YOU WANT TO CALL IT AND I WAS WONDERING WHAT GEOGRAPHIC > AREA IS COVERED BY THE PARTICIPANTS. All parts of the free world where lowercase is used. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 88 16:40:51 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!EWTILENI@princeton.edu (Eric Tilenius) Subject: AL GORE ON SPACE POLICY - Where the candidates stand, Part II I recently sent letters to all the Democratic Presidential candidates, asking their position on SPACE and United States SPACE POLICY. So far, I have received responses from Paul Simon and Al Gore. Paul Simon's response has been posted. If anyone did not see it and would like a copy, please EMAIL me. The following is a copy of the letter I received from Democrat AL GORE and tells his views on SPACE: February 29, 1988 Dear Friend: Thank you for your recent letter on the space program. I care deeply about reinvigorating the nation's civilian space program. In the Senate, I was a leader in the investigation into the Challenger disaster, and have seen the disarray of the program. As President, I will give the space program the high priority it deserves at the beginning of my term, not at the end. Here are my goals: -- I will lead this nation to set clear goals in space. The next target for exploration is Mars. We should begin planning now. -- I will expand our vision of space exploration to include the exploration of our own planet. In space, we may find the key to the understanding such environmental threats as the greenhouse effect and ozone depletion. -- I will place a greater emphasis on the development of commercial applications of space technologies. NASA helped lead the way in such innovations as robotics and remote sensing. The agency now should work to bring other technologies to the market. -- I will reverse the balance between our military and civilian space programs. The administration's obsession with SDI has upset the traditional balance between the two programs. The Pentagon already spends twice as much on space as NASA. To accomplish these goals, I plan to install new leaders at NASA, appointing those who can command the loyalty and respect of NASA's employees. Thank you for your interest in my campaign. I hope this information is useful, and that I can count on your support. Sincerely, Al Gore For more information, contact: Al Gore for President, P.O. Box 15800, Arlington, VA 22215. I will be posting more letters on space policy as I receive them from the other candidates. Copies of any received so far are available by EMAIL. - ERIC - *----------------------===> SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------* * ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU // ewtileni@pucc.BITNET * * rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni // princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni * * ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"* *--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------* ------------------------------ Date: 29 Feb 88 18:51:02 GMT From: ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!erl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (E.Lund) Subject: Re: Free-fall sex In article <8262@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU>, seldon@eleazar.UUCP writes: > > On a more serious note: NASA has considered the possibilities of sex on > long duration missions...*Between two MARRIED couples of course!!* > Such measures as this might be necessary to preserve an astronaut's sanity. Okay, so I am a bit picky, but I think NASA should really think about this in terms of individual couples. Married or not, it seems unreasonable to require coples to couple in sets. My two cents, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Mar 88 14:46:32 pst From: Eugene N. Miya Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #153 (re: this news group) Newsgroups: sci.space Don't mine those people talking over in the corner about sex in space..... >WAS WONDERING WHAT GEOGRAPHIC AREA IS COVERED BY THE PARTICIPANTS. Since you asked and since I did a little something of a survey (observation) over the last year. Brian Reid at DEC Western Research Lab estimates some something about 7-9,000 people read this BB on the ARPAnet (where it began at a variety of universities), and now the Usenet, CSnet, BITNET, and redistributed to other boards as well. In a survey of connectivity, I received about 90 letters (I said basically "ACK" this message). 1/3 of the people did not listen and and just `replied' to my news system message, 2/3 followed directions and send mail to my correct mail box. The most distant messages came from Australia (3), the Phillipines and Korea. Also Sweden (2). Two people were from Eastern Bloc countries visiting the US (Poland and Hungary I believe). My ACKs bounced back 1/3 of the time (poor in my opinions, so perhaps 1/3 of the people who initially tried to reach me probably failed. The vast majority of the people are from the US, Canada and England. Is this a low response rate? I'm informed not. Would make good discussion about Nixon's Silent Majority. Note: I don't speak for the Agency, and don't have any standing on this group as editor (nor should I as NASA is too biased), but have been given some responsibility in the past for certain "shady" areas of computing which I no longer want anything to do with. Most people have a very sincere desire to go into space (or at least see the Country go into space, which is a marked contrast for me [I don't care, send the most qualified, if that's me, then, that's part of the job]). There is a touching idealism, a hope, from the US. It surprises that more of these people haven't tried getting jobs working with space companies, but maybe that's my observation having grown up in Southern CA. The problem is convincing the rest of the country to think about the future. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Mar 88 09:24:39 -0500 (EST) From: Joe Keane X-Andrew-Message-Size: 659+0 Subject: Re: When Stars Collide When two stars approach each other, their trajectories are offset by some distance, giving a large angular momentum. This makes it hard for them to just form one star. Most likely, the stars will just swing by each other in a hyperbolic orbit. If there's enough interaction (from tidal effects), they might lock into elliptical orbit. If you're really lucky, this might stabilize. If they pass too close, they tear each other apart. They'll probably stretch out into filaments, which may form new stars or die. I think the only way to get a clean assimilation is to have a small star fall about head-on into a large one, which isn't very likely. --Joe ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 88 16:43:54 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: More about John Glenn ["when I was little, I wanted to be somebody, then I realized I should've been more specific", L. Tomlin] While were on the subject of John Glenn's mission, let me add another little mystery. On my tapes of the network coverage, while Glenn is passing over Florida at the end of the first orbit, the CapCom passes the link to President Kennedy. Trouble is, Kennedy's message was blacked out for us. The comm comes back after only 30 seconds or so. None of the network announcers picked up on that, and my air-to-ground transcripts deleted that portion as well. Anyone ever here the text of that transmission?? -- *** mike (Cyberpunk in training) smithwick *** "live long and multi-task" [discalimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Mar 88 14:48:23 EST From: laura@vax.darpa.mil Posted-Date: Mon, 7 Mar 88 14:48:23 EST To: laura@vax.darpa.mil, space@angband.s1.gov >From: ota@startide.s1.gov >I was watching a new sitcom last night, Thursday March 3rd called "Day >by Day". Its about these ex-Yuppies running a day care. At one point >near the end one of the adults said something about believing things. >Then three of the kids did this free association gag line: >Kid 1: I believe in the Tooth Fairy. >Kid 2: I believe in Santa Claus. >Kid 3: I believe in the future of the space program. An aside from the Business section of USA Today: "With the US space program only a sad memory..." >Are things bad or what? > Ted Anderson You can maintain an illusion for only so long... Laura Burchard laura@vax.darpa.mil ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 88 18:38:34 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Next Arianne launch [line eater fodder] Theoretically, Arianne mission V-21 takes off this next Friday, March 11. Anyone have the exact time of launch?? I know that they normally aim for about 4:00 pm to 4:30 local. mike -- *** mike (Cyberpunk in training) smithwick *** "live long and multi-task" [discalimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 1988 18:22-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Colonization of the seas It has been tried. An abandoned platform off the coast of England set up a pretty much free port and gambling casino. It was raided by men with machine guns. A group set up shop on a reef in the Pacific that was unclaimed. I think the may have dumped loads of landfill to raise the level or something. They even minted gold coinage. The nearest socialist welfare island came visiting with gunboats and took over. The case is pending in World Court. They might even do something in 20 years or so. Like tell the invaders they were naughty, but since they've been living there for 20 years... Statists do not like competition that will show them up for the useless parasites that they are. For example, what do you think would happen to a libertarian platform in the Pacific that allowed people to grow and export Marijuana? I expect the US would show even less respect for borders then it does with it's fellow nation slave-states. I mean right now via military aid, trade boycotts, CIA infiltration, public censure and other means the US is mucking around in so many other countries that I would have trouble naming a place that it ISN'T screwing with. Just off the top of my head: Panama, Nicaraugua, El Salvador, Columbia, Israel, South Africa, Angola, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Libya, Lebanon, Phillipines, Haiti... (I intentionally include the interventions that LIBERALS like as well as the interventions that CONSERVATIVES like just to show that they really aren't any different when it comes to leaving other countries alone.) All this, and the US is one of the GOOD guys for cripes sake! I won't even attempt to compare US activities with the level of internal manipulation of other states carried out by the soviets. As bad as we are we aren't even in the same league. So I stand by my statement that you have to leave the planet to be free. I will agree that it might even be several centuries (or as little as one century) before free humans are expanding into free space. Possibly even in small dynamically changing 'tribal' groups as discussed in a paper on comet colonization at the 84 Princeton conference. The day WILL come. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #160 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Mar 88 06:19:14 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01140; Fri, 11 Mar 88 03:17:33 PST id AA01140; Fri, 11 Mar 88 03:17:33 PST Date: Fri, 11 Mar 88 03:17:33 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803111117.AA01140@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #161 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 161 Today's Topics: Re: Solar power launching (laser launchers) Re: Colonization of the seas Re: space news from Feb 1 AW&ST LaRouche's space position Re: Horizontal ascent into orbit There's hope yet Attack on space program Re: Solar power launching Making "Space Government" an Oxymoron Re: LaRouche Re: Horizontal ascent into orbit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Mar 88 18:30:56 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Solar power launching (laser launchers) > 1. Lazer launch - current and best designs only allow a small payload > on the order of 2 kilograms. Additionally a reasonable quantity > of fancy (impure & expensive) ice must be thrown into the upper > atmosphere as reaction mass. The offsets the environmental > concerns that prompted the question. If I am correctly remembering the informal talk I heard Jordan Kare (head of the current laser-launcher work) give, this isn't correct. First, the payload of a laser launcher is simply a question of how big your laser is. A first prototype would probably launch something the size of a baseball, but if you have the lasers and the power to run them, there is no reason why the technique wouldn't scale to hundreds or thousands of kilos per shot. Second, the propellant is not likely to be ice, because the dissociation of water at high temperatures soaks up a lot of energy. ("This amounts to running an oxyhydrogen rocket engine backwards, which makes the rocket engineers barf.") The choice of propellant actually doesn't seem to be too critical, and a number of things are being looked at. One possibility is sodium hydride, which dissociates easily to yield hydrogen (the right stuff for rocket exhausts) and sodium (which is already present in the atmosphere due to salt spray), and is relatively cheap and easy to handle. One defect of it is that it decomposes slowly in air, especially wet air, but a protective coating should handle that before launch and it doesn't matter once the lasers light up. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 88 16:22:40 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Colonization of the seas > So I stand by my statement that you have to leave the planet to be > free. If it becomes technically feasible (ie., economically practical) for ordinary individuals to move into space, what makes you think that Earth governments won't follow them, or that new and possibly oppressive governments won't form among the space colonists themselves? Governments are a phenomenon of human beings, not planetary surfaces. I guess I'm just one of those misguided people who still believe that democratically elected governments, for all their faults, are preferable to anarchies. I am more than willing to allow a "coercive" government to take away my freedom to murder people as long as they take it away from everybody else too. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 88 20:00:16 GMT From: unmvax!charon!deimos.unm.edu!f12012ag@ucbvax.berkeley.edu ( ) Subject: Re: space news from Feb 1 AW&ST To answer your question about Discovery's payload - STS-26: According to GODDARD NEWS, November, 1987, the primary payload will be the TDRS-C satellite. (Tracking & Data Relay Sat.) -Ollie N6LTJ SEDS - Students for the Exploration and Development of Space -Info:277-3171 Box 92 Student Union, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87106 ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 88 01:35:09 GMT From: ems!rosevax!kksys!bird@UMN-CS.ARPA (0000-Mike Bird) Subject: LaRouche's space position I was channel flipping and just came across this "plan" on a scramjet-powered shuttle launch system. So, I continued to listen, and it turned out to be a paid political announcement by Linden LaRouche. (I think I got the spelling right.) ANYway, he was speaking about "his" plan for bringing America back to the fore-front of the technological world, primarily through an agressive space program focusing on a Mars mission. A lot of the information was developed, he said, by scientists world over. Most of his illustrations seemed to have been done by Europeans (Italian, West Germann, etc). From the other things I've he|rd about this man, he wouldn't be my personal first choice for president, but he certainly can speak well in an edited, prepared, presentation. Did anyone else catch the presentation? Has anyone else heard about his stance on the space program? Is this a recent "Bandwagon" jumping, or is this something he picked because no one else is talking about it? ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 88 23:39:41 GMT From: mnetor!spectrix!tmsoft!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Horizontal ascent into orbit > Consider the following method for achieving orbit: ... > STAGE 2: The boosters are activated for a short period to > achieve a high elliptic orbit, with the starting > position being the low point of the orbit Unfortunately the period is not "short", because what is involved is raising the low-point velocity from the Mach 10 you started with to an orbital velocity, circa Mach 25. > Has such a method been considered (say, in the old Dynasoar project)? > What is wrong with it? Nothing is wrong with it; all existing space launchers use it! All of them climb vertically for quite a short period, tilt over, and do most of their real accelerating almost horizontally at high altitude. The only thing that's really different about your proposal is using horizontal flight to reach Mach 10 in the upper stratosphere. This has advantages, since supporting yourself with wings is easier than doing it with brute-force rocket thrust. It also has disadvantages, since wings are heavy and are effectively dead weight during the later phases. The same is true of jet engines. The tradeoffs are complicated. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 88 17:42:54 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: There's hope yet Just when you thought the UK space effort was dead and buried... The corpse twitches.... One of the UK's computer trade newspapers "Computer weekly" carried a front page article on Feb 25th edition entitled "Space project offers boost to software work". I quote some excerpts from it. "British Aerospace, the principal architect of the HoToL programme - the UK's answer to the space shuttle - has asked eight software houses to help it develop the software technologies required to make the programme a reality." "Software productivity and reliability are the key issues if British Aerospace is to build the command and control system for HoToL in an acceptable development time. Using existing tools would require 3,000 worker years of effort - BA wants to reduce that to 300." "The HoToL programme to produce a re-useable reansit van for the 21st century requires twice as much code as the current all-electronic planes." "It is also planned to cut down the size of team required to fly the HoToL van. ... it takes 5,000 people to operate the US shuttle." "Over the next few months the club of software eight software houses will iron out a programme of research. ... BA has already set up another such club, to work on another technical issue for HoToL - advanced material." "HoToL needs some 5 billion pounds investment over the next 10 years." It is worth noting that one of the software houses, Logica, was the main candidate do be awarded the contract by ESA for the software systems on Columbus. (The ESA module of the US space station). Logica had already spent large sums of money on preliminary research, before the UK Government finally pulled out of the project a couple of weeks ago. This was the only one of the three ESA special projects the UK didn't give a definite no to at the ESA meeting last November. (Hardly encouraging private enterprise). Other developments in the last couple of days worth noting. 1. BA has put in a bid to buy the UK Government owned car makers, previously known as British Layland (amongst others). 2. BL has close ties with Honda. 3. Honda has no aerospace expertise, unlike other Japanese car makers, and has expresed an interest in entering the field. I leave it to you to work out your own conclusions. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Mar 1988 01:23-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu To: "/usr/amon/Email/Email.space" Subject: Attack on space program Representative William H. Gray III (D-Pa) recently attacked space programs. While presenting the Democrats' reply to President Reagan's radio address on the Administration's new budget proposal, Gray said that spending on the space program is "out of line with America's needs and America's values." Gray said that we should be spending more on the homeless, not more on space. He has since repeated the remarks in interviews on CNN and elsewhere. Gray is chair of the House Budget Committee, which will soon be reviewing NASA's appropriations. If you disagree with his perspective, you should let him know. His address is 204 Cannon House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515; (202) 225-4001. His legislative assistant's name is Roselee Roberts. Please also send a copy of your letter, with a short explanatory note, to Speaker of the House Jim Wright, 1236 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515. The leadership will be making decisions in the next few weeks that will determine whether NASA will receive the Administration's proposed budget increase or instead suffer major cutbacks including the elimination of the space station, of Pathfinder programs, etc. Please also spread this message around to any other forums you have access to. This year will be critical to the future of an American space program -- please do your part to see that it has a future, and that nay-sayers like Gray shut up. Your children will thank you. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 88 21:22:34 GMT From: fluke!salt@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Craig Johnston) Subject: Re: Solar power launching In article <8803031621.AA11880@angband.s1.gov> SPACE@GWUVM.BITNET (Bob - GWU SEDS) writes: > Solar power launching can be accomplished in a number of ways. >2. Beam Power - would use microwave or laser to power an electric engine, > maximizing the payload as percentage of launch mass. I'm not convinced > the the engines will be powerful enough for launch. Air to space and > intraspace transport, this is great. I guess I will expose my ignorance to ask what kind of an electric motor can be used in both atmosphere and in space. Can anyone enlighten me? On a related subject, I seem to recall that a large portion of boost energy in the present approach goes into lifting the whole assembly through the lower atmosphere. A science fiction story I once read essentially suggested taking the current shuttle and lifting it to 80,000 to 100,000 feet with a (very large) balloon. Has anyone worked out the physics of this? It seems as though the balloon and its gas could be recovered by using some form of solar energy to compress the gas back to liquid form (also taking care of potential pollution effects). The story did assume chemical rockets to boost into orbit from there, but the other interesting suggestions in this article could also be applied to this composite approach. -- Craig Johnston (salt@tc.fluke.com), John Fluke Mfg. Co., Everett, WA, USA {uw-beaver,lbl-csam,hplsla,ssc-vax,microsoft,sun,allegra,...}!fluke!salt ------------------------------ Subject: Making "Space Government" an Oxymoron Date: Tue, 08 Mar 88 12:07:26 -0500 From: Fred Baube mnetor!utzoo!yunexus!maccs!gordan@uunet.uu.net (gordan) writes: > If anyone out there _really_ wants to be free of any world government, > there's a place on Earth where it can be done. The high seas. Outside > the 200-mile territorial limits, you're free of any government > interference (of course, some national government could try to extend > its jurisdiction to the middle of the ocean; but then again, some > government could try to extend its jurisdiction to space). Sorry, but .. to be on the high seas, your ship must be regis- tered in some country (i.e. gov't). Otherwise, you're fair game for *any* government's seagoing enforcers. And even if you *are* registered somewhere (e.g. Panama, a favorite), the Law of the Sea says that there must be a "genuine link" between the registerer and the nation (e.g. a residence, or some sort of business transacted there) .. I recall reading that the US is using this rule to attack the validity of registrations of smugglers' ships. And as for extending jurisdiction to the middle of the ocean, there are arguments that this is *precisely* what the US has been trying to do. They have been targeting drug smugglers, but the effect has been to try to set precedents for general enforcement power on the high seas. So, you see, the Statists ARE *everywhere*, and there is an argument to be made that they are being spearheaded by the Land of the Free .. #include ------------------------------ Date: 8 Mar 88 07:27:59 GMT From: decvax!mandrill!edvax@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Edward Reznichenko) Subject: Re: LaRouche >Did any one else see Lyndon LaRouche expounding the merits >of space exploration on prime time television last night? ... > >The LaRouche >Democratic Campaign >PO Box 17068 >Washington, DC 20041 -------------------------------------------- Yeah, I saw it here too. I was kinda surprised that he would spend several million dollars on a TV add. I can tell you one thing though, it got my attention. His half-hour uninterrupted advertisement made more sense than the commercials made by the rat race candidates. My biggest turn-off from LaRouche are obviously his racists views (and his questionable sanity). If he decides to change his views by election time, I might vote for LaRouche instead of Benny Hill. --ed Pat_Robertson:system("cat henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Consider the following method for achieving orbit: ... >> STAGE 2: The boosters are activated for a short period to >> achieve a high elliptic orbit, with the starting >> position being the low point of the orbit > >Unfortunately the period is not "short" ... Isn't it only three minutes or so with 5 G's of thrust? Orbital speed is about 40000 km / hour ... or 40 000 000/3600 m/sec. 5G's is about 50 in those units, so the time of acceleration would optimally be: 40 000 000 / (3600 * 50) = about 210 seconds. Mach10 is around 3500 met/sec so that chops off slightly under a minute of thrust: 2 1/2 minutes or so ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #161 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Mar 88 06:18:44 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02597; Sat, 12 Mar 88 03:17:08 PST id AA02597; Sat, 12 Mar 88 03:17:08 PST Date: Sat, 12 Mar 88 03:17:08 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803121117.AA02597@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #162 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 162 Today's Topics: NASA News Release [Ed: [ota: SPACE Digest V8 #156]] RE: SPACE Digest V8 #159 Albert Gore on space budgets (space news from Feb 1 AW&ST) wonderfully informative letter (re space) from congressman Tom Lantos Bill Nelson's problem The LaRouche worldview BA/BAe Horizontal takeoff launch vehicles RE: Free Fall Sex Re: Colonization of the seas ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Mar 88 00:33:29 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!embudo!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (markf) Subject: NASA News Release NASA NEWS - NASA Examines 72 Nozzle Bolts NASA and Morton Thiokol are examining 72 bolts in the interior of the Space Shuttle solid rocket motor nozzle. The bolts, which measure 3/4" by 2 1/2", attatch the nozzle fixed housing to the nozzle's flex bearing assembly. Replacement is being considered because the bolts are threaded all the way to the bolt head instead of having a smooth bolt shank. A smooth shank may be preferred to assure that special Stat-O-Seal washers located under the bolt heads seal properly. The washers form a secondary seal intended to prevent gas leakage past the attachment bolts should there be a leak past the primary o-ring seal in this joint. The washers were added as part of the overall SRM redesign for additional seal redundancy, even though the previous single seal design has never experienced any difficult or distress in any previous ground test or flight motor firing. Preliminary tests at the equivalent of full motor pressure have shown no external leakage with the current bolts. As a precaution, however, further special tests and analyses are being conducted to determine if replacement of the bolts and seals is necessary. ----------------------------------------------------------- NASA News Release 88-18 - Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution - Article by Sarah Keegan, Headquaters, Washington, D.C. and Ed Medal, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. Feb 9, 1988 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Mar 88 10:46:10 EST From: "Christopher M. Maeda" Subject: [Ed: [ota: SPACE Digest V8 #156]] Date: Mon, 7 Mar 88 15:57 EST From: Ed Schwalenberg To: Rob Austein , MAEDA at AI.AI.MIT.EDU cc: postmaster at MC.LCS.MIT.EDU, MarkL at ALLSPICE.LCS.MIT.EDU, Info-ITS at AI.AI.MIT.EDU Re: [ota: SPACE Digest V8 #156] Date: Sun 6 Mar 88 23:23:32-EST From: Rob Austein Date: Sun, 6 Mar 88 14:22:49 EST From: "Christopher M. Maeda" The following was posted to space digest in a discussion about remote logins to the moon.,, [Note COMSAT ".." lossage here^^.] From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Re: data and long distances The distance problem applies to satelites in geosynchonous orbit, as well. radio wave take a noticeable fraction of a second to get there and back. That would play hell with high baud rates if not accounted for. A comsat expert might know how it's done. For interplanetary stuff you'd want to use a batched mail protocol like BSMTP over a high bandwidth transmission protocol like NETBLT for mail. You could probably get away with SMTP to Lunagrad (Moonbase doesn't look like it's going to be an issue any time soon). Remote login will be bad no matter what. The best you could do would be something like RMS's local editing protocol, again using something like NETBLT for transmission so that at least screen updates would be fast once they arrived. I actually tried using a computer in Miami from Antarctica via a geosynch satellite. It was, er, painful. But I did a fun experiment too: I did an analog loopback through the satellite, and watched my characters echo on the screen. Then I tried typing a character, and while it was on its way up and back I digitally looped back my end. After about 6 passes the character would begin to decay: aaaaaabp~~~~~~ Another satellite hacker (the gentleman in Miami) ran a PDP-11 to the satellite, ran the analog downlink back up to another channel on the same satellite, then to a terminal, for a total delay of about .75 sec. ------------------------------ From: mrgate::"a1::manansalafs"@afsc-sd.arpa Date: 9 Mar 88 10:51:00 PST Subject: RE: SPACE Digest V8 #159 To: "space" Reply-To: From: NAME: MANANSALA, FILEMON S. CAPT. FUNC: SCPP TEL: 30418 Request removal from Space Digest distribution. ------ ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 88 17:04:02 GMT From: paul.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) Subject: Albert Gore on space budgets (space news from Feb 1 AW&ST) > Albert Gore (Dem. presidential candidate) comes out in favor of an > international manned Mars mission and of "reversing the imbalance" in > funding between DoD's space budget and NASA's. Well, that's a pretty ambiguous statement. If he's listening to reality, he's planning to cut Pentagon space programs to fund NASA, but I seem to remember that he's a supporter of lavish military spending in general and Star Wars in particular. M A X H E A D R O O M F O R P R E S I D E N T (the best computer-generated video image running) -- Steve Masticola (masticol@paul.rutgers.edu) Hill 137 - (201) 932-3766 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Mar 88 18:40:31 X-Date-Last-Edited: 1988 March 09 18:40:31 PST (=GMT-8hr) X-Date-Posted: 1988 March 09 18:40:45 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: wonderfully informative letter (re space) from congressman Tom Lantos (I'm not on Space, so please CC any discussion to REM%IMSSS@SAIL.Stanford.Edu) I have tried several times through the years to write to my congressman, Tom Lantos (11th dist.), without luck. Mostly he just ignored my letters as far as I can tell, not any reply nor even ack. Once he even had the gall to send me a letter notifying me that I was not in his district and that as a courtesy he had forwarded my letter to Ernie Konnyu (12th dist.). But a couple months ago I sent him a listing of the message containing the New Jersey (I think?) proposal for space priorities, and that must have been of unusually great interest to him because he actually replied to it, telling me what seems to be his complete position on the U.S. Space Program. Below is the complete text of his letter (sans letterhead, inside address and signature): ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you very much for taking the time to share your thoughts with me about the U.S. Space Program. I am always delighted to receive comments on these critical matters. I can assure you that when these important issues come before Congress I will keep your views in mind. Please continue to keep me informed of your views on other issues of concern to you. ---------------------------------------------------------------- That was so informative, next I'll write to him about an even more important topic, the order of succession for a congressman who is permanently unable to perform his duties due to severe mental disability. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Mar 88 08:41:03 PST From: BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa Subject: Bill Nelson's problem Date: Thu, 10-MAR-1988 10:31 PDT X-VMS-Mail-To: SPACE Dale Amon feels Bill Nelson's campaign against Payload Systems is sour grapes about US firms having to go to the Soviets for space facilities. This may be partially true, but during the budget hearings, Nelson made it quite clear that he saw this as a juristictional battle between the Commerce Department and the Space Science Subcommittee over regulatory turf. Nelson may oppose the Payload Systems contract with the Soviets as much because the Commerce Department did not consult him first, as because Nelson can't handle the reality of our failures in space. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 88 09:57:00 PST From: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" Subject: To: "space" Reply-To: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" Subject: Re: Attack On Space Program Dale Amon writes: > Representative William H. Gray III (D-Pa) recently attacked space >programs. While presenting the Democrats' reply to President Reagan's radio >address on the Administration's new budget proposal, Gray said that spending >on the space program is "out of line with America's needs and America's >values." Gray said that we should be spending more on the homeless, not more >on space. . . Gray is chair of the House Budget Committee, which will soon be >reviewing NASA's appropriations. Rep. Gray might be interested in the Space Shuttle experiment which a group of inner-city high school students designed. Ben Bova described it in _The High Road_; forgive me for not remembering the exact reference (while looking it up, you will find additional ammunition as well). He may also appreciate a quote from Nichelle Nichols, who played Lt Uhura on _Star Trek_. The gist of it was something like this: all of humanity will send representatives into space, and when blacks go, it should not be as waiters and tap dancers. The exact words are in Stewart Brand's late 70's book, _Space Colonies_. (Rep. Gray is black.) Send those letters to: Rep Wm Gray III 204 Cannon House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515 Phone number is (202) 225-4001; his legislative assistant's name is Roselee Roberts. CC to: Speaker of the House Jim Wright 1236 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515. -- Kevin "Mad Max" Bold |"The history of government is the history (BOLD@AFSC-SD.ARPA) |of the abuse of power." | -- Kevin Bold, _Anarchy Is Not Chaos_ ------ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Mar 88 09:16:56 PST From: hairston%utd750%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov Subject: The LaRouche worldview X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"space@angband.s1.gov" I've seen several postings talking about Lyndon LaRouche's space program proposals but nobody has yet mentioned the weird worldview that goes with it. Before I get started I must admit that I am no expert on LaRouche other than having read some of his literature in passing and having a fellow space physicist friend who makes a hobby of arguing physics with LaRouchites at the airports. LaRouche's world view is basically a paranoid "world conspiracy is running EVERYTHING" outlook. Nothing terribly original in that idea. He sees all world history since the ancient Greeks as being an ongoing battle between the forces of light and the evil forces of darkness, in this case the good guys are the Aristotelians and the bad guys are the nasty neo-Platonists. The embodiment of all the evil neo-Platonism in the modern world is England. (Which is why the Queen of England, dear old frumpy Elizabeth, is the head of the Worldwide Drug Smuggling Cartel. Apparently it's an inherited post.) Since everything English is tainted with the evil heresy of neo-Platonism, then all science done by English scientists is WRONG! Newton and Maxwell are nothing but false prophets who must be struck down in order that TRUE Riemannian Physics can prevail. LaRouche is (and has been since the 70's) a fervent Star Wars advocate, but sees it failing because the scientists working on it aren't using the TRUE physics that he and his followers hold to. (For some reason they don't like Einstein either. I would guess it's anti-semitism, but that's too logical and straightforward a reason for LaRouchite thought.) Last summer I was going through the DFW airport when I saw one of their hawkers with the table full of pamphlets. It was a slow day and since he was not allowed out of their designated area, he was yelling at the people at they went by trying to get someone to come look at their material. I guess he had me pegged because when I passed he yelled out "Revitalize the US's space program!" I turned on my heel and shouted back "Not without Newtonian mechanics you don't!" He started foaming at the mouth and shouting about "Riemannian physics", but I didn't stay to listen. I had a plane to catch. Marc Hairston--Center for Space Science--Univ of Texas at Dallas A Known Hotbed of Newtonian, Maxwellian, and Einsteinian Physics ------------------------------ Date: 11-MAR-1988 14:55:25 GMT From: F026@cpc865.uea.ac.uk Subject: BA/BAe >(Space digest V8 #161) >BA has put in a bid to buy the UK Government owned car makers [Rover] That's BAe (British Aerospace, who make things) not BA (British Airways, who fly things) Mike. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Mar 88 17:50:33 GMT From: "Geoff. Lane. Phone UK-061 275 6051" Subject: Horizontal takeoff launch vehicles There is already a horizonal takeoff launch system in the design stage ... THE HOTOL and its British(well so far, funding has not yet quite stopped :-( ). It takes off from a fairly standard runway using airbreathing mode where liquid hydrogen is burnt with air and continues up to about 85000ft and Mach 5. From there the rockets change mode and continue up into orbit using onboard liquid oxygen to burn the hydrogen. The takeoff weight will be about 250 tonnes and the payload will be about 3 percent of that - which is not too bad. The Hotol will be the first TOTALLY reusable vehicle. No bits of it are thrown away as it rises. It is intended to be unmanned. Geoff Lane UMRCC ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Mar 88 13:10:31 GMT From: VTIS001%NMSUVM1.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@CUNYVM Subject: RE: Free Fall Sex I was just reading through the recent space digests, and I was curious about exactly how two people would work things in a neutral bouyancy tank. Aren't they wearing a mask, air tanks, weights, suit, etc.? Not to mention the fact that their motions will be *real* sluggish underwater.... David VTIS001@NMSUVM1.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Mar 88 13:45 PDT From: Frank Mayhar Really-To: Space%angband.s1.gov @ARPA Subject: Re: Colonization of the seas Dale Amon says: > So I stand by my statement that you have to leave the planet to be > free. Phil Karn replies: > If it becomes technically feasible (ie., economically practical) for > ordinary individuals to move into space, what makes you think that Earth > governments won't follow them, or that new and possibly oppressive > governments won't form among the space colonists themselves? Governments > are a phenomenon of human beings, not planetary surfaces. > > I guess I'm just one of those misguided people who still believe that > democratically elected governments, for all their faults, are preferable > to anarchies. I am more than willing to allow a "coercive" government > to take away my freedom to murder people as long as they take it away > from everybody else too. Not misguided, merely naive. :-) Seriously, I think you're right, to a point. Using the American west as an example, the "pioneers" found that the eastern government eventually followed them west, swallowing up many locally-formed governments in the process. At the same time, for quite a long while, sheer distance from that eastern government gave the people in the west virtually complete autonomy. To extend the analogy, the United States itself owes much of its early autonomy to the distance between the North American continent and Europe (and, of course, to the fact that often the European powers were too busy with their own local squabbles to worry about a bunch of British upstarts). Compare that distance with interplanetary distances. Even given better technology, getting to the Moon will be almost as difficult as getting to North America was, and getting to Mars, the asteroids, or the moons of Jupiter will be much more difficult, not to mention more time-consuming. The result will be that the people that will live there could be almost completely independent (socially and politically, at least) of any terrestrial government. I say "could" rather than "will" because they must be physically self-sufficient before they could be politically independent. I certainly think that physical independence would be likely, though, given the resources there and an economical way of extracting them. As to preferring a democratically-elected government over an anarchy, first show me a democratically elected government. (The U.S. is not strictly a democracy, as you should know if you paid attention in college history courses.) Secondly, a governments coercion goes further than forbidding murder. Some examples in our particular government: the income tax (don't pay and we'll put you in jail); selective service registration (not only will we put you in jail, we'll make sure you can't get any financial aid while you're trying to better your education, as well); the punishment for "desertion" while in the armed forces (was once death, is still severe). I could go on. I personally do NOT believe in any government that says that it's not okay for its citizens to commit murder, but it IS okay for the government to do the same. (What is capital punishment, anyway, but legal murder, carried out by the state. Not that I don't believe in a form of capital punishment (it's unfortunately the only solution, in some cases), I believe it should be carried out by individuals, rather than the state.) While I admit that some laws are useful, many do nothing but reduce our individual freedoms. And, unfortunately, the only place left to get away from governments is above the atmosphere. -- Frank Mayhar (Frank-Mayhar%ladc@bco-multics.arpa) Honeywell Bull, Inc. Los Angeles Development Center, Los Angeles (213) 216-6241 These opinions are strictly my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #162 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Mar 88 06:15:20 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03816; Sun, 13 Mar 88 03:14:32 PST id AA03816; Sun, 13 Mar 88 03:14:32 PST Date: Sun, 13 Mar 88 03:14:32 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803131114.AA03816@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #163 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 163 Today's Topics: Letters to congressman Space civilizations Re: Info on the NASP Political Colonies Re: Next Arianne launch Re: Colonization of the seas ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 88 10:29 CDT From: (Mark Fischer) Subject: Letters to congressman While reading the newspaper I noticed that the press has been giving quite a bit of attention the actions of the committe that allocates government funds for the space program. Would someone give me a list of the Congressmen that I should write to to express my views about the space program? Thanks in advance. Mark Fishcer Bitnet: mwf8191@tamvenus ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Mar 88 22:01:19 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Space civilizations To: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov, Poli-Sci@rutgers.edu > From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) > If it becomes technically feasible (ie., economically practical) for > ordinary individuals to move into space, what makes you think that Earth > governments won't follow them, or that new and possibly oppressive > governments won't form among the space colonists themselves? The idea is that space gives people space to try out new forms of government - for groups of people who believe in some different way of organizing society to get together and make a fresh start, out of reach of earth governments. And why should earth governments follow them? If it takes the colonists several months to reach the asteroid belt, government won't get there any faster. And what excuse would they have? A distant space society would hardly be setting up gambling casinos or drug factories that would have any influence on the earth government's property - I mean citizens. Also, a true anarchist, in space, could live as a hermit, millions of miles from the nearest neigbors, if that's what he wanted. > I am more than willing to allow a "coercive" government > to take away my freedom to murder people as long as they take it away > from everybody else too. I would have no objection to government if it was restricted to doing things like this, e.g. laws against using force, threat of force, or fraud against others. Period. But I for one am sick of the myriad rules and regulations that control every aspect of life here in the US (and it's even worse in most other countries) and of giving up to taxes 1/3 to 1/2 of any wealth I ever create. I would like to see the US get back to its original ideals of liberty. Since so many US citizens unfortunately don't agree, I would like to start over with like-minded people somewhere out of reach of all earth governments. I don't consider myself an anarchist. A society in space (not in earth orbit) would also be immune to earth- based wars, plagues, and gray-goo disasters. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 10 Mar 88 01:27:23 GMT From: devvax!jplpro!des@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Smyth) Subject: Re: Info on the NASP In article <191700007@trsvax> gm@trsvax.UUCP writes: > >Another real problem they are having is sampling/sensing of the airflow >outside. There would be no way they could just stick a Pitot tube out >without it melting, so they are looking into ways of doing remote >sensing of such things behind transparent panels. And speaking of >transparent panels, they don't really want to have to figure out a >way to put windows in the thing, causing much uproar with the pilots. This seems strange. Yachts have had water speed transducers which require nothing at all beyond the surafe for years. I think they use doppler against the water molecules, but I'm not sure. Why not just use intertial and Navstar like ICBMs? Or TDRS like the shuttle? If they want air data, just use pressure. That won't require anything beyond the surface. The shuttle has windows, so the NASP obviously could too. But why bother? Use cameras (small ports should be easy and light) and make a transparent cockpit via imaging, like Honeywell did on some experimental cockpit they made a few years ago. They tracked the pilots eyes with light, and projected very high resolution images in the narrow area immediately ahead of the pupil, with the resolution decreasing with angle, so not so much imaging really had to be done by the computers. The image was displayed on the inside of a rather extended visor. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Mar 88 17:28:39 GMT From: hyper!guest@UMN-CS.ARPA (guest) Subject: Political Colonies Table of Libertarian Alternatives: Space Colony Ocean Colony Land Colony Non-Colony ------------ ------------ ----------- ---------- Cost -- Astronomical Very high Relocation Advertising Interference -- lowest risk low risk medium low Livability -- questionable questionable good good Mass Appeal -- low lower medium highest Timeframe -- futuristic years now years Probability -- low low highest medium Overall rating -- very low low high highest Notes: 1) Land colony assumes a geographic area INSIDE the United States. 2) Non-colony assumes the whole USA. 3) Ocean colony assumes nearness to US coast or territory. Conclusions: The land colony seems to offer the quickest route to reduced coercion against the individual, a sort of interim haven until total victory. I wouldn't underestimate the ability of a libertarian city to muck up and otherwise deflect a lot of state and federal interference. Ocean and Space colonies are just too darned expensive. - John M. Logajan {...!rutgers!} umn-cs!hyper!ns!logajan - Network System Corp.; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 ------------------------------ Date: 9 Mar 88 07:49:59 GMT From: mcvax!esatst!neil@uunet.uu.net (Neil Dixon) Subject: Re: Next Arianne launch In article <5676@ames.arpa> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes: > >Theoretically, Arianne mission V-21 takes off this next Friday, March 11. >Anyone have the exact time of launch?? I know that they normally aim for >about 4:00 pm to 4:30 local. The launch window is 00.28 - 01.04 MET & 02.50 - 03.15 MET (MET == GMT + 1) -- Neil Dixon UUCP:...!mcvax!esatst!neil, BITNET: NDIXON@ESTEC Thermal Control & Life Support Division (YC) European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC), Noordwijk, The Netherlands. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 88 06:53:41 GMT From: nuchat!uhnix1!sugar!peter@uunet.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Colonization of the seas Re: where's the last great hope of anarchy? Space? The oceans? I don't know... In article <573780134.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: > It has been tried. An abandoned platform off the coast of England set > up a pretty much free port and gambling casino. It was raided by men > with machine guns. > A group set up shop on a reef in the Pacific that was unclaimed. I > think the may have dumped loads of landfill to raise the level or > something. They even minted gold coinage. The nearest socialist welfare > island came visiting with gunboats and took over. ... > So I stand by my statement that you have to leave the planet to be > free. > The day WILL come. And when it does what makes you think the nearest socialist welfare state won't come visiting with gunboats and take the thing over? The states have much more resources to throw into colonization than any individuals, and have proven time and time again that they can't resist the lure of more individuals to have power over... even if the colonial effort always ends up bankrupting their economies. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #163 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Mar 88 06:46:02 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05271; Mon, 14 Mar 88 03:19:05 PST id AA05271; Mon, 14 Mar 88 03:19:05 PST Date: Mon, 14 Mar 88 03:19:05 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803141119.AA05271@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #164 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 164 Today's Topics: Re: Forget the Saturn V! Press Coverage and Democrats on Space Re: Forget the Saturn V! space news from Feb 8 AW&ST Re: Colonization of the seas Re: Colonization of the seas ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Mar 88 04:28:53 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Forget the Saturn V! > (Did planning for the Nova-class booster ever get past the > "why not build a *really* big one, huh guys?" stage?) There were a number of different Nova proposals; none ever got very far. They did have some small effect on infrastructure planning, though. For example, the VAB at Kennedy can hold a booster quite a bit larger than a Saturn V. The biggest problem with almost any big-booster proposal these days is the complete lack of big non-hydrogen engines. Reviving the F-1 would be the simplest approach, but even that would require a lot of retesting and probably some redesign work -- too much of the original knowledge and manufacturing capability has been lost. Can you say "expensive"? Rather higher performance could be had with an all-new design, at still higher cost. There is nothing available off the shelf. An important secondary problem is launch sites, since KSC is dedicated to the shuttle these days and there just isn't anywhere else set up for things that size, unless perhaps one climbs into bed with the USAF enough to get the use of the Vandenberg shuttle pad. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 88 06:41:53 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!EWTILENI@princeton.edu (Eric Tilenius) Subject: Press Coverage and Democrats on Space I recently wrote to both The Christian Science Monitor and The New York Times about space policy and Campaign '88. Looks like both my letters will have been published by the time this reaches all you folks. I was pleased to see that the Monitor published my letter in today's paper (Thursday, March 10, 1988). While it was edited somewhat (space reasons :-)) it was still good that something pro-space is getting into the press. A NY Times editor called me up yesterday saying he was interested in running the slightly different letter which I sent them, and that it would probably appear on Friday, March 11. My letters basically made a short case FOR the space program, including manned missions to Mars, urged candidates to come forth and tell us their opinions on these matters, and asked the press to help cover what was certainly a vital issue (well, I think it is!) of the '88 campaign. I would encourage ALL of you to write a letter to your local paper in SUPPORT of the space program, and saying that you hope the Presidential candidates will address this important issue. (Any pro-space article is good!) Also, on the matter of Democrats and the space program, there seems to be a split line in the party, with many walking in between. One of the most outspoken PROponents of the space program and a mission to Mars is Hawaii Democratic Senator Spark Matsangua (sp?). I have received letters in support of the space program from Paul Simon, Al Gore, and Daniel Moynihan (D-NY). While this issue is in its formative stages, I would urge EVERYONE to write to their Congressman and/or Senator to express their support for the space program, especially Democrats. There are many Democrats out there who are strongly pro-space, and many who are wavering. Before any kind of party stance is made, it would be nice if we could demonstrate some public support for the program. Below the addresses and formats you can use in your letters to elected officials (if you write to both Senators, do send separate letters): HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (CONGRESSMAN) U.S. SENATE (SENATOR) -------------------------------------- ---------------------- The Honorable ____________________ The Honorable ______________ House of Representatives United States Senate Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20510 Dear Mr. _______________: Dear Senator __________: Remember: it's your future, but you've got to help work for it now! Also, do TAILOR your letter to your reader/audience. If there's a space industry in your state, remind your Senator of JOBS. If your Congressman is big on peace, point out the peaceful benefits that multi-national space cooperation can bring, and how the space program can bring great technological leaps and encourage constructive nationalism in a peaceful fashion, etc. - ERIC - *----------------------===> SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------* * ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU // ewtileni@pucc.BITNET * * rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni // princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni * * ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"* *--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------* ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 88 16:57:53 GMT From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: Forget the Saturn V! In article <45012@sun.uucp>, fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: > Enough of these faint hearts...nuts to the dinky Shuttle > and derivatives...none of this wimpy Saturn V resurrection > nonsense! > > What we need is a *real* booster! Let's build the Nova!! > Who needs advanced-technology engines? Just scale things > up...and up...and up. Although this was obviously posted tongue-in-cheek, let me point out that the Nova was to use a cluster of 8 F-1 engines in the first stage and one J-2 in the third stage. This is Saturn 5 stuff. David Smith P.S. The second stage's M-1 engine was never developed. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 88 04:12:45 GMT From: pacbell!att-ih!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Feb 8 AW&ST NASA assessing new targets for CRAF; the slip from FY89 to FY90 (well, maybe FY90) has probably postponed the launch several years, for lack of good comet targets in the mid-1990s. McDonnell-Douglas and Martin Marietta discussing a joint venture in the USAF Medium Launch Vehicle competition, perhaps a McD-D Delta with a new MM cryogenic upper stage. [They're dreaming, MLV is clearly an excuse to throw some government business to General Dynamics's Atlas-Centaur.] The space station will not be metric, for fear that it might affect safety in an emergency when snap decisions are being made by ignorant astronauts who have to convert metric units to archaic ones before thinking about them. [AW&ST obviously did not word it quite that way...] Among minor issues in Reagan's new space policy is development of a new Space Debris Policy. James Beggs, ex-NASA-admin, becomes chairman of Spacehab, which wants to build privately-funded extender modules to enlarge the Shuttle's pressurized volume. Spacehab does not want government money but does want shuttle flight opportunities, which it so far hasn't got. It plans to start bending metal this summer. Latest NASA headache: the Long Duration Exposure Facility, long overdue for retrieval by the shuttle, is decaying from orbit faster than expected. NASA is trying to sort out a flight schedule that retrieves LDEF soon, gets Magellan off to Venus on time, and gets SDI's Cirrus experiment up early (which SDI badly wants). LDEF was intended to be picked up a year after its deployment in 1984. NORAD predicts it will decay in mid-1990. Many of LDEF's experiments have been ruined by now, since they weren't meant for quite this long an exposure, but some will still yield useful data, and LDEF itself is reusable. The problem is that LDEF needs most of the shuttle cargo bay and its retrieval is difficult to combine with another mission. A Soviet radar image of Venus's surface, much more detailed than the ones they've released before. Andrew Stofan, NASA station boss, will leave for private industry. Four bids are in for Intelsat 7, teams headed by GE, Matra/British Aerospace, Hughes, and Ford Aerospace. Western Union to sell its satellite system to Hughes, which will add the three on-orbit satellites (and one yet to be launched) to its own system. Hughes sues US for $1.2G, claiming patent infringement by government satellite attitude-control systems. (This has actually been in the works since 1971.) Indonesia's Palapa B2R comsat will launch on Delta in 1990. Military metsat launched successfully from Vandenberg Feb 2, after short delays due to booster problems and weather. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology report says Britain should double its space budget or forget the whole thing. "[The current] level of spending gets the worst of all worlds -- too much for real savings, too little for lasting achievement." Report also stresses need for consistent policy and a stronger space agency, and notes that government has refused to release the British National Space Center's space plan while refusing to offer an alternative. Britain should participate in ESA but should press for restraint in costly programs duplicating those elsewhere. (In particular, Britain should not participate in Hermes at all.) Increased cooperation with US (military programs) and Canada (Radarsat etc.). Increased support for Hotol, provided it continues to look feasible, also stressed. NASA issues RFPs for project definition on AXAF, hardware develoment to commence by end of year if funding comes through. [Picture of AXAF, which actually could be mistaken for the Hubble telescope at first glance -- big tube with a sunshade lid at one end and solar arrays attached to the middle.] Report on microgravity from AIAA says US work is declining, not due to lack of potential or interest but due to lack of flight opportunities. If this goes on, the space station may not be useful for this work because none of the necessary preliminaries will have been done. Several recommendations, notably more funding, pressure on NASA to get going on a long-stay orbiter, ISF, and Spacehab, and additional Spacelab missions. Pratt & Whitney working on altitude-compensating rocket-nozzle concepts for higher Earth-to-orbit performance, under small USAF contract. Several possibilities, e.g. closeable vents in the nozzle side, to make nozzle act short when outside pressure is high and long when it is low. Full-scale component tests begin soon for Ariane 5's big oxyhydrogen engine. Letter from Mark Huffstutler, Texas: "While the Mir space station orbits overhead operating with the efficiency and occupancy rates rivaling a Hilton Hotel and plans for a mission to Mars escalate, the US space program cannot even put a man into orbit... At this rate, NASA will have to contract with the Soviet Union to deliver our space station into orbit." -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 88 19:01:13 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Colonization of the seas While the US and the USSR argues space stations and ocean colonies, my distant relatives on an island nation ARE moving into the sea (are being forced to). They are designing and constructing their next cities (measured in square miles) for the next decade. This is not by choice and will be done on the surface and immediately below. I guess Sagan was right in Contact. But no one in this country knows or cares, the language and the culture are too different. Don't say I didn't warn you. So went cars, electronics, etc. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 10 Mar 88 23:38:26 GMT From: pacbell!att-ih!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!lsuc!maccs!gordan@ames.arc.nasa.gov (gordan) Subject: Re: Colonization of the seas In article <573780134.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: -It has been tried. [... gives examples of unsuccessful attempts to set -up shop on abandoned oil rigs or reefs, which resulted in raids by -neighboring governments or mercenaries.] - -So I stand by my statement that you have to leave the planet to be -free. [...] - -The day WILL come. Well you may have a point. Perhaps national governments would suppress any ocean colony that tried to declare itself independent, or perhaps it would be a tempting target for mercenaries. Still, the same situation could apply to space colonies. You could picture space pirates coming through the airlocks of L5 Prime, or the inner solar system police raiding libertarian colonies that tried to set themselves up as illicit-information brokers (yes, I know I've been reading too many cyberpunk novels). Seriously, though... I suspect (though you may well disagree) that space travel and habitation will remain the exclusive monopoly of national governments for a long time, simply because of the enormous expense involved and resources required. I would venture to say that only the fantastically wealthy (billionaires by today's standards) will be able to live permanently in space as private individuals in our lifetimes. For this reason, laws, regulations, and international governmental organizations will be probably firmly entrenched in space long before any private organization manages to scrape together enough resources to establish a colony. Perhaps the game will be over before it even started. Though personally I don't subscribe to libertarian ideas, it seems to me that ocean colonies would be a plausible near-term alternative for anyone with a strong aversion to governments. Ocean colonies would be especially important in establishing a precedent -- that private groups can indeed declare themselves independent of any national government (the easy part) and compelling those governments, like it or not, to recognize that fact (the hard part). If you can't establish that precedent on Earth, it may well be too late (for the reasons mentioned above) to ever do so in space (or at least the inner solar system). Apart from setting a precedent, they would also be important in proving the whole concept of setting up such a colony is valid. And of course the experience gained (in self-government, and in attaining some degree of self-sufficiency) would be valuable if the time ever came to move the colony to space. As suggested earlier, an ocean colony is almost feasible today. Consider a determined (and well-off) group of several hundred to a thousand individuals (count me out, thanks), each able to put up $ 150 000 or so initially and $ 15 000 annually. They could certainly buy themselves a used oil supertanker or cruise ship (or make a down-payment on an aircraft carrier). In other words, forget the rag-tag adventurers who land on abandoned oil-drilling platforms. Consider instead the floating condominium-state. The main reason this idea is impractical today is because the citizens of this state would have a hard time earning money to support themselves, living permanently on board a ship. In a few decades, though, the situation could change. Say it's the early twenty-first century. You can use the equivalent of a phone to call anywhere in the world at 56 kbps, for a fixed monthly fee (we can dream, can't we). Many people who use computers in their jobs prefer to work at home. In fact, it's not unheard of to live halfway around the globe from your employer. The few jobs with special requirements ("geographic proximity required -- candidate must be willing to relocate") pay extra for the inconvenience. Under these circumstances (communications links are the key), the idea of a self-supporting ocean colony becomes less far-fetched. For the price of a new home (which is exactly what it would be) and a somewhat steep annual maintenance fee (but remember you're not paying taxes to any government) to pay for periodic supplies and communications links, an individual could indeed "be free". Of course, living in a floating condominium-state will always be more expensive and less convenient than living on land. Only highly ideologically motivated individuals would consider such an option (but there seem to be enough of you out there). I'm just thinking out loud (forgive the waste of net bandwidth), but it does seem plausible somehow that some group might try this in a few decades, either as a trial run for a space colony or as an end in itself. -- Gordan Palameta "Ecrasez l'infame" ...mnetor!lsuc!maccs!gordan -- Voltaire ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #164 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Mar 88 06:13:37 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06735; Tue, 15 Mar 88 03:12:41 PST id AA06735; Tue, 15 Mar 88 03:12:41 PST Date: Tue, 15 Mar 88 03:12:41 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803151112.AA06735@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #165 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 165 Today's Topics: Re: Space Civilizations Re: Albert Gore on space budgets (space news from Feb 1 AW&ST) Low income housing in orbit? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Mar 88 11:08 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Re: Space Civilizations To: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, space@angband.s1.gov > And why should earth governments follow them? If it takes the colonists > several months to reach the asteroid belt, government won't get there > any faster. And what excuse would they have? A distant space society > would hardly be setting up gambling casinos or drug factories that would > have any influence on the earth government's property - I mean citizens. Governments would have an excellent reason for stopping independent space colonies. Anyone who can redirect the orbit of an asteroid can potentially drop it on the earth. A 10,000 tonne asteroid -- quite small, as asteroids go -- hitting the earth at 30 km/sec liberates about 1 megaton of energy. Somehow, I can't imagine earth-based governments idlely accepting this potential threat. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Mar 88 13:05:39 -0500 (EST) From: "George H. Feil" X-Andrew-Message-Size: 504+0 Subject: Re: Albert Gore on space budgets (space news from Feb 1 AW&ST) > M A X H E A D R O O M F O R P R E S I D E N T > (the best computer-generated video image running) >-- > Steve Masticola (masticol@paul.rutgers.edu) Actually, I thought Ron Headrest was the video image running from president. (According to Doonsbury...) >From the computational caves of Carnegie Mellon George H. Feil arpanet: gf08+@andrew.cmu.edu bitnet: r746gf08@cmuccvb "Too many students get their impression of a city from the campus within it." ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 88 00:11:53 GMT From: thorin!ra.cs.unc.edu!leech@mcnc.org Subject: Low income housing in orbit? Unattributed short item in the 3/11 Charlotte Observer: KISS `STAR WARS' GOODBYE? WASHINGTON - The chairman of a House appropriations subcommittee said Thursday that Congress will ``kiss goodbye'' to plans for a space station if more money isn't allocated for housing. Rep. Edward Boland, D-Mass, said he will recommend taking at least $1.5 million from President Reagan's requested $2.5 billion for NASA and using it to restore housing cuts. Comments: - This has nothing to do with Star Wars. - I suspect they meant $1.5 BILLION, not million. - Perhaps the $2.5G referred to is Reagan's proposed increase in the NASA budget, since their current budget is far above this figure. In other words, does anyone know what Boland *really* said? Thanks. Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``After all, the best part of a holiday is perhaps not so much to be resting yourself as to see all the other fellows busy working.'' - Kenneth Grahame, _The Wind in the Willows_ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #165 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Mar 88 06:15:59 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08248; Wed, 16 Mar 88 03:15:12 PST id AA08248; Wed, 16 Mar 88 03:15:12 PST Date: Wed, 16 Mar 88 03:15:12 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803161115.AA08248@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #166 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 166 Today's Topics: Mir elements epoch 88-03-07 Upcoming eclipse Dukakis Position Paper on Space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Mar 88 02:48:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements epoch 88-03-07 Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 98 Epoch: 88 67.87328229 Inclination: 51.6241 degrees RA of node: 229.9278 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0013082 Argument of perigee: 188.3485 degrees Mean anomaly: 171.6746 degrees Mean motion: 15.78022993 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00063710 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 11784 Semimajor axis: 6714.14 km Apogee height*: 344.76 km Perigee height*: 327.19 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Mar 88 21:32:22 PST From: John Sotos Subject: Upcoming eclipse Isn't there a total eclipse coming up soon? (Sorry about this posting, but I don't know the name of the astronomy group.) As I recall, it is in the west Pacific. Does anyone know if the ground track will cross Guam or American Somoa? Isn't it sometime in the next week or so? Of course, one or two orbits and a person could see all the eclipses he or she wanted.... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Mar 88 16:56:34 PST From: BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa Subject: Dukakis Position Paper on Space Date: Mon, 14-MAR-1988 16:57 PDT X-VMS-Mail-To: SPACE Mike Dukakis on the Issues Restoring American Leadership in Space A generation ago, President John F. Kennedy raised the sights and the spirits of all Americans by challenging our scientists and citizens to go forward with a bold program of space exploration. Mercury, Gemini and Apollo fired our imaginations and our pride; Voyager, Viking and Skylab explored the depths of our solar system and the resources of our planet, gave us new insight into the origins of our universe and provided new knowlege and understanding with which we could improve the quality of life on earth. Sadly, in recent years, our space program has lost its sense of purpose. Despite annual expenditures approaching $10 billion per year, NASA is demoralized and our space effort is in disarray, our space science program no longer leads the world, and the tragedy of the space shuttle Challenger has created doubts about the ability of the United States to operate effectively in space. Our space program has been dominated by military considerations, while our competitiveness in the world-wide commercial market has steadily eroded. A New National Consensus For seven years, the current Administration has pursued a program-by-program, piecemeal approach to our space effort. The time has come to renew our commitment to an imaginative, well-desiged space policy. To turn away from the fantasy of Star Wars and to seek again to explore space for the benefit of all mankind. The next President must forge a new national consensus behind our goals in space: A vision that will guide our policies throughout the next decade and into the next century. We must begin by addressing our basic aims in space: how to reinvigorate our space science program, how to maintain America's technological edge in the face of increasing foreign competition; how to meet our requirements for space transportation; and how to define the role of manned space activities. The massive federal budget deficit will limit the resources available to the next President. He must work with Congress to set clear priorities and attainable goals, while strengthening partnerships between the federal government, our universities and the research community, and the private sector. Promoting a Competitive America Space Industry We need a space policy that will promote the competitiveness of American industry in the growing international market and expand job opportunities, while serving fundamental national goals in space. We should encourage commercial uses of space. The federal government must provide our private sector with the opportunity to invest in and develop space- related technologies, transportation systems and satellites. As President, I will encourage private investment by creating partnerships between the federal government and the private sector that emphasizes joint research programs. I will set forth clear policies for commercial competition to help promote our ability to meet the world-wide demand for launch services. And I will reinvigorate the White House office of Science and Technology Policy and charge it with the responsibility for ensuring effective coordination among government agencies and greater private sector involvement in our nation's space effort. Reinvigorating Space Science Rather than spend billions of dollars for projects that serve narrow interests -- such as the "Orient Express" space plane that will fly from New York to Tokyo in three hours, we should invest in a space program that will benefit our nation and humankind as a whlle. We should emphasize research, the development of innovative technology and space science, to expand our knowlege of the earth's resources and the world's oceans, improve communications and reveal the mysteries of the universe. We must develop a comprehensive, long-term plan to assure stable funding for important space science projects such as the Venus Radar mapper, the Mars Observer, the Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility and the Hubble Space Telescope. Assuring Our Access to Space Second, we ust restore our space transportation capability. I support the recommendation of the Challenger Commission to return the shuttle to service with a reduced flight schedule to help ensure higher safety standards, and to build a fourth orbiter, using proven technology. At the same time, the disruption caused by the shuttle disaster and the failures of the Titan and Delta rockets makes clear the need to diversify our nation's launch capability and devlop affordable alternatives to the shuttle (such as new expendable launch vehicles) for delivering important payloads into space. An Affordable, Practical Space Station Third, we should review the options for the space station. I support the development, at a prudent pace, of a technologically sophisticated space science and engineering laboratory -- but there are a number of less costly alternatives to the station now envisioned by NASA. These alternatives -- including a station that need not be permanently manned -- could be in operation much sooner and could meet most, if not all of the requirements of the larger, permanently manned space station. Skilled Management for NASA Fifth, I will appoint skilled managers at NASA who will restore professionalism and competence to our space program. Managers who will set high standards for NASA personnel and contractors -- and who will make sure that those standards are met. The continuing failures in our shuttle program are symptomatic of management gone awry -- our nation deserves better. International Cooperation in Space Finally, I will ask the Soviet Union, and other space-faring nations, to join with the US in more cooperative efforts in space. While we must be careful to protect sensitive technologies in these cooperative programs, they offer an unparalleled opportunity for all nations to work together on projects which will benefit us all. We should renew the US- USSR Space Science Agreement, coordinate the 1989 Soviet mission to Phobos with the US Mars Observer flight, and invite the USSR to join with the US, Japan and the European Space Agency in the International Solar Terrestrial Physics Program. And we should explore with the Soviet Union and other nations the feasibility and practicality of joint space engineering activities that might pave the way to a joint manned mission to Mars. Enhancing Our Security in Space I strongly oppose the Administration's militarization of space. Star Wars and anti-satellite weapons not only make our nation less secure; they divert funds and attention from far more important space research efforts. As President, I will direct the Pentagon to focus its efforts on programs that will enhance our security, such as improved satellites for arms control verification and early warning of attack, communications, navagation, and meteorology. And I will challenge the Soviet Union to join with us in new agreements to protect our vital space activities and enhance our security. By negotiating a ban on testing anti- satellite weapons -- including lasers and electronic interference. By developing guidelines for space operations -- such as "keep out zones" that will reduce the danger of attack on satellites. And by placing limits on military activities by humans in space. Inspiring the Next Generation of Space Scientists The future of the American space program depends on its ability to inspire and attract the bright young people of our nation. I support the establishment of educational programs that will motivate young people to explore careers in space science and technology. NASA, its scientists and engineers, and the private sector can be an important part of that effort. During the 1960's, our space program became a symbol of what the American mind and spirit can accomplish. As President, I will work with all those involved in the adventure of space to restore our sense of pride and purpose; and to explore the final frontier. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #166 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Mar 88 06:22:58 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09751; Thu, 17 Mar 88 03:21:55 PST id AA09751; Thu, 17 Mar 88 03:21:55 PST Date: Thu, 17 Mar 88 03:21:55 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803171121.AA09751@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #167 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 167 Today's Topics: When Stars Collide House Subcommittee Testimony ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 88 13:25 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: When Stars Collide To expand on the topic of stars colliding... If a binary star swings by another star one has a three body problem, which can cause capture. An interesting case, recently described in Nature, is the close approach of a binary star to a supermassive black hole. If a tight binary star swings by such an object one member can be trapped and the other escape at up to 4000 km/sec (yes, > 1% c). Observation of such hypervelocity stars in our galaxy would be proof of the existence of a supermassive black hole in the galactic center. The star left behind in this capture process would be in an elliptical orbit around the black hole. Tidal heating would occur, and because the orbit would be so energetic the energy released per unit stellar mass would rival that of nuclear fusion. This would heat the star until it swelled to giant size. Stars heated to the Eddington limit and star-star collisions would provide matter to feed the hole. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: Sunday 13 Mar 88 5:30 PM CT From: Doug Brenner (Data Base Admin, U of Iowa) Subject: House Subcommittee Testimony [I've been rather behind in my reading and processing of mail, so I finally rediscovered this and the time to send it out. The House Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Technology had hearings here at The University of Iowa last month. Here is some basic information including the testimonies of several of the panel members. Doug Brenner, Weeg Computing Center (gwcdcbpg@uiamvs.bitnet) The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242 -dcb] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 WITNESS LIST Date: February 5, 1988 Time: 9:30 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Place: Iowa Memorial Union Building, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa Panel No. 1: Dr. James Van Allen Department of Physics University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Dr. Don Gurnett Department of Physics University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Dr. Dwight Nicholson Department of Physics University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Dr. Lou Frank Department of Physics University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Panel No. 2: Dr. Gene Wubbels Department of Chemistry P.O. Box 805 Grinnel College Grinnel, Iowa 50112 Dr. Paul Rider Department of Chemistry 3538 MSH University of Northern Iowa Cedar Falls, Iowa 50614 Mr. Ted Cizadio Physics Instructor City High School 1900 Morningside Drive Iowa City, Iowa 52240 What follows are SOME of the written testimonies presented to the House subcommittee and entered into the Congressional record. Most witnesses followed their written testimony closely, but a few did deviate from it a bit. (Sorry, I'm a bad note taker, so I can't comment specifically.) Many, MANY, thanks to Larry Granroth (The University of Iowa, Physics and Astronomy) for supplying these on-line transcripts. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Testimony of Professor James A. Van Allen, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Iowa, to the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology meeting in Iowa City, Iowa on 5 February 1988: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, let me first express my thanks for your arrangements to hold these hearings in Iowa City and for the opportunity to testify. You gave us, Mr. Chairman, in your letter of invitation, some very heavy assignments. I do have opinions on all of those matters and will be happy to respond to questions on them. But my prepared state ment is brief and has a more single-minded focus. *********** The overall record of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration during the nearly thirty years of its existence has been a brilliantly successful one, in many different ways. It has provided the scientific and technical foundations for a wide array of direct human services, most notably in worldwide communications, in improved understanding of the physical and chemical conditions for all forms of life on Earth, and in the global survey of natural resources. It has sponsored a golden age of advances in our knowledge of the solar system and of the remote astronomical universe. Let me cite two specific examples of planetary explorations which are very close to my heart. The two companion spacecraft Pioneers 10 and 11 were launched in 1972 and 1973, respectively. They passed through the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter without damage, made the first-ever investigations at close range of the great outer planets Jupiter and Saturn and are now on escape trajectories out of the solar system. As of the present date, Pioneer 10 is four billion miles from Earth; is beyond Pluto, the outermost of the known planets; and is the most remote manmade object in the universe. I am happy to report that the spacecraft systems, including the Iowa-built radiation instrument, continue to function properly and yield daily data on the physical conditions in the outer reaches of the solar system. This unprecedented investigation is one of the classical aspirations of cosmic physics. The two follow-on and more sophisticated spacecraft Voyagers 1 and 2, which also carry Iowa-built instruments, have added brilliantly to our knowledge of Jupiter and Saturn. More recently, in late January 1986, Voyager 2 made the first-ever encounter with the planet Uranus. The scientific papers resulting from this encounter provide encyclopedic knowledge of this distant planet and its satellites and rings -- a whole new world of fascinating phenomena on a grand scale. Neptune is our next target. The encounter date is 24 August 1989. In addition to its scientific and technological leadership, NASA has achieved the widely-held cultural objective of flying human crews in space, most notably to and from the moon. But despite all of these successes, our national launching capability is now in a state of nearly total paralysis for a period of at least two and a half years. This default is unprecedented in the history of the program. Meanwhile, billions of dollars worth of high priority commercial, scientific, applicational, and military spacecraft are piling up in the launching queue. What went wrong? How can we fix it? These are the questions that I now address. In a critique of the President's recent state-of-the-union message, Senator Robert C. Byrd remarked that "Ideology is no substitute for common sense". This remark, though made in a different context, summarizes my point of view on our national space policy. An often repeated ideology of space activities is, in brief, that it is the manifest destiny of mankind to live and work in space and to colonize the solar system. This credo was adopted as an axiom, or perhaps a divine revelation, by President Reagan in his 1984 and 1985 state-of-the-union messages and by the National Commission on Space in its 1986 report. My own approach to the subject as a long-time practitioner is quite different. I advocate a pragmatic, incremental approach, exploiting the things that work and phasing down the things that do not. The essence of my testimony is that we must return to primary reliance on unmanned launch vehicles and unmanned commandable spacecraft in order to reestablish the health of our national space program. Let me explain. The history of space exploration by the United States, the Soviet Union, and all other countries provides overwhelming evidence that space science and the many important practical applications thereof are best served by unmanned, automated, commandable spacecraft -- the obvious and only important exception being the study of human physiology and psychology under prolonged free-fall or low-g conditions. Yet the civil space program of the United States continues to give dominant emphasis to the flight of human crews as its centerpiece and focus. The failure of our national policy for exclusive dependence on the manned space shuttle for the launching of all commercial, scientific, applicational, and military spacecraft has been evident to practitioners for many years. The tragic explosion of the Challenger in January 1986 dramatized the wrong headedness and fragility of that policy and, at last, brought these facts to public attention. That dramatic realization elicited astonishingly different responses by the Department of Defense and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Soon after the accident, Secretary of the Air Force Edward C. Aldridge, Jr., made the forthright public statement: "We made a great mistake in planning exclusive reliance on the shuttle to deliver military payloads into space. Believe me, we will never make that mistake again." True to his word, he placed the nearly-completed Vandenberg shuttle-launch facility in caretaker status and resumed the procurement of several classes of unmanned, expendable launch vehicles. In contrast, NASA passed up the opportunity to reexamine the validity of its policy of the 1970's and early 1980's and hunkered down to vindicate it. Toward that end the agency has continued to devote a major fraction of its available resources to manned flight. Specifically it has undertaken to remedy known weak nesses in the three remaining shuttles and associated boosters; has initiated the procurement of a replacement shuttle; and has planned to continue still another costly project -- namely the development of a large, permanently manned space station. These emphases were embodied in the agency's FY 1987 and FY 1988 budgets, which effectively ignored the nearly unanimous judgment of the user communities -- commercial, scientific, and applicational -- that return to primary dependence on expendable launch vehicles was the matter of greatest national urgency. Only within the past few months has NASA itself "nibbled the bullet" and expressed a tentative inclination to return to a mixed fleet of manned shuttles and unmanned expendable launch vehicles. We must await release of NASA's FY 1989 budget proposal to learn the true intentions of the agency and the White House. Meanwhile, no truly comprehensive recovery of our civil space program has yet been implemented. It is obvious that a rapidly increasing annual budget for NASA could respond affirmatively to all of the diverse constituencies of the civil space program. But the public mandate for approach to a balanced federal budget appears to negate such an expansive point of view. Either, NASA must be exempted from this mandate, or hard choices must be made. There is no way that a shuttle fleet of three or even four orbiters can meet the pent-up launching requirements of the next ten years, especially if the construction, deployment, and utilization of a space station go forward. Given due regard for increased safety, the optimistic shuttle launch rate is eight to ten per year. At this launch rate the shuttle system is the world's most expensive and least robust of available techniques and it is quite inadequate for national needs. Despite heroic efforts to improve safety and reliability, it will be difficult if not impossible to achieve better than a 97% success rate under normal operating conditions. Such a success rate corresponds to the loss of one shuttle about every three years. It is, moreover, of central importance to note that only a small fraction of our science and applicational missions require a human crew in space. This fraction can be progressively reduced by good engineering. Surely there is no issue before this committee as important as assuring our return to primary reliance on unmanned vehicles and unmanned spacecraft in our national space program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman --------------------------------------------------------------------- Testimony of Professor Louis A. Frank, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Iowa, to the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology meeting in Iowa City, Iowa, on 5 February 1988: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, let me first express my thanks for the opportunity to testify and for your efforts in honoring Iowa City with this hearing. *********** Mr. Chairman, as an active participant in the U. S. space program since the age of 20 I can most usefully point out some of the reasons for the rapid and severe decay of the rate of our scientific achievements by giving several specific examples. I am quite sure that these problems are widespread in the U. S. space science community. In 1981 the U. S. launched a satellite for the advancement of our studies of the auroral lights. This satellite, named Dynamics Explorer 1, is equipped with unique imaging instrumentation that is unduplicated by the other spacefaring nations at the present date. It is one of a handful of scientific spacecraft that are currently operating during the present period of essentially no launch activity. Dynamics Explorer 1 is still providing valuable scientific information. Yet NASA is seriously considering the shutoff of this spacecraft in the near future and has severely restricted the analyses of the scientific data by a yearly deleterious reduction in funding. The U. S. is simply not taking advantage of its currently orbiting spacecraft and competent scientists are being forced out of the space sciences. They cannot be expected to return. For over a decade a group of U. S. space scientists have been carefully planning the use of the Space Shuttle to study the effects of injection of charged particles and radio waves into Earth's upper atmosphere. We have actively participated in this program by designing a satellite to be released from the Space Shuttle that will intercept these beams and radio emissions and determine their effects on the upper atmosphere. A test flight for this scientific mission was conducted with Challenger during the summer of 1985. The satellite was necessarily equipped with leftover scientific instruments from other missions, some of which were almost a decade old, and with a piece of hardware borrowed from the Smithsonian. Even so, exciting scientific data were collected and the promise of advanced experimentation with the Space Shuttle was proved. However, this following investigation, called Space Plasma Laboratory, was cancelled by NASA last fall because no flight opportunity on the Space Shuttle appeared to be available until the mid-1990's. Our Canadian collaborators on this mission have stated that they might seek a Russian vehicle for conducting their part of the scientific investigation. For our part we may or may not be able to hitch a ride on some Space Shuttle flight and achieve only a skeletal portion of the originally planned scientific investigation. It is possible that the Russians, with their considerable launch capabilities, will attempt to conduct this important investigation and base such a mission on our extensive studies. For the U. S. realization of the full promise of the original Space Plasma Laboratory appears to be lost in my working lifetime. The Japanese are constructing a spacecraft, Geotail, to explore the vast regions of naturally occurring charged particles and magnetic fields that lie at great distances from the nightside of our planet. Our research group at the university is providing an instrument for this spacecraft. The space program in Japan, albeit relatively modest in comparison to that of the U. S., is highly successful. There is a well-programmed, and stable, series of scientific satellites. Perhaps more importantly, our Japanese colleagues are adopting the designs of previously flown U. S. instruments and considerably improving these instruments. In the U. S. we are currently unable to advance and test our instruments due to the lack of flight opportunity. With each passing year of launch inactivity our instrumentation capabilities are rapidly falling behind those of the European consortium, Russia and Japan. I consider that Galileo is the most advanced robot spacecraft ever to be constructed. This spacecraft's exploration of Jupiter and its moons, and the vast, dynamic regions of charged particles surrounding these bodies would be a great achievement for the U. S. space program. As you are well aware, this spacecraft has been significantly delayed due to the Challenger disaster. Unlike the Space Plasma Laboratory, a manned launch is not required for implementation of the Galileo Mission. With an expendable launch vehicle available several years ago, today we would be seeing the exciting results of this mission in our newspapers and journals, and our space program would be revitalized by an influx of new students. In reality my own work on Galileo began in 1976 and the fruits of my efforts are planned to be realized in 1995. I take great pride in the past achievements of the U. S. space program. But today, as a working scientist, I am concerned that a few further years of launch inactivity will find our country with a decimated space science capability. A balanced, stable program of expendable vehicle and Space Shuttle launches of scientific missions, together with an interim period of taking full advantage of the wealth of data presently in our possession, can reverse this deterioration. It is difficult for me to understand how our great country can ignore taking its proper place with the other spacefaring countries in probing the mysteries of our planet and the universe that lies beyond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Testimony on the Long Range Goals of the United States Space Program by Professor Donald A. Gurnett, Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242-1479, Presented to the hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Applications held in Iowa City, Iowa, February 5, 1988: Mr. Chairman, and members of the Space Science and Applications Subcommittee, let me express my thanks for being offered the opportunity to express my views on the long range goals of the U.S. space program. Since I am a scientist, most of my comments will be concerned with the status and future of U.S. space science. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM From almost any point of view it is apparent that a serious crisis exists in the U.S. space program. For nearly thirty years the United States enjoyed a period of world leadership in space, with many brilliant successes. We now find ourselves essentially grounded, with a long backlog of payloads to be launched, and serious questions about the long range goals of the space program. Although the Challenger disaster provided dramatic evidence of serious problems in the U.S. space program, signs of stress and a loss of momentum were evident much earlier. The last planetary spacecraft launched by the United States was Pioneer Venus in 1978, almost ten years ago. Galileo, our next planetary spacecraft, was originally scheduled for launch in 1982. Because of difficulties caused by the shuttle, the Galileo launch has been delayed to 1989, at the earliest, over seven years behind schedule. Throughout the 1980's, the space program has been plagued by long delays, with many programs stretched out, or canceled outright. For scientists trying to do space research, the process of submitting a proposal to NASA has become a frustrating game in which one mainly hopes to be selected for a mission that survives. My own experience illustrates the difficulties that space scientists face. Out of eleven spacecraft instrumentation proposals submitted to NASA by my group since 1975, there are only two projects for which we have actually received a contract to build instrumentation. Of these, only one, the Plasma Diagnostics Package, has flown and produced data. Of the rest, four projects have been canceled, in two cases after many years of developmental work. Others have been stretched out almost indefinitely. For example, we were selected seven years ago to provide instrumentation for two spacecraft in the Global Geoscience Program. This program has been under almost continuous study since March 1980. If we are lucky, a contract to construct the instrumentation will be awarded this year, with a launch in 1992, twelve years after submitting the proposal. Whereas in the early years of space exploration it was entirely feasible to conceive and execute a spacecraft project in two or three years, at the present time it is now approaching twenty years. In sharp contrast, the Soviet Union, Europe, and Japan are all proceeding with vigorous, aggressive space science programs. Since the launch of Pioneer Venus, the Soviets have launched eight spacecraft to Venus, and are now poised to undertake a vigorous program of Mars exploration. During the recent reappearance of the comet Halley in 1986, Europe, Japan, and the Soviet Union launched a total of four spacecraft in response to this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. The U.S. mission to Halley was canceled. It is clear from these trends that important changes are going to have to be made if we are to maintain our leadership in space science. SCIENCE EMPHASIS IN NATIONAL SPACE POLICY If the United States is to regain and maintain its leadership in space science, it is essential that science be given a more prominent role in national space policy. Although space policy must always involve numerous other factors, such as commercial and military interests, it has become apparent in the last decade that science is taking a decidedly secondary role. This trend was first apparent to me in the decision to build the space shuttle. Although the shuttle is sometimes identified with science, the decision to proceed with the shuttle during the late 1970's was mainly on technological grounds and had little to do with science. Scientists were essentially told, "here is the shuttle, do what you can with it." Much to our regret, few objected and we are now stuck with a vulnerable launch system that cannot meet our needs. The trend to ignore science continues to the present date in the form of the manned Space Station. Extensive and careful reviews by the National Academy of Sciences, involving scientists representing a broad range of space science disciplines, have concluded that the Space Station only marginally serves the needs of the space science community. The Space Station provides a reasonable platform for space medicine, but is nearly useless for planetary studies, astronomy, magnetospheric physics, and numerous other disciplines. Fearful that Space Station cost overruns will kill other important space science projects, similar to the shuttle experience in the 1980's, many scientists have voiced objections. Nevertheless, NASA plans to proceed with the Space Station. Unless we recognize the importance of science as an objective, rather than an incidental by-product, the present trend toward a loss of leadership in space research is likely to continue. To reverse this trend will require recognition of the problem at the highest level, by Congress and by the President of the United States. SELECTION OF MISSIONS Having commented on the need for increased emphasis on science in national space policy, I next want to discuss the missions that are required to carry out an effective space science program. I believe that it is not my role to prioritize various space science missions. Instead, I want to comment on the selection process and the types of missions that are required for a broadly based space science program. The National Academy of Sciences has produced numerous reports in recent years outlining the strategies and missions that are recommended in various areas of space science. For example, a few years ago I participated in a National Academy of Sciences study on the strategy for exploring the outer planets during the next twenty years. Our study recommended that we carry out a Saturn orbiter (now called the Cassini mission) as well as several other projects. In addition to the National Academy of Sciences reports, there are also studies by other NASA advisory committees such as "Planetary Exploration Through Year 2000" and "The Crisis in Earth and Space Science." Collectively, I regard the recommendations of these and other similar studies to be the types of space science missions that should be carried out during the next ten to twenty years. Next, let me consider the types of launch vehicles and spacecraft required for space science. Space science involves measurements in many different regions of space. Some disciplines, such as Earth studies, require low altitude orbits. Other disciplines, such as magnetospheric physics, require highly eccentric orbits, often to very specific regions of the magnetosphere. Planetary studies require high performance vehicles that can escape from the Earth. Sensitive scientific measurements often require very specialized environments around the spacecraft. By and large these diverse requirements can only be met by specialized spacecraft devoted to specific missions. In most cases, the science requirements can be met by relatively modest-sized payloads, typically a few thousand pounds, like Voyager or Galileo. Although, not small by some standards, these payloads are well within the capability of present technology. THE REQUIREMENT FOR ONE LARGE NASA PROJECT In the last twenty years there has developed within NASA the view that the agency must have at least one large project that is the agency's main effort. In the 1960's this was the Apollo project; in the 1970's and 1980's this was the shuttle; and in the 1990's this presumably will be the Space Station. For the more distance future, serious discussion is being given to a manned flight to Mars, or a permanent manned outpost on the Moon. Given unlimited resources, these projects are certainly worthy of the attention of a great nation such as the United States, even if they do not all serve a broad range of scientific disciplines. The problem arises during times when national priorities are such that NASA's budget cannot be increased adequately to accommodate the large projects. Under these conditions, the smaller, more broadly based science missions are severely squeezed, threatening the viability of the entire space science program. Often the assertion is made that without a major, high-visibility project NASA would not be able to generate the public support needed to sustain its program. This largely unproven assertion assumes that a broad mix of science-oriented missions would not be able to generate adequate public support. In fact, this is hardly the case. For over a decade, Europe has had a very broadly based space science program that has received considerable public support. In my opinion we could generate a more stable base of public support by carrying out a steady series of science-oriented missions than by placing all of the emphasis on one high-visibility project. The risk of a catastrophic collapse of public confidence is much lower for a broadly based program than for a single, high risk venture. The shuttle experience certainly shows what can happen when all of our eggs are in one basket. MANNED VERSUS UNMANNED MISSIONS Since the Challenger accident there has been considerable discussion of manned versus expendable launch vehicles. My view on this subject is that it is proper and fitting that man should fly in space. The main achievement of the Apollo mission is that man has walked on the Moon. This is a landmark achievement of mankind, one that could never be duplicated with a robot, no matter how complex. On the other hand, robotic spacecraft can be made extremely capable and are in most cases the primary method for carrying out space science measurements. Manned spaceflight is inherently dangerous, and because of the need to emphasize human safety, extremely expensive. For this reason it is my view that manned vehicles should be used only for those missions in which the presence of an astronaut is absolutely essential. Just how to make the decision on when an astronaut is essential is a gray area that is hard to answer. If we want to claim that man has walked on Mars, then we will have to send a man. On the other hand, it is completely crazy to use a manned vehicle to launch a spacecraft to Jupiter. My conclusion is that we need both manned and expendable launch vehicles, and that manned missions should be undertaken only if an astronaut is absolutely essential to the success of the mission. SUMMARY o There is a crisis in the ability of the United States to maintain its leadership in space science. o The crisis can be adverted only if a firm decision is made to place more emphasis on science in national space policy. o A long list of very worthy space science missions has been recommended by the National Academy of Sciences and other NASA study groups. These missions should be carried out in a timely fashion. o Large, high-visibility projects, such as the Space Station, should be undertaken only if they can be performed without adversely affecting a broadly based science program. o Manned missions should be undertaken only if an astronaut is absolutely essential to the success of the mission. --------------------------------------------------------------------- End of available testimonies. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #167 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Mar 88 06:14:31 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11192; Fri, 18 Mar 88 03:13:36 PST id AA11192; Fri, 18 Mar 88 03:13:36 PST Date: Fri, 18 Mar 88 03:13:36 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803181113.AA11192@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #168 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 168 Today's Topics: Re: Your "space" submission... SPOT picture wanted Asteroid Mining ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Mar 1988 17:52-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu To: Tom Perrine Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Your "space" submission... I've heard of Minerva's sad case several times. The material I have close at hand is from an ad in Reason Magazine run by Liberty Coin Service to sell Republic of Minerva gold coins. " But in addition to its historic importance, beauty and the value of its metallic properties, the Minerva coin is the symbol of a little-known new country, established in 1972 by a group of visionary, freedom-loving libertarians. The Republic of Minerva On January 19,1972 the North and South Minerva Reefs (situated 400 miles south of Fiji, and previously unclaimed by any nation) were occupied and claimed under international law by the founders of the State of Minerva. These men immediately commenced a bold, sophisticated plan of landfill and seawall development to literally create from once barren reefs the land needed for a city-state of 30,000 inhabitants. The Republic of Minerva was dedicated to the principles of Capitalism and Free Enterprise. Its government was limited to the protection of its citizens against force or fraud. Other world governments were officially notified of the existance of the newly created island and its government. Landfill operations were proceeding apace, and recognignition had been received from the first of the world's countries when disaster struck. On June 21, 1972 Minerva was forcibly invaded by the Kingdom of Tonga, its nearest neighbor, 260 miles distant. Unable to effectively defend the island, its government was forced into exile pending resolution of the conflict. The possibility remains that the Republic of Minerva may yet reclaim its territory and if that should happen, the Minerva coin could multiply in value many times over." I have seen other recent references stating that the case is pending in World Court, but it would take me a considerable amount of research to find a 2 column inch article, assuming I still have the publication in my library. The unneighborly and warlike behavior exhibited by the Fijians is an object lesson to any group that wishes to found a new state governed under their own principles, no matter where it is done. You have got to be ready to get nasty to protect your rights. I think a few antiship missiles would have persuaded the Fijians that it made much more sense to stay home and lay on the beach. The same would be true of any space settlement. If you want to be free in an unfree world, you have to be prepared to die for it. That's the way it was in 1776, and that's the way it is in 1988 or any other year. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Mar 88 17:34:51 GMT From: kaufman@shasta.stanford.edu (Marc Kaufman) Subject: SPOT picture wanted I would like to purchase a SPOT image of a particular place, on or about a particular time. Can someone point me to an appropriate source for ordering same? I also need pricing (presumably from the same source). Thanks. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Shasta.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ Subject: Asteroid Mining Date: Thu, 17 Mar 88 17:09:00 -0500 From: Fred Baube I'm sure this has been asked before, but .. For a paper on strategic metals subject to supply problems, viz. cobalt, chromium, and manganese, also platinum and vanadium, I'd like to add some informed speculation about asteroids as a secure source over the long term. Where can I find out about .. 1) Composition of asteroids a) certainty of those estimates b) differences between asteroids in the Mars/Jupiter belt and asteroids elsewhere 2) Chances of finding such metals on the moon 3) Techniques for prospecting (e.g. remote assaying using laser spectrometry, as the Bolshies will do to Mars' moons) 4) Technologies and plans for asteroid mining, including the comparative costs and feasabilities of a) smelt "on-site" and launch loads of reduced ore to destinations b) bringing promising asteroids to earth orbit and smelt there c) effect asteroidal re-entry and smelt on-earth :-) I'm in DC, if that helps. Thanx; I will summarize. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #168 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Mar 88 06:34:31 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12508; Sat, 19 Mar 88 03:24:06 PST id AA12508; Sat, 19 Mar 88 03:24:06 PST Date: Sat, 19 Mar 88 03:24:06 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803191124.AA12508@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #169 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 169 Today's Topics: House Subcommittee Testimony ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sunday 13 Mar 88 5:30 PM CT From: Doug Brenner (Data Base Admin, U of Iowa) Subject: House Subcommittee Testimony [I've been rather behind in my reading and processing of mail, so I finally rediscovered this and the time to send it out. The House Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Technology had hearings here at The University of Iowa last month. Here is some basic information including the testimonies of several of the panel members. Doug Brenner, Weeg Computing Center (gwcdcbpg@uiamvs.bitnet) The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242 -dcb] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 WITNESS LIST Date: February 5, 1988 Time: 9:30 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Place: Iowa Memorial Union Building, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa Panel No. 1: Dr. James Van Allen Department of Physics University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Dr. Don Gurnett Department of Physics University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Dr. Dwight Nicholson Department of Physics University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Dr. Lou Frank Department of Physics University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Panel No. 2: Dr. Gene Wubbels Department of Chemistry P.O. Box 805 Grinnel College Grinnel, Iowa 50112 Dr. Paul Rider Department of Chemistry 3538 MSH University of Northern Iowa Cedar Falls, Iowa 50614 Mr. Ted Cizadio Physics Instructor City High School 1900 Morningside Drive Iowa City, Iowa 52240 What follows are SOME of the written testimonies presented to the House subcommittee and entered into the Congressional record. Most witnesses followed their written testimony closely, but a few did deviate from it a bit. (Sorry, I'm a bad note taker, so I can't comment specifically.) Many, MANY, thanks to Larry Granroth (The University of Iowa, Physics and Astronomy) for supplying these on-line transcripts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Testimony of Professor James A. Van Allen, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Iowa, to the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology meeting in Iowa City, Iowa on 5 February 1988: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, let me first express my thanks for your arrangements to hold these hearings in Iowa City and for the opportunity to testify. You gave us, Mr. Chairman, in your letter of invitation, some very heavy assignments. I do have opinions on all of those matters and will be happy to respond to questions on them. But my prepared state ment is brief and has a more single-minded focus. *********** The overall record of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration during the nearly thirty years of its existence has been a brilliantly successful one, in many different ways. It has provided the scientific and technical foundations for a wide array of direct human services, most notably in worldwide communications, in improved understanding of the physical and chemical conditions for all forms of life on Earth, and in the global survey of natural resources. It has sponsored a golden age of advances in our knowledge of the solar system and of the remote astronomical universe. Let me cite two specific examples of planetary explorations which are very close to my heart. The two companion spacecraft Pioneers 10 and 11 were launched in 1972 and 1973, respectively. They passed through the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter without damage, made the first-ever investigations at close range of the great outer planets Jupiter and Saturn and are now on escape trajectories out of the solar system. As of the present date, Pioneer 10 is four billion miles from Earth; is beyond Pluto, the outermost of the known planets; and is the most remote manmade object in the universe. I am happy to report that the spacecraft systems, including the Iowa-built radiation instrument, continue to function properly and yield daily data on the physical conditions in the outer reaches of the solar system. This unprecedented investigation is one of the classical aspirations of cosmic physics. The two follow-on and more sophisticated spacecraft Voyagers 1 and 2, which also carry Iowa- built instruments, have added brilliantly to our knowledge of Jupiter and Saturn. More recently, in late January 1986, Voyager 2 made the first-ever encounter with the planet Uranus. The scientific papers resulting from this encounter provide encyclo- pedic knowledge of this distant planet and its satellites and rings -- a whole new world of fascinating phenomena on a grand scale. Neptune is our next target. The encounter date is 24 August 1989. In addition to its scientific and technological leadership, NASA has achieved the widely-held cultural objective of flying human crews in space, most notably to and from the moon. But despite all of these successes, our national launching capability is now in a state of nearly total paralysis for a period of at least two and a half years. This default is unprecedented in the history of the program. Meanwhile, billions of dollars worth of high priority commercial, scientific, applicational, and military spacecraft are piling up in the launching queue. What went wrong? How can we fix it? These are the questions that I now address. In a critique of the President's recent state-of- the-union message, Senator Robert C. Byrd remarked that "Ideology is no substitute for common sense". This remark, though made in a different context, summarizes my point of view on our national space policy. An often repeated ideology of space activities is, in brief, that it is the manifest destiny of mankind to live and work in space and to colonize the solar system. This credo was adopted as an axiom, or perhaps a divine revelation, by President Reagan in his 1984 and 1985 state-of-the-union messages and by the National Commission on Space in its 1986 report. My own approach to the subject as a long-time practitioner is quite different. I advocate a prag- matic, incremental approach, exploiting the things that work and phasing down the things that do not. The essence of my testimony is that we must return to primary reliance on unmanned launch vehicles and unmanned commandable spacecraft in order to reestablish the health of our national space program. Let me explain. The history of space exploration by the United States, the Soviet Union, and all other countries provides overwhelming evidence that space science and the many important practical applications thereof are best served by unmanned, automated, commandable spacecraft -- the obvious and only important exception being the study of human physiology and psychology under prolonged free-fall or low-g conditions. Yet the civil space program of the United States continues to give dominant emphasis to the flight of human crews as its centerpiece and focus. The failure of our national policy for exclusive dependence on the manned space shuttle for the launch- ing of all commercial, scientific, applicational, and military spacecraft has been evident to practitioners for many years. The tragic explosion of the Challenger in January 1986 dramatized the wrong headedness and fragility of that policy and, at last, brought these facts to public attention. That dramatic realization elicited astonishingly different responses by the Department of Defense and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Soon after the accident, Secretary of the Air Force Edward C. Aldridge, Jr., made the forthright public statement: "We made a great mistake in planning exclusive reliance on the shuttle to deliver military payloads into space. Believe me, we will never make that mistake again." True to his word, he placed the nearly-completed Vandenberg shuttle-launch facility in caretaker status and resumed the procurement of several classes of unmanned, expendable launch vehicles. In contrast, NASA passed up the opportunity to reexamine the validity of its policy of the 1970's and early 1980's and hunkered down to vindicate it. Toward that end the agency has continued to devote a major fraction of its available resources to manned flight. Specifically it has undertaken to remedy known weak nesses in the three remaining shuttles and associated boosters; has initiated the procurement of a replace- ment shuttle; and has planned to continue still another costly project -- namely the development of a large, permanently manned space station. These emphases were embodied in the agency's FY 1987 and FY 1988 budgets, which effectively ignored the nearly unanimous judgment of the user communities -- commercial, scientific, and applicational -- that return to primary dependence on expendable launch vehicles was the matter of greatest national urgency. Only within the past few months has NASA itself "nibbled the bullet" and expressed a tentative inclination to return to a mixed fleet of manned shuttles and unmanned expendable launch vehicles. We must await release of NASA's FY 1989 budget proposal to learn the true intentions of the agency and the White House. Meanwhile, no truly comprehensive recovery of our civil space program has yet been implemented. It is obvious that a rapidly increasing annual budget for NASA could respond affirmatively to all of the diverse constituencies of the civil space program. But the public mandate for approach to a balanced federal budget appears to negate such an expansive point of view. Either, NASA must be exempted from this mandate, or hard choices must be made. There is no way that a shuttle fleet of three or even four orbiters can meet the pent-up launching requirements of the next ten years, especially if the construction, deployment, and utilization of a space station go forward. Given due regard for increased safety, the optimistic shuttle launch rate is eight to ten per year. At this launch rate the shuttle system is the world's most expensive and least robust of available techniques and it is quite inadequate for national needs. Despite heroic efforts to improve safety and reliability, it will be difficult if not impossible to achieve better than a 97% success rate under normal operating conditions. Such a success rate corresponds to the loss of one shuttle about every three years. It is, moreover, of central importance to note that only a small fraction of our science and applica- tional missions require a human crew in space. This fraction can be progressively reduced by good engineer- ing. Surely there is no issue before this committee as important as assuring our return to primary reliance on unmanned vehicles and unmanned spacecraft in our national space program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Testimony of Professor Louis A. Frank, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Iowa, to the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology meeting in Iowa City, Iowa, on 5 February 1988: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, let me first express my thanks for the opportunity to testify and for your efforts in honoring Iowa City with this hearing. *********** Mr. Chairman, as an active participant in the U. S. space program since the age of 20 I can most usefully point out some of the reasons for the rapid and severe decay of the rate of our scientific achievements by giving several specific examples. I am quite sure that these problems are widespread in the U. S. space science community. In 1981 the U. S. launched a satellite for the advancement of our studies of the auroral lights. This satellite, named Dynamics Explorer 1, is equipped with unique imaging instrumentation that is unduplicated by the other spacefaring nations at the present date. It is one of a handful of scientific spacecraft that are currently operating during the present period of essentially no launch activity. Dynamics Explorer 1 is still providing valuable scientific information. Yet NASA is seriously considering the shutoff of this spacecraft in the near future and has severely restricted the analyses of the scientific data by a yearly deleterious reduction in funding. The U. S. is simply not taking advantage of its currently orbiting spacecraft and competent scientists are being forced out of the space sciences. They cannot be expected to return. For over a decade a group of U. S. space scientists have been carefully planning the use of the Space Shuttle to study the effects of injection of charged particles and radio waves into Earth's upper atmosphere. We have actively participated in this program by designing a satellite to be released from the Space Shuttle that will intercept these beams and radio emissions and determine their effects on the upper atmosphere. A test flight for this scientific mission was conducted with Challenger during the summer of 1985. The satellite was necessarily equipped with leftover scientific instruments from other missions, some of which were almost a decade old, and with a piece of hardware borrowed from the Smithsonian. Even so, exciting scientific data were collected and the promise of advanced experimentation with the Space Shuttle was proved. However, this following investigation, called Space Plasma Laboratory, was cancelled by NASA last fall because no flight opportunity on the Space Shuttle appeared to be available until the mid-1990's. Our Canadian collaborators on this mission have stated that they might seek a Russian vehicle for conducting their part of the scientific investigation. For our part we may or may not be able to hitch a ride on some Space Shuttle flight and achieve only a skeletal portion of the originally planned scientific investigation. It is possible that the Russians, with their considerable launch capabilities, will attempt to conduct this important investigation and base such a mission on our extensive studies. For the U. S. realization of the full promise of the original Space Plasma Laboratory appears to be lost in my working lifetime. The Japanese are constructing a spacecraft, Geotail, to explore the vast regions of naturally occurring charged particles and magnetic fields that lie at great distances from the nightside of our planet. Our research group at the university is providing an instrument for this spacecraft. The space program in Japan, albeit relatively modest in comparison to that of the U. S., is highly successful. There is a well-programmed, and stable, series of scientific satellites. Perhaps more importantly, our Japanese colleagues are adopting the designs of previously flown U. S. instruments and considerably improving these instruments. In the U. S. we are currently unable to advance and test our instruments due to the lack of flight opportunity. With each passing year of launch inactivity our instrumentation capabilities are rapidly falling behind those of the European consortium, Russia and Japan. I consider that Galileo is the most advanced robot spacecraft ever to be constructed. This spacecraft's exploration of Jupiter and its moons, and the vast, dynamic regions of charged particles surrounding these bodies would be a great achievement for the U. S. space program. As you are well aware, this spacecraft has been significantly delayed due to the Challenger disaster. Unlike the Space Plasma Laboratory, a manned launch is not required for implementation of the Galileo Mission. With an expendable launch vehicle available several years ago, today we would be seeing the exciting results of this mission in our newspapers and journals, and our space program would be revitalized by an influx of new students. In reality my own work on Galileo began in 1976 and the fruits of my efforts are planned to be realized in 1995. I take great pride in the past achievements of the U. S. space program. But today, as a working scientist, I am concerned that a few further years of launch inactivity will find our country with a decimated space science capability. A balanced, stable program of expendable vehicle and Space Shuttle launches of scientific missions, together with an interim period of taking full advantage of the wealth of data presently in our possession, can reverse this deterioration. It is difficult for me to understand how our great country can ignore taking its proper place with the other spacefaring countries in probing the mysteries of our planet and the universe that lies beyond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Testimony on the Long Range Goals of the United States Space Program by Professor Donald A. Gurnett, Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242-1479, Presented to the hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Applications held in Iowa City, Iowa, February 5, 1988: Mr. Chairman, and members of the Space Science and Applications Subcommittee, let me express my thanks for being offered the opportunity to express my views on the long range goals of the U.S. space program. Since I am a scientist, most of my comments will be concerned with the status and future of U.S. space science. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM From almost any point of view it is apparent that a serious crisis exists in the U.S. space program. For nearly thirty years the United States enjoyed a period of world leadership in space, with many brilliant successes. We now find ourselves essentially grounded, with a long backlog of payloads to be launched, and serious questions about the long range goals of the space program. Although the Challenger disaster provided dramatic evidence of serious problems in the U.S. space program, signs of stress and a loss of momentum were evident much earlier. The last planetary spacecraft launched by the United States was Pioneer Venus in 1978, almost ten years ago. Galileo, our next planetary spacecraft, was originally scheduled for launch in 1982. Because of difficulties caused by the shuttle, the Galileo launch has been delayed to 1989, at the earliest, over seven years behind schedule. Throughout the 1980's, the space program has been plagued by long delays, with many programs stretched out, or canceled outright. For scientists trying to do space research, the process of submitting a proposal to NASA has become a frustrating game in which one mainly hopes to be selected for a mission that survives. My own experience illustrates the difficulties that space scientists face. Out of eleven spacecraft instrumentation proposals submitted to NASA by my group since 1975, there are only two projects for which we have actually received a contract to build instrumentation. Of these, only one, the Plasma Diagnostics Package, has flown and produced data. Of the rest, four projects have been canceled, in two cases after many years of developmental work. Others have been stretched out almost indefinitely. For example, we were selected seven years ago to provide instrumentation for two spacecraft in the Global Geoscience Program. This program has been under almost continuous study since March 1980. If we are lucky, a contract to construct the instrumentation will be awarded this year, with a launch in 1992, twelve years after submitting the proposal. Whereas in the early years of space exploration it was entirely feasible to conceive and execute a spacecraft project in two or three years, at the present time it is now approaching twenty years. In sharp contrast, the Soviet Union, Europe, and Japan are all proceeding with vigorous, aggressive space science programs. Since the launch of Pioneer Venus, the Soviets have launched eight spacecraft to Venus, and are now poised to undertake a vigorous program of Mars exploration. During the recent reappearance of the comet Halley in 1986, Europe, Japan, and the Soviet Union launched a total of four spacecraft in response to this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. The U.S. mission to Halley was canceled. It is clear from these trends that important changes are going to have to be made if we are to maintain our leadership in space science. SCIENCE EMPHASIS IN NATIONAL SPACE POLICY If the United States is to regain and maintain its leadership in space science, it is essential that science be given a more prominent role in national space policy. Although space policy must always involve numerous other factors, such as commercial and military interests, it has become apparent in the last decade that science is taking a decidedly secondary role. This trend was first apparent to me in the decision to build the space shuttle. Although the shuttle is sometimes identified with science, the decision to proceed with the shuttle during the late 1970's was mainly on technological grounds and had little to do with science. Scientists were essentially told, "here is the shuttle, do what you can with it." Much to our regret, few objected and we are now stuck with a vulnerable launch system that cannot meet our needs. The trend to ignore science continues to the present date in the form of the manned Space Station. Extensive and careful reviews by the National Academy of Sciences, involving scientists representing a broad range of space science disciplines, have concluded that the Space Station only marginally serves the needs of the space science community. The Space Station provides a reasonable platform for space medicine, but is nearly useless for planetary studies, astronomy, magnetospheric physics, and numerous other disciplines. Fearful that Space Station cost overruns will kill other important space science projects, similar to the shuttle experience in the 1980's, many scientists have voiced objections. Nevertheless, NASA plans to proceed with the Space Station. Unless we recognize the importance of science as an objective, rather than an incidental by-product, the present trend toward a loss of leadership in space research is likely to continue. To reverse this trend will require recognition of the problem at the highest level, by Congress and by the President of the United States. SELECTION OF MISSIONS Having commented on the need for increased emphasis on science in national space policy, I next want to discuss the missions that are required to carry out an effective space science program. I believe that it is not my role to prioritize various space science missions. Instead, I want to comment on the selection process and the types of missions that are required for a broadly based space science program. The National Academy of Sciences has produced numerous reports in recent years outlining the strategies and missions that are recommended in various areas of space science. For example, a few years ago I participated in a National Academy of Sciences study on the strategy for exploring the outer planets during the next twenty years. Our study recommended that we carry out a Saturn orbiter (now called the Cassini mission) as well as several other projects. In addition to the National Academy of Sciences reports, there are also studies by other NASA advisory committees such as "Planetary Exploration Through Year 2000" and "The Crisis in Earth and Space Science." Collectively, I regard the recommendations of these and other similar studies to be the types of space science missions that should be carried out during the next ten to twenty years. Next, let me consider the types of launch vehicles and spacecraft required for space science. Space science involves measurements in many different regions of space. Some disciplines, such as Earth studies, require low altitude orbits. Other disciplines, such as magnetospheric physics, require highly eccentric orbits, often to very specific regions of the magnetosphere. Planetary studies require high performance vehicles that can escape from the Earth. Sensitive scientific measurements often require very specialized environments around the spacecraft. By and large these diverse requirements can only be met by specialized spacecraft devoted to specific missions. In most cases, the science requirements can be met by relatively modest-sized payloads, typically a few thousand pounds, like Voyager or Galileo. Although, not small by some standards, these payloads are well within the capability of present technology. THE REQUIREMENT FOR ONE LARGE NASA PROJECT In the last twenty years there has developed within NASA the view that the agency must have at least one large project that is the agency's main effort. In the 1960's this was the Apollo project; in the 1970's and 1980's this was the shuttle; and in the 1990's this presumably will be the Space Station. For the more distance future, serious discussion is being given to a manned flight to Mars, or a permanent manned outpost on the Moon. Given unlimited resources, these projects are certainly worthy of the attention of a great nation such as the United States, even if they do not all serve a broad range of scientific disciplines. The problem arises during times when national priorities are such that NASA's budget cannot be increased adequately to accommodate the large projects. Under these conditions, the smaller, more broadly based science missions are severely squeezed, threatening the viability of the entire space science program. Often the assertion is made that without a major, high- visibility project NASA would not be able to generate the public support needed to sustain its program. This largely unproven assertion assumes that a broad mix of science-oriented missions would not be able to generate adequate public support. In fact, this is hardly the case. For over a decade, Europe has had a very broadly based space science program that has received considerable public support. In my opinion we could generate a more stable base of public support by carrying out a steady series of science-oriented missions than by placing all of the emphasis on one high-visibility project. The risk of a catastrophic collapse of public confidence is much lower for a broadly based program than for a single, high risk venture. The shuttle experience certainly shows what can happen when all of our eggs are in one basket. MANNED VERSUS UNMANNED MISSIONS Since the Challenger accident there has been considerable discussion of manned versus expendable launch vehicles. My view on this subject is that it is proper and fitting that man should fly in space. The main achievement of the Apollo mission is that man has walked on the Moon. This is a landmark achievement of mankind, one that could never be duplicated with a robot, no matter how complex. On the other hand, robotic spacecraft can be made extremely capable and are in most cases the primary method for carrying out space science measurements. Manned spaceflight is inherently dangerous, and because of the need to emphasize human safety, extremely expensive. For this reason it is my view that manned vehicles should be used only for those missions in which the presence of an astronaut is absolutely essential. Just how to make the decision on when an astronaut is essential is a gray area that is hard to answer. If we want to claim that man has walked on Mars, then we will have to send a man. On the other hand, it is completely crazy to use a manned vehicle to launch a spacecraft to Jupiter. My conclusion is that we need both manned and expendable launch vehicles, and that manned missions should be undertaken only if an astronaut is absolutely essential to the success of the mission. SUMMARY o There is a crisis in the ability of the United States to maintain its leadership in space science. o The crisis can be adverted only if a firm decision is made to place more emphasis on science in national space policy. o A long list of very worthy space science missions has been recommended by the National Academy of Sciences and other NASA study groups. These missions should be carried out in a timely fashion. o Large, high-visibility projects, such as the Space Station, should be undertaken only if they can be performed without adversely affecting a broadly based science program. o Manned missions should be undertaken only if an astronaut is absolutely essential to the success of the mission. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of available testimonies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #169 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Mar 88 06:31:38 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13627; Sun, 20 Mar 88 03:16:51 PST id AA13627; Sun, 20 Mar 88 03:16:51 PST Date: Sun, 20 Mar 88 03:16:51 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803201116.AA13627@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #170 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 170 Today's Topics: Re: More about John Glenn The lighter side of space. Re: There's hope yet Re: Colonizing the seas How do they do it? (longish) Re: SPACE Digest V8 #160 (re: this news group) govt in space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Mar 88 15:40:18 GMT From: nuchat!splut!jay@uunet.uu.net (Jay Maynard) Subject: Re: More about John Glenn >From article <5671@ames.arpa>, by mike@ames.arpa (Mike Smithwick): > While were on the subject of John Glenn's mission, let me add another little > mystery. On my tapes of the network coverage, while Glenn is passing over > Florida at the end of the first orbit, the CapCom passes the link to > President Kennedy. Trouble is, Kennedy's message was blacked out for us. > The comm comes back after only 30 seconds or so. None of the network > announcers picked up on that, and my air-to-ground transcripts deleted that > portion as well. Anyone ever here the text of that transmission?? Speculation time: The President said, "John, are you a turtle?" :-) :-) Well, I *said* it was speculation... -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC...>splut!< | GEnie: JAYMAYNARD CI$: 71036,1603 uucp: {uunet!nuchat,academ!uhnix1,{ihnp4,bellcore,killer}!tness1}!splut!jay Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. The opinions herein are shared by none of my cats, much less anyone else. ------------------------------ Return-Path: clopez@orion.cf.uci.edu Date: Sun, 13 Mar 88 18:14:35 -0800 From: "Carlos A. Lopez" Subject: The lighter side of space. Sender: clopez@orion.cf.uci.edu Favorite Drink: RC Cola A lot of interesting ideas are presented on this bboard, but it's time for the lighter side of space. Every field/activity/institution/ect has its own set of humor. I'm sure most of you have heard various computer related jokes such as "If computers get too powerful, we can organize them into a committee - that will do them in." Well, I'd like to collect all those "space" jokes out there. Everybody has heard at least one like "Werner Von Braun had a V2 when he could have had a V8," or "Did you hear about the restraunt on the moon? It has good food but no atmosphere." Now that you're done groaning, send me all the space related jokes you have. DO NOT POST TO THE NET, SEND THEM TO ME. I will compile them and post the "Canonical Collection of Space Humor." Science in general jokes are welcome for my personal collection, but I'll limit reposting to space only jokes. If in doubt, send me the joke any way. DO NOT POST TO THE NET, SEND THEM TO ME. Please note that this is not a contest, it's just for fun. Send as many jokes as you have. Ask a friend of s/he knows any and send those in too. But, DO NOT POST TO THE NET, SEND THEM TO ME. If by some chance you have some kind of a gripe against this, DO NOT POST TO THE NET, SEND THEM TO ME. Disclaimer: If you can't laugh at something, then you don't understand it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos A. Lopez | Project: Cutting a record to show the world I clopez@orion.cf.uci.edu | can't sing. clopez@uci.bitnet | Plan: To be the "Don Johnson" of Computer Science. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 88 03:39:37 GMT From: livesey@sun.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: Re: There's hope yet In article <1054@its63b.ed.ac.uk>, bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) writes: > > Other developments in the last couple of days worth noting. > > 1. BA has put in a bid to buy the UK Government owned car makers, > previously known as British Layland (amongst others). > > 2. BL has close ties with Honda. > > 3. Honda has no aerospace expertise, unlike other Japanese car > makers, and has expresed an interest in entering the field. > > I leave it to you to work out your own conclusions. > Bob. I am sure we can, but if you wanted us to form valid conclusions, you should have given us the whole story. Amongs other products, the Rover group [ex. British L*e*yland] manufactures the Land Rover vehicle. This is used by several British and foreign military organizations that BA*e* already sells to. More- over, BAe supply Swingfire and Rapier missile systems which use the Land River as a platform. The benefits of owning the manufacturer of the Land Rover are clear, especially if you think there is a large market out there for small, Land Rover portable missile systems. The second benefit BAe would buy with Rover would be Rover's 40% share in DAF, a Dutch company which, among other products, makes landing gear for the F-16, and also tracked personnel carriers, and military trucks. It should be clear that the landing gear fits into BAe's current business, but it happens that the personnel carriers do too, since BAe recently bought Royal Ordnance, British manufacturers of the same. The third benefit from buying Rover Group would be in buying a large investment in factory automation and computer-controlled manufacturing, reckoned to be among the most advanced in Europe, and probably of keen interest to an air and space manufacturer like BAe. Of course, aircraft-military-civilian vehicle conglomerates are not unknown in Europe. ADF is one, but the best known is probably Saab-Scania, who make sedate cars and hot planes. Fiat is another. Whether BAe wants to own the civilian vehicle parts of Rover Group for ever is an open question, of course. Rover Group must be somewhat attractive, since both Ford and GM have previously tried to buy it. [source: Economist March 5 1988] Finally, there are rumours of a deal with Honda, the Rover Group's Asian partner, to market BAe planes and missiles (and missiles on Land Rovers?) in Asia. This is less surprising than it sounds, since, apart from some unpleasantness in the early forties, Anglo- Japanese arms deals and contacts go back to about 1905. If ESA is reluctant to back HoToL, maybe a joint development deal with Japan could 'fly'. Jon. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 1988 00:10-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Colonizing the seas In answer to Phil: You are correct that coercive governments will not come to an end (necessarily) just because we get into space. However, space at least makes it possible for a free market colony to exist. If you don't like our non-government, feel free to select one of the other 10,000 forms of social contract being tried out in the colonies next door. All I ask is that you allow your people to leave when they see how much better our system works... ============================================================================= "How are you gonna keep 'em down on the farm, once they've been to gay Paree?" ============================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 88 20:14:38 GMT From: linus!philabs!micomvax!zap!iros1!iros25!leonard@husc6.harvard.edu (Nicolas Leonard) Subject: How do they do it? (longish) I have been reading this newsgroup for now a couple of weeks. And I couldn't help noticing the general feeling of ... discouragement, hopelessness, disillusionment, frustration, call it whatever you want, that seems to overcome american space enthousiasts regarding the state of the american space program. Many solutions have been proposed, generally along the lines of: "It's all NASA and the bureaucrats' fault. If we could just dismantle NASA and hand space activities to the private sector (the more the merrier), things will be back to normal (i.e. America first)". Is the situation so bad that such extreme measures are now really necessary? Has the situation degraded so much since the glory days of the Appolo missions that it would be simpler to start back from scratch? What has changed since then? I don't recall NASA considered at the time a major hindrance (or am I mistaken?). I think that what the Americans lack most is a clear view of WHAT they want to do, and WHY. I am pretty sure that if they could only make an agenda of what they need, they will set to the task, and would do it FAST (as they proved they could do in the past). The problem is, they don't. And I do not see how they could do it without some sort of a government agency, not necessarily there to do the job, but to decide what is to be done next. And this for a good reason: space does not (YET) pay. Of course, there is a market for satellites (military, com., weather...). But scientific experiments and space probes do not make money (at least in the short run), and space factories are now a very distant possibility. And the amount of money and research that it takes before space is profitable is so big that I think only the gvt has the time and $$ to do it). So, the the gvt is there to stay, for yet many years to come. That does not mean forbidding private competition for the contracts. This brings me to the point of my posting. I suspect that this is the reason why the CCCP is ahead of the US in the space area, despite the [allegied] poor communist economy and technological primitiveness. Efficiency is one thing, but vision is something else, which may be more important. This is why I would like to ask the more knowledgeable members of this august forum (hum :-)), what they know of the soviet program, for I know not much. How do they "sell" their program to the public (I am sure they do)? Who takes the decisions? What does soviet NASA look like and work? What is their budget? etc... Why shouldn't something that works be imitated, especially if it that is is in a domain complementary to the capitalist strong point (policy-making vs policy-implementing). That way the Americans could have the best of both worlds. What do you think? notes: . excuse my spelling. . I am a space fan, but not an engineer. I would like to find a good magazine about space activities (with coverage of world activity), and vulgarization (neither too technical, nor too childish). I've seen references to AW&ST or =~. What does this stand for? Is it good? . I posted many "I think..." and not much facts. I'd like to hear the opinions and reactions of the pros to my naive mumbling of amateur. -- | , I'm a frog... kiss me | Nicolas Leonard and I'll turn into a prince | Departement d'informatique @-@ | Universite de Montreal (\ /) - Robert Charlebois | seismo!utai!musocs!iros1!leonard ----- | ------------------------------ Sender: "Jo_M._Anselm.henr801E"@xerox.com Date: 14 Mar 88 07:19:09 PST (Monday) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #160 (re: this news group) From: "Jo_M._Anselm.henr801E"@xerox.com >Don't mine those people talking over in the corner about sex in space..... Absolutely. Mining is unnecessary. A few grenades should suffice . . . . ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 88 13:34:42 GMT From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org (James Symon) Subject: govt in space > Paul F. Dietz writes: >Governments would have an excellent reason for stopping independent space >colonies. Anyone who can redirect the orbit of an asteroid can potentially >drop it on the earth. A 10,000 tonne asteroid -- quite small, as asteroids >go -- hitting the earth at 30 km/sec liberates about 1 megaton of energy. >Somehow, I can't imagine earth-based governments idlely accepting this >potential threat. a la _Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #170 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Mar 88 06:20:22 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14948; Mon, 21 Mar 88 03:18:41 PST id AA14948; Mon, 21 Mar 88 03:18:41 PST Date: Mon, 21 Mar 88 03:18:41 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803211118.AA14948@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #171 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 171 Today's Topics: Re: How do they do it? (longish) Re: The lighter side of space. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Mar 88 13:58:00 PST From: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" Subject: To: "space" Reply-To: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" Subject: Re: [Lyndon] LaRouche's space position >I was channel flipping and just came across this "plan" on a >scramjet-powered shuttle launch system. So, I continued to listen, and >it turned out to be a paid political announcement by Linden (sic) LaRouche. (It's spelled L-y-n-d-o-n.) >ANYway, he was speaking about "his" >plan for bringing America back to the forefront of the technological >world, primarily through an aggressive space program focusing on a Mars >mission. A lot of the information was developed, he said, by scientists >world over. Most of his illustrations seemed to have been done by >Europeans (Italian, West German, etc). This is not the first time LaRouche has made a grandiose claim; he also has pretended to have originated SDI (which has enough trouble without LaRouche defending it) and the space colony movement. (His attitude towards the _real_ originators ranges from contempt for Lt Gen Graham to conspiracy theories about the L5 Society being a sex & drug cult.) Through the auspices of his front group, The Schiller Institute, he has made several contacts with key individuals in other countries, probably because they don't know how sick he is. >Did anyone else catch the presentation? Has anyone else >heard about his stance on the space program? Is this a recent >"Bandwagon" jumping, or is this something he picked because no one else >is talking about it? I didn't, but get in touch with your local NSS chapter and see if anyone taped it. Some L5 old timers may have some tapes of his previous shows on space exploration. While visiting a friend up in Santa Monica, I noticed he had a book called _Colonize Space! Open the Age of Reason._ I asked him if I could borrow it. When he said yes, I asked him when he wanted it back. He said never. (It's a LaRouche book.) This is not just bandwagon-jumping for him; he's been into high technology for quite some time. (About ten years ago he launched the Fusion Energy Foundation, which publishes a "journal" called _Fusion_. Great reading for anecdotal data and secondary source fans.) Some of their literature is free; if you see something of theirs you want, go ahead and rob them -- anything a human being does to a LaRouche follower is justifiable on the grounds of self-defense. Whatever you do, DO NOT let them get your credit card number!!! >Yeah, I saw it here too. I was kinda surprised that he would spend several >million dollars on a TV add. I can tell you one thing though, it got >my attention. His half-hour uninterrupted advertisement made more sense >than the commercials made by the rat race candidates. My biggest turn-off >from LaRouche are obviously his racists views (and his questionable sanity). A sad comment on the American political scene. Watch LaRouche closely; Hitler started with less money and fewer followers in a relatively better-educated country. >If he decides to change his views by election time, I might vote for LaRouche >instead of Benny Hill. C3PO has more experience in civilian and military applications of space technology. Not to mention diplomacy. . . -- Kevin "Mad Max" Bold (BOLD@AFSC-SD.ARPA) From: GSS2::BOLD 14-MAR-1988 13:58 To: _MAILER! Subj: Subject: Re: [Lyndon] LaRouche's space position >I was channel flipping and just came across this "plan" on a >scramjet-powered shuttle launch system. So, I continued to listen, and >it turned out to be a paid political announcement by Linden (sic) LaRouche. (It's spelled L-y-n-d-o-n.) >ANYway, he was speaking about "his" >plan for bringing America back to the forefront of the technological >world, primarily through an aggressive space program focusing on a Mars >mission. A lot of the information was developed, he said, by scientists >world over. Most of his illustrations seemed to have been done by >Europeans (Italian, West German, etc). This is not the first time LaRouche has made a grandiose claim; he also has pretended to have originated SDI (which has enough trouble without LaRouche defending it) and the space colony movement. (His attitude towards the _real_ originators ranges from contempt for Lt Gen Graham to conspiracy theories about the L5 Society being a sex & drug cult.) Through the auspices of his front group, The Schiller Institute, he has made several contacts with key individuals in other countries, probably because they don't know how sick he is. >Did anyone else catch the presentation? Has anyone else >heard about his stance on the space program? Is this a recent >"Bandwagon" jumping, or is this something he picked because no one else >is talking about it? I didn't, but get in touch with your local NSS chapter and see if anyone taped it. Some L5 old timers may have some tapes of his previous shows on space exploration. While visiting a friend up in Santa Monica, I noticed he had a book called _Colonize Space! Open the Age of Reason._ I asked him if I could borrow it. When he said yes, I asked him when he wanted it back. He said never. (It's a LaRouche book.) This is not just bandwagon-jumping for him; he's been into high technology for quite some time. (About ten years ago he launched the Fusion Energy Foundation, which publishes a "journal" called _Fusion_. Great reading for anecdotal data and secondary source fans.) Some of their literature is free; if you see something of theirs you want, go ahead and rob them -- anything a human being does to a LaRouche follower is justifiable on the grounds of self-defense. Whatever you do, DO NOT let them get your credit card number!!! >Yeah, I saw it here too. I was kinda surprised that he would spend several >million dollars on a TV add. I can tell you one thing though, it got >my attention. His half-hour uninterrupted advertisement made more sense >than the commercials made by the rat race candidates. My biggest turn-off >from LaRouche are obviously his racists views (and his questionable sanity). A sad comment on the American political scene. Watch LaRouche closely; Hitler started with less money and fewer followers in a relatively better-educated country. >If he decides to change his views by election time, I might vote for LaRouche >instead of Benny Hill. C3PO has more experience in civilian and military applications of space technology. Not to mention diplomacy. . . -- Kevin "Mad Max" Bold (BOLD@AFSC-SD.ARPA) From: GSS2::BOLD 14-MAR-1988 14:00 To: _MAILER! Subj: Subject: Re: [Lyndon] LaRouche's space position >I was channel flipping and just came across this "plan" on a >scramjet-powered shuttle launch system. So, I continued to listen, and >it turned out to be a paid political announcement by Linden (sic) LaRouche. (It's spelled L-y-n-d-o-n.) >ANYway, he was speaking about "his" >plan for bringing America back to the forefront of the technological >world, primarily through an aggressive space program focusing on a Mars >mission. A lot of the information was developed, he said, by scientists >world over. Most of his illustrations seemed to have been done by >Europeans (Italian, West German, etc). This is not the first time LaRouche has made a grandiose claim; he also has pretended to have originated SDI (which has enough trouble without LaRouche defending it) and the space colony movement. (His attitude towards the _real_ originators ranges from contempt for Lt Gen Graham to conspiracy theories about the L5 Society being a sex & drug cult.) Through the auspices of his front group, The Schiller Institute, he has made several contacts with key individuals in other countries, probably because they don't know how sick he is. >Did anyone else catch the presentation? Has anyone else >heard about his stance on the space program? Is this a recent >"Bandwagon" jumping, or is this something he picked because no one else >is talking about it? I didn't, but get in touch with your local NSS chapter and see if anyone taped it. Some L5 old timers may have some tapes of his previous shows on space exploration. While visiting a friend up in Santa Monica, I noticed he had a book called _Colonize Space! Open the Age of Reason._ I asked him if I could borrow it. When he said yes, I asked him when he wanted it back. He said never. (It's a LaRouche book.) This is not just bandwagon-jumping for him; he's been into high technology for quite some time. (About ten years ago he launched the Fusion Energy Foundation, which publishes a "journal" called _Fusion_. Great reading for anecdotal data and secondary source fans.) Some of their literature is free; if you see something of theirs you want, go ahead and rob them -- anything a human being does to a LaRouche follower is justifiable on the grounds of self-defense. Whatever you do, DO NOT let them get your credit card number!!! >Yeah, I saw it here too. I was kinda surprised that he would spend several >million dollars on a TV add. I can tell you one thing though, it got >my attention. His half-hour uninterrupted advertisement made more sense >than the commercials made by the rat race candidates. My biggest turn-off >from LaRouche are obviously his racists views (and his questionable sanity). A sad comment on the American political scene. Watch LaRouche closely; Hitler started with less money and fewer followers in a relatively better-educated country. >If he decides to change his views by election time, I might vote for LaRouche >instead of Benny Hill. C3PO has more experience in civilian and military applications of space technology. Not to mention diplomacy. . . -- Kevin "Mad Max" Bold (BOLD@AFSC-SD.ARPA) ------ ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 88 19:13:18 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Re: How do they do it? (longish) Hi, remember me? I wrote the BLUNT article about four months back. In article <436@mannix.iros1.UUCP> leonard@iros1.UUCP (Nicolas Leonard) writes: >I have been reading this newsgroup for now a couple of weeks. And I >couldn't help noticing the general feeling of ... discouragement, >hopelessness, disillusionment, frustration, call it whatever you want, >that seems to overcome american space enthousiasts regarding the state >of the american space program. It's all of those and more. >Many solutions have been proposed, generally along the lines of: "It's >all NASA and the bureaucrats' fault. If we could just dismantle NASA >and hand space activities to the private sector (the more the merrier), >things will be back to normal (i.e. America first)". An example of one solution, the one that seems to be the current consensus on the way to go about jump-starting the space program. > Is the situation so bad that such extreme measures are now really >necessary? Has the situation degraded so much since the glory days >of the Appolo missions that it would be simpler to start back from >scratch? What has changed since then? I don't recall NASA considered >at the time a major hindrance (or am I mistaken?). I think that that is the general consensus. In testimony in early February in Iowa City, for example, several space scientists gave Congress their views on the space program, NASA, and where do we go from here? The written statements kindly posted by one netter from Iowa [pardon the loss of memory] indicate that the basic problem is policy, policy within NASA itself, on exactly what is to be concentrated on. More and more NASA has been concentrating on its big P.R.-generating projects, the Shuttle & Station. To get to this point, all other projects languished, including projects in the pipe and unmanned booster programs. This has led to the wholesale questioning of NASA's wisdom and role by the space scientists and enthusiasts. >I think that what the Americans lack most is a clear view of WHAT >they want to do, and WHY. I am pretty sure that if they could only >make an agenda of what they need, they will set to the task, and >would do it FAST (as they proved they could do in the past). The >problem is, they don't. And I do not see how they could do it >without some sort of a government agency, not necessarily there >to do the job, but to decide what is to be done next. And this for a >good reason: space does not (YET) pay. Of course, there is a market for >satellites (military, com., weather...). But scientific experiments >and space probes do not make money (at least in the short run), >and space factories are now a very distant possibility. And the amount >of money and research that it takes before space is profitable is so >big that I think only the gvt has the time and $$ to do it). So, the >the gvt is there to stay, for yet many years to come. That does not >mean forbidding private competition for the contracts. This is what NASA was intended for: to gather up all the directions people wanted to go, and go in the general overall direction. However, in the past decade they've been veering farther from the mainstream of space efforts within this country. Most of the space effort is small scientific projects (it seems to me), few of which require human intervention. In fact most are designed explicitly without the human factor in mind, because the human role is to be listening to the scientific data in the reception area dirtside. I can think of no reason to send a human into space when nonliving elements can go there more cheaply, more safely, and with much less fuss and much more confidence. >This brings me to the point of my posting. I suspect that this is the >reason why the CCCP is ahead of the US in the space area, despite the >[allegied] poor communist economy and technological primitiveness. >Efficiency is one thing, but vision is something else, which may be >more important. This is why I would like to ask the more knowledgeable >members of this august forum (hum :-)), what they know of the soviet >program, for I know not much. How do they "sell" their program to the >public (I am sure they do)? Who takes the decisions? What does soviet >NASA look like and work? What is their budget? etc... Why shouldn't >something that works be imitated, especially if it that is is in a >domain complementary to the capitalist strong point (policy-making vs >policy-implementing). That way the Americans could have the best of >both worlds. What do you think? I know nothing in this area, except to say that Russians are human, and that if you underestimate a human's 'vision', you are denying the humanness of that person _and_ yourself. [It's taken me twenty long years of life to find this out; flames to /dev/null !!!] > . I posted many "I think..." and not much facts. I'd like to hear >the opinions and reactions of the pros to my naive mumbling of amateur. As another amateur, yearning to become much closer to a professional, I echo you. >Nicolas Leonard >Departement d'informatique Universite de Montreal > leonard%irox.udem.cdn@ubn.csnet Joe Beckenbach beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 88 14:16:04 GMT From: thorin!ra!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: The lighter side of space. In article <8803140218.AA04730@angband.s1.gov> clopez@ORION.CF.UCI.EDU ("Carlos A. Lopez") writes: > Well, I'd like to collect all those "space" jokes out there. Everybody >has heard at least one like "Werner Von Braun had a V2 when he could have >had a V8," or "Did you hear about the restraunt on the moon? It has good >food but no atmosphere." I picked up a book devoted to space humor (mostly from the 60's and early 70's) at the KSC visitor's center a few years ago. Unfortunately I don't remember the title and the book is buried somewhere in the 20 boxes of same that I haven't unpacked since moving here... perhaps someone else with a copy can post the title. Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``After all, the best part of a holiday is perhaps not so much to be resting yourself as to see all the other fellows busy working.'' - Kenneth Grahame, _The Wind in the Willows_ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #171 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Mar 88 06:21:08 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA16629; Tue, 22 Mar 88 03:18:27 PST id AA16629; Tue, 22 Mar 88 03:18:27 PST Date: Tue, 22 Mar 88 03:18:27 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803221118.AA16629@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #172 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 172 Today's Topics: errata Mir elements, epoch 14 March LH2 Space Station measurement system Re: Colonization of the seas Re: The lighter side of space. AXAF and NASA '89 budget Re: President Reagan's Space Initiative WANTED: (Astronomical) applications for ULTRA PRECISE mass spectrometer Shuttle Bashing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Mar 1988 14:27-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: errata A number of people noted a mistake in my last posting. The text of the quoted article is correct. My own comments cited Fijians instead of Tongans. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Mar 88 20:48:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements, epoch 14 March Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 109 Epoch: 88 74.77506485 Inclination: 51.6260 degrees RA of node: 194.2539 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0012202 Argument of perigee: 216.2760 degrees Mean anomaly: 143.7371 degrees Mean motion: 15.78486300 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00049409 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 11893 Semimajor axis: 6712.82 km Apogee height*: 342.85 km Perigee height*: 326.47 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Mar 88 22:44:42 GMT From: pacbell!att-ih!alberta!ubc-cs!fornax!zeke@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Zeke Hoskin) Subject: LH2 In the general wailing and gnashing of teeth, a few people have knocked the fact that big American rockets us LH2 instead of kerosene. Since liquid hydrogen gives a better specific impulse with LOX than any other stable fuel, since environmental threat from unburned/spilled fuel is less with hydrogen than hydrocarbons, since (given cheap power) hydrogen is trivially easy to come by, it would seem to be the fuel of choice. Surely the extension of cryogenic technology needed for liquid oxygen isn't that much of a barrier. (Twenty years ago, of course, it was: hence kero-burning Saturn V and assorted Soviet hardware.) (How many astronauts does it take to change a light bulb? Only one -- but the ladder won't be available for 2.5 years, and the new bulb costs $10,000,000 and has a left-hand thread) ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 88 15:19:51 GMT From: pacbell!att-ih!att-cb!clyde!watmath!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!db.toronto.edu!hogg@ames.arc.nasa.gov (John Hogg) Subject: Space Station measurement system In article <1988Mar11.041245.8768@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >The space station will not be metric, for fear that it might affect >safety in an emergency when snap decisions are being made by ignorant >astronauts who have to convert metric units to archaic ones before >thinking about them. [AW&ST obviously did not word it quite that >way...] This brings up two questions: 1) Won't we poor foreigners have the same safety problems when we conduct research on the =>international<= space station? Canadians are probably sufficiently bilingual (for the time being) to deal with imperial measurements, but what about Europeans and Japanese? 2) What unit of mass will be used? Will astronauts deal with both pounds-force and pounds-mass, or, in the middle of a crisis situation, will they instinctively think in slugs? I can guess the answer to the first question, but the implications of the second one stump me. Can somebody connected with NASA answer this? -- John Hogg | hogg@csri.toronto.{edu,cdn} Computer Systems Research Institute| uunet!csri.toronto.edu!hogg University of Toronto | hogg%csri.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net (arpa) | hogg@csri.utoronto (bitnet) ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 88 20:35:04 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Colonization of the seas In article <880311.13520091.073743@L66B.CP6>, Frank-Mayhar%LADC@BCO-MULTICS.ARPA (Frank Mayhar) writes: > the punishment for "desertion" while in the armed forces (was once > death, is still severe). Death as a punishment for desertion from the military is generally only proposed during wartime. Just as death for sleeping while on sentry duty would be expected in a combat situation. Both assume that your bugging out or snoozing would be putting others at increased risk of death. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Mar 88 16:42:35 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: The lighter side of space. In article <1695@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@ra.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes: >I picked up a book devoted to space humor (mostly from the 60's and >early 70's) at the KSC visitor's center a few years ago. Unfortunately >I don't remember the title and the book is buried somewhere in the 20 >boxes of same that I haven't unpacked since moving here... perhaps >someone else with a copy can post the title. You may be talking about "The Light Stuff", by someone whose name I forgot but he is the editor of the Huntsville Times. He used to have a column in Space World and actually published a couple of things I submitted to him. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Mar 88 16:52:12 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!kaa@husc6.harvard.edu (Keith Arnaud x57400) Subject: AXAF and NASA '89 budget In view of the fact that AXAF has been turning up frequently in Henry's AW&ST summaries and it is the proposed new start in the '89 budget I thought that the summary below might be of interest to this group. (I have an ulterior motive as will be apparent at the end) ADVANCED X-RAY ASTROPHYSICS FACILITY (AXAF) ------------------------------------------- What is AXAF? -Long-lived, space-based X-ray Observatory to be launched in 1995 -Study black holes, neutron stars, supernova remnants, quasars, hot gases, and elementary particles -Launched by shuttle (ELV compatibility under study); serviced via shuttle, OMV, and/or station -One of NASA's Great Observatories Scientific Importance of AXAF -#1 new priority for ground and space-based astronomy and astrophysics for the 1980's (National Academy of Sciences' Astronomy Survey Committee) - Investigate behavior of matter under extreme physical conditions, energy transport in stars, explosions of massive stars, expansion of universe, distribution of dark matter, etc. -Synergistic benefits from multi-wavelength, contemporaneous observations with other Great Observatories and ground-based telescopes -Relevant to astrophysics, cosmology, elementary particle physics, plasma physics, and fusion research U. S. Scientific Leadership -X-ray astronomy pioneered by U.S. in 1960's and 1970's -No U.S. X-ray missions currently flying -Vigorous X-ray astronomy programs underway in Japan, USSR, West Germany, and other European nations; Japanese and Soviet/European satellites detected X-rays from new supernova (1987A) -AXAF pictures 10 times sharper and sensitivity 100-1000 times greater than prior X-ray telescopes -AXAF reasserts U.S. leadership in X-ray astronomy Role in Education and U.S. Technological Competitiveness -Will involve approximately 1000 U.S. astronomers from about 100 institutions; expect 10-20 Ph.D.'s/year -Technology spinoffs important to areas such as medical instrumentation, pharmaceutical research, basic biological and chemical research, non-invasive quality control and automated manufacturing equipment, X-ray lithography, fusion research, and security inspection devices. Program Readiness -Under study for a decade by NASA, science community, and industry -Detailed studies completed by two parallel contractor teams -X-ray test mirror successfully built, showing specifications can be met -Capitalizing on lessons learned from prior X-ray telescope missions as well as Hubble Space Telescope and Gamma-Ray Observatory -Costs well understood (approx $1B in current year dollars; includes substantial reserves) -Risks minimized by phased start emphasizing high technology, schedule driving areas such as telescope and instruments AXAF FY89 Start Reasserts Leadership and Helps Establish Vigorous Space Science Program ------------------------------------------- As you can probably tell from the style this summary was written for politicians (or at least staffers). This is where YOU come in. If you write to NASA (and I hope you will) in support of the proposed budget please include support for AXAF (for those of you who prefer CRAF note that when AXAF is out of the way then CRAF can have a new start). Feel free to use any of the arguments above. The relevant Congresspeople are Senators William Proxmire (WI) and Jake Garn (UT) (Appropriations committee HUD and independent agencies subcommittee); Donald Reigle (MI) and Larry Pressler (SD) (Commerce committee science, technology and space subcommittee); and their counterparts in the House : Edward Boland (MA), Bill Green (NY), Bill Nelson (FL) and Robert Walker (PA). I have complete lists of the relevant committees that I can mail to anyone who wants them. Thanks, Keith ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Mar 88 12:50 O From: Subject: Re: President Reagan's Space Initiative >-- The United States is committed to the exploration and use of outer >space by all nations for peaceful purposes and for the benefit of all >mankind. "Peaceful purposes" allow for activitites in pursuit of >national security goals. To put it in English: All activities will be for peaceful purposes, except for those which will not be for peaceful purposes.... The old euphemism for preparing for war, namely Defense, seems to have been replaced by a new one, namely National Security. Carrying the implication of this euphemism to its logical conclusion, we'll be perfectly safe the day every one of us carries around his/her personal nuke, thus creating the ultimate deterrent to violence.... "Love is the beginning of the kind of horror we can tolerate." - Jean-Luc Godard Teemu "I Don't Want No Teenage Queen, U. of Helsinki, Dept. of CS I Just Want My M-14" Leisti Finland leisti@finuh.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Mar 88 18:13:39 MET From: TNEOKTS%HDETUD1.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT Subject: WANTED: (Astronomical) applications for ULTRA PRECISE mass spectrometer DATE: 29 FEBRUARY 1988, 18:53:46 MET From: E. Koets 31-(0)15-785920 TNEOKTS at HDETUD1 WANTED: Space applications for ULTRA PRECISE mass spectrometer. (e.g. neutrino rest mass) At the Delft University of Technology we have a precision RF mass spectrometer (originating from Princeton University). At present - since the instrumental work is not yet fully completed - its IMPRECISION lies in the 10-9 range at maximum (probably in the 10-10 range). However: A FWHM-line RESOLUTION of 1:10+7 has been realized (1: 5*10+7 is expected after a little extra trimming). The centroid of such a line has (separately) been determined to 1:10+4 of FWHM. So, after completion of the trimming, an IMPRECISION in the 10-11 or even 10-12 range could be expected (10-12 is equivalent to 0.1 eV at M=100). The SYSTEMATIC errors of this machine have proven to be small compared to those of other machines. Opposed to other machines, the measurement and the calibration run are interleaved at a rate 4 orders of magnitude within the time constant of these systematic effects. Therefore the remaining SYSTEMATIC errors could be some 4 orders of magnitude smaller than for other machines and thus also end up in the 10-12 range. Reference with futher references: J. Phys. E, Vol. 14 (1981), 1229. For political reasons the work on this project was abruptly stopped in 1983. This unique machine will be SCRAPPED after the summer of 1988, unless enough applications and support are found to restart the project. The alternative being, that some institute wants to take over the machine. That is why I urge you to contact me if you know (about somebody who knows) about a suitable application or about an interested institute. I would also appreciate suggestions about other (network-) ways to contact potentially interested astronomers, chemists, physicists, .... Some areas of interest might be: - Masses of particular isotopes. - Contributions (e.g. 3H - 3He) to the determination of the neutrino rest mass (elementary particles; mass of the universe). - Masses involved in double beta decay. - Chemical binding energies. - Total atomic electron binding energy. - Calibration of high energy gammas through the measurement of the isotope masses involved. - Fundamental constants: a) Contributions to an atomic standard kilogram. b) The 1H mass is relatively poorly known, due to the choice of the molecule used for the measurement. More favourable molecules are available, resulting in an order of magnitude better precision. The machine was also improved since the previous 1H-measurement. Are there any other areas of interest? What are the interests? How important are they? Who is interested? Which institute is willing to take over the instrument? My addresses: TNEOKTS@HDETUD1.BITNET or E. Koets Applied Physics Department University of Technology P.O. Box 5046 2600 GA DELFT Netherlands. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 88 10:33:00 EST From: "Charles E. Bouldin" Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: Shuttle Bashing Reply-To: "Charles E. Bouldin" Lately there has been a lot of talk about the reliability of the Space Shuttle, comments that it is to complex, and that failures will occur fairly often with that machine. We know (now) that the failure rate during a launch is >~4%. Based on what I can remember about Delta, Atlas, Titan, Saturn and Soviet Boosters this is about the same as it is for all other large rockets. Anyone have better numbers? I seem to recall failure rates of 2-4% for ALL large rockets. Anyone have numbers for the Soviet ones? I can recall two nearly fatal failures of manned Soyuz launches. I guess my bottom line here is that the Shuttle, while very complex in many ways, does not seem to be much less safe than other boosters of similar size. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #172 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Mar 88 06:22:34 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA18122; Wed, 23 Mar 88 03:19:21 PST id AA18122; Wed, 23 Mar 88 03:19:21 PST Date: Wed, 23 Mar 88 03:19:21 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803231119.AA18122@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #173 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 173 Today's Topics: Re: House Subcommittee Testimony Volunteer scientists wanted to correspond with children Re: SPOT picture wanted _Defense Science_ March 88 issue Rumors of Soviet Shuttle Launch in next few days space news from Feb 15 AW&ST Geostar & Back to the future Upcoming name vote for NSS Re: Forget the Saturn V! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Mar 88 22:45:42 GMT From: ulysses!thumper!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: House Subcommittee Testimony After reading the Congressional testimony by Dr. Van Allen and his colleagues from Iowa, I am starting to wonder if this could possibly be the very same Dr. Van Allen, Chief Villain to the National Space Society. I found his remarks very well thought out and his recommendations quite prudent and logical. I hope (but don't expect) that any responses to his comments will be made at the same level. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 88 14:47:51 GMT From: celica.dec.com!seltzer@decwrl.dec.com (DECWORLD/MGMT MEMO/CORPORATE EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATION) Subject: Volunteer scientists wanted to correspond with children Wanted -- Volunteer Scientists to correspond with children The Boston Museum of Science is looking for individuals in science-related fields to participate in Science-by-Mail, a new program designed to bring children together with scientists as they correspond about real science issues. Due to the extensive response from children around the New England area, we are desperately in need of additional volunteer scientists to read and respond to approximately six groups of children as they solve general science problems posed by scientists and science educators at the Museum. This correspondence will occur three times over the next four months. The program will culminate in a one-day event where all participants, including the scientists, are invited. If you or anyone you know might be interested, please contact: Stephen Brand Scence by Mail Boston Museum of Science Science Park Boston, MA 02114 (617) 589-0439 [I am posting this for a friend. Please respond directly to Stephen Brand by phone or regular mail, not to me over the network.] ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 88 20:50:16 GMT From: mahendo!jplgodo!wlbr!etn-rad!jru@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (John Unekis) Subject: Re: SPOT picture wanted In article <2576@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU> kaufman@Shasta.stanford.edu (Marc Kaufman) writes: >I would like to purchase a SPOT image of a particular place, on or about >a particular time. Can someone point me to an appropriate source for >ordering same? I also need pricing (presumably from the same source). .... You want the SPOT Image Corporation, They are in northern Virginia near Wash. , D.C. Call (703)555-1212 to get their phone number. They sell images on Magtape in Ansi format, I vaguely remember them costing approx. $1000 for a tape with 3 images. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 88 14:16:00 PST From: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" Subject: _Defense Science_ March 88 issue To: "space" Reply-To: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" The current issue of _Defense Science_ included a short article on the merits ofa lunar base. According to scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratories, low cost, data on living in space, and the presence of resources such as oxygen make the moon an ideal place for nonterrestrial research. The article also quoted Dr Lowell Wood of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who has observed that the moon would offer "surface and gravity" while a space station would not, and the National Commission on Space Report which described "that portion of space beyond low Earth orbit as the key to a much needed American technological resurgence." There was also a sidebar on NASA's request for an additional $2.3 billion funding increase. -- Kevin "Mad Max" Bold |When governments are outlawed, (BOLD@AFSC.SD-ARPA) |only outlaws will have governments. ------ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Mar 88 23:59:40 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Rumors of Soviet Shuttle Launch in next few days There are many indications that the Soviet Union is on the verge of launching the first test flight of its Shuttle vehicle within the next few days. First about a month ago they stated that the next launch of Energia (their large, 100 Tonne to orbit booster) would carry a test of a fully reusable space plane. Secondly in the past few days there have statements on both the BBC (British Broadcast Corps) shortwave, and Reuters news service, that the Russians have been inviting news services to send reporters to the Baikonur cosmodrome to watch the launch. It has been said that Cable News Network will carry the liftoff live (or nearly live). However while this sounds strong for a liftoff there have been no statements about an impending launch on Radio Moscow (shortwave). Instead there has been, for the past several days, reports about the launch of the Indian earth observation satellite on Mar. 15th (that is the first commercial launch for them). Their shuttle, as they have previously stated, will be launched unmanned strapped to the side of the Energia booster. The shuttle does not have its own main engines, these 4 hydrogen/oxygen boosters are carried on the core section of Energia (there are 4 Kerosene/oxygen strapon first stage engines around the sustainer core). There is considerable debate on how complete this vehicle is. James Oberg (a well known US expert on the Soviet space program) has stated that it will only be a boiler plate vehicle, and will be destroyed on reentry. On the other hand there have been many statements that the cosmonauts corp opposed an unmanned test launch. Also several soviet officials stated last year that there were problems with the automatic control system, making unmanned landings of it rather difficult. Art Bozlee (another US export on the Russian program) stated that there was no evidence for the earlier rumors about an explosion of an Energia booster on the pad late last year. However he did find out that an Energia was moved out to the pad in December, a partial countdown made, and then it was moved back to the assembly building. This would be consistent with a dry run test of the launch system, but does not prove things one way or the other. By the way there are many indications now that Energia is moved to the pad horizontally, and then raised vertically, which is what I expected. The Russians would love to launch their shuttle before the US one gets going again. It is now generally agreed that its main purpose would be to bring back large cargos from their space stations. However the launch of a boiler plate version which does not land would not win them much credit in the west. Hence if they really have invited in the western press it will be something more than that, but certainly less than one of NASA's vehicles. Meanwhile the news reports say that the congressional budget committee cut NASA's funds to about $10 billion (from the $11.4 asked for). The American people keep on saying that they want to be leaders in Space, they just do not to pay for it. Well, let us see the if the current administration's plan to turn things over to business works out better than government funding. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 88 04:24:52 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Feb 15 AW&ST Editorial praising Pete Aldridge (sec of air force) for his efforts at getting expendable launchers going again, but ending with a caution: "USAF is now threatening to turn ALS into a technology program instead of a project that can provide the US with a heavy lift capability by the late 1990s. Sending ALS into the bureaucratic black hole in which so many technology efforts disappear will not help the US recover the heavy lift capability it lost when NASA abandoned the Saturn V..." Arianespace puts in a bid to launch the next pair of NATO military comsats, pointing out that 60% of NATO's infrastructure budget now comes from Europe. Small study contracts for multimegawatt space reactors put out by DOE. Aussat is showing a strong preference for launching the next-generation Aussats on Long March (!). The business may end up being split between Long March and either Titan or Ariane, because Aussat will probably want a backup launcher and the Western launch companies may not be interested in serving only as backups (i.e. they may want to be first in line for one of the launches in return for being backup for the other). White House finally releases the new National Space Policy. Of note are provision of shuttle external tanks in orbit free to commercial projects, and competitive procurement by NASA of something like ISF. Big article on SDI's Delta 181 space test mission, launched Feb 8. There were some tracking problems and a partial failure of one important sensor, but on the whole the mission was successful. The launch was very carefully done, including a supervisory team whose sole job was to watch for things the launch team might overlook. Weather criteria were tight, and so was security: a USAF gunship circled the pad area for several hours before launch, among other things. (Officially it was there to keep the range clear of boats, but note that the AC-130 aircraft is heavily armed and carries sensors that can pick up intruders by their body heat.) The third SDI Delta will fly early in fall. Delta will officially become a USAF launcher after that mission, but the USAF has asked NASA for the lead role on that one too; "the issue is being negotiated". Picture of a Hermes model in a wind tunnel. Formal space-station negotiations concluded Feb 6, not entirely successfully. Informal negotiations will continue to try to sort out the remaining issues. Canada is still the only partner that has agreed to the US's memorandum of agreement. [Late news: Canada's participation is now considered to be in serious jeopardy, because Congressional budget cuts may remove most of Canada's role. If you have a station-related job, on either side of the border, I would recommend bringing your resume up to date...] Veteran cosmonaut Vladimir Solovyov among those presenting papers at an AIAA conference this week. He says that greater attention to crew comfort is needed on Mir, and better automation of routine housekeeping would also be useful (he appears to mean monitoring and control, not robotics). He also notes that the crew wants to be able to vary the vehicle's climate from time to time, and that private rooms are needed. Aerojet tests a small ultra-high-thrust rocket engine for final maneuvering of missile interceptors. SDI outlines a proposed operating structure for an initial missile-defence system; of note is that contrary to assorted alarmist claims, top control would remain with humans. Big advertiser-funded supplement: "Space Industries". Front page is a satellite photo of Seattle, supplied by Soyuzkarta. The content is pretty lightweight except for two items: a statement from Eosat that Spot has had no effect on Landsat revenues (apparently it has expanded the market instead), and a near-full-page ad for the only heavy booster "AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW!": Proton. [Yes, Soyuzkarta is who you think it is: the USSR.] Target for next Ariane launch slips a week (to March 11) because Matra is making urgent changes to one of the payloads. Telecom 1C is being fixed to ensure that it doesn't have the same disastrous attitude-control failure that hit Telecom 1B. Stacking of the first Ariane 4 (launch tentatively May) is underway. JPL studies feasibility of a specialized space telescope for hunting extrasolar planets; it would combine ultraprecise optics (developed for the semiconductor industry, not for spy satellites!) with a new design of coronagraph to block the light from the star. Design selected for astronaut memorial at KSC, a slab of granite that will track the sun, with astronaut's names cut into it, illuminated by mirrors behind it. Retiring DepSecCommerce Clarence Brown slams government mismanagement of space programs (especially by NASA) and hostility to commercial space. In microgravity programs, "Optimistic folks think we're in third place; the pessimists think we're in fourth or fifth." Recent DoC study says industrial interest is space is very high; Brown observes that most of the interested companies are European or Japanese. The competing mobile-satellite companies have finally merged into an uneasy consortium and have submitted a joint bid to the FCC. DARPA to award small contracts for lightweight-launcher programs, including an air-launched vehicle for small payloads, a Standard Small Launch Vehicle (1500 lbs to low orbit in mid-1990), and an Interim Launch Vehicle (400 lbs to low orbit in mid-1989). All the obvious companies are interested. Hearings to begin on limiting liability for US commercial space launches. Congress backs a scheme in which liability over $500M is assumed by government, paralleling an arrangement used by NASA in pre-Challenger days. Liability for damage to government property will be limited, all parties involved will be required to sign waivers renouncing claims against each other, and launch-date commitments will not be subject to government preemption except in cases of "imperative national need" [whatever that is]. Also bundled in may be provisions giving special discounts and liability reductions to owners of satellites bumped from the shuttle, *if* they launch them on a US launcher. Reagan administration also wants limits on commercial-launch liability, but is proposing it as a flat limit on liability, rather than having the government assume responsibility after a limit is reached; this is arguably a fundamental change to liability law and may not be popular with Congress. Two-page letter column with reactions to AW&ST's facelift and style change, perhaps half of it negative. "If I wanted Newsweek -- I don't -- I would have subscribed to Newsweek." [I agree.] -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Mar 88 15:19 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Geostar & Back to the future I've read that Geostar has conducted a pilot test of a 1-satellite location system with a trucking firm. It enabled the firm to track a stolen truck for several days and direct police to its final destination. The system also lets drivers communicate without stopping to use a phone, which saves roughly $20 per call in lost time. An Ariane has just placed a satellite into orbit with a Geostar package. Is this one working? Back to the future: I read in Discover magazine a wonderfully crazy story about a fellow who is designing some really weird aircraft. The things use ducted fans for vertical takeoff and are about the size of a car. A test model was saucer shaped with six engine/fan units around the pilot's seat. If this refugee from Popular Mechanics really does evolve into a replacement for the automobile it'll have to be highly automated, and navsats like Geostar's would play a central role in collision avoidance and traffic control. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 1988 16:55-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu To: "/usr/amon/Email/Email.L5" Subject: Upcoming name vote for NSS Chapter leaders: I am writing to you about the upcoming vote on the society name. I had initially felt that I would stay completely clear of the name change issue, other than to voice my dislike of the current name to anyone who requested my opinion. However, recent discussions I have had with respected members of our organization have convinced me to take a more public stand. A name is a very important identifier of what an organization is about. For me, that image must convey the international yearning for a free and unfettered human frontier. It must convey a long range view that encompasses O'Neill cylinders, Solar Power Satellites, lunar and martian bases, asteroid mining and starwisps. 'National' Space Society does not do this. A new name is a new identity for us all. The 'fait accomplait' of the name we have lived under for the last year can be laid to rest. By the act of choosing a new name, we choose to leave the past behind us. Whether we came from NSI/NSS or L5 we can finally become the strong and unified voice that I know we can be. The alternative name is Space Frontier Society, a name which I find satisfactory on all of the above accounts. I urge you to circulate copies of this letter and to discuss the issues openly with your membership. If you share the same vision of a hopeful future for all humanity that I do, I'm sure you will get out the vote for "Space Frontier Society". Should we lose this vote, I will be a graceful loser. Win, lose or draw, it is our society and it needs our voices to keep it on the path to our shared dreams. Ad Astra, Dale Amon Board of Directors, National Space Society ------------------------------ Date: 16 Mar 88 14:01:28 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (James W. Meritt) Subject: Re: Forget the Saturn V! Forget the little Saturn V? Forget the little NOVA! GO ORION!!!!! Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #173 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Mar 88 06:23:19 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19796; Thu, 24 Mar 88 03:20:04 PST id AA19796; Thu, 24 Mar 88 03:20:04 PST Date: Thu, 24 Mar 88 03:20:04 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803241120.AA19796@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #174 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 174 Today's Topics: Seminar: LIFE ON MARS? A Letter from Congressman Mrazek Re: House Subcommittee Testimony JFK's challenge ISDC News Flash International Space Development Conference ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Mar 88 23:40:58 GMT From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpclove!dr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dick Rupp) Subject: Seminar: LIFE ON MARS? Here's a seminar in the San Francisco Bay Area that looks interesting. The condensed press release follows: The Planetary Society and NASA Ames Research Center present a public session: "Continuing the Search -- LIFE ON MARS?" What is the relationship between the evolution of the solar system and the evolution of life? Has there ever been life on Mars? What should future missions do to search for past or present life on the Red Planet? Moderator: Dr. Carl Sagan, Director of Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell University, and President of the Planetary Society Other Speakers: Dr. Harold P. Klein, former Viking [Mars landing probe] Biology Team Leader Dr. Stanley Awramik, Dept. of Geology, UCSB, expert on earliest life on Earth The Soviet Union will send some of their Planetary Scientist to describe their efforts at finding life on Mars Location and Date: Thursday, March 24, 1988, 8:00 pm Sunnyvale Hilton Hotel Ballroom US 101 at Lawrence Expressway (1250 Lakeside Dr) Sunnyvale, CA [about 50 miles south of San Francisco] Admission: $2 for members and students $3 for the general public ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 88 04:44:16 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!EWTILENI@princeton.edu (Eric Tilenius) Subject: A Letter from Congressman Mrazek I received the following letter from my Congressman, Bob Mrazek, Democrat from the 3rd district, New York. My letter expressed concern over Congress' commitment to the space program, and urged him to support a vigorous, peaceful space program. I was quite pleased to see his reply (printed below). - - - - - - - - - - - - - CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 ROBERT J. MRAZEK Committee on Appropriations 3rd District, New York Whip at Large Dear Eric: Thank you for contacting my office to express concern regarding Congress' commitment to the space program. As you know, Congress did reduce funding for the space station to $425 million for FY 88. Out of that amount, NASA will only receive $200 million until June 1, 1988. NASA will not receive the additional $225 million until it satisfies Congress with plans for a "rescoped" program. With respect to "rescoping" the program, many NASA officials have interpreted this language to mean reducing the station design. Others believe the intention of Congress is to institute a slower work schedule. In either case, the space station will not be orbited until the mid-1990's or later. As a strong supporter of the space program, I share your concern regarding the lack of commitment on the part of the president and Congress to articulate and fulfill long-term space policy goals. Since space activities have been a critical component of U.S. foreign policy engagement, the development of vibrant space programs by a variety of nations only exacerbates our problem. On a more positive note, NASA does recognize our changing space environment. Work is going forward on Mission to Planet Earth, a cooperative program involving NASA, the National Science Foundation and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to study global change. The main project associated with this effort, the Earth Observing System (EOS), is going forward. EOS, a multinational remote-sensing platform, will receive funding in FY 89. In October, a report entitled "International Space Policy for the 1990's and Beyond" was released by the NASA Advisory Council, Task Force on International Relations in Space. An oversight hearing on the report was held in December before the Subcommittee on Space Sciences and Applications. Apparently, its findings were taken seriously as the president will soon be announcing major policy changes for our space program. When President Kennedy announced the decision to go to the moon, he was quoted as saying that it was "time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in the space achievement which in many ways may hold the key to our future on Earth." While we have long since passed the time when the United States held a monopoly on space technology and expertise, the does not mean that the other leadership opportunities are not present. The space environment of the 1980's and beyond dictates a different type of leadership. In addition to the space station, innovative and cooperative space policies must be sought out. Therefore, I have decided to act in this area. Just a few days ago, I introduced legislation that will establish a national commission to examine how satellite-monitoring arrangements can increase international security and cooperation. As the interdependent state of our planet becomes widely recognized, space-based observations will come to play an increasingly important role. With the emerging capabilities on the part of many nations to monitor Earth, now is the time for the United States to assume leadership in this area as well. You can be assured that I will do all I can to ensure that we become a leader among nations in space. But I can use your help in this regard. Not nearly enough of my colleagues, or the public at large, understand the tangible benefits associated with a vibrant national space program. Given your interest in this area, I am confident that you will play a vital role in shaping our nation's space program. Once again, I appreciate hearing from you. If you should need further assistance or information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Robert J. Mrazek Member of Congress - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ah, if only more Congressmen had some common sense like this! Well, as Bob does say, his colleagues need convincing. Perhaps each of you can help do that. Write your Congressman today! - ERIC - ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 88 18:04:04 GMT From: mnetor!spectrix!tmsoft!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: House Subcommittee Testimony > After reading the Congressional testimony by Dr. Van Allen and his > colleagues from Iowa, I am starting to wonder if this could possibly > be the very same Dr. Van Allen, Chief Villain to the National Space > Society. Van Allen has been showing signs of mellowing lately. Either that, or he's decided that his loud opposition to all manned spaceflight was being ignored as parochial propaganda (which it was), and that more moderate tactics would get better results (which they will). Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 21 Mar 88 06:21:56 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: JFK's challenge It could be argued that President Kennedy's challenge to to land a man on the moon was a major hindrance to the expansion of the United States into space. Previously, expeditions to the moon were envisioned as departing from a (previously built) space station and using earth-orbit to moon-orbit craft that were enhanced versions of existing orbital transfer vehicles. The only new equipment that would have to be built for another expedition would be the lunar lander. Such an approach might have been far less vulnerable to the feeling in the early seventies that the whole moon shot was an expensive waste of money that was needed for social programs. The space station and transfer vehicles would have also been doing all the things you know they are good for, justifying themselves. Old hardware would remain useful when new was aquired. Doug Reeder USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!douglas 10 Cyclopedia Square from BITNET: douglas@reed.UUCP Terminus City from ARPA: !tektronix!reed!douglas@Berkley Terminus,The Foundation Box 502 Reed College,Portland,OR 97202 ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 88 21:47:47 GMT From: cu-den!udenva!isis!scicom!cyrill@boulder.colorado.edu (Cyro Lord) Subject: ISDC News Flash SPACE: The Next Renaissance 1988 International Space Development Conference NEWS FLASH! Greetings, Fellow Space Enthusiasts: The Space Conference has just expanded by an order of magnitude! In case you hadn't heard yet, the Soviets have recently signed an agreement with an American company to launch a commercial payload on the Proton, and conduct experiments on the Space Station Mir. Astronaut Byron K. Lichtenburg, who is president of Payload Systems Inc., the first American company to sign a commercial space contract with the Soviets, just happens to be speaking in the Technical Track and in the Business Symposium at our conference. We will also have a representative from the Office of Space Commercialization in the Department of Commerce speaking at the Business Symposium. We have a new track called the International and Commercial Launch Track, which for the first time in history will bring together the top American orbital launch companies and the top world space powers to give presentations on their launch capabilities to the public! Courtney Stadd from the Department of Transportation's Office of Commercial Space will be speaking at launch on Sunday, May 29. And Nandy Jasentuliyana, from the United Nations will be speaking on Saturday. Ad Astra. Jill E. Steele -- Cyro Lord Alpha Comm. Dev. Corp. 2570 Sky Ranch Rd. Aurora, CO. 80011 UUCP/DOMAIN {boulder,hao,isis}!scicom!cyrill / cyrill@scicom.alphacdc.com "Endeaver to Persevere" ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 88 21:45:16 GMT From: cu-den!udenva!isis!scicom!cyrill@boulder.colorado.edu (Cyro Lord) Subject: International Space Development Conference SPACE THE NEXT RENAISSANCE The 1988 International Space Development Conference May 27 - 30 1988 Stouffer Concourse Hotel Denver, Colorado, USA PO Box 300572 - Denver, CO 80218 (303)692-6788 or (303)388-2368 Our Purpose: To hasten the technical and social advances that will create a spacefaring civilization. Organized by the 1988 International Space Development Conference Committee and hosted by The National Space Society and the Colorado Chapters of the National Space Society. Jill Steele, Chair 1988 International Space Development Conference William H. Ganoe, Chair Symposium on Private Enterprise in Space Co-sponsers Aerospace Education Development Program AMSAT AMSPACE Boulder Center for Science & Policy Denver Area Science Fiction Association Denver Folkers Anonymous Forsight Institute Independent Space Research Group International Association of Space Architects National Association of Rocketry Rocky Mountain Future Association Spacecause Space Generation Spacepac Space Studies Institute SpaceWeek National Headquarters United States Space Foundation Women's Space Network World Space Foundation Special Thanks Ball Aerospace Systems Division Deborah Carlen/Cape & Companies Tom Konetski Mike Mills Ed Daniels Action Answering Service Execu-Type Kinko's Copy Cat Featured Speakers Bob Forward Frank White Courtney Stadd Georgia Franklin PROGRAM TECHNICAL TRACK Leading edge aerospace technology will be discussed in talks and presentations, including the following featured speakers and topics. Speakers Include: K. Eric Drexler: Nanotechnology Ben Clark: Our Future on Mars Arthur Kantrowitz: Laser Launch Technology Topics & Issues External Tanks Robotics Space Station Physics and Astrophysics Launch Technology Life Sciences Geosciences Space Medicine Technology Transfer Physiology and Psychology Space Manufacturing Botany and Zoology Communications Lunar Ecosystems _____________________________________ EDUCATION TRACK The Education Track offers graduate/undergraduate credit (1) through the University of Colorado. The course emphasizes the use of aerospace education to enrich and update existing curricula. Previous knowledge or experience in aviation or space is not required. There is an additional registration fee for the course, and seating is on a space-available basis for non-credit attendees. Speakers Include: David Webb Dorothy Diehl Greg Barr Topics & Issues Aerospace an the Contemporary World Integrating Aerospace Education Into the Curriculum Astronaut Lecture NASA Moon Rock Teacher Certification ______________________ GRASSROOTS TRACK For those interested in pioneering the space frontier in their communities, the Grassroots Track will offer dynamic short courses. Speakers Include: Elisa Wynn Gary Oleson Loyd Case Topics & Issues Chapter Leadership Membership Publicity for Space Activists/Public Relations Marketing Reaching Experts Chapter Forum _________________________ SOCIOECONOMIC TRACK Workshop, discussions and projects exploring developments that will be needed to create communities beyond the earth. Speakers Include: Art Bozlee Spencer McCallum Fred Stitt Topics & Issues International Cooperation and Competition Space As The New Economic Base The Marketing of Space Cultural and Economic Leadership in Space Long-range Planning of Space Development Architecture Law Barriers to Commercialization ___________________________ INTERNATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL LAUNCH TRACK For the first time in the history of humanity's ventures into space, all the major U.S. commercial orbital launch companies and the major space power countries will be brought together to inform the general public about current and future space launches. Plans include represenatives from: American Rocket Company General Dynamics E'Prime Aerospace Corp. LTV Aerospace Martin Marietta McDonnel Douglas Pacific American Launch Systems Inc. Space Services Inc. ESA, NASA, China, Japan and the USSR have been invited to participate. Nandy Jasentuliyana, Deputy Director, Outer Space Affairs Division of the United Nations will make opening remarks to the International Presentation on Saturday. Saturday Presentations by countries, ESA and NASA. Sunday Presentations by companies. ___________________________ BUSINESS SYMPOSIUM Friday, May 27, 1988 $195 A one-day professional symposium for those already in a space-related business and for those interested in starting one. The program will include speakers from industry and government, and provide opportunities to develop contacts with experienced entrepreneurs. One of the featured speakers will be Spacelab I astronaut Dr. Byron K. Lichtenberg, President of Payload Systems, Inc., the first U.S. firm to sign an agreement with the Soviets to preform experiments on the Mir space station. Other speakers include: Tom Taylor and Bob Citron, Spacelab Inc. Steve Wolfe, a member of the staff of Rep. George E. Brown, Jr. (D-CA) Jeffery Mamber, Project Director, Office of Commercial Space, U.S. Department of Commerce Hugh Kelso, Space Research Associates ART SHOW An open entry show with space reserved on a first-come, first-served, fee basis. The show will be judged in several categories, and will include a written and a voice auction. Space Art, Space Engineering Illistration, Space Age Humor&Cartoons, and Space Speculation are acceptable subjects. Sculpture, jewelry, and models are encouraged. More information: Gail Barton, 31 Range View Dr., Lakewood, CO 80215 (303) 233-6958. LUNAR BASE DESIGN WORKSHOP A review on the most current information about lunar entrepreneurial developments, emphasizing human factors, finance and management considerations more then technical detail. Its goals: to develope a proposal for a lunar base developed by and for private enterprise, including funding of start-up research,and to show how laypeople with proper information can contribute in a useful andthoughtful way to a space project. Participants will have opportunities to create sketches and artwork, to write sections of the report, and to build a clay model of the conceptual design. The workshop is co-sponsored by the International Association of space Architects and Design Science Corporations. Special Attractions, Included in the Conference Registration. Video Room Art show and auction Lunar Base Design Workshop Rooms fo ad hoc meetings and gatherings Exhibits - including the Space Architecture Design Contest Folksinging concerts (folksongs about life in Space and the struggle to achieve it.) Cyro Lord Alpha Comm. Dev. Corp. 2570 Sky Ranch Rd. Aurora, CO. 80011 UUCP/DOMAIN {boulder,hao,isis}!scicom!cyrill / cyrill@scicom.alphacdc.com "Endeaver to Persevere" ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #174 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Mar 88 06:21:16 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA21873; Fri, 25 Mar 88 03:18:06 PST id AA21873; Fri, 25 Mar 88 03:18:06 PST Date: Fri, 25 Mar 88 03:18:06 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803251118.AA21873@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #175 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 175 Today's Topics: Re: LH2 X-15 engine Re: X-15 engine Re: SPOT picture wanted Look What I Found Re: space news from Feb 15 AW&ST Soviet Launch Vehicles Soviet launch confidence Re: Horizontal takeoff launch vehicles very small launch vehicles launch costs t. s. kelso's celestial rcp/m ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Mar 88 18:27:50 GMT From: mnetor!spectrix!tmsoft!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: LH2 > ... Since liquid hydrogen gives a better specific impulse with LOX > than any other stable fuel, since environmental threat from > unburned/spilled fuel is less with hydrogen than hydrocarbons, since > (given cheap power) hydrogen is trivially easy to come by, it would > seem to be the fuel of choice. Surely the extension of cryogenic > technology needed for liquid oxygen isn't that much of a barrier. > (Twenty years ago, of course, it was: hence kero-burning Saturn V and > assorted Soviet hardware.) I can't answer for the Soviets, but the kerosene in the first stage of the Saturn V was not there because of cryogenic-technology problems; remember that both the second and third stages used hydrogen. The biggest reason for kerosene in the first stage was that it was not thought possible to develop large hydrogen engines quickly enough to meet Apollo's deadline. However, the situation for hydrogen isn't quite as rosy as presented above. Yes, it is energetic and environmentally fairly benign. The cryogenic technology is not a big problem. It's not as cheap as one might like, in practice as opposed to theory. It causes serious metallurgical problems, as prolonged exposure tends to make metals brittle. Its handling problems, although much exaggerated, are not entirely trivial. The biggest problem with hydrogen, though, and a secondary reason for not using it in first stages, is that it is *bulky*. Its density is very low, which means huge tanks (on the shuttle, for example, the LOX tank is almost spherical; essentially *all* the rest of that big long external tank is hydrogen tank). Big tanks are heavy, and create extra air drag. Most of the studies done in recent times have concluded that hydrogen is not worth the trouble for conventional (or even somewhat unconventional) first stages, although it clearly pays for itself in upper stages. In a first stage, it is better to accept the lower energy content of a hydrocarbon in exchange for its much greater density. Also, although this doesn't necessarily relate to the choice of fuels, the contrast between the US's two big engines influences people. The F-1 was relatively simple and reliable, and not grossly expensive. The SSME is complex, incompletely debugged, probably inherently somewhat unreliable (it pushes the margins too hard), and cosmologically expensive. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 88 00:27:32 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@ucsd.edu (John Pantone) Subject: X-15 engine Does anyone know what the fuel was for the X-15's engine? It was throtleable and was apparently expected to eventually propell the X-15 into orbit - something I think most people have forgotten. Comments, please? John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, 9805 Scranton Rd., San Diego, CA 92121 ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.GE.COM GEnie: J.PANTONE ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 88 18:07:56 GMT From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: X-15 engine In article <2690@calmasd.GE.COM>, jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: > Does anyone know what the fuel was for the X-15's engine? It was > throtleable and was apparently expected to eventually propell the X-15 > into orbit - something I think most people have forgotten. Anhydrous ammonia and liquid oxygen. It could not have put the X-15 into orbit with a B-52 drop. I recall seeing an artist's conception drawing of an X-15 separating from an Atlas, but I can't see that being realistic, because it wasn't designed for atmospheric entry at orbital speed. X-15 #2 got its rear fuselage burned through at 4500 mph. That was its last flight. David Smith ------------------------------ Date: 21 Mar 88 05:55:58 GMT From: clyde!watmath!watdcsu!mmaclenn@rutgers.edu (Mark MacLennan-Geog.) Subject: Re: SPOT picture wanted > I would like to purchase a SPOT image of a particular place, on or > about a particular time. Can someone point me to an appropriate > source for ordering same? I also need pricing (presumably from the > same source). SPOT satellite imagery (10m panchromatic, 20m multispectal - 3 bands) is available in the U.S. for purchase from: SPOT Image Corporation 1897 Preston White Drive Reston, Virginia 22091-4326 703-620-2200 This data is not cheap and it is copyrighted (i.e. once you buy it you cannot pass it on to anyone else; an agreement on terms and conditions for use of the data must be signed ...). Imagery in digital format (on 1600bpi tape) start at about $1500 per scene. There are a few sample scenes of selected areas in the U.S. available for $600 each. I am not certain that SPOT Corporation archives all that many scenes unless they are requested by customers. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Mar 88 23:15:04 GMT From: amdahl!nsc!taux01!amos@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Amos Shapir) Subject: Look What I Found (I hope this was not posted here already) While re-reading Heinlein's 'The Man Who Sold the Moon' last night, I came across the following lines: "For now we have missed our best chance. The satellite is gone ... Even the shuttle rocket is gone. We are back where we were in 1950 ..." "Therefore - I propose that we build a spaceship and send it to the Moon!" [These lines were written in 1949!] All I can add is: Delos D. Harriman for president! Amos Shapir (My other cpu is a NS32532) National Semiconductor (Israel) 6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel Tel. +972 52 522261 amos%taux01@nsc.com 34 48 E / 32 10 N ------------------------------ Date: 21 Mar 88 19:01:49 GMT From: siemens!steve@princeton.edu (Steve Clark) Subject: Re: space news from Feb 15 AW&ST In article <5856@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> kevin@cit-adel.UUCP (Kevin Van Horn) writes: >[...] The Soviets shot down something that merely looked like it might >be a spy plane (flight KAL 007) [...] > >Kevin S. Van Horn You touched a nerve here. The Soviets never NEVER said the 747 looked like a spy plane. They said it was on a spying mission. Our President and our news did not present evidence that it was on a spying mission (all lights were out etc.) and made it appear that the soviets claimed it was a spy plane rather than a spying mission. The distortion by our press and President was itself a news item in Germany at the time. (I went to Germany on a short business trip at the time, and I was amazed at the difference in the story here and there. I no longer believe we have a completely free press in the US.) Steve Clark, steve@siemens.com ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 88 16:13:29 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Soviet Launch Vehicles Soviet Launch Vehicles - New Data The Mar 18,1988 ish of Aviation Week reports the first ever Soviet statistics on their family of launch vehicles. Analysis of these data indicates the existence of a previously unsuspected booster, and screws up a lot of the standard assumptions about which booster launched what. The Soviet figures cover the period Jan 1,1970 to Jan 1, 1988 (except for the Soyuz booster where the period is 1972-1988 - maybe it failed a lot in 1971!). They give total successful launches to orbit and total failures to reach orbit, as follows: (RN= Raketa Nosityel', = Carrier Rocket) Vehicle Successes Failures RN Kosmos 317 14 RN Molniya 179 10 RN Tsyklon 61 2 RN Proton(4-st) 106 9 RN Vostok 88 1 RN Soyuz 554 12 (1972-1988 only) The figures for the 4-stage version of the Proton and the Mk II version of the Tsyklon agree exactly with Western tabulations. (The 3-stage Proton and the Mk I Tsyklon are not being offered for commercial use). The Mk II Kosmos has 322 launches assigned to it in the period, so 5 must belong to some other booster. I suggest this may include the 4 Kapustin Yar suborbital spaceplane tests. The Mk I Kosmos was retired in 1977 and had 69 orbital launches in the period - it is not discussed by the Soviets. The Molniya has had 180 orbital launches in the period not 179 - maybe one of the low orbit failures such as Kosmos-837 is counted as a failure to reach orbit. The real problem comes with Vostok and Soyuz. The new encyclopedia Kosmonavtika SSSR by V. Glushko published a couple years ago confused the issue by attributing some types of Meteor weather satellite to both Vostok and Soyuz boosters in different parts of the book. We can only reconcile the Vostok numbers if all the Meteor type satellites, including the sun-synchronous launches, went on Vostoks. A further 11 launches previously attributed to Soyuz must also be Vostoks; most probably the last 11 second-generation spy satellites of the Kosmos-22 and Kosmos-120 series. This leaves 647 launches still attributed by Western totals to the Soyuz in the 1972-1988 period - according to the new Soviet figures, 93 of these must actually be using a different booster which is not any of the ones discussed above. Up to Jan 1,1988 I count 92 launches of the advanced 4th and 5th generation spy satellites (Kosmos-758,Kosmos-1246,Kosmos-1426 types) and civilian missions based on the same long-duration vehicle (Kosmos-1543 and Kosmos-1882 series), and I'm prepared to believe that a K-758 type mission has been misidentified as a K-317 3rd generation mission. Since US intelligence has not reported the existence of this new booster (although the Pentagon document Soviet Military Power has accurately reported other new vehicles) I suggest that a *Mk II version of the Soyuz booster* has been introduced which is sufficiently different (and has a sufficiently higher failure rate) that the Soviets have not included it in their totals. Jonathan McDowell, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 88 17:51:45 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Soviet launch confidence > Launch conditions were atrocious with only the red glare of the > rockets visible through a snow blizzard as it blasted off in the early > hours of Thursday morning. [that is what you call confidence in your > technology] After over 1000 launches of the same booster, one tends to have a fair idea of what it can and can't do! The Soviets also have some reason to want an winter-weather launch capability, since their program is geared to frequent launches in a country that has nasty winters, so they undoubtedly tested it thoroughly long ago. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Mar 88 14:04:26 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (James W. Meritt) Subject: Re: Horizontal takeoff launch vehicles You have heard, perhaps, of the "orient express"? This sucket should go barely orbital velocity as designed. Shouldn't take much more. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 88 07:47:15 GMT From: telesoft!roger@ucsd.edu (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: very small launch vehicles So far, at least, private launch companies targeting the market for small to medium launch vehicles have not been very successful. Among the problems: 1) raising the capitol needed to develop any new launch vehicle; 2) achieving cost/performance sufficiently beyond what is already available as to justify a high risk venture; 3) acquiring permits and approvals for new launch facilities. Solutions to 1) and 2) tend to be antagonistic. There is no question that the potential exists for orders-of-magnitude reductions in the cost of delivering payload to orbit. The theoretical bottom line imposed by the cost of fuel is nearly ten THOUSAND times less than current actual costs. But the cost of developing new launch systems is high; if development is limited to what can be reasonably funded through private risk capitol, then it is difficult to promise a sufficiently better mousetrap to make the risk worthwhile. Even if a company can develop a launch vehicle that looks good against the current competition, if their vehicle requires ground-based launch facilities in the U.S., they may be killed by problem 3). (As AMROC seems to be discovering). Dealing with technical problems is nothing compared to dealing with bureaucracies in matters they have never handled before. Channels and areas of responsibility are ill-defined, at best. There is no incentive for any bureaucrat to risk his career by departing from routine, when the safe alternative of passing the buck is available. I don't believe that these problems preclude any chance of success for a private launch company, but they do imply certain constraints. To have a reasonable chance of success, I suggest that a private launch company: a) design its launcher for the smallest payload for which a decent market can be realistically projected; b) limit itself to vehicle designs that don't require new ground- based launch facilities. Making the launcher as small as possible limits development costs, and makes it possible to do something interesting with what could reasonably be expected from venture financing. Avoiding new ground- based launch facilities either means compatibility with existing government launch facilities, or the capability to launch from sea or air. What looks good to me is a very small launcher with a LEO payload capability on the order of 50 kg. It would have two main stages fueled by liquid oxygen and liquid methane, with a very small orbital maneuvering stage for performing rendezvous operations. The gross weight of the vehicle, fueled and ready to launch, would be on the order of 1000 kg. It would be launched at high altitude from an "air sled", towed by a modified business jet. (The sled is a safety feature; if the rocket blows up, the sled is lost, but the tow plane isn't. Reduces development costs, by leaving room for failures). The size of the vehicle would be about 2.5 feet in diameter and 8 feet in length--including payload fairing. The high altitude air launch is crucial to the feasibility of such a tiny launch vehicle. Not only does it reduce the effective delta vee to orbit by around 1000 mps (by eliminating most atmospheric losses and allowing a more efficient ascent profile), but it allows for the use of simple, pressure fed engines. The engines can operate at a high expansion ratio despite modest internal tank pressure. Modest tank pressure, in turn, means lighter, cheaper tanks. Each stage would have four fixed engines, and steering would be through differential fuel metering to opposite engines, a' la OTRAG. Would there really be a market for a launch system with an LEO payload capability of only 50 kg? I think there would be. 50 kg is enough to deliver pharmeceutical feedstock for a teleoperated space electrophor- esis unit, plus a return capsule for processed material. It's also large enough to carry special purpose mini-satellites and scientific experiments. It would also be great for delivering mail and hot meals to the space station, if that ever gets built. Maybe Domino's Pizza would like to fund its development? Talk about delivering! - Roger Arnold ..ucsd!telesoft!roger ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 88 15:06:41 GMT From: s.cc.purdue.edu!ain@h.cc.purdue.edu (Patrick White) Subject: launch costs Could somebody please send me a list of how much it costs to purchase a launch from all the companies/countries selling such a service.. or preferably, send me a list of the companies/countries and how to contact them? Many thanks. [Hmmm.. wonder if our government has realized that the USSR could use their space shuttle to grab some of our dead satellites (you know.. the ones we would never miss) to examine the techonology?.. naww.. the USSR would *never* do that :-)] -- Pat White ARPA/UUCP: k.cc.purdue.edu!ain BITNET: PATWHITE@PURCCVM PHONE: (317) 743-8421 ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 88 18:40:49 GMT From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxh!andy@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (M Anderson) Subject: t. s. kelso's celestial rcp/m Can some one mail me the phone number for t.s. kelso's celestial rcp/m system (or post it to the net.)? Thanks in advance, M. Anderson [From: unmvax!charon!deimos.unm.edu!f12012ag@ucbvax.berkeley.edu The number is (512) 892-4180. Operates 24 hrs/day at 300, 1200, and 2400 baud. 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. Ollie ] ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #175 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Mar 88 06:21:39 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00740; Sat, 26 Mar 88 03:18:55 PST id AA00740; Sat, 26 Mar 88 03:18:55 PST Date: Sat, 26 Mar 88 03:18:55 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803261118.AA00740@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #176 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 176 Today's Topics: Re: Engineering new stars Re: Neutrino Tomography The moon as a research base Re: Feynman's last trip report Re: Geostar & Back to the future Re: The lighter side of space. Re: Space Station measurement system Re: Space Station measurement system Re: Space Station measurement system Re: Space Station measurement system Re: Space Station measurement system Re: Space Station measurement system Libertarian candidate space position papers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Mar 88 23:22:07 GMT From: oliveb!pyramid!prls!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Frank Adams) Subject: Re: Engineering new stars In article <5230@uwmcsd1.UUCP> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >In discussing the movie 2010 with someone, I came across what may be >the boldest engineering project ever imagined: to create a new star. It isn't. Putting a Dyson sphere around a galaxy, to name one example, is much more ambitious. (Followups on this subject should be to sci.space.) >I would like someone who is qualified to tell me what would happen if, >say, 1000 H-Bombs were sent into Jupiter and simultaneously detonated. >... If the interior is mostly Hydrogen then the reaction would sustain >itself thereby creating a new star. No. If Jupiter were dense enough to sustain a fusion reaction, there would be one going on, and it would already be a star. If you blow up a bunch of H-bombs there, you will get a little extra yield from setting off (some of) the nearby hydrogen, but it will fizzle out. In the extreme case, if you set off enough bombs scattered around the planet (probably at least on the order of a trillion), you could get the planet to blow up; but still no star. Try reading the book. I'm not sure Clarke's suggestion could be made to work, but it's a lot more plausible than just setting off a lot of H-bombs. Frank Adams ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 88 09:41:23 GMT From: xanth!kent@mcnc.org (Kent Paul Dolan) Subject: Re: Neutrino Tomography In article <240@unisv.UUCP> vanpelt%unisv@ubvax.ub.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >In article <7831@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >>(1) De Rujula, Weinstein, and others have proposed to use Tev-Pev >> neutrinos for doing whole earth tomography. One Earth diameter of >> rock and iron should be just the right distance. Earthquake >> prediction and the like would surely benefit. This requires >> SSC-level energies. Their actual proposals get further out: for >> maximum tomography benefit, they want to try floating the SSC out >> at sea! I posted a short description with references about a year >> ago. >Now this is fascinating, and deserves to be split out into a separate >subject. It seems to me that what you really need to do for this is to >put your SSC in orbit. There you go! Build two of whatever you use to launch it, and the spare can launch the next twenty or thirty years of the space program in one fell swoop. Talk about your big, dumb boosters! [Notice the "Followups-to:" line!] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 88 12:43 EDT From: ELIOT%cs.umass.edu@relay.cs.net Subject: The moon as a research base The more I think about it the more I feel that the U.S. should scrap the space station in favor of a permanently manned lunar base. Some of the materials needed would be locally available saving $$$$ in transportation costs. It would be a fabulous place for a large telescope. No atmospheric disturbance, without many of the hastles of a satelite. You wouldn't have to worry about occilations every time something twitches. You wouldn't gravitationally attract a dust cloud. And you wouldn't need to use rockets for stabilization and pointing. Furthermore, the orbit won't decay for a *very* long time. Chris Eliot University of Massachusetts at Amherst Department of Computer and Informtion Science (COINS) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Mar 88 13:29:28 PST From: Eugene miya Subject: Re: Feynman's last trip report A friend and climbing partner writes: From: murray@src.dec.com (Hal Murray) >On the first page, he talks about betting a good breifing on the >shuttle from JPL. I assume they have a lot of sharp guys, but how come >they know so much about the shuttle? There are complete sets of Shuttle manuals at JPL. This existed years ago since the first real payload (The SIR: shuttle imaging radar) was a JPL project. These manuals detail dimensions, power, temperatures, etc. Feynman was being a little rosy about not having any vested interests: other friends think Caltech (which runs JPL) told him to be considerate of the Lab's 2 year contract (hearsay only). Also note that Taylor Wang also flew with his levitation experiments, and I also have two other friends waiting for the next SIR mission (Cimino and Kobrick [Alt.]). All missions have their own set of up to date manuals and they meet the crew of their respective missions. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 21 Mar 88 17:42:35 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Re: Geostar & Back to the future In his article DIETZ@sdr.slb.COM ("Paul F. Dietz") writes: >Back to the future: I read in Discover magazine a wonderfully crazy >story about a fellow who is designing some really weird aircraft. The >things use ducted fans for vertical takeoff and are about the size of a >car. A test model was saucer shaped with six engine/fan units around >the pilot's seat. If this refugee from Popular Mechanics really does >evolve into a replacement for the automobile it'll have to be highly >automated, and navsats like Geostar's would play a central role in >collision avoidance and traffic control. It's closer than you think: in a recent (Dec '87?) _Popular Mechanics_ issue, I noticed a full-page ad by some company here in California for the "Merlin 2000" [number may be wrong]. This vehicle was claimed to fit in a one-car garage, run on auto fuel, and cruise aerially at 225 mph, range about 1000 miles. Apparently this is a testing of the market; the ordering info and related info packet sold by mail for about $40. The front view in the ad gave me the impression that the profile would look more like a fighter than a saucer; anyway, once the production line starts, the FAA and DoT will have to get together- problems of traffic changing media as easily as changing lanes could cause lots of problems. Just think of all the aerospace congestion around LAX or any airport, large or small. Now think of a vehicle that can take off from anywhere, and you can see *huge* problems rearing their ugly heads. Joe Beckenbach (CS BS '??) I'D RATHER BE ORBITING "Dispatch, this is 504. Suspect spotted, heading east in I-5. It's one of them vertical jobbies, and we lost him. Call in the CHP jets." ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 88 13:37:17 GMT From: sj1f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Kent Jensen) Subject: Re: The lighter side of space. I believe the title that Jon Leech is loking for is "The Light Stuff". It contains interesting anecdotes about the people around the space program from its conception through the space shuttle. Good reading, I highly recommend it. Steven Jensen ------------------------------ Date: 21 Mar 88 03:23:05 GMT From: vu-vlsi!swatsun!leif@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Leif Kirschenbaum) Subject: Re: Space Station measurement system In article <8803141519.AA22768@blues.db.toronto.edu> hogg@db.toronto.edu (John Hogg) writes: > In article <1988Mar11.041245.8768@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >The space station will not be metric, for fear that it might affect > >safety in an emergency when snap decisions are being made by ignorant > >astronauts who have to convert metric units to archaic ones before > >thinking about them. [AW&ST obviously did not word it quite that > >way...] In all science courses I have taken we have always used metric; the English system was only mentioned as an aside. The metric system makes all physics, chemistry, etc. much easier than English. The professors at my college who are doing research (and publishing) also use metric. (I've peeked in their labs and talked to upperclass students who help them) Everything I've read about science (Scientific American and articles from "real science" journals) has been in metric. I don't know which system NASA uses, but would be surprised if they use English. I would think that anyone qualified enough to be an astronaut has had more than the basic courses in science, and would therefore think in metric. Even in snap situations (I certainly do- slugs are awfull difficult to relate to and metric numbers are so much easier to compute- 10m/s/s for g, 1g/cc density for water, etc.) Even if they hadn't, all the training NASA gives astronauts (and I gather that it's a lot) should involve metric. So why the worry about 'ignorant' astronauts? > 2) What unit of mass will be used? Will astronauts deal with both > pounds-force and pounds-mass, or, in the middle of a crisis > situation, will they instinctively think in slugs? > I can guess the answer to the first question, but the implications of > the second I missed whatever's after 'second', but I want to comment that slugs are bad to work with, as are pounds, inches, miles and everything else. Does anyone know what system NASA uses to train its personnel and design its systems? Does anyone know where it gets scientists who are willing to use the English system to design spacecraft, instruments, equipment, etc? ------------------------------ Date: 21 Mar 88 17:42:59 GMT From: FAS.RI.CMU.EDU!schmitz@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Donald Schmitz) Subject: Re: Space Station measurement system >In all science courses I have taken we have always used metric; the >English system was only mentioned as an aside. The metric system makes >all physics, chemistry, etc. much easier than English. The professors >at my college who are doing research (and publishing) also use metric. If you dig a little deeper, you will find most of their apparatus and likely all the standard components (screws, pins, etc) are spec'd in English. Why? Becaue machine shops are full of English calibrated tools, and English screws, bolts, etc. offer the widest selection and can be bought at any hardware store. You are sure to get parts that don't fit together if you spec them in metric and give them to an English shop, which then converts every measurement to English, with obvious round-off. Likewise, expect a few months delivery on metric fasteners in any but the most common sizes. The hassle over the pound-mass and pound-force (lbm and lbf for MEs) is rather academic, no one uses slugs in casual conversation, and the meaning of "pound" is generally obvious from its usage. The metric system is no better in this respect, I have seen quite a few Japanese publications rate motor torque in Kg-m, rather than the correct Newton-meter. In any case, I doubt the decision to use English on the station affects the actual design, but rather the station instrument calibration. I would much rather measure some things, like the cabin pressure I was about to walk into, in lb/in^2 than Pascals, and count on doing the conversion to atmospheres (which is what really matters) right. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 88 09:49:22 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Re: Space Station measurement system Nuclear reactors designed these days are now all metric, after years of unitary chaos. Doug Reeder USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!douglas 10 Cyclopedia Square from BITNET: douglas@reed.UUCP Terminus City from ARPA: !tektronix!reed!douglas@Berkley Terminus,The Foundation Box 502 Reed College,Portland,OR 97202 ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 88 00:32:21 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Space Station measurement system NASA tends to officially recognize English units. There was an IEEE Spectrum article on this. This is something of a joke, but many instruments say L-band radar which is measured as 23.1 cm wavelength, not the equivalent English. There is a set of small stories about the English bias, let's just leave it to "dusty deckism." So a Space station will likely have a mixture of measurements like National Parks which give both units but with English first in this case. Gawd what a pain! --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 88 21:35:36 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Station measurement system > If you dig a little deeper, you will find most of their apparatus and > likely all the standard components (screws, pins, etc) are spec'd in > English... No, by and large they are specced as the equivalent of "size 5", where the meaning of "5" has to be found by looking it up in a table anyway. This is entirely independent of what system of units is used for *measurements*. I assure you that it's quite possible to use "English" screws in equipment build in metric; you just need a screw-sizes table showing how big those screws are in metric units. You need this sort of thing anyway, in fact, since there *is* no single metric screw standard. Remember that there is nothing two-inches-by-four-inches about a "two-by-four", and for that matter there is nothing one-inch about a "one-inch" pipe. In any case the "but you have to convert, and that causes errors" is increasingly spurious; the aerospace industry is going metric. And of course, all three international "partners" in the project are already metric. It wouldn't surprise me if there is going to be *more* conversion this way than there would be with an all-metric station. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 88 18:07:34 GMT From: grasp.cis.upenn.edu!ulrich@super.upenn.edu (Nathan Ulrich) Subject: Re: Space Station measurement system In article <1988Mar22.213536.500@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >I assure you that it's quite possible to use "English" screws in >equipment build in metric; you just need a screw-sizes table showing >how big those screws are in metric units. You need this sort of thing >anyway, in fact, since there *is* no single metric screw standard. For small screws, there is very little correlation to inches anyway: a 6-32 screw has a 0.138" O.D., etc. Larger screws such as 1/4-20, and on up have much more relationship to "even" inch sizes. The use of English units by machinists, engineers, and draftsmen (and most manufacturers) in the US is a source of constant frustration to me. I much prefer using metric units, and do so for all of my calculations, analysis, etc., but when I get to the stage of actually designing a mechanism, my machinist thinks in English, the parts I need are all in inch sizes, and I have to convert everything. Many professional societies have come out as proponents of the metric system, and with increasing use of numerically- controlled milling machines, etc., conversion should not be too difficult--- a just wish it would happen in my lifetime. Nathan Ulrich ulrich@grasp.cis.upenn.edu ------------------------------ Date: 21 Mar 1988 15:13-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu To: "/usr/amon/Email/Email.L5" Subject: Libertarian candidate space position papers The following two positions papers are the statements of the Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Ron Paul on domestic and international space issues. For more information on their stands: Ron Paul for President Committee 1120 NASA Road, Suite 104, Houston TX 77058 ======================================================================== SPACE - DOMESTIC POLICY Time after time NASA has developed capabilities at great expense then discarded them: a space station larger than the Soviet MIR, a heavy lift vehicle competitive with the new Soviet Energia, a nuclear engine twice as efficient as the space shuttle main engine and a well tested Earth-Moon transport. The fate of the Saturn V heavy lift launch vehicle is one of the saddest examples of this folly. Production was intentionally halted and portions of its tooling were "lost". This bridge burning ensured support for the next aerospace welfare program: the space shuttle. Now we have a grounded government shuttle that can lift a third as much as the Saturn V for the same cost per pound. That's progress, government style. Even worse, this failed state monopoly is now wrecking businesses to avoid well deserved embarassment. American companies desperately need to get their satellites into space. They have been blocked from using the cheapest, most reliable launcher in the world which unfortuneately happens to be the Soviet Proton. NASA has cost our nation a full twenty years in space development, twenty years that has seen the Soviet Union surpass us to an extent that may well be irreparable. It is inconceivable that a private firm could have committed such follies and survived. NASA deserves no better. Our only hope now lies in the power of free individuals risking their own resources for their own dreams. We must recognize the government led space program is dead and the corpse must be buried as soon as possible. Any defense functions should be put under the military, and thre rest of NASA should be sold to private operators. The reciepts would be applied to the national debt. Then, all government roadblocks to commercial development of space must be removed. It is not the business of the defense department of a free society to veto business decisions of remote sensing or launch companies. The interests of liberty would be well served by a bevy of mediasats that will put any future Iran-Contra affair under the full glare of live television coverage. Maybe, besides competition, that's what our government is afraid of. There is really only one proper role for the military in space or on Earth: the protection of America. Otherwise, the new fronteir of Space should be opened to all. Space pioneers will generate knowledge and wealth that will improve the lot of all people on earth. We should not let government get in their way. ======================================================================== SPACE - INTERNATIONAL POLICY Our government is not only shortsighted in it's negotiations on space issues, it's downright anti-american. Sometimes it's hard to decide whose principles the State Department is defending. They certainly aren't those of our Founding Fathers. About the only anti-property treaty this country hasn't ratified is the odious "Moon Treaty", written by our own State Department. If not for an alert group of citizens (L5 Society), the United States would have ratified this treaty under President Carter and embraced control of all the rest of creation by a World Government. Under "the common heritage of all mankind" space would be the heritage of no one. The vast wealth of resources and energy in our solar system would remain untapped instead of being explored by entrepreneurs who would improve the condition of all humanity. It's time this sick treaty is repudiated once and for all. We must also demand a revision or understanding to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty so individual property rights are recognized. If there are no implimenting protocols for property rights within a specified time limit we should withdraw from the treaty entirely. In any case, we should immediately open a land office and accept claims of Americans to specific pieces of land, subject to occupancy within 15 years. Back in the late 1950's a project called Orion seriously considered using small nuclear explosions to power a spacecraft. The lifting capacity would have been vast, measured in thousands of tons instead of the miniscule abilities of today's mightiest rockets. This brute-force approach was simple enough to be considered feasible 30 years ago. Unfortuneately, the idea was shelved by the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. If we truly wish to see the opening of the space frontier, we must not prevent businesses from working on futuristic ideas like fusion drives or matter-antimatter engines. Such technologies will one day open the solar system to commerce the way the clipper ship opened the oceans in the 19th century. A time may also come when industrial nuclear explosives are needed in deep space for extraction of the vast wealth of resources inside comets and asteroids. Modification of the 1963 Test Ban Treaty and other understandings to clearly allow such non-military use of nuclear technology is in the best interests of all space-faring peoples. But perhaps most basic of all, we should question why governments of 20th century Earth assume they have the right to make laws for unknown environments, at distances of millions of miles and a time decades or centuries in the future. If the arm of government can reach that far, freedom on Earth is precarious at best. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #176 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Mar 88 11:10:21 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05654; Wed, 30 Mar 88 07:18:12 PST id AA05654; Wed, 30 Mar 88 07:18:12 PST Date: Wed, 30 Mar 88 07:18:12 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803301518.AA05654@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #177 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 177 Today's Topics: space news from Feb 22 AW&ST National Space Society name change vote update Re: Space Station measurement system slugs Re: slugs Re: Space Station measurement system Re: Space Station measurement system Re: Space Station measurement system Re: Units Re: Units ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Mar 88 00:25:06 GMT From: att-cb!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Feb 22 AW&ST Senate committee asks GAO to expand on an earlier report on Morton Thiokol, especially in light of recent accidents there. "Do significant and potentially serious problems with quality control and safety still exist at the Morton Thiokol Wasatch facility?" ESA and NASA more or less sort out their difficulties over Space Station cooperation, and ESA station people get their station-staff badges back (they had been revoked in December, blocking ESA access to NASA facilities). Japan remains a holdout. Asat program finally abandoned during latest budget cuts, after repeated Congressional bans on testing it. Remaining three missiles mothballed. Advanced Launch System is hitting budget problems, and its future is uncertain. SDI, its big backer, can't afford to pursue it alone given budget constraints. It may turn into a USAF technology program. Various SDI space projects suffer from budget cuts, notably the Zenith Star chemical-laser satellite. NASA seeks $11.48G FY89 budget, including space station (delayed a year but still running), AXAF new start (Fletcher convinced the White House to reverse its no-new-starts-this-year policy), Pathfinder technology development, start on an improved SRB, start on long-duration orbiter work, more expendables, large increases in Shuttle, and a modest boost in the Civilian Space Technology Initiative's near-term programs. [Mind you, NASA isn't going to *get* $11.48G.] Reagan space policy released Feb 11. Calls for more coordination between agencies. Rejects Kennedy-style commitment to a big new goal. Removes 10-m resolution limit on civilian imaging satellites, *but* calls for case-by-case review based on "commercial and national security implications". [Translation, the government is still in control, but it's no longer going to make the rules explicit. Sigh.] Calls for trying to get some of the space-station money from private sources. [Rotsa ruck.] Reagan commercial space initiative, released Feb 11, pushes government support of private space efforts, orders NASA to immediately lease something like ISF (Space Industries is obvious favorite, since it's got a long head start on design, but other companies are interested, notably Fairchild [with its old Leasecraft proposal], some of the station bidders, and MBB-Erno [which built the Spacelab modules for ESA, but would have to team with a US company to meet US-only rules]; the expense of bidding, plus reluctance to join a shaky partnership with the government, may mean that only Space Industries bids, however) (Fletcher says NASA has "reoriented its thinking" and reversed its earlier opposition to the idea), endorses Spacehab's efforts to build a shuttle-cabin extender by ordering NASA to do its best to give Spacehab launch opportunities (which is the only government supoprt Spacehab wants at present), orders NASA to provide expended shuttle external tanks at no cost to "all feasible US commercial and nonprofit endeavors" (NASA expects substantial demand for the tanks, but insists that recipients have their act together on either keeping them in orbit or providing controlled reentry). Liability limits for commercial launches will be delayed because Congress and administration disagree on approach. Congress wants government to assume liability above a ceiling. Administration wants an absolute cap on indirect damages (e.g. pain and suffering) per person affected; such a radical reform in liability principles is unlikely to win favor with Congress, especially a Democrat-controlled Congress. One positive note: the government has decided that if an accident is the government's fault, the government will not hold commercial firms liable; previous policy said that the firms were liable regardless! [One would think that these rules were designed to discourage commercial launch firms, wouldn't one? Just an accident, of course :-), even though they were set up by the USAF, which is even more hostile to private spaceflight than NASA is -- which is saying something!] [Micro-editorial: In retrospect, it was clearly a mistake to give the USAF primary responsibility for US military spaceflight. The US Navy, which has a long history of being charged with supporting commercial sea users, would have been a much better choice.] SDI will add more funding to a sounding-rocket particle-beam experiment in the wake of the budget-cutting cancellation of the shuttle Neutral Particle Beam project. Bad luck for the Soviets, a double dose this time. Cosmos 1906, an imaging satellite working for the new Soyuzkarta marketing organization, fails and has to be blown up to prevent it making an uncontrolled reentry and possibly falling into US hands. And the Proton fourth-stage separation system fails on a navsat launch, third Proton failure in last year or so. SDI unveils plans for a robotic satellite servicer, possibly consisting of a telerobotic "maintenance garage" plus a copy of NASA's Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle to tow satellites in. Actually, it would probably have two OMVs, and might also have a tanker module for an OMV to carry for refuelling satellites; SDI is talking to NASA, since NASA has its own tanker ideas. High-resolution radar images of Venus released by USSR. Old data (1983), but new release, some of it much enhanced from earlier releases. [Next item is from Flight International, 30 Jan issue] British Aerospace is cautiously optimistic about Hotol's future. Engine work has solved some possible problems. Details remain secret, and no serious interest from other nations is likely until this changes, but Rolls-Royce has released a vague schematic of the engine. It's a rocket engine with a feed for atmospheric air, which is compressed after being run through a "sophisticated" liquid-hydrogen heat exchanger to cool it. Looks like the hydrogen used to cool the air spins the turbine for the compressor and is then dumped, rather than going into the rocket. [And these are from the 23 Jan issue] Leonov says the Soviet shuttle will fly unmanned this year and manned next year. Second Energia flight expected Feb-March. Leonov says two modules will be added to Mir this year. A crew will visit Salyut 7 "at the end of the century" to examine it for long-term effects of space. Victor Blagov (dep chief manned spaceflight) says Mir 2 is under development for Energia launch, and that a Manned Maneuvering Unit (the Soviets call it a "jet bicycle", actually!) will fly this summer. Space medicine expert Oleg Gazenko says that Romanenko's one-year flight supplies adequate information to assess biological effects of a three-year Mars mission, and there is no real need for longer simulation flights. He was depressed, homesick, and argumentative towards the end of the flight; apparently he has a history of being temperamental in space. West German company Kayser Threde is to fly materials-processing experiments aboard Soviet unmanned satellites between 1989 and 1992, first such Western customer. -- "Noalias must go. This is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology non-negotiable." --DMR | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 21 Mar 1988 18:02-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu To: "/usr/amon/Email/Email.L5" Subject: National Space Society name change vote update The ballot for the name change vote will be going out in bulk mail this week, along with a demographic survey and a fundraiser. I urge you to: 1) Vote for Space Frontier Society 2) Get as many people as you can to do likewise, including phone tree activations to all NSS members in your areas. 3) Donate as much as you can and encourage others to do so. Additionally if you feel as I do on fairness in politics: 4) Make a snide comment about the Libertarian Party not being included in the demographic survey. It was included in the original form and was taken out on orders from Glen Wilson, without the consent of anyone in authority. You can do so even if you are checking the box for Republican or Democrat. Just consider how you would feel if someone left YOUR affiliation out. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 88 18:23:49 GMT From: dennis@cod.nosc.mil (Dennis Cottel) Subject: Re: Space Station measurement system Does anyone know what the astronauts themselves have to say on the subject? Dennis Cottel Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA 92152 (619) 553-1645 dennis@NOSC.MIL sdcsvax!noscvax!dennis ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 88 06:05:59 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!sq!msb@uunet.uu.net (Mark Brader) Subject: slugs > What unit of mass will be used? Will astronauts deal with both > pounds-force and pounds-mass, or, in the middle of a crisis situation, > will they instinctively think in slugs? I don't know why people seem to think slugs are so difficult. :-) I mean, to reasonable accuracy for "instinctive" use, a slug is just 2.3 stones-mass, isn't it? ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 88 16:16:46 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!kcarroll@uunet.uu.net (Kieran A. Carroll) Subject: Re: slugs >...a slug is just 2.3 stones-mass, isn't it?... I can never remember...how many snails are there to the slug? -- Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!kcarroll ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 88 17:32:53 GMT From: ncar!noao!mcdsun!nud!duster!mikec@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Collins) Subject: Re: Space Station measurement system The following from an earlier posting: >> In all science courses I have taken we have always used metric; the >>English system was only mentioned as an aside. The metric system makes all >>physics, chemistry, etc. much easier than English. In article <1184@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> schmitz@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU (Donald Schmitz) writes: >If you dig a little deeper, you will find most of their apparatus and >likely all the standard components (screws, pins, etc) are spec'd in >English. Why? Becaue machine shops are full of English calibrated >tools, and English screws, bolts, etc. offer the widest selection and >can be bought at any hardware store. My uncle owns a fairly large manufacturing operation in California (yes, there still is some industry in the USA). He has been under contract to NASA or its suppliers a number of times over the years for hardware that _looks_ like what you'd buy down at the local True Value. Why? NASA doesn't buy from the local hardware store. When you look at the overall cost of an orbital mission, you don't want to risk the whole thing on unknowns, so everything is spec'd, inspected, etc. Aside from that, English-measured hardware cannot be bought at any hardware store in Japan, West Germany, France, etc., i.e. metric hardware is more common worldwide. >You are sure to get parts that don't fit together if you spec them in >metric and give them to an English shop, which then converts every >measurement to English, with obvious round-off. Before I learned how to make money pushing buttons, I spent a few years as a machinist working mostly in job shops. I frequently encountered drawings which were dimensioned in metric measurements. There is no "round-off." If the designer specs 15mm +/- 0.02mm, then I would make the dimension between 0.5913" and 0.5898". It may take a bit longer when the print says 230mm and the dial is calibrated in thousandths of an inch, but a tolerance is a tolerance regardless of the units of measure. Michael Collins Motorola Microcomputer Division (602) 438-3443 ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 88 20:34:12 GMT From: FAS.RI.CMU.EDU!schmitz@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Donald Schmitz) Subject: Re: Space Station measurement system In article <769@duster.UUCP> mikec@duster.UUCP (Michael Collins) writes: >My uncle owns a fairly large manufacturing operation in California (yes, >there still is some industry in the USA). He has been under contract to > NASA or its suppliers a number of times over the years for hardware that > _looks_ like what you'd buy down at the local True Value. Why? NASA >doesn't buy from the local hardware store. When you look at the overall >cost of an orbital mission, you don't want to risk the whole thing on >unknowns, so everything is spec'd, inspected, etc. The original post was discussing university lab equipment, not space hardware. However, I doubt even NASA would care to maintain all of the dimensional standards regarding screw sizes, I'll bet their special requirements deal with the material and _compliance_ with the industry standard size, which happen to be English. >English-measured hardware cannot be bought at any hardware store in >Japan, West Germany, France, etc., i.e. metric hardware is more common >worldwide. I'm interested in substantiation, I worked with an Isreali aerospace engineer who claimed he used English hardware in everything because of the lack of availability and standardization in metric parts. Most of his suppliers were European. >Before I learned how to make money pushing buttons, I spent a few years >as a machinist working mostly in job shops. I frequently encountered >drawings which were dimensioned in metric measurements. There is no >"round-off." If the designer specs 15mm +/- 0.02mm, then I would make >the dimension between 0.5913" and 0.5898". It may take a bit longer >when the print says 230mm and the dial is calibrated in thousandths of >an inch, but a tolerance is a tolerance regardless of the units of >measure. The problems I have seen occur when two machinists are making parts which must mate, say a pin with OD 151 +0/-0.15mm and a hole at OD 151 +0.15/-0mm, a nominal line-to-line fit with clearance acceptable. The fellow making the pin converts 151 mm to 5.94488189 (on his calculator), and since he works to 4 places, rounds up to 5.9449 inches. The fellow making the hole _drops_ everything after the 4th decimal, and makes a hole 5.9948 inches. Both parts come out exactly as the machinists intended. Instead of at best 0 _clearance_, the parts now mate with 0.0001 inch _interference_. This is no big deal for most things, but there are a few places it matters (precision ball bearing seats). Of course good machinists would know to consider the tolerances when converting the dimensions, but not all of them are good. And this all assumes they hit the right calculator buttons, for every dimension on a part. Long timer mechanical designers advise specing parts with the dimensions needed to manufacture it, plus make friends with the machinists. >Michael Collins >Motorola Microcomputer Division >(602) 438-3443 Sorry if this has wandered too far from the topic of space, I promise not to mention it again. Don Schmitz - CMU Robotics Institute ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 88 00:31:04 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: Re: Space Station measurement system NASA may be maintaining compatibility with the manned space efforts of Burma and Brunei. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 88 10:12:51 GMT From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) Subject: Re: Units In article <1806@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: >One time on a request for proposals from the government, it stated that >"values shall be quoted ~rin metric, with British units in parentheses" One of the courses I have taken in aerospace engineering had a few lectures on overall systems issues. The lecturer described a project he worked on for NASA (a shuttle payload). At one point in the project, he sent NASA a detailed report, with metric units. They sent it back, and asked for a copy with English units. (What I want to know is, did all the NASA engineers there who looked at the report convert back to metric?) John Carr jfc@athena.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 88 21:58:58 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Units In article <1988Mar23.010559.29954@sq.uucp>, msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) writes: > I don't know why people seem to think slugs are so difficult. :-) I > mean, to reasonable accuracy for "instinctive" use, a slug is just 2.3 > stones-mass, isn't it? > > Mark Brader One time on a request for proposals from the government, it stated that "values shall be quoted ~rin metric, with British units in parentheses" since they are very nitpicky when you respond with your proposal, I suggested we give values as: (a) 100m (British Units) or (b) 500N (xxx stone-furlongs/fortnight squared) (the conversion factor from Newtons to stone-furlong/fornight squared escapes me at the moment :-) ). Dani Eder/Boeing/Space Station Program/ssc-vax!eder ps I vote for SI units. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #177 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 31 Mar 88 06:23:24 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07379; Thu, 31 Mar 88 03:20:52 PST id AA07379; Thu, 31 Mar 88 03:20:52 PST Date: Thu, 31 Mar 88 03:20:52 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8803311120.AA07379@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #178 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 178 Today's Topics: Mir elements, epoch 21 March IN ORBIT 20th March (Was Re: Rumors of Soviet Shuttle Launch in next few days) Re: Forget the Saturn V! Re: Forget the Saturn V! Progress 35 docks with Soviet Mir Space Station Re: Where is Apollo 13 Lunar module? Where is Apollo 13 Lunar module? Re: Where is Apollo 13 Lunar module? International L5 Network Directory Antimatter metric system and human engineering Design in English vs Metric ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Mar 88 18:15:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements, epoch 21 March Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 119 Epoch: 88 81.92787299 Inclination: 51.6239 degrees RA of node: 157.2532 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0011393 Argument of perigee: 246.5377 degrees Mean anomaly: 113.4489 degrees Mean motion: 15.78977347 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00041336 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 12006 Semimajor axis: 6711.43 km Apogee height*: 340.92 km Perigee height*: 325.63 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Mar 88 16:23:56 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: IN ORBIT 20th March (Was Re: Rumors of Soviet Shuttle Launch in next few days) Last weekends "IN ORBIT" contained a story about the Soviet space shuttle and recent Soviet commercial space activity. The article is reproduced below, although I think some of the details in the second half may already be out of date. The article was written by Dr. David Whitehouse. Bob. --------------------------------------------------------------- Launch of the Soviet space shuttle is imminent, preparations for it are well advanced at the Baikonur launch complex. It will be carried into space by the Energia rocket tested for the first time last May. Its high pressure engines are able to deliver a payload of over 100 tonnes into low earth orbit, a capability the USA has not had since it discontinued use of the Saturn V rocket in the early 1970s. New details about Energia's engines have just come out of the USSR. The Soviet shuttle that will fly will be a modest affair and not quite what western experts had been expecting. There are two types of shuttle under development. A manned version which will not fly until next year at the earliest and an unmanned cargo shuttle that cannot be adapted to carry people. It is the cargo that will be launched soon for a 2-4 orbit test mission. It will land back at Baikonur and is ultimately intended to return satellites and space station modules to Earth. The Soviets want to be able to refurbish and launch again the expensive space station modules (like the one currently attached to the MIR space station and others planned for later this year). Last Thursday [17th March] the USSR launched it's first satellite for a fee-paying customer. The launch was with the ageing Vostock rocket (essentially the same one that launched Yuri Gagarin) from Baikonur. The satellite was India's IRAS 1A Earth observation satellite. Launch conditions were atrocious with only the red glare of the rockets visible through a snow blizzard as it blasted off in the early hours of Thursday morning. [that is what you call confidence in your technology] It was watched by a team of 45 Indian technicians, the Indian ambassador to the USSR and foreign news media. India is paying only $4 million for the launch - the cost to anyone else in the future will be nearer $20 million which is still not far off half the price for an Ariane launch or one on a US rocket. (commercial satellite will no longer be launched from the shuttle). The USSR has launched three small satellites for India free of charge before, so India did not seek bids from other countries to launch this satellite. Nevertheless, nobody could undercut the Soviets. The USA has banned any satellite containing parts made in the USA from being launched by the USSR. Most satellites contain lots of parts made in the USA. The reason for the ban by America is, they say, because they don't want the USSR to obtain any secrets about western technology. However, most observers think they are protecting their own rockets from the effects of much cheaper foreign competitors. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 88 17:15:00 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Forget the Saturn V! >From article <1113@its63b.ed.ac.uk>, by bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray): > In article <134@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes: >>I sort of thought IRAN would like to contribute to the space-race! > > Note that Iran already has a space industry. > > They have had a number of satellites launched for them by the Soviets, > and an Iranian cosmonaut has visited MIR. > Bob. Wot?? I think you mean INDIA - who have had 4 sats and a cosmonaut put up by the Soviets. The Shah's govt was planning a Zohreh domestic comsat before the revolution, but nothing ever came of it. The only thing Iran ever had was a few ground stations. Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 88 17:19:28 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Forget the Saturn V! In article <134@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes: >I sort of thought IRAN would like to contribute to the space-race! Note that Iran already has a space industry. They have had a number of satellites launched for them by the Soviets, and an Iranian cosmonaut has visited MIR. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Mar 88 09:41:50 EST From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Progress 35 docks with Soviet Mir Space Station The Soviet Union docked the Progress 35 tanker with the Mir/Kvant complex on Mar 26 between 8 and 9 pm EST (Progress 34 had been undocked from the Mir on Mar. 3 and was destroyed on Mar.4th). The Progress is bringing about 1 Tonne of fuel/oxygen/water and 1.5 tonnes of supplies to their space station. This is the 11th Progress docked to Mir since its launch in Feb. '86. All combined they have carried up 27 Tonnes of material to the station, more than the 22 Tonne mass of the Mir central core, but less than the combined orginal mass of Mir plus Kvant. Note that the older Salyut 6 and 7 stations each only received 12 Progress cargo craft in 5 years of operation. On board the station Vladimir Titov and Musahi Manarov have been in orbit 98 days now, well excess of the 84 day Skylab mission (the longest US flight). The plans are still for this crew is to stay in orbit for one year. According to Flight International the first module to be sent to Mir will be late this year, and will contain the both a small observation module and a larger airlock. It will dock to the rear axial end of the space station, and stay there for some time. This will be done shortly before the French mission to Mir, which will occur in November. The crew that will go up with the Jean-Loup Chretien, the French spationaut, will stay on Mir for a month (giving them 5 people in orbit for that period - a new record sized crew for a mission longer than 10 days). The Titov and Manarov will come down with Chretien in late December, giving them the year mission. Among the things brought by the Progress was video tapes of the winter Olympics hockey games (where the Russians captured the Gold metal). All the comforts of home for those that inhabit earth's first and only permanently manned space station. Maybe someday we will be there to. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Mar 88 07:55:15 GMT From: agate!saturn!ucscb.UCSC.EDU!spcecdt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Space Cadet) Subject: Re: Where is Apollo 13 Lunar module? The remains are at the bottom of the Pacific. At least portions of it survived intact, since it contained an RTG for the ALSEP, and extensive surveys found no traces of the RTG's plutonium fuel after the reentry. The RTG was in a graphite casing in case of an accident. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Mar 88 00:25:00 GMT From: cca!mirror!prism!john@husc6.harvard.edu Subject: Where is Apollo 13 Lunar module? A friend of mine was asking me about the Apollo 13 mission, and what was involved in its getting back successfully. I didn't remember too much, but one detail came up that I was very interested in, but had no answer to. I seem to remember that the astronauts basically rode back in the lunar landing module, using its power and life-support systems to help out the crippled main command module. So my question is, what happened to the lunar landing module? Did it re-enter and burn up (I would think that chunks of it would have come all the way down) or did it continue on, in some sort of orbit? Would it be in orbit around the earth? Thanks for any information on this bit of space trivia JOHN DOWD john@mirror.TMC.COM {mit-eddie, ihnp4, harvard!wjh12, cca, cbosgd, seismo}!mirror!john ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 88 23:35:48 GMT From: marque!studsys!jetzer@csd1.milw.wisc.edu (jetzer) Subject: Re: Where is Apollo 13 Lunar module? Hmm.. I wrote a paper that included that very topic two years ago. A quick check to that paper (word processors are great) shows that I did not include that particular bit of information in the paper. I'm pretty sure that the Aquarius (the Apollo 13 LM) burned up in the atmosphere. I remember seeing a picture of something from Apollow 13 burning up, although it may have been the service module. If Aquarius didn't burn up, it's now in orbit of the sun, not the earth. (If someone really wants to know, they could check the August 1970 issue of Popular Science, one of the sources of my paper .... ) ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 1988 12:26-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: International L5 Network Directory I have just Emailed the 1988 Directory to everyone whose name appears in it. If you are an NSS/L5/NSI/SFS/SSI member and do not receive one, please contact me. If worst comes to worst, analog communications line is 412-268-2627. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 1988 14:05-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Antimatter I'll get the jump on Henry on this one. AWST p19 3/21/88: "USAF Predicts Anitmatter Propellants Could Be in Use by Early 21st Century" 'The 'giggle factor' is over. Antimatter is real and we know how to make it and keep it. It has promise.' I recommend everyone run over to the tech library and read it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Mar 88 13:51:22 EST From: John Roberts Subject: metric system and human engineering The metric system, with its carefully-constructed system of interrelated units, is greatly superior to the "standard" system for scientific research, system design, etc. The issue that has been raised, however, is not one of complex mathematical analysis, which is unlikely to be used by astronauts under the conditions described, but one of the appropriate response of human beings, predominantly Americans, to the measurement systems found in their environment in an emergency situation. In other words, this is a problem in what is commonly called human engineering. Neither the original posting nor the followups have gone into much depth on the anticipated range of emergency situations for which autonomous astronaut response could be useful. A further discussion of this area could provide better insight on the types of measures that will be of interest. In general, a situation in which complex calculations are required but neither communications nor local computational facilities are operational is probably hopeless anyway. The most likely measures of interest are length, area, volume, velocity, acceleration, mass, pressure, temperature, and sizes of standard items such as fasteners. I think that an optimum system for rapid response may use a mixture of measurement systems, which is acceptable when the parameters being measured are unlikely to be used together. I suspect that this is already done to some extent. There is probably also nonstandard use of standard measures; I seriously doubt that the fuel gauge is calibrated in gallons and fluid ounces. Assigning numbers (or letters, or whatever) to fastener sizes (i.e. bolt diameters) rather than using the actual measurements sounds like a good idea, since usually the main requirement for a mechanic working on an existing system is that the sizes be distinguished from one another with a minimum of confusion. [Recommendation to system designers: use as few different sizes of fasteners as possible, and include plenty of spares for each.] In case the astronauts need to know how many 6-32 X 2" brass machine screws are needed to make up a pound of ballast, they can bring along a reference book. If the astronauts are expected to be able to perform calculations for changes in orbit, etc., the related parameters should probably be metric, otherwise, no preference. The ability of humans to manipulate the simplest measurements (length, mass, etc.) is influenced by background and training, but also by fundamental characteristics of the human body; for instance length is evaluated in terms of distance between the eyes, arm length, etc. There are therefore at least two possible arguments in favor of use of some of the simpler "standard" measures: (1) The "standard" system, for all of its awkwardness in calculations, evolved over a long period of time using measurements that were convenient for humans to use. By contrast, the metric system was based arbitrarily on an approximate measure of the circumference of the earth, a measure which is only indirectly related to human physiology (:-) If such a system were being set up today, I think human factors would be taken more into account. (2) Other factors being equal, people tend to think best in terms of the measurements they learned first. Memorized constants also *tend* to be in terms of the native measurement system. Since the astronauts in question will presumably be predominantly American, it makes sense to use the system they are more familiar with. (This is the argument used by NASA.) As to the question of whether to use the metric Volt, Ampere, second, etc., I'm sorry, I just can't provide any help in this raging controversy! (:-) John Roberts roberts@icst-cmr.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 88 14:19:40 EST From: Kevin.Dowling@rover.ri.cmu.edu Subject: Design in English vs Metric To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu I've been working on the design for a prototype Mars Rover here and I find that 5-10% of our time here is making sure units work out. In the english system it's horrible. Motor torque can be in oz-in, in-lbs, ft-lbs. Motor manufacturer's literature are all different. Some use combinations of units. A lb force is different from a lb mass etc etc. I'm now much more comfortable using N-m for torque, N for force, kg for mass, Watts for mechanical as well as electrical power. Converting by shifting decimal points is a lot easier than *12 or /192 or etc etc... I read recently that GM is switching to metric and GM believes it can save millions of dollars per year by doing so. Not sure how they'll do that but I'm looking forward to it. If GM does it then other industries are sure to follow. nivek Aka : Kevin Dowling Bell: (412) 268-8830 Arpa: nivek@rover.ri.cmu.edu Mail: Robotics Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pgh, PA 15213-3890 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #178 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 1 Apr 88 06:24:47 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09042; Fri, 1 Apr 88 03:22:18 PST id AA09042; Fri, 1 Apr 88 03:22:18 PST Date: Fri, 1 Apr 88 03:22:18 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804011122.AA09042@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #179 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 179 Today's Topics: Another letter MoonRise airline, ect. Quote from Aviation Week Re: very small launch vehicles NASA FY89 Budget Request Condensed CANOPUS - February 1988 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 88 09:59:01 pst From: Eugene N. Miya Subject: Another letter The following is part of a conversation I am having with a network correspondent. I am sympathetic to her situation. --eugene >From: cathyh@iscuva.iscs.com (Cathy Hooper) > >I never saw the original posting asking for replies, so didn't send in my >"vote" for whatever it was you needed "ACKS" on. > >As to why more people don't apply to space companies for jobs, it's for many >reasons. I would LOVE to go into space. Would love to even be associated >with the effort to establish a human presence in space, but have personal >and professional reasons why I can't at the moment. > >I'm married and my husband refuses to >live in most of the places where space-related industries live. The >exception is Boeing in Seattle, but I don't know how much I have to offer >them sin ce my area of expertise does not really include heavy programming, >just system/network management. I am not sure I'd want to work for them given their reputation for hiring, chewing up, then discarding programmers and >engineers either. > >If things change or I get the opportunity to contribute to the space >program, you can bet I'll jump at the chance. Until then, I have to content >myself with reading the net and watching the space program, such as it is >under current circumstances. I do appreciate contributions to the net by >people such as you who are much more in touch with the space program than I, >though. > > >>From your reply, I guess you really do understand the restraints of career >choices. I have chosen to go with my personal life as the primary (mostly) >constraint in my career path. My husband doesn't think so since I've asked >him to move several times in the past 15 years, but it's always worked out >well so far. The only tough part is getting him to leave the state of >Washington. He's from Massachusettes and swears he'll never go back to >something like that again :-) :-). > >Cathy, >08-Mar-1988 14:04 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Mar 88 14:52 AST From: Subject: MoonRise airline, ect. Robert J. Hale III FNRJH@ALASKA I know in a sci fi book their was a airlines that had sold tickets to the moon years before they were flying to the moon. One of my friends seems to remember a REAL group putting out an add for such a flight. Does anyone remember this. Please don't post the sci fi books with such plots. Just looking for the real thing and a copy of their add. May have been about three years ago. To the individal that posted that he and his friends were working on a propane/ox launcher. could you post how your project is going? I am some of my friends are trying to setup a group of space entrepreneurs. Our main project of interst is a Biosphere. Does anyone out there have any connections with someone who may have done some previous studys along that line. Will post as soon as possible a flyer on our group and what we wish to do. That is all for now. Anyone out there doing some project that you think I would be intersted in is encourged to write. Robert 533 LongSpur Loop Fairbanks Alaska 99709 Eternal dreams clamor and awake, we strive, climbing up the well. Onward expanding never thining, we touch a star. ---------------------------------------------------- Back to the moon. Build the new reasurch labs for the future. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 88 01:16:47 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Quote from Aviation Week >From an article on a SDI satellite network experiment, Aviation Week, 25 Jan 1988, p 107: "Data would be stored so that after our 30-min war is over, we would be able to go back for a detailed analysis". Nice thing to know. Hopefully they will put the operational satellites in high enough orbits so that thousands of years after the war, when (or if) the human race re-evolves to space flight capability, their space archeologists will be able to do a detailed analysis... Phil ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 88 13:13:10 GMT From: steinmetz!sungoddess!oconnor@itsgw.rpi.edu (Dennis M. O'Connor) Subject: Re: very small launch vehicles Something like this already exists, although I'm not sure of the exact payload rating. It's launched from an F-15, I beleive, with the F-15 at maximum altitude in a full-power climb. It's called the ASAT : it's a satelite killer. -- Dennis O'Connor oconnor%sungod@steinmetz.UUCP ARPA: OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa ( I wish I could be civil all the time, like Eugene Miya ) (-: The Few, The Proud, The Architects of the RPM40 40MIPS CMOS Micro :-) ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 88 20:34:55 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: NASA FY89 Budget Request Here's the NASA budget request for fiscal year 1989 (i.e. the year beginning October 1, 1988). The "1989" column shows the amount requested by the President; Congress may (and undoubtedly will) modify these amounts. The "1988" column shows the amount appropriated by Congress for the current fiscal year. The first line in each group is apparently the total for the group, with subsequent lines giving allocations within the group. Many groups must have tasks not shown, since the totals are often greater than the sum of the lines that follow. This information comes from CANOPUS; see previous (and future) postings for full credits. Notable new starts are Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF), a long-life X-ray observatory, and Project Pathfinder, a collection of advanced technology development projects. Funding Pathfinder was one of the recommendations of the Ride committee. Also notable are the large increase for Space Station and for the Shuttle. NASA BUDGET SUMMARY (all figures in millions) FY 1988 FY 1989 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 3294.5 4446.7 Space Station 392.3 967.4 Space Transportation 609.8 631.1 Upper Stages 154.9 146.2 Spacelab 66.5 80.4 Engineering & Technical Base 133.9 158.9 Payload Operations 84.6 67.3 Advanced Programs 46.4 45.0 Tethered Satellite System 12.1 23.8 Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle 46.3 96.5 Advanced Launch System 65.1 13.0 Space Science & Applications 1575.8 1859.6 Physics & Astronomy 610.8 791.6 Hubble Space Telescope 93.1 102.2 Gamma Ray Observatory 53.4 41.9 AXAF 0.0 27.0 Global Geospace Science 20.0 101.4 Shuttle/Spacelab Payload Mission Management & Integration 54.2 61.5 Payload and Instrument Development 43.7 77.1 Space Station Integrated Planning & Attached Payloads 18.9 8.0 Explorer Development 67.9 82.1 Mission Operations & Data Analysis 132.0 156.2 Research and Analysis 82.9 89.1 Suborbital Program 44.7 45.1 Life Sciences 69.5 101.7 Planetary Exploration 329.2 404.0 Galileo Development 51.9 61.3 Ulysses 7.8 10.3 Magellan 73.0 33.9 Mars Observer 53.9 102.2 Mission Operations & Data Analysis 74.7 112.7 Research & Analysis 67.9 83.6 Space Applications 566.3 562.3 Environmental Observations 313.5 368.3 Materials Processing 62.7 73.4 Space Communication 94.9 16.2 Information Systems 20.9 22.3 Commercial Programs 73.7 57.9 Aeronautical Research and Technology 334.8 414.2 Research and Technology Base 251.6 314.2 Systems Technology programs 83.2 100.0 Space Research & Technology 223.6 390.9 Research and Technology Base 108.4 134.1 Civil Space Technology Initiative 115.2 156.8 Pathfinder Program 0.0 100.0 Transfer Vehicle Technology (14.0) Humans-in-Space Technology (13.0) Exploration Technology (17.0) Operations Technology (41.0) Mission Studies (15.0) Transatmospheric Research and Technology 52.5 84.4 Safety, Reliability and Quality Assurance 14.1 22.4 Tracking and Data Advanced Systems 17.9 18.8 SHUTTLE PRODUCTION AND CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT 1088.3 1400.5 SPACE SHUTTLE OPERATIONS 1838.0 2405.4 TRACKING AND DATA 884.4 1035.3 CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES 285.1 -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 88 22:49:32 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Condensed CANOPUS - February 1988 Here is the condensed CANOPUS for 1988 February. There are eight articles. Three are given by title only, and the other five are drastically condensed, though ellipses are omitted for simplicity. The details of the NASA budget request (CON880207) were posted separately. Items in {braces} are my rephrasings and are signed {--SW} if wholly new or my opinions only. CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Send correspondence about its contents to the executive editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded). Send correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA, 1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019. Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS widely, either electronically or as printout copies. If you do, however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many others receive copies. CANOPUS is partially supported by the National Space Science Data Center. {Three articles by title only} SPACE TELESCOPE MANAGERS NAMED - can880203.txt - 2/15/88 {at NASA Marshall} STOFAN TO RETIRE - can880204.txt - 2/15/88 JPL SPOKESMAN RETIRES - can880206.txt - 2/15/88 {Frank Collela} PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES SHUN SPACE HEARINGS - can880201.txt - 2/6/88 Contributed by William S. Kurth, University of Iowa. On February 5, 1988, in Iowa City, IA, the House Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications received testimony from scientists, educators, and students on the goals of the U.S. space program. Also invited to testify, but conspicuously absent were the Presidential candidates from both parties. Nelson {subcommittee chairman} did announce that candidates Gephardt, Simon, Gore, Bush, and Robertson provided written testimony on their space policy to the committee which would be entered into the record. Interestingly, both {of two high school students invited to testify} justified manned presence in space as a prerequisite to the time when we would be required to move into space. This requirement might be caused by a breakdown in the Earth's environment or by severe overcrowding; nevertheless, both had tacitly assumed that man would eventually be required to go into space and we should begin to learn about that environment as soon as possible. BUDGET PLAN "STARTS" AXAF - can880207.txt - 2/18/88 {budget figures posted separately} The Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF) and the Pathfinder technology program are the only "new starts" in the fiscal 1989 budget proposal for the National Aeronautics and Administration. The $11.5 billion plan, released today, includes significant increases for space science and astronomy programs as well as for space station and other areas. Major reasons for the budget increase are the return of the Space Shuttle to operations, building to a flight rate of 10 launches in fiscal 1990, and the growth of the Space Station program. AXAF is a 1.1-meter aperture X-ray telescope that is expected to be comparable to the Hubble Space Telescope for the high-energy astrophysics community. AXAF is the third of NASA's "Great Observatories," the first two being HST and the Gamma Ray Observatory. Launch of AXAF is expected in 1995. {Don't bet large sums of money.--SW} Only the Space Infrared Telescope Facility has not been started. {We're hoping for a new start in FY 1993.--SW} The Pathfinder technology program will entail "detailed studies and technology development to provide a sound basis for future decisions on approaches and missions to move human presence and activities beyond Earth orbit and into the solar system," according to Fletcher's prepared statement. Space station funding is to be doubled in fiscal '89 under the budget plan. At present NASA has $392 million allocated to station, although money from fiscal 1987 and from the replacement Space Shuttle orbiter raises that to $525 million, the minimum that NASA had claimed it needed for the program. Fletcher said that the $967 million request has the same urgency: "It doesn't have to be skinnied down very much before it doesn't make any sense." EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM A.O. RELEASED - can880202.txt - 2/9/88 NASA has scheduled a March 22 preproposal briefing for the Earth Observing System (EOS), the earth-oriented component of the Space Station system. {EOS will include two polar-orbiting platforms and one platform co-orbiting with Space Station.} "EOS is a science mission whose goal is to advance the understanding of the entire Earth system on the global scale through developing a deeper understanding of the components of that system," the NASA AO reads. "The EOS mission will create an integrated scientific observing system which will enable multidisciplinary study of the Earth" over a long period of time. OLD SATELLITES - can880205.txt - 2/15/88 The International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE) continues to operate in good health on its 10th anniversary, more than triple its expected lifetime. More than 1,400 professional papers based on IUE observations were published during its 10th year of observations. A more recent NRL satellite has been monitoring the health of new solar cell components on its third Living Plume Shield (LIPS-III) satellite since launch in the spring of 1987. LIPS is a plume shield jettisoned by an unnamed launcher's upper stage. The spacecraft spins at 30 rpm and uses small thrusters and electromagnetic pulses to keep itself facing within 0.5 degree of the sun. More than 140 solar cell components, including miniature cassegrain concentrators, are being tested aboard the spacecraft. Mission life is expected to be 3 to 5 years. LIPS-II, launched in 1983, continues to operate. TFSUSS SUCCESSOR FORMED - can880208.txt - 2/18/88 TFSUSS, popularly known as the Banks committee for former chairman Peter Banks, issued several recommendations on making the space station as "user friendly" and useful as possible for the science community. The new SSSAAS is a joint subcommittee of three NASA Advisory Council committees: the Space and Earth Science Advisory Committee, the Space Applications Advisory Committee, and the Life Sciences Advisory Committee. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #179 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 2 Apr 88 06:23:47 EST Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10447; Sat, 2 Apr 88 03:21:20 PST id AA10447; Sat, 2 Apr 88 03:21:20 PST Date: Sat, 2 Apr 88 03:21:20 PST From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804021121.AA10447@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #180 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 180 Today's Topics: Re: very small launch vehicles KAL 007 Planets aligned in May? Re: The moon as a research base NASA Predictions Ammonia fuels Re: X-15 engine Re: Mars Declaration Welcome Back Support Space Settlement! KAL 007 Re: very small launch vehicles Space Digest submission. Libertarians love NASA? Re: Harriman ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Mar 88 05:24:16 GMT From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) Subject: Re: very small launch vehicles In article <10081@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com> oconnor%sungod@steinmetz.UUCP writes: : Something like this already exists, although I'm not : sure of the exact payload rating. It's launched : from an F-15, I beleive, with the F-15 at maximum : altitude in a full-power climb. : : It's called the ASAT : it's a satelite killer. Unfortunately for the space program, it can't carry a payload into orbit (out of orbit, yes...). I think it has a payload of a few tens of pounds, lifted to LEO altitude at near zero velocity. John Carr "No one wants to make a terrible choice jfc@athena.mit.edu On the price of being free" -- Neil Peart ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Mar 88 08:04 EST From: RON PICARD Subject: KAL 007 > They said it was on a spying mission. Our President > and our news did not present evidence that it was on a spying mission > (all lights were out etc.) and made it appear that the soviets claimed > it was a spy plane rather than a spying mission. I remember reading that it was a passenger plane that was used for a spying mission (according to the U.S.S.R.). I never heard any of the evidence you mention. This may not belong on the net but can you give a run down of it? Any sources would also be appreciated. Ron Picard (PICARD@GMR.COM) General Motors Research Labs ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 88 19:06:00 GMT From: bradley!bucc2!xevious@a.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Planets aligned in May? I don't know about anyone else out there, but I am wondering about this major thing that is supposed to happen sometime in May. The planets are supposed to be in line, or at least close to it. Anyone have any ideas what effects this will have on Earth or any other planet/satellite/sun?? There may not even be any, but it sure would be interesting to hear everyones ideas! Some of the rumors I have heard going around is that California will fall into the ocean at about this time because of an earthquake that was caused by this phenomenon. I guess Nostradomus (sp?) predicted it to happen about this time. Of course he predicted that we are supposed to have a war in the 90's and only 144,000 people will survive. I guess we'll have to wait and see about that one. Phil Batson Bradley University {ihnp4,uiucdcs,noao,cepu,attmail}!bradley!bucc2!xevious ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 88 22:02:08 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: The moon as a research base In article <8803232057.AA19033@angband.s1.gov> ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU writes: >The more I think about it the more I feel that the U.S. should scrap >the space station in favor of a permanently manned lunar base. Okay, I'll listen. I favor both, but will probably get neither ;-). >Some of the materials needed would be locally available saving $$$$ in >transportation costs. It would be a fabulous place for a large telescope. >No atmospheric disturbance, without many of the hastles of a satelite. >You wouldn't have to worry about occilations every time something twitches. >You wouldn't gravitationally attract a dust cloud. And you wouldn't >need to use rockets for stabilization and pointing. Furthermore, the >orbit won't decay for a *very* long time. 1) earth observation is made more difficult, so the remote sensing community wouldn't like this, 2) you don't get cheap long-term 0-G or micro-G. 2a) can't study space sickness in the same way and similar human factors. 3) dust IS a major problem. 4) outgassing is a problem (still as well as with lunar material). 5) landing and take-offs or even surface transport do cause vibrations. You are right, it is more stable, some materials are available (P.S. I have to give Dale a chunk of anorthosite to get O2 out of it some day.... >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 88 10:02:45 MST From: SHAVER@epg1-hua.arpa >From Shaver's Screen Subject: NASA Predictions Could someone send me the telephone number of the Texas BB which has the listing of two-line satellite elements predicted by NASA. Please John ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Mar 88 09:29:05 PST From: BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa Subject: Ammonia fuels Date: Fri, 25-MAR-1988 09:31 PDT X-VMS-Mail-To: SPACE John Pantone asked about X-15 fuels making reference to orbital capability. There is a guy here in San Diego doing work on cracked ammonia for hypersonic flight. It is, to mmy knowlege, the only work in this area right now and it is not being funded by the NASP program (they're too busy believing in LH2 to do their homework before acquiring all that juicey development money -- sound familiar?). His name is Andy Cutler and he's working for Energy Science Laboratories in La Jolla. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 88 21:30:27 GMT From: mtune!mtunx!whuts!sw@rutgers.edu (WARMINK) Subject: Re: X-15 engine In article <2690@calmasd.GE.COM>, jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: > Does anyone know what the fuel was for the X-15's engine? It was > throtleable and was apparently expected to eventually propell the X-15 > into orbit - something I think most people have forgotten. Engine: XLR-99 Fuel: Anhydrous ammonia (NH3) Oxidizer: Liquid oxygen The X-15 also carried a small supply of hydrogen peroxide for the attitude control rockets. The main engine was developed by Reaction Motors I believe, formerly in New Jersey. Helium and liquid nitrogen were used to pressurize the propelants. Ammonia is poisonous and concentrated hydrogen peroxide will disassociate rapidly when it comes into contact with just about anything else! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "We demand rigidly defined areas of | Stuart Warmink, APT UK Ltd. doubt and uncertainty" (Vroomfondel) | !whuts!sw -----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of APT UK Ltd. <----------- ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 88 23:36:24 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!EWTILENI@princeton.edu (Eric Tilenius) Subject: Re: Mars Declaration I'm strongly in favor of the Mars Declaration. In fact, I was planning on typing it up for the net. I'll try to get to that tonight. The space program needs a goal to inspire it again - this is just one of the many, many reasons for supporting manned exploration of Mars. The Declaration itself lists many of them, so I'll post that and let you read it. I'm asking for signatures of many at Princeton, and the response has been quite positive. If nothing else, and effort on this scale will help raise consciousness about the wonders of space, and will help re-open discussion. Large public support for The Mars Declaration is one of the best things that we could do to help get the public behind the space program. Support for a mission like this would undoubtedly spin off into support for other space projects. As always, it would be up to us - and other space activists all over the world - to KEEP that momentum. But we have to get the ball rolling first, and The Mars Declaration is an excellent way to do just that. - ERIC - *----------------------===> SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------* * ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU // ewtileni@pucc.BITNET * * rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni // princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni * * ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"* *--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------* ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 88 04:19:38 GMT From: nisc.nyser.net!weltyc@nisc.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Welcome Back For those few who remember me, I've been off sci.space/space-digest now for about five months due to massive workloads and marriage... But now I'm back, and glad to be. I just read the past 100 messages and I see not much has changed... Somewhere in there was talk about the X-15. Technically, the sucker *did* go into space, since the AirForce defines it to be 50 miles. Most of the Airforce X15 pilots earned astronaut wings (Scott Crossfield wasn't in the AF - at the time - and wasn't allowed to fly it that high). And when I look up, I see space is still there, too, and still calling my name. Christopher Welty --- Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!rutgers!nysernic!weltyc ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 88 04:29:06 GMT From: nisc.nyser.net!weltyc@nisc.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Support Space Settlement! Just to get back into the swing of posting to this group: Rep. George Brown (D) of California has proposed the `Space Settlement Act of 1988' [HR 4218], which would add to NASA's charter the specific goal of establishing space settlements, and would require NASA to report on progress in this area on a regular basis. Space enthusiasts are constant complainers, always being asked to contact their congressman and say `don't do that'. Now's our chance to support something truly worthwhile. CALL/WRITE YOUR LOCAL CONGRESSMAN TODAY. Tell him/her to co-sponsor Brown's bill. Tell him that it is important, and a great idea. Brown will be having a briefing on March 30th, 1-4PM. Tell him to go. This could be the beginning of something truly great. It's easy to get discouraged by beaurocracy, but we musn't ever give up the fight! And it is important to show that we can compliment as much as complain.... If you need info on how to contact your congrssman, let me know, I'd be glad to help out. It's something you should know whether you're a space activist or not. Christopher Welty --- Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!rutgers!nysernic!weltyc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Mar 88 15:41:56 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: KAL 007 X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@angband.s1.gov" Well, the fact that the Soviets knew what kind of plane they were shooting down works both ways: I am sure that even an entire fleet of Aeroflot passenger planes circling over D.C. would not be molested, although they would be greeted by a fair number of fighters. Even if it were obvious that they were on a spy mission, if they were passenger planes on regularly-scheduled flights they would not be shot down; yet the Soviets did exactly that and never apologised since. In retrospect, apparently it doesn't make any difference to the Soviets what you look like... ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 88 18:18:59 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: very small launch vehicles > Something like this already exists, although I'm not > sure of the exact payload rating. It's launched > from an F-15, I beleive, with the F-15 at maximum > altitude in a full-power climb. > > It's called the ASAT : it's a satelite killer. The American ASAT doesn't even come close to entering orbit. It is simply lobbed into the path of an oncoming satellite, which then smashes into it. Orbital altitude is easy, orbital velocity is not. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Mar 88 11:22 EDT From: "Ken Scherwenik (203) 431-5584" Subject: Space Digest submission. Date: 26-Mar-1988 16:17:56 GMT From: scherenik@sdr.slb.com (Ken Scherwenik) Subject: Re: X-15 engine In article <2690@calmasd.GE.COM>, jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: > Does anyone know what the fuel was for the X-15's engine? It was > throtleable and was apparently expected to eventually propell the X-15 > into orbit - something I think most people have forgotten. There were actually two different engines used in the X-15 project. The Reaction Motors, Inc. XLR11 was used on the first twentyfour powered flights. This used ethyl alcohol-water as the fuel and liquid oxygen as the oxidizer. Later flights used the Reaction Motors, Inc. XLR99 which used anhydrous ammonia as fuel and liquid oxygen. The XLR99 was thottleable from 25,000 - 50,000 lbs thrust at sea level and could deliver 58,000 lbs thrust at 100,000 feet. There were 199 flights altogether from 6/8/59 till 10/24/68. Highest speed was 6.33 Mach set on 11/18/66 piloted by William Knight, USAF. Highest altitude was 354,200 feet set on 8/22/63 piloted by Joe Walker of NASA. I think initially the X-15 was seen as a possible orbital spacecraft, but tests proved too little power and re-entry problems made that goal unpractical. Ken Scherwenik ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Mar 88 08:26:56 PST From: BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa Subject: Libertarians love NASA? Date: Sat, 26-MAR-1988 08:29 PDT X-VMS-Mail-To: SPACE A couple of weeks ago, I saw a message from Dale Amon asking us to lobby for full NASA funding. Dale is quite vocal in proclaiming himself to be a libertarian. When I talked to the Libertarian Party HQ in Washington about their space policy, they recommended that NASA be abolished. Even the policy statement of a Libertarian Party presidential candidate was clear in its stance that NASA had held back U.S. progress in space for the last 20 years. What I want to know is, are all you supposed "libertarians" out there who support NASA going to do something to get your party and candidates to start "thinking right" or are you going to continue to discredit yourselves and your political party by letting your party leaders advocate positions which are incompatible with your promotion of full NASA funding? These are obviously the only two realistic options that we can ask of you since you obviously are incapable of rational thought where NASA is concerned. Of course you could TRY to explain to us all how "full funding for NASA" is consitent with official Libertarian Party statements like "abolish NASA" and "NASA has held back progress in space for the last 20 years." Yeah, why don't you do that? Should be worth a few yucks. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Mar 1988 15:17-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Harriman I hope Heinlein isn't as accurate in some of the other parts of his timelines. He had the USA under a religious dictatorship in the 1990's.... (Hmmm. Rev Jackson, Rev Robertson... NAhhh) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #180 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 5 Apr 88 06:22:02 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14187; Tue, 5 Apr 88 03:19:30 PDT id AA14187; Tue, 5 Apr 88 03:19:30 PDT Date: Tue, 5 Apr 88 03:19:30 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804051019.AA14187@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #181 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 181 Today's Topics: space news from Feb 29 AW&ST Mir predictions - new formats ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Mar 88 05:37:42 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Feb 29 AW&ST [The moral of this week's summary is to make damn sure you sign up for your Advanced Russian courses, and think about Introductory Chinese while you're at it.] Editorial claiming Reagan space policy is too little and too late: nice words, but no specific projects, no solid push for funding, and no real indication that Reagan himself is behind it. "Is the state of the US space program such an embarrassment to the Reagan Administration that it wants only to go through the motions of articulating a space policy?" First Delta 2 is behind schedule but there are hopes of making up the delays; first launch still set for Oct. The long-wave infrared signatures of simulated ICBM plumes did not match predictions in the SDI Delta 181 experiment. Details secret. USAF safety officers brief Truly on USAF concerns that NASA safety area for the shuttle is much too small if NASA sticks to its policy that destruct systems will be used only if the orbiter is totally out of control. USAF says that if this policy continues, all of KSC should be considered at risk during a launch and uninvolved observers should be outside it. This is particularly sticky because VIP and press sites well within KSC are being built and renovated. USSR is considering expanding its 1994 Mars balloon/rover missions to include small return vehicles coming back to Earth from Mars orbit, as a rehearsal for a later sample-return mission. The return vehicles also would bring back high-resolution film from orbiter cameras, as a supplement to radio image transmission. Other additions being thought about are a 110-lb subsatellite for gravity measurements, ten small weather transmitters to be dropped on the surface, a pair of penetrators for subsurface science, and a 1m-resolution camera system for the orbiters. All of this, including the return vehicles, is contingent on a decision to use aerobraking for Mars-orbit insertion, which would greatly boost the payload of the missions. USSR is also thinking about missions further afield. Corona, possible for 1995 launch, would do a Jupiter flyby to get within 5 million km of the Sun. Also being looked at is a Titan probe mission, including a surface probe and a balloon, possibly for 1999. NASA would like to get both CRAF and Cassini (Saturn orbiter, Titan probe) into FY90 budget, on the grounds that they use similar spacecraft and doing them together would save money. [Don't hold your breath.] Mir crew prepares for EVA to install a new experimental solar panel module on Mir's third solar array, replacing one of the four modules already there. The new section was delivered by Progress 34. Redesigned SRB joints pass hot-firing tests with large deliberate flaws. Massachusetts-based Payload Systems Inc books protein-crystallization payloads onto Mir, starting 1989. They have their export licence already, too, so this is real. Kayser-Threde of West Germany books three flights aboard Soviet unmanned recoverable capsules, with the intent of developing equipment and selling the experiment capacity to others. They are still working on export clearance. They say the Soviets were surprisingly easy to deal with. Both PSI and K-T will supply their experiments in sealed cases which the Soviets will not open. Soviets also say that round-the-clock supervision by company representatives is possible if desired. Intospace (European company) signs contract with China to fly its multi-user protein-crystal-growth facility, COSIMA, on a recoverable capsule on a Long March this August, with another flight within a year. Matra (French) books another microgravity flight aboard Long March. (Its first was last fall.) Satellite owners call for major revisions in the usual launch-contract terms. Current contracts impose penalty charges if payloads are not ready but not if launcher is not ready. Payments begin years before launch and must be complete before launch. And launch companies bear little responsibility for the effects of launch failures. The customers want all of these to change. Arianespace and Martin Marietta, who have long waiting lists, say "impossible"; General Dynamics, hungry for business, says "we'll make improvements". CNES [French space agency] proposes to buy and operate a Caravelle (small French jetliner) for microgravity flights. ESA is considering paying for the maintenance in return for access. ESA has rented space on NASA's microgravity KC-135 several times and would like more convenient flights. ESA prepares to revise industrial work assignments for Columbus following Britain's decision not to participate. The commitment deadline has passed without a British commitment. Later entry into the program would require unanimous consent of the other participants. Ariane 5 and Hermes also got no British commitment, but Britain wasn't heavily into either one to begin with, while British Aerospace expected to be prime contractor for the Columbus polar platform. NASA and DoD discuss future of Shuttle-C unmanned heavylift shuttle derivative. Second-phase Shuttle-C study contracts are to go out by late March, subject to funding (looking doubtful) and to outcome of turf battles (notably with the USAF's ALS). Shuttle-C configuration has settled down some [or been settled down by NASA's prejudices?], with all participants agreeing on a side-by-side layout much like the shuttle. To the shocked surprise of absolutely nobody, NASA's leased-platform specs closely resemble those of Space Industries's ISF. Must be a single shuttle payload with 2-3kcuft of pressurized volume, at least 30% available for commercial use after accommodating the government, shirt-sleeve environment with minimal help from the shuttle, normal autonomous operation for 4-6 months, contingency operation for three years without servicing or external reboost, ability to dock with shuttle, orbital capability by end of FY93 with a bonus for earlier, firm five-year fixed-price lease (subject to the vagaries of Congress, of course). US suppliers only. Decision mid-July. USAF exercises first option on Delta 2 contract, adding 7 to initial order of 7. Another option, for 6 more, remains. Japanese CS-3A comsat launched by H-1 Feb 19, in Clarke orbit Feb 21. Big spread on Space Industries and Spacehab. SI expect to win NASA's lease contract and will start bending metal then. They expect the first module to be ready for launch in 1991, with the first servicing mission early 1992. A second module could be added later in 1992. ISF thinks it can raise the $700M needed privately given a government commitment to lease. There is some government cynicism about SI, on the grounds that SI used political pressure to get government business after it couldn't find any commercial customers. SI counters that the major reason for the lack of commercial customers is the Challenger mess. Spacehab says the only government support it needs is launch slots. They hope for regular government use but are not asking for guarantees. They have offered to barter use of part of their modules in return for launch service, to avoid NASA having to explicitly spend money on it. Of note is that it now looks possible to fly Spacehab together with Spacelab; Spacehab says this could provide extended crew quarters and storage for long Spacelab missions. They also suggest fitting Spacehab out as an animal facility, in hopes of solving some of the problems with the Spacelab animal facilities. Spacehab is also proposing their modules as space-station expansion modules. Both SI and Spacehab are interested in selling capacity overseas, since foreign interest in microgravity work is much stronger. They will need government permission to do this. One major uncertainty affecting both is future shuttle pricing (not resolved by either NASA or the White House so far); another is excessive reliance on reliable shuttle operations. JPL is flight-testing prototype equipment for the third shuttle radar experiment, scheduled for spring 1991. [Finally, this one is only marginally space news, but worth mentioning for sheer entertainment value...] Break Out The Photon Torpedos, Mr. Spock: SDI is funding studies of "electromagnetic missiles", uncertain theoretical possibilities of propagating radio energy in ways that partially avoid the inverse-square law. Apparently the idea is not totally ridiculous, but to date nobody is sure whether there is any physical reality behind the mathematical speculation. Harvard is running experiments to check it out. "Noalias must go. This is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology non-negotiable." --DMR | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 88 22:51:23 GMT From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard Brezina) Subject: Mir predictions - new formats Hello everyone! An observing window for Mir is coming up for us folks in the northern hemisphere. Those of you that were interested in receiving predictions will get them soon. The purpose of this article is largely to let others know what I'm up to. I will include predictions (in the next entry) for San Francisco CA, since that (for some reason) seems to be a particularly abundant source of interested people. The rest of the predictions will be distributed individually over e-mail. If you would like to receive predictions yourself (in case you are not already), just ask (please send e-mail to snowdog@athena.mit.edu - all nets). I would appreciate it if you send the geographical coordinates of your locations as well as its name. It makes things a lot faster. What follows here is an explanation of the predictions which appear in my next sci.space posting. Those of you on the prediction list will receive it individually as well. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello, space enthusiasts! You will be receiving predictions for Mir passes for your location very soon. The format has changed since last time, as I have recently implemented new software to do these predictions with. The following quick explanation should acquaint you with this format. I think the best way of doing this is by example. So, here is a sample prediction: Prediction for: Cambridge MA Lat: 42.370000 Lonw: 71.100000 Ht: 0. Zone: 5.00000 DST: 1.0 Satellite: MIR COMPLEX 86017A 16609 Age: 21.3 days Unc: 385 sec Local Date: 1988 4 4 TIME MAG ILL AZ EL R.A. DEC RANGE VANG -------- ----- --- --- -- ----- ----- ----- ---- 21:10:10 2.7 19 300 31 03:52 42.6 603 0.64 21:10:20 2.5 21 308 33 03:45 49.2 575 0.70 21:10:30 2.3 23 316 35 03:35 56.3 555 0.75 21:10:40 2.1 26 326 36 03:18 63.6 545 0.78 21:10:50 2.0 30 336 36 02:47 70.8 543 0.78 21:11:00 1.9 33 345 35 01:45 77.3 551 0.76 21:11:10 1.9 37 354 34 23:28 81.3 568 0.71 21:11:20 1.9 41 2 32 20:33 80.3 593 0.66 Explanation: 1) Header: The actual prediction is preceeded by a header which gives general information about the location, satellite, and date; as follows: The first line shows the location name. The second line shows the latitude, west longitude, height above sea level, time zone, and saving time for your location. The latitude and longitude are in DECIMAL DEGREES (not degrees/minutes/seconds!). The sea level height is in metres - I left it at zero for most locations since it would not make much difference to the prediction. (If you have more accurate values of these three parameters, pass them along to me and I'll update them.) The time zone is in hours, and is equal to Greenwich time minus Local Standard time. The DST flag shows whether Daylight Saving Time (Summer time) is in operation - it is 1 during summer time operation and zero otherwise. PLEASE check whether these values are correct - I have been handling many of them and could have made an error. In particular, BEWARE of the DST flag. DST comes into effect right about now, and I have ASSUMED the rules for DST all over the northern hemisphere are the same as for Toronto, Canada (where I come from), namely, DST ON on the first Sunday of April and DST OFF on the first Sunday of October. This is an unreasonable assumption, but it was the best I could do under the circumstances. If your local DST rules differ, please let me know. In any case, you could still use the predictions even if the DST is wrong by adding or subrtracting an hour (as is appropriate). The third line gives information about the satellite. Its name, international designator, and NORAD number appear in sequence. The AGE value shows how many days have elapsed since the orbit was determined. This is a useful parameter to estimate prediction accuracy. In addition, an uncertainty value is provided - this shows the maximum likely time error on the prediction and is based on the likely error in the atmospheric density. You should keep this error in mind when observing - in the above example you might want to start observing some 8 minutes before the predicted pass and stick around for 8 minutes after if the satellite does not show up on time. The fourth line of the header shows the date in the format yyyy mm dd. 2) The Ephemeris: A few points along the track are given, spaced out in such a way that the satellite covers about 7 degrees on the sky between any two points. With this format, you can easily plot the path on a star map. A description of each column follows. TIME: This is your LOCAL TIME, which takes into account your own time zone and the Saving time correction (if in effect). The format is hh:mm:ss. MAG: The astronomical magnitude (brightness) of the satellite. This is based on the averaged cross-section of the satellite, and so the prediction is by no means exact; with Mir I have seen deviations of up to 1 magnitude, probably due to the relative orientation of the spacecraft. ILL: This is the 'phase' of the satellite, completely analogous to the phases of the moon. It is given in %. It's not terribly important here, but it was already included in the program so I thought I might as well keep it there. Note that solar cell panel reflections might occur if this value is >~ 90%. These appear as 'flashes' which last a couple of seconds and are about 1-2 magnitudes in amplitude. AZ: This is the azimuth or bearing of the satellite. It is an angle measured eastwards from north in the observer's horizon plane, so 0 = North, 45 =NW, etc. You should be able to deduce that in the above example, Mir rises in the Norh-West, and culminates in the North. Together with the elevation value (next column), it's a useful way of finding the satellite without using star maps. EL: This is the satellite's elevation, in degrees above the horizon. For amateur observation purposes, the higher the satellite goes the better. Overhead passes (EL=~ 90) are particularly spectacular. R.A. The satellite's Right Ascension, in hours and minutes. The assumed star chart epoch is 2000.0, but the error in using 1950 maps is negligible for this purpose. Together with the Declination, the RA can be used to make a plot of the satellite's path among the stars. DEC. The satellite's Declination, in degrees and decimals. Southern declinations are expressed as negative values. RANGE The distance, in km, between the satellite and the observer. As you can see from the example, near-circular orbit satellites make their closest approach near culmination (maximum elevation). VANG The angular speed of the satellite, in degrees per second. This tells us how fast the satellite will move. For comparison, a satellite moving at 1deg/s (typical Mir speed) could pass in front of the moon in 1/2 s. Shadow Considerations: Unfortunately, I did not have time to implement anything to indicate shadow entry/exit into the present program. However, the program DOES do a shadow check and you can be assured that all the predictions you receive WILL be out of shadow. You can deduce that a satellite does enter shadow if the prediction is terminated before the elevation goes down to 30 degrees (the normal cut-off limit). Conclusion: I have taken up more space than necessary to explain all this. Oh well. Please excuse the rather casual style (plus possible grammar error and typos). I figured I'd just throw this together very quickly - I enjoy programming better than writing up doc. Anyway, if you have any questions, etc., please feel free to address them to me. I'll be glad to answer them. Good luck in observing Mir! -Rich (Richard Brezina; snowdog@athena.mit.edu) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #181 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 6 Apr 88 06:23:17 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15802; Wed, 6 Apr 88 03:20:52 PDT id AA15802; Wed, 6 Apr 88 03:20:52 PDT Date: Wed, 6 Apr 88 03:20:52 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804061020.AA15802@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #182 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 182 Today's Topics: Los Angeles Area Space Talk, 23 Apr 88, 7:30 PM Mir elements, epoch 28 March Re: space news from Feb 15 AW&ST Mir predictions - email trouble MIR tracking Software Mir distribution Re: very small launch vehicles Re: very small launch vehicles Re: very small launch vehicles Commercial launch vehicle companies. Re: very small launch vehicles Re: very small launch vehicles ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted-Date: Sat, 26 Mar 88 14:35:32 PST From: Craig Milo Rogers Reply-To: Rogers@venera.isi.edu To: BBoard@venera.isi.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Los Angeles Area Space Talk, 23 Apr 88, 7:30 PM Date: Sat, 26 Mar 88 14:35:32 PST Sender: rogers@venera.isi.edu Space Technology Comes to Earth and Commercial Applications of Space Technology John Graham of NASA's Industrial Applications Center will show us how space technology affects our lives today, and what the products of space development will bring to our future. This presentation, open to the public, will be given in Rockwell International's DEI Room, 12214 Lakewood Blvd. in Downey, California, on Saturday, April 23, starting at 7:30 PM. Other speakers will include Herb Asbury, Director of the NASA Industrial Application Center at USC; E. A. Brown, Project Manager for Commercial Uses of Space, Boeing Aerospace Operations; and Richard P. Macleod, Executive Director of the United States Space Foundation. The National Space Act of 1958, which established NASA, also required NASA to transfer its research efforts into the commercial sector. The NASA Industrial Application Center at USC (NIAC) was one of the original Industrial Application centers. Three topics will be covered in this meeting: 1) the NIAC Associate in Technology Transfer Program, which provides commercial access to scientific databases, NASA researchers and NASA facilities, 2) the NASA Commercial Utilization of Space program, a program to introduce companies to doing business in space, and 3) a presentation by the United States Space Foundation on "Space Challenge 88", a call to action. This lecture is one of many activities sponsored by the Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrialization and Settlement (OASIS), the Greater Los Angeles Area chapter of the National Space Society. The organization is a non-profit educational group which promotes space development. The public is invited; there is no admission charge. For more information about this lecture or other OASIS activities call the OASIS Message Machine at (213) 374-1381 or Craig Milo Rogers . [Note: We do not normally make transcripts of these meetings.] ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 88 18:16:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements, epoch 28 March Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 129 Epoch: 88 88.88923772 Inclination: 51.6249 degrees RA of node: 121.2282 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0010907 Argument of perigee: 273.8583 degrees Mean anomaly: 86.0830 degrees Mean motion: 15.79167867 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00020709 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 12116 Semimajor axis: 6710.89 km Apogee height*: 340.05 km Perigee height*: 325.41 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 88 11:12:47 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!hwcs!adrian@uunet.uu.net (Adrian Hurt) Subject: Re: space news from Feb 15 AW&ST In article <505@siemens.UUCP>, steve@siemens.UUCP (Steve Clark) writes: > In article <5856@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> kevin@cit-adel.UUCP (Kevin Van Horn) writes: > >[...] The Soviets shot down something that merely looked like it > >might be a spy plane (flight KAL 007) [...] 007? It must have been a spy plane, then! :-) > You touched a nerve here. The Soviets never NEVER said the 747 looked > like a spy plane. They said it was on a spying mission. Well now, what about the genuine spy planes, on spying missions? The SR-71's, for example? And what about the "Bears", those huge prop-driven Russian planes we often see photos of, being escorted out of your airspace by your fighters? Even if the 747 was on a spying mission, does that entitle the Russians to shoot it down? If so, why doesn't the USAF (or RAF, for that matter - we get them too) shoot down these intruders - with much less loss of civilian life. I imagine there would be much more of an outcry if a USAF Phantom shot down an airliner, even if there were clear evidence it was up to no good. Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 88 06:17:03 GMT From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard Brezina) Subject: Mir predictions - email trouble Hello again, Sorry for having to post this rather useless message, but there is no other way out: I had some trouble sending predictions to the following people: Tim Donahue from Cambridge MA (or therebouts) Kevin Ryan from Pittsburgh PA If you still want to receive Mir predictions, please drop off a note to me; I should be able to figure out your address from there. Thanks! -Rich snowdog@athena.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 88 16:39:07 GMT From: ulysses!mhuxo!mhuxu!davec@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Caswell) Subject: MIR tracking Software Does anyone have any satalite tracking software that runs under UN*X? I have downloaded an SPG-4 program from T.S. Kelso's BBS system, but I only got mysterious error messages, and no numerical output. Or if you have a referance to any documentation to SPG4 orbit algorithm, that would also be useful. Thanks, Dave CAswell davec@mhuxu.att.com -- --->Dave Caswell {allegra|ihnp4|...}!mhuxu!davec ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 07:13:38 GMT From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard Brezina) Subject: Mir distribution Hi! For those of you on the Mir prediciton list, the new updates will be mailed today (Tuesday the 5th), between 3:40 and 4:30 pm EDT. This will include tonight's prediction, so read your mail early! Al Holecek of Abilene TX and Bob Ayers of San Francisco have independetly observed Mir and measured it at about 3 minutes early with respect to the predictions you'll get (about 1/2 min late wr to the old predictions). My thanks to you for your valuable observations. -Rich (snowdog@athena.mit.edu) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 88 18:04:42 GMT From: telesoft!roger@ucsd.edu (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: Re: very small launch vehicles In article <10081@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com>, Dennis M. O'Connor writes: > Something like this already exists, although I'm not sure of the exact > payload rating. It's launched from an F-15, I beleive, with the F-15 > at maximum altitude in a full-power climb. > > It's called the ASAT : it's a satelite killer. > Dennis O'Connor oconnor%sungod@steinmetz.UUCP ARPA: OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa The ASAT doesn't put anything into orbit. It reaches orbital altitude, dead in the path of an orbiting satellite, but with no significant horizontal velocity. If it didn't strike the satellite, it would promptly fall back to earth. It only takes a delta vee around 2200 mps to reach orbital altitude, vs. 8000 mps for a vehicle launched in the manner we're discussing, or about 9200 mps for a conventional launch. That's one of the big problems with any SDI system that depends on satellites in LEO; the advantage is overwhelmingly on the ASAT side. - Roger Arnold ..ucsd!telesoft!roger ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 88 17:49:24 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: very small launch vehicles > Something like this already exists, although I'm not sure of the exact > payload rating... It's called the ASAT... Its payload to orbit is zero. It only reaches orbital *altitude*, not orbital *velocity*. For intercepting satellites, one does not *want* to reach orbital velocity, because the 8-kps velocity difference between the interceptor and the target makes a warhead superfluous if the guidance is accurate enough for a direct hit. The hard part of launching satellites is velocity, not altitude. -- "Noalias must go. This is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology non-negotiable." --DMR | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 88 14:39:34 GMT From: B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: very small launch vehicles In article <10081@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com>, oconnor@sungoddess.steinmetz (Dennis M. O'Connor) writes: }Something like this already exists, although I'm not sure of the exact }payload rating. However, the ASAT doesn't go into orbit, it just goes straight up. If it misses it target, it falls back to earth. I seem to recall that there were speculations that it doesn't necessarily need a warhead, as the orbital velocity of the satellite smashing into the ASAT would do quite a bit of damage. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 88 03:49:43 GMT From: gaserre@athena.mit.edu (Glenn A. Serre) Subject: Commercial launch vehicle companies. I heard (read, whatever) someone on the net refer to a company with a name like "Pacific America" (or something like that) that is supposed to be working on producing a launch vehicle. Does someone out there know anything about this company? If you do, please send me the company's address or home city. Also, if anyone out there knows of other private companies (besides the established ones) that are making launch vehicles, please let me know (I'd be interested in working for them.). Thanks in advance. --Glenn Serre gaserre@athena.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Mar 88 11:31:29 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: very small launch vehicles In article <231@telesoft.UUCP> roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes: >I don't believe that these problems preclude any chance of success for >a private launch company, but they do imply certain constraints. To >have a reasonable chance of success, I suggest that a private launch >company: > > a) design its launcher for the smallest payload for which a decent > market can be realistically projected; > > b) limit itself to vehicle designs that don't require new ground- > based launch facilities. > >Making the launcher as small as possible limits development costs, and >makes it possible to do something interesting with what could >reasonably be expected from venture financing. Avoiding new ground- >based launch facilities either means compatibility with existing >government launch facilities, or the capability to launch from sea or >air. Teledyne Brown engineering are proposing to build a system for launching shuttle sized payloads weighing up to 6,300 Kg into a space station orbit. Launch is from the back of a B-747 carrier aircraft. The spaceplane is 100% re-useable and is built from currently existing technology. The engines are SSMEs and no other booster rockets are needed. Anyone interested should see the article in the December 1987 issue of "Spaceflight" (P. 417) for further details. I realise that this is a larger machine than that proposed by the original poster, but there is probably a minimum economic size of craft for air launching, once the costs of the carrier aircraft are added in. Bob. ------------------------------ wDate: 3 Apr 88 05:04:27 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: very small launch vehicles Or, you could write to Teledyne Brown directly, and ask for a copy of a presentation entitled "Proposed concept for a Spaceplane" dated September 11, 1986. Their address is Cummings Research Park, Huntsville, AL 35807. As for the cost of the carrier airplane, you can get 50% of the performance of a 747 for 1-2% of the cost by buying an old 707. They sell, I am told, for 0.5-2.5 million $US, depending on the number of hours left before the engines have to be overhauled. The rest of this article is taken from the aforementioned TBE presentation, which I have a copy of: Payload estimated at about 14,000 pounds (6-7000 kg) No human pilots. Launch Profile: 747 makes maximum performance climb. 747 initiates pullup at 38,700 ft. Separation at 30 degrees above horizon flight path, altitude 39,400 ft, speed Mach 0.68 747 throttles back to glide idle power and clides back to takeoff runway, and lands with minimal fuel reserves, while Spafceplane accelerates to 7.9 km/sec at 80 km altitude in 310 seconds [sorry for the mixed units, but that's the way it's written in the presentation.] Space plane configuration: One Space Shuttle Main Engine plus six RL-10 engines. Both engines burn liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen. Oxygen tank forward of engines, then cargo bay, hydrogen tank, nosegear, and electronics. Length=130 ft Wingspan=72 ft Payload bay= 15 ft diameter x 28 ft long Takeoff mass 172,000 kg (380,000 lb) Landing mass 18,400 kg (40,600 lb), no payload included Mission altitude= 400 km circular orbit. Plan view is similar to space shuttle orbiter Winglets, no vertical tail. Weight margin 2000 kg out of 18,373. Note that the Spaceplane and the Phoenix by Gary Hudson at Pacific American Launch Systems, have about the same fueled mass, but the spaceplane has a 14,000 lb payload vs. 20,000 claimed for the Phoenix, an 11% weight growth margin vs 4.7% for the Phoenix, and gets a ride to altitude vs. ground start for the Phoenix. While no one I believe has checked the weight statement, this is a much more conservative design than the Phoenix. Development cost estimate (also unchecked by anyone I believe) $940 million Operations for 140 flights: $1193 million. Purchase and modification of 747 carrier: $250 million Total cost: $2383 million Average cost/flight to break even in 140 flights, not counting cost of money: $16 million Cost/lb: $1100 (about 25% of the current cost for expendables and the Shuttle) Dani Eder/Boeing/Space Station Program/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #182 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 7 Apr 88 06:23:13 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17876; Thu, 7 Apr 88 03:20:42 PDT id AA17876; Thu, 7 Apr 88 03:20:42 PDT Date: Thu, 7 Apr 88 03:20:42 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804071020.AA17876@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #183 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 183 Today's Topics: Re: Support Space Settlement! Re: Mars Declaration Re: Mars Declaration Re: Mars Declaration Re: Mars Declaration Mars Declaration Re: MARS DECLARATION & SIGNATURE FORM Re: MARS DECLARATION & SIGNATURE FORM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Mar 88 17:46:29 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Support Space Settlement! > Rep. George Brown (D) of California has proposed the `Space Settlement > Act of 1988' [HR 4218], which would add to NASA's charter the specific > goal of establishing space settlements, and would require NASA to > report on progress in this area on a regular basis. I'm afraid that the sensible thing to do is to oppose this bill unless it also provides guaranteed *funding* for this activity. NASA's biggest problem (besides being a government agency, I mean...) is the widening gap between goals and funding. Adding more goals is exactly the wrong thing to do at this time, however much we might approve of them. Now if the bill requires that (say) 10% of all revenues from tobacco taxes be spent on it, *that* would be different. -- "Noalias must go. This is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology non-negotiable." --DMR | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 88 14:46:18 GMT From: att-cb!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utcsri!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!postmaster@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Hogg) Subject: Re: Mars Declaration In article <3761@mtgzz.UUCP> dls@mtgzz.UUCP (XMRP50000[jto]-d.l.skran) writes: >I recently received a copy of the Planetary Society Mars Declaration. >Basically, it's a straight forward and carefully worded call for the >human exploration of Mars. ... >Suppose the PS gets what they're asking for -- a joint US/USSR trip to >Mars. ... >I'd like to see a sophisticated discussion of the good/bad that would >come of a Mars trip that moves beyond a general feeling that we'll go >there, plant a flag, and the whole thing will be canceled. ... >I consider it very likly that it WILL be canceled that day after the >flag is stuck in the Martian ground. Perhaps one of the greatest advantages of a joint project is that an Apollo-style one-shot is far less likely to occur. The Soviet pattern of space exploration has been conservative but steady progress, with few retreats. The hardest part of a Mars expedition would be getting there in the first place, not staying there. Therefore, when the red flag is planted in the red planet, it will remain for a long time, regardless of the whims of any partners. For reasons of politics and prestige, NASA would then be forced to support a continuing American presence. Barring distractions such as a nuclear war, the Soviets *will* mount a manned expedition to Mars. The presence or absence of an American contribution will affect when this happens, but not whether or not it comes to pass. In either case, ESA will probably be in on it. I wonder whether we could contribute some ``robot'' arms... John Hogg | hogg@csri.toronto.{edu,cdn} Computer Systems Research Institute| uunet!csri.toronto.edu!hogg University of Toronto | hogg%csri.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net (arpa) | hogg@csri.utoronto (bitnet) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 88 17:52:52 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Mars Declaration > The space program needs a goal to inspire it again - this is just one > of the many, many reasons for supporting manned exploration of Mars. The space program needs an ongoing goal that cannot be perverted into a one-shot mission which leaves us not much better off than we were before. This is just one of the many, many reasons for opposing a big push in manned Mars exploration at this time. If you want more, you should read the Ride Report, which said "Mars should not be our immediate goal" and justified it at length. -- "Noalias must go. This is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology non-negotiable." --DMR | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 88 20:54:40 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. Starr) Subject: Re: Mars Declaration In article <3761@mtgzz.UUCP>, dls@mtgzz.UUCP (XMRP50000[jto]-d.l.skran) writes: (PS := Planetary Society) > Suppose the PS gets what they're asking for -- a joint US/USSR trip to > Mars. What are the possible good effects of this for space > development? If we're talking about long-term exploration, exploitation and habitation of space, we need to provide the following: Useful scientific information, to keep Van Allen and the planetary-science people happy. A mission to Mars could provide some of this, though it may not the most cost-effective way to get answers to specific questions. A demand for large-scale earth-to-orbit transportation, to force the development of a routine heavy-lift capability. Mars is not as large a demand as SDI might be, but it's cheaper and more salable. A commitment to have the large-scale earth-to-orbit transportation be operated by the private sector, not the government. This is an organizational issue; the cargo being carried has nothing to do with it. The ability to live and work in a genuinely long-term, independent space habitation. A space station resupplied from the ground every month doesn't force the development of this capability; a multi-year trip to another planet would seem to need it. Of course, this is also a risk. Entertainment value for the people who pay the bills. The detailed radio-scattering analysis of the rings of Saturn do not excite the taxpayers the way the pictures of a thousand ringlets did. This is one of the reasons Voyager had a camera; one earlier posting remarked that the camera was almost left out because scientists couldn't find a good purpose for it. The last requirement, entertainment value, is the place where the Mars proposal beats the pants off the other alternatives. We could endlessly debate the moral issues, but the reality is that the taxpayers see the primary value of space as providing some government activity a bit more enjoyable to watch than Iranamok or $600 toilet seats. INDUSTRIAL SPACE STATIONS WON'T SATISFY THIS NEED. NOR WILL A MOON BASE. Neither is "big" enough. We've been to orbit. We've been to the moon. Mars is essential to creating the necessary romance. Now, the danger--and the challenge to space lobbying groups--has to do with the fact that the public will lose interest once we've planted our respective flags (Question--if we go with the USSR, whose flag gets planted first? Maybe we should include two video channels, so each country can see its own flag being planted "first" simultaneously). The problem with Apollo was that when the public lost interest, all the technology created by the moon missions was still in the hands of the government. This mistake must not be repeated. The ideal Mars mission would be a government-owned interplanetary spacecraft assembled at a privately-owned space station from parts lifted into orbit by privately built launchers. The government's involvement in any portion of the project that also supports current commercial needs (presently transport to orbit, in-orbit manufacturing, communications and remote sensing) should be limited to purchasing these services from private vendors. NASA should be ordered to do what it does best--organize, develop and coordinate the really new, leading-edge part of the job; namely building the interplanetary vehicle. I would even maintain that our commercial remote-sensing capabilities have reached the point where even the pre-departure remote surveys of Mars (Mars Observer and its followups, for instance) should really be contracted out to private industry (eg, Spot Image). In short, a Mars mission could provide a demand for a real commercial space capability--but only if the program is carefully managed to do so. If it comes out as a strictly in-house NASA thing, it will be a dead end. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Mar 88 23:46:03 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!EWTILENI@princeton.edu (Eric Tilenius) Subject: Re: Mars Declaration In article <1988Mar25.175252.910@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >The space program needs an ongoing goal that cannot be perverted into a >one-shot mission which leaves us not much better off than we were >before. This is just one of the many, many reasons for opposing a big >push in manned Mars exploration at this time. If you want more, you >should read the Ride Report, which said "Mars should not be our >immediate goal" and justified it at length. Just because something CAN be perverted into a one-shot deal does not mean that it is either likely to be, or that it will be, especially if we see that it remains part of a bigger picture of development. Currently, the space program is in a precarious position as we have no long-term commitments, except the space station, and funding for that has been cut. Mars is a long-term, many-year goal, and its international/political aspects will help insure that we do not cut funding. To do so would be to lose face in a way the U.S. is unlikely to do. Further, as someone else pointed out, a mission of this sort is likely to put public support behind the space program -- a space station is much less likely to do this, and hasn't done this, despite all the McDonnell-Douglas ads to the contrary. As for the Ride Report, Sally Ride herself has signed to Mars Declaration. (Read that list of signatories carefully - you'll find it interesting.) * ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU // ewtileni@pucc.BITNET * ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 88 22:57:29 GMT From: mtune!mtgzz!dls@rutgers.edu (XMRP50000[jto]-d.l.skran) Subject: Mars Declaration I recently received a copy of the Planetary Society Mars Declaration. Basically, it's a straight forward and carefully worded call for the human exploration of Mars. Hopefully, I or someone else will type it in at some point. What does the net think of the PS's drive to get 1,000,000 signatures on this document? Consider its effectiveness as an organization building technique. Should it be supported at all, or is it a distraction from the effort of focusing our space efforts on economic return rather than "space spectaculars?" Should groups like NSS support it? Should they support it actively? Should groups like NSS actively support it, but only at some price? Suppose the PS gets what they're asking for -- a joint US/USSR trip to Mars. What are the possible good effects of this for space development? What are the possible bad effects? I'd like to see a sophisticated discussion of the good/bad that would come of a Mars trip that moves beyond a general feeling that we'll go there, plant a flag, and the whole thing will be canceled. I consider it very likly that it WILL be canceled that day after the flag is stuck in the Martian ground. Will it be worthwhile even so? Note that this is akin to asking if Apollo was worthwhile. Finally, what would be the effect of chosing Mars as a goal over a Lunar base(the only other major choice in the running)? Please respond to the net. I think the discussion will be of general interest. Dale Skran (not Amon) mtgzz!dls ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 88 09:48:11 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!EWTILENI@princeton.edu (Eric Tilenius) Subject: Re: MARS DECLARATION & SIGNATURE FORM In article <8570@reed.UUCP>, douglas@reed.UUCP (P Douglas Reeder) writes: > I, however, prefer not to be a pessimist. Instead I ask: > >"What can and should be done to ensure that the Mars mission will not >END UP the same way as Apollo?" I would first argue that the Apollo was not a failure just because the space program did not continue AT THE SAME PACE. Also, without Apollo we may not have had much of any space program at all. However, since it seems that the pace of exploration and the space program is a big concern, there are a few things which can be done now to assure a long lasting, rather than a one-shot deal: 1. We have to get some broad, public base issue that will guarantee start funding for a program. For many reasons already mentioned, signing the Mars Declaration can help with this. 2. Team up with the Soviets and other nations! The Soviets are unlikely, as another poster noted, to give up on their program. In a world political situation, the U.S. will be forced to keep up in the space race once we start. A joint mission can put national pressure to keep going. 3. Give contract chunks to many private enterprise firms and have NASA supervise. The power of capitalism will mean that the companies involved in the program will push their hardest to make sure such a program continues. When more people are involved in making SPACE equipment than WEAPONRY, you'll see the sort of resistance to cutting that budget that we see in the defense budget nowadays. Although that's a long way off (and assuming it's ever true), even a small degree of space industry will help insure long life. And, unlike the military-industrial complex, the space industries have distinctly positive benefits. Any other ideas out there? - ERIC - * ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU // ewtileni@pucc.BITNET * ------------------------------ Date: 29 Mar 88 12:10:23 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: MARS DECLARATION & SIGNATURE FORM In article <8570@reed.UUCP> douglas@reed.UUCP (P Douglas Reeder) writes: >"What can and should be done to ensure that the Mars mission will not >END UP the same way as Apollo?" The obvious answer is to carry out the mission in such a way as to ensure that exploration can continue afterwards. I posted a suggestion a year or so ago on this subject with little response, so let me try again. The next major mission should be to the near earth asteroids. There was a posting about them I include below. >DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET Writes. > E. Tedesco and J. Gradie report (Astrophysical Journal, 93(3), March > 1987) the detection of the first two M class near earth asteroids. > Colorimetry, visual and IR photometry and 10 and 20 micron radiometry > were used to classify the asteroids 1986 DA and 1986 EB. > 1986 DA's orbit crosses Mars but not Earth, making it an Amor object, > while 1986 EB's orbit crosses Earth (and Venus) and has a semimajor > axis < 1 AU, making it an Aten object: > > 1986 DA a = 2.811 AU q = 1.166 AU (MPC 10628, 1986) > 1986 EB a = .974 AU Q = 1.247 AU (MPC 10625, 1986) > (a = semimajor axis, q = perihelion, Q = apohelion, MPC = Minor > Planets Calendar) > Both are about 2 km across. Class M asteroids are believed to be > mostly metal. Radar observations of 16 Psyche, another class M > asteroid with similar spectra, are indicative of a largely metallic > body. Shifting these asteroids into an eliptical orbit which comes close to both Mars and Earth would create a waystation which could then be colonised. Advantages of this approach. Large amounts of raw material for construction work and radiation shielding. A permanent transpost system would be in place. Passengers do not need to carry large amounts of equipment with them. This is stored on the asteroid/station With large amounts of metal available for construction, a centrifuge to simulate gravity could be built, reducing or eliminating the problems of prolonged weightlessness. Disadvantages. Nuclear explosives needed to alter orbit of asteroid The launch velocity needed to reach the asteroid is almost the same as to go to Mars. Supplies are needed to keep the station going on a permanent basis. The station could best be supplied by a luner mass launcher, so that means a lunar base is needed first anyway. Would anyone else like to add to the list? Bob. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #183 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 8 Apr 88 06:26:47 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19586; Fri, 8 Apr 88 03:24:17 PDT id AA19586; Fri, 8 Apr 88 03:24:17 PDT Date: Fri, 8 Apr 88 03:24:17 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804081024.AA19586@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #184 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 184 Today's Topics: Re: The moon as a research base Re: The moon as a research base STS-26 simulation Re: Feynman's last trip report commercialism of the cpace program Re: commercialism of the cpace program Abolishing NASA Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: X-15 engine Re: X-15 engine Re: X-15 engine Re: fuels other than hydrogen Re: fuels other than hydrogen Re: X-15 engine ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Mar 88 05:59:14 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Re: The moon as a research base The far side of the moon is, of course the best place in the solar system for radio astronomy, being permanently shielded from Earth's radio noise by thousands of kilometers of rock. Doug Reeder from ARPA: !tektronix!reed!douglas@Berkley ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 88 21:05:57 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: The moon as a research base While sitting waiting for my doctor to keeps my appointment I happened to pick up a recent copy of "Discover" magazine. It had a brief article about some experiments in which some old samples of lunar soil were heated to about 1650 degrees ( I think degrees F ). Large amounts of hydrogen were released. The article said that one milliliter of hydrogen ( they did not give temperature or pressure data ) was realeased from each gram of material that was heated. It makes sense, I guess, that if the lunar soil traps He3 it should trap lots of hydrogen too. Does anyone have any REAL information about these experiments? A source of large amounts of hydrogen on the moon would make a lunar settlement much cheaper. I canceled my subscription to Discover after about six months. They called and asked me why. I explained that it was advertised as a technical publication, but contained no technical information, and what it did contain was out of date. Bob P. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Mar 88 07:57:37 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: STS-26 simulation NASA-TV ALERT!! Okay youse guys with satillite dishes. There will be a high-fidelity simulation of STS-26 on March 29. "Launch" is scheduled for 9:09 AM CDT. The "mission" continues through March 30, 5:00 PM CDT. The simulation will have the TDRSS deployment at 15:22, March 29, news conferences, et al. The TV schedule makes it appear that the simulation will have the full complement of coverage. No other information was given. *** mike (Cyberpunk in training) smithwick *** ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 88 18:53:11 GMT From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) Subject: Re: Feynman's last trip report In article <8803212129.AA28172@ames-aurora.arpa> eugene@AMES-AURORA.ARPA (Eugene miya) writes: >A friend and climbing partner writes: >From: murray@src.dec.com (Hal Murray) >>On the first page, he talks about betting a good breifing on the >>shuttle from JPL. I assume they have a lot of sharp guys, but how come >>they know so much about the shuttle? If I'm not mistaken, he got a crash course in rocketry from the ground up before they opened the shuttle manuals. Remember, he was talking to JPL's famed "rocket scientists" :-) ! >There are complete sets of Shuttle manuals at JPL. This existed years >ago since the first real payload (The SIR: shuttle imaging radar) was a >JPL project. These manuals detail dimensions, power, temperatures, >etc. Feynman was being a little rosy about not having any vested >interests: other friends think Caltech (which runs JPL) told him to be >considerate of the Lab's 2 year contract (hearsay only). Also note Seems unlikely to me. I'd say that if he'd been asked that, he would have been so pissed off about it, he would have told everyone. Wouldn't put it past Murph or the Board of Trustees to ask, though. And if Feynman had any bias at all in the early stages of the investigation, it would have been toward blaming the SSME's. All the JPL people were certain it was them, because the design scared them so in the first place. RIP, RPF. --Rod ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Mar 88 09:55:29 EST From: rachiele@nadc.arpa (J. Rachiele) Subject: commercialism of the cpace program There is one and only one motive of private industry, and that is to MAKE A PROFIT! This is what, directly or indirectly, caused the space shuttle disaster. During the days of the moon shot, there were many dedicated individuals at NASA whose only motive was to safely get men to the moon and back again. Granted, there now seem to be some career empire-builders at NASA who are more interested in keeping control and advancing their own careers than in the above mentioned pure motive (present company excepted of course -:)) but, in general, I feel much more comfortable knowing that someones life on the line in a space vehicle or in a space staion in orbit, or in a manned colony on the moon, is not depending on a high-level business exec looking at the bottom line on a profit sheet! Jim Rachiele rachiele@nadc.arpa ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 88 19:38:27 GMT From: marsh@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA (Ralph J. Marshall) Subject: Re: commercialism of the cpace program I agree that we don't want a cost-cutting bean-counter deciding how much safety equipment we can afford. However, I see relatively little distinction between commercial expansion into space launches and commercial airlines. An airplane is at least roughly comparable in terms of complexity as a space vehicle (although there are fewer unsolved problems). It is government regulation of required equipment and safety inspections that make scheduled air travel the safest way to travel. I see no reason why this analogy cannot be extended to space travel. I personally think that space exploration is going to be small potatoes as long as the taxpayers have to fund it entirely for entertainment value. Show a company a way to make a buck in space and we will _have_ multiple launch vehicles, making the crippling of the space program due to a single disaster impossible. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 88 13:23:32 GMT From: l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@k.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) Subject: Abolishing NASA I see no inconsistency between advocating the abolition of NASA and advocating its adequate funding if it is not abolished. As long as the government has a stranglehold on space, limiting the bureaucrats to strangling instead of doing something useful will not help us get into space. Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (ARPA or UUCP) or hrubin@purccvm.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 88 17:54:32 GMT From: nescorna!marcum@sun.com (Alan M. Marcum) Subject: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ There's an interest editorial in the latest _Air & Space Smithsonian_, dicussing the "permament lunar base" vs "Mission to Mars" issue. Recommended reading. --- Alan M. Marcum Sun Microsystems, Technical Consulting marcum@nescorna.Sun.COM Mountain View, California ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 88 19:31:42 GMT From: hubcap@gatech.edu (Mike Marshall) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ The same issue of Air&Space contains an article entitled "Resist the Pull of Mars" in which the author talks about "The dark far side of the moon..." being a good place to conduct " ...sensitive radio astronomy... without interference from terrestrial signals." Since this is a credible magazine, I should give the guy the benefit of the doubt and assume he is talking about the period of time that the moon appears full from the perspective of the earth, but that's not how it reads. -Mike Marshall hubcap@hubcap.clemson.edu ...!hubcap!hubcap ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 88 22:23:51 GMT From: josh@topaz.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ One of the common meanings of "dark" in colloquial English is "unknown", as in "darkest Africa", something the poster was possibly in the dark about. "The dark side of the moon" simply means the side facing away from the earth. --JoSH ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 88 06:46:48 GMT From: beta!a!jlg@hc.dspo.gov (Jim Giles) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ The moon always has the same face toward the earth. That is, it rotates with the same period as it orbits the earth. The 'far' side of the moon was therefore often called the 'dark' side because it was unknown to human experience until spacecraft went there. The term is similar to the use of 'dark' with respect to Africa (it wasn't a racial slur but a reference to the fact that much of the African contenent was unknown to europeans even to the beginning of this century). Just as Africa is still often called the 'dark contenent', people also still often refer to the 'dark side' of the moon. It is true that a base on the far side of the moon woud be a reasonable place to conduct radio astronomy because the moon would block all the earth-based radio noise. Many astronomers feel that such a moon base would be a much more important goal than manned trips to Mars. J.L.G. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 88 03:58:59 GMT From: steinmetz!ge-dab!ge-rtp!edison!mjk@itsgw.rpi.edu (Mark Kocher) Subject: Re: X-15 engine In article <4610@hplabsb.UUCP>, dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes: > In article <2690@calmasd.GE.COM>, jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: > > Does anyone know what the fuel was for the X-15's engine? It was > > Anhydrous ammonia and liquid oxygen. It could not have put the X-15 My memory's a little thin on this, but I think you are referring to the so-called "Big Engine". The "Little Engine" which they used early in the program was actually 4 X-1 engines mounted together; I think they were fueled by alcohol with Hydrogen Peroxide as an oxidizer. Scott Crossfield describes a lot of this in his autobiography, it makes for fairly interesting reading. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 88 15:51:42 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: X-15 engine Scott Crossfield was the speaker at the last meeting of the Utah Chapter of the AIAA. I asked him about the cancelation of the X-15B, the orbital version of the X-15. The X-15B was to have leading edges, and other parts, covered with a high temperature resistant beryllium alloy. The boost vehicle was to be a cluster of Navaho rockets, left over from another canceled program. The X-15B as canceled in favor of project Mercury. So Sputnik was a bigger victory than I had thought. It derailed a program that would have given us an operational aerospace plane in the early '60s. Instead, we got the famous spam in can Mercury project. He went on to say that the main thing he learned from this was the value of good P.R. Crossfield was one of the designers of the X-15 and one of its chief test pilots. The reasoning behind the cancelation of X-15B has been bugging me since I was 10 years old. It still bugs me. If you ever get a chance to hear Crossfield speak, don't pass it up. The man is a national treausre. Bob Pendleton ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 88 17:58:09 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: X-15 engine As discussed in private correspondence: fuel type, engine rating, etc. are all dependent on which models of the X-15 you are talking about. The unmodified (never made) X-15B was supposed to be boosted. (Titan launch vehicle?). The two other X-15 engines can be read about by going to local libraries and seeking X-15 books (or write Rockwell at LAX, they might have stuff left over). I also recommended Crossfield's autobio since he was its first (sub-Mach 3) pilot. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 88 22:37:25 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: fuels other than hydrogen In article <18552@sci.UUCP>, daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel) writes: > Hmm. I may as well post the numbers. I took the energy of formation, > divided by the molar weight of the byproducts, multiplied by two, and > took the square root, thinking that would give me the maximum exhaust > velocity of the reaction (units would be in km/sec). That's probably > invalid for reactions producing multiple products (like water and > carbon dioxide), but what the hell. > The molecular weight of the exhaust products cannot be neglected in this case. Anything with carbon burns with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, of molecular weight 44, while the hydrogen burns to form water, with a molecular weight of 18, with a velocity difference of sqrt(44/18) > The carbon reaction is amusing. Maybe someone could build a > coal-powered rocket? > david rickel > decwrl!sci!daver There is a paper available through the NASA 'Tech Briefs' journal on 'CoaL Fired Rocket engine', I believe the work is being done at JPL. Basically, it's a form of solid rocket, but it's supposed to be cleaner burning than a regular solid (i.e. no worse than a coal fired power plant). Dani Eder/Boeing/Space Station Program/ssc-vax!eder ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 88 23:59:26 GMT From: pyramid!weitek!sci!daver@lll-lcc.llnl.gov (Dave Rickel) Subject: Re: fuels other than hydrogen Oops. Cringe. Apologies to one and all--it turns out that i can't add. 12 + 16 + 16 = 28. Right. Anyway, i used the wrong values for the molecular weight of CO2--all my conclusions were bogus. Sorry. Next time, maybe if i come to a conclusion that's too good to be true, i'll spend a little more time trying to find my mistake. Anyway, revised numbers (hopefully this time i didn't make another stupid mistake): substance boiling point (C) density number Hydrogen -252.87 .0708 (ick!) 5.18 Acetylene -84 (sublimes) .6181 4.87 Ethylene -103.71 .384 4.62 Ethane -88.63 .572 4.48 Methane -164 .466 4.48 Propane -42.07 .5005 4.48 Benzene 80.1 .87865 4.46 Carbon 4287 1.8-2.1 4.23 Ethanol 78.5 .7893 4.17 Methanol 64.96 .7914 3.99 Oxygen -182.962 1.14 ---- david rickel decwrl!sci!daver ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 88 21:21:10 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: X-15 engine The "little engine" was 2 X-1 engines. It is easy to get confuse here, each X-1 engine had 4 chambers. The engine was throttled, at least in part, but starting and shutting down individual chambers. So the X-1 had 4 thrust levels to choose from. I guess, I don't know, that the first version of the X-15 had 8 thrust levels. It had 8 chambers and 8 nozzels. > FUELED by alcohol with Hydrogen Peroxide as an oxidizer. I'm pretty sure it was alcohol and LOX. > describes a lot of this in his autobiography, it makes for fairly > interesting reading. Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #184 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 9 Apr 88 06:25:02 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA21113; Sat, 9 Apr 88 03:22:31 PDT id AA21113; Sat, 9 Apr 88 03:22:31 PDT Date: Sat, 9 Apr 88 03:22:31 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804091022.AA21113@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #185 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 185 Today's Topics: Re: SPOT picture wanted Re: SPOT picture wanted Re: SPOT picture wanted RE:RE: X-15 Important microgravity experiments Re: fuels other than hydrogen Re: Planets aligned in May? Re: Power satellites (was greenhouse effect) NASA News Re: Forget the Saturn V! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Mar 88 14:21:45 GMT From: ems!nis!sialis!rjg@UMN-CS.ARPA (Robert J. Granvin) Subject: Re: SPOT picture wanted >> I would like to purchase a SPOT image of a particular place, on or about >> a particular time. Can someone point me to an appropriate source for >> ordering same? I also need pricing (presumably from the same source). > >SPOT satellite imagery (10m panchromatic, 20m multispectal - 3 bands) >is available in the U.S. for purchase from: > > SPOT Image Corporation > 1897 Preston White Drive > Reston, Virginia 22091-4326 703-620-2200 > >This data is not cheap and it is copyrighted (i.e. once you buy it you >cannot pass it on to anyone else; an agreement on terms and conditions >for use of the data must be signed ...). Imagery in digital format >(on 1600bpi tape) start at about $1500 per scene. There are a few sample >scenes of selected areas in the U.S. available for $600 each. I am not >certain that SPOT Corporation archives all that many scenes unless they >are requested by customers. Snarfed from the latest issue of Omni: You can contact the U.S. Geological Survey offers a service where you can order clear color or black and white photos of any location in the United States. The costs from from $6 to $65 depending on print size. These photos can cover an area of 30 to 120 square miles, and cover altitudes from 40,000 feet to 110 miles. For a brochure, write: National Cartographic Information Center U.S. Geological Survey 507 National Center Reston, VA 22092 This at least is an option for someone who may not want to spend the big bucks on SPOT images... rjg@sialis.mn.org UUCP:...uunet!{amdahl,hpda,rosevax}!bungia!sialis!rjg ------------------------------ Date: 26 Mar 88 19:35:59 GMT From: leah!ens598@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Eric Sheffer) Subject: Re: SPOT picture wanted The problem with this solution is that you have to know what you're getting. SPOT provides two formats: 10 meter _panchromatic_ black and white or 15 meter _color-infrared_ imagery. USGS and Earth Resource Obervation System (EROS) maintains a miriad of images, from Gemini, Apollo and Skylab orbital photographs to LANDSAT Thematic Mapper imagery. If you're thinking about this option, consider National High Altitude Photography Program's 1:58000 scale color-infrared photographs, or contact a local mapping agency (transportation department, planning bureau, etc.) who might be able to provide larger scale imagery. Also, you must be able to digitize photographs, or these sugestions are moot. In any event, NHAP images are available from USGS and EROS Data Center. EROS Data Center U.S. Geological Survey Sioux Falls, SD 57198 (605)-594-6151 ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 88 22:54:46 GMT From: mcvax!enea!sal!dk@uunet.uu.net (Danny Kohn) Subject: Re: SPOT picture wanted I think that you can buy them from Satellitbid in Kiruna in Sweden. They have speciallized in taking down and are selling spot pictures also. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Mar 88 16:59 AST From: Subject: RE:RE: X-15 After reading the previous messages pertaining to the X-15 I decided to hit the local library to refresh my memory. The X-15 which suffered heat damage was a modified version listed as an X-15A-2. This aircraft had been damaged in a previous flight. When it was modified a hydrogen fuel tank was added. The craft was to be used to test a "scramjet" engine. During a test flight a dummy scramjet scoop was mounted under the belly of the aircraft. During the test flight the dummy scramjet heated up and burned. As it turned to slag it damaged the main body of the aircraft beyond repair. Also, that was not the last flight of the X-15 program, although it was the last successful flight. The third X-15 flew high enough to enter near space. Due to a malfunction, the pilot re-entered the atmoshpere 180 degrees out of position and was killed. There is a film titled "The Rocket Pilots" which documents the test flights of the X-1, X-2, X-3, X-15, and Gemini programs. There are also several books which cover this topic. William Leslie University of Alaska, Fairbanks ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Mar 88 17:08 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Important microgravity experiments I was wondering if there were any historically important experiments one can do in microgravity. I couldn't think of anything for a low orbit space station, but I had some ideas for higher orbits. Recently there has be a great deal of controversy over the so-called "fifth force", a putative intermediate-range (hundreds of meters) interaction that violates the equivalence principle. Experiments to detect a fifth force have yielded contradictory results. It has been proposed [see, for example, Phys. Lett. B (171) pg. 217; Phys. Rev. Lett. 60(13), pg. 1225; Scientific American, March 1988, pg. 48] that the contradictory experimental results can be resolved if the "fifth force" is actually a combination of two intermediate range forces produced by quantum gravity, one attractive, the other repulsive (on normal matter). These forces would largely cancel and could have a range of up to hundreds of kilometers. One problem with terrestrial experiments to measure intermediate range forces is the presence of large amounts of poorly characterized material (rock strata, etc.). This problem is difficult to avoid without going into space. One can think of several kinds of space experiments to test shorter range gravitational forces. Artificial objects with precisely defined mass and composition can be set in orbit about one another (an experiment with ton-scale tungsten spheres has already been proposed; larger experiments could use extraterrestrial material). Low orbit lunar satellites can probe the moon's gravity field at short distances. This might require setting up laser ranging stations on the lunar surface. The gravity field around an asteroid could be measured, then the asteroid could be "weighed" by attaching a rocket and measuring the impulse and change in velocity it causes when fired. Some grand unified theories have predicted that neutrons and antineutrons should "oscillate": that is, free neutrons should gradually convert to neutron-antineutron mixed states which, when observed, have a nonzero probability of being antineutrons. Limits on neutron oscillations from experiments at Grenoble are quite stringent -- oscillation time > 10**8 seconds, I recall, vs. the neutron half life of about 600 seconds. But oscillations are suppressed if the neutron and antineutron energy states are too different. New forces from quantum gravity could cause a difference of perhaps .001 eV on earth, which would totally suppress oscillation [Europhys. Lett., 2(2), pp. 87-90]. If further experiments confirm the existence of the new forces, it would be interesting to repeat the neutron oscillation experiments in space, away from large amounts of matter, in hope of getting a positive result. This raises the intriguing possibility that it might be possible to convert neutrons into antineutrons in factories in space. Note that the conversion efficiency need not be very high for this to be a win, since much less energy is required to liberate a neutron from a nucleus than to produce a nucleon-antinucleon pair from scratch, and the energy can be provided directly by a reactor or bomb rather than indirectly through an accelerator. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 88 19:19:44 GMT From: telesoft!roger@ucsd.edu (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: Re: fuels other than hydrogen In article <18552@sci.UUCP>, daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel) writes: > I went paging through my chemistry book last night, calculator in > hand, looking for interesting hydrocarbons for rocket fuels. [..] > > Acetylene -84 (sublimes) .6181 5.83 > Ethylene -103.71 .384 5.36 > Benzene 80.1 .87865 5.34 > Carbon 4287 1.8-2.1 5.30 > Hydrogen -252.87 .0708 (ick!) 5.18 > Propane -42.07 .5005 5.12 > Ethane -88.63 .572 5.09 > Methane -164 .466 5.01 > Ethanol 78.5 .7893 4.74 > Methanol 64.96 .7914 4.47 > > Oxygen -182.962 1.14 ---- > > [..] > > david rickel > decwrl!sci!daver The problem with the carbon-rich fuels is that the temperature that corresponds to the theoretical results you calculated is too high to work in a real engine. Even if you could come up with a combustion chamber and nozzle that could stand up to the temperatures involved, combustion would be incomplete, due to thermal dissociation. The exhaust would be a very hot stew of some CO2, some H2O, and also a lot of CO, OH, monatomic oxygen, and assorted radicals. One of the factors that makes LH2-LO2 work so well is that excess LH2 in the combustion mix keeps the temperature manageable and insures nearly complete reaction of the oxygen, without costing much in terms of the net energy per pound of propellant. But you're right; the very low density of LH2 is a bummer. Liquid anhydrous amonia is an interesting fuel. It has some of the advantages of hydrogen, in terms of yielding an exhaust with low molar density--or whatever the term is for low average molecular weight. It's particularly well suited for reusable engines, because it's an efficient coolant and doesn't coke up the tubes in the combustion chamber walls. Which is probably why it was used in the X-15. If hydrogen peroxide is used as the oxidizer, rather than liquid oxygen, the exhaust has the lowest average molecular weight of any fuel-oxidizer combination, other than hydrogen/oxygen. - Roger Arnold ..ucsd!telesoft!roger ------------------------------ Date: 29 Mar 88 03:26:04 GMT From: mtunx!lzaz!lznv!psc@rutgers.edu (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Subject: Re: Planets aligned in May? < If you lined all the news readers up end-to-end, they'd be easier to shoot. > In article <16000003@bucc2>, xevious@bucc2.UUCP writes: > Anyone have any ideas what effects this will have on Earth or any > other planet/satellite/sun? >Phil Batson, {ihnp4,uiucdcs,noao,cepu,attmail}!bradley!bucc2!xevious Nothing major, but be careful of your refrigerator; all of your eggs are suddenly going to stand on end. (Last month, someone reported that you can stand an egg on its end when all the planets are aligned. Several zillion other people reported that you can always do that, if you're careful. Let's *not* hold this debate again, okay?) -Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet psc@lznv.att.com I'm not speaking for my employer, I'm just speaking my mind. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 88 05:27:42 GMT From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) Subject: Re: Power satellites (was greenhouse effect) In article <1420@bigtex.uucp> james@bigtex.UUCP (James Van Artsdalen) writes: >IN article <4091@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) wrote: : : [...] Assuming international cooperation in space (else : : the SPS is too vulnerable to attack) the SPS is more reliable than other : : systems, and has a greater thermal efficiency on earth. : I don't seriously consider a deliberate attack on a power sattellite a : likelyhood: that's an act of war. Is war impossible? If a country with the ability to launch payloads to synchronous orbit fights one with SPS, it can cripple its enemy. : But space debris would be a similar : problem. These SPSs would be very large, and would have to have very long : operating lifetimes (: 25 years?) due to cost. Has there been any serious : efforts to consider problems & costs of building impact-tolerant sattellites? : Or is it not that bad (yet)? I would design an SPS with a very large, thin-film mirror. Holes would be unimportant until they occupied a large fraction of the total area. Structural strength would be in a rigid frame with members thick enough not to be destroyed by meteoroids. John Carr "No one wants to make a terrible choice jfc@athena.mit.edu On the price of being free" -- Neil Peart ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 88 15:54:09 GMT From: cu-den!udenva!isis!scicom!embudo!markf@boulder.colorado.edu (markf) Subject: NASA News NASA NEWS NASA Administrator says 1989 "Make or Break" Year Dr. James C. Fletcher, administrator of NASA appeared ... before the House Subcommittee of Space Science and Applications on the agency's proposed 1989 budget. The following points are among those made in his oral testimony and written statements: - This is a crucial year for NASA which could "make or break" the nation's space program. It is not an overstatement to say that the entire future of the U.S. civil space program rides at risk in this budget. - The budget contains funds to build up the rate of Shuttle flights in 1989 and to start to fly off the backlog of vital defense and science missions. If such effective access to space cannot be provided, hopes for future U.S. space leadership will be extinguished. - The budget provides the build-up of Space Station funding required in the second year of hardware development. Unless adequate funding is provided, the development teamwill have to be disbanded and hopes for a permanent laboratory and base in space deferred indefinitely or cancelled. - If the funds requested for advanced technology are not approved, the necessary technological foundation for future achievements will not be built, and the goal of long-term U.S. space leadership will "become an idle dream." - This budget would move NASA funding to a higher plateau and start the nation down the road toward the historic new goal that President Reagan has just set forth in the nation's new space policy. It is human exploration of the solar system beyond Earth orbit. --------------------------------------------------------------- Reprinted with Permission for electronic distribution NASA News Release 88-31 March 3, 1988 By James W. McCulla Headquarters, Washington, D.C. --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 29 Mar 88 11:12:17 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Forget the Saturn V! In article <766@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu> mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: >From article <1113@its63b.ed.ac.uk>, by bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray): >> Note that Iran already has a space industry. >Wot?? I think you mean INDIA - who have had 4 sats and a cosmonaut put up >by the Soviets. The Shah's govt was planning a Zohreh domestic comsat before >the revolution, but nothing ever came of it. The only thing Iran ever had >was a few ground stations. No, I mean IRAN. The "Zohreh" domestic comsat project is still continuing under the control of their SITAO (Satellite and International Affairs Office). The satellites and ground equipment are to be built in Iran. The Soviets took an Iranian airforce officer up on one of their missions in the days before MIR, but this shouldn't be surprising considering the number of other nationalities of passengers carried by the soviets. A quick survey shows that they have flown cosmanauts from Bulgaria, Cuba, East Germany, France, India, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Syria and Vietnam, amongst others. Bob. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #185 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Apr 88 06:26:41 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA22295; Sun, 10 Apr 88 03:24:21 PDT id AA22295; Sun, 10 Apr 88 03:24:21 PDT Date: Sun, 10 Apr 88 03:24:21 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804101024.AA22295@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #186 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 186 Today's Topics: Re: Mars Declaration Re: Where is Apollo 13 Lunar module? Space Settlement Act of 1988 (HR 4218) NASA News NASA News Re: Power satellites (was greenhouse effect) JPL Vision Statement Some Articles of Interest ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Mar 88 11:47:18 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Mars Declaration In article <3761@mtgzz.UUCP> dls@mtgzz.UUCP (XMRP50000[jto]-d.l.skran) writes: >I recently received a copy of the Planetary Society Mars >Declaration. > >Basically, it's a straight forward and carefully worded call >for the human exploration of Mars. Hopefully, I or someone else ^^^^^ >will type it in at some point. If this is what they mean, they don't have anything to wory about. The Soviets have already made it clear that they intend to go there, and they have the technology to do so. Or perhaps they mean American? If they want an international effort, they should target their petition at ALL the Governments of the world capable of contributing to the human exploration of Mars. If they want an American effort, they should be more careful in the wording. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 88 18:21:48 GMT From: mtunx!whuts!sw@rutgers.edu (WARMINK) Subject: Re: Where is Apollo 13 Lunar module? In article <201300003@prism>, john@prism.TMC.COM writes: > So my question is, what happened to the lunar > landing module? Did it re-enter and burn up (I would think that > chunks of it would have come all the way down) or did it continue on, in some > sort of orbit? Would it be in orbit around the earth? It burned up in the atmosphere, but: some chunks of it did not. Most noticable of these was the plutonium powered generator, now somewhere at the bottom of the Indian Ocean I believe. Not much has been said about this... The Galileo Jupiter probe will be similarly powered, current flightpath calls for a close Earth gravity assist fly-by. Wait for the debate to start up! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "We demand rigidly defined areas of | Stuart Warmink, APT UK Ltd. doubt and uncertainty" (Vroomfondel) | !whuts!sw -----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of APT UK Ltd. <----------- ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 88 05:23:19 GMT From: agate!jiff!web@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) Subject: Space Settlement Act of 1988 (HR 4218) William Baxter ARPA: web@bosco.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {cbosgd,sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,ihnp4,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!bosco!web ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 88 16:08:03 GMT From: cu-den!udenva!isis!scicom!embudo!markf@boulder.colorado.edu (markf) Subject: NASA News NASA NEWS NASA To Acquire Second Space Shuttle Carrier Aircraft NASA ... announced plans to acquire a Boeing 747-100 jetliner to serve as a second Space Shuttle carrier aircraft (SCA) for the space transportation system. A letter contract has been signed with Boeing Military Airplane Co., a division of the Boeing Company, Seattle, to reserve the aircraft for NASA use. The additional SCA will provide increased ferrying capability and eliminate a potential single-point failure in the space transportation system. The 231-foot long aircraft will be modified to carry Shuttle orbiter vehicles from landing sites to orbiter processing facilities at the Kennedy Space Center, Fla. Modifications will be made by Boeing at their manufacturing facilities in Wichita, Kan. The 747-100 is nearly identical to the original SCA and was selected to minimize costs associated with modifications and operations. The original SCA has transported orbiters since 1977 when orbiter Enterprise was first used for unpowered atmospheric flight tests. Since then, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery and Atlantis have been ferried coast to coast atop the SCA. Total cost of the aircraft and required modifications is currently under negotiations. That figure is expected to be available this summer. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution NASA News Release 88-28 By Sarah Keegan Headquarters, Washington, D.C. and Jeffrey Carr Johnson Space Center, Houston ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 88 15:55:37 GMT From: cu-den!udenva!isis!scicom!embudo!markf@boulder.colorado.edu (markf) Subject: NASA News NASA NEWS NASA ISSUES UPDATED MIXED FLEET MANIFEST NASA ... issued an updated mixed fleet manifest reflecting current planning for primary payloads for Space Shuttle missions and expendable launch vehicles (ELVs) through Fiscal Year 1993. The manifest is for planning purposes only. Firm Shuttle payload assignmentsare made during the formal integration process at approximately 19 months prior to launch. The planned next Shuttle launch (STS-26) remains in August 1988. In addition to supporting Department of Defense mission requirements and the Commercial Space Initiative recently announced in conjunction with the new National Space Policy, this mixed fleet manifest continues to reflect the high priority assigned to civil space science and applications payloads, both on the Shuttle and ELVs. A decision to interchange the STS-29 and STS-28 missions eases the orbiter processing flow and enables NASA to maintain the required launch windows for two interplanetary missions in 1989 -- Magellan, a mission to map the planet Venus in April, Galileo, a cooperative project with Germany to survey Jupiter and its moons,in October. The Hubble Space Telescope also maintains its flight assignment date of June 1989. Astro-1, a Spacelab mission designed to study the univers in the ultraviolet spectrum is being reconfigured to enhance the study of Supernova 1987A, an event that has drawn the attention of astrophysicists from around the world. The Broad-Band X-Ray Telescope has been added to complement the Astro-1 mission now slated to fly on STS-35 in November 1989. Taking advantage of the recently announced Shuttle downweight additional capability, Spacelab missions are now planned to fly aboard the orbiter Columbia (OV-102), which was not previously possible. Two Spacelab payloads have been assigned flights in 1990 -- a Spacelab Life Science mission in March and the first of the Atomospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science mission series, Atlas-1, scheduled for projected schedule, is now slated for March 1990 and the Ulysses projected October 1990 launch date. Another important addition to the manifest is a misson to retrieve the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) in July 1989. Launched by the Space Shuttle in April 1984, LDEF originally was scheduled for retrieval in March 1985. The LDEF retrieval mission will replace Astro-1 as the payload for STS-32. The manifest supports the commercial space initiative announced with the National Space Policy, February 11, 1988, as follows: - The Industrial Space Facility (ISF) is manifested as a fully reimbursable payload under a pre-existing agreement. - The Spacehab is manifested as a fully reimbursable payload. - The Commercially Developed Space Facility (CDSF) will be manifested when the government's lease arrangements are complete. All of the above are subject to further negotiations with the appropriate commercial organizations and specific manifesting decisions will depend on commercial customer demand. This mixed fleet manifest continues to reflect NASA's plans to use ELVs for those payloads that do not need the capabilities of the Space Shuttle. Thirty-five ELV launches are planned through FY 1993. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Republished with permission for electronic distribution Nasa News Release 88-38 March 15, 1988 By Barbara E. Selby Headquarters, Washington, D.C. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 88 17:10:19 GMT From: sun.soe.clarkson.edu!montague@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Michael Montague) Subject: Re: Power satellites (was greenhouse effect) >From article <4147@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, by jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr): > Structural strength would be in a rigid frame with members thick enough > not to be destroyed by meteoroids. Actually, you have to play the odds when selecting a size for the structural members. If you build the members large enough so they cant be destroyed by meteoroids would be prohibitively expensive. Dust pitting the mirror may be more of a problem than meteoroids actually penetrating it. Michael. -- Internet: montague@sun.soe.clarkson.edu | Woody's my hero... Bitnet: montague@CLUTX.BITNET | uucp: {rpics, gould}!clutx!montague | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Mar 88 09:55:24 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: JPL Vision Statement X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@angband.s1.gov" JPL has just embarked on formulating a vision statemnet. This will be a long range (15-25 years) set of goals and objectives for the lab. Most of the other NASA field centers have published such statements recently. It was reported that as a result of writing its statement, Lewis has already decided to divest itself of its communication effort. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Mar 88 10:33:14 PST From: tencati@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Tencati) Subject: Some Articles of Interest X-St-Vmsmail-To: ST%"space@angband.s1.gov" The following is a small compenduim of news articles relating to recent events of interest Ron Tencati Jet Propulsion Laboratory ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON POST, MARCH 18 "SOVIETS TO FLY U.S. PLAQUE TO MARS MOON" "Soviet officials have agreed to place aboard their spacecraft bond for the Martian moon Phobos a plaque commemorating the moon's discovery by an American." The POST says in an informal ceremony in Houston, NASA science official Bevan French presented the plaque to scientist Lev Mukhin of the Soviet Space Research Institute. The Soviets have scheduled a July launch, scheduled to reach the Martian moon in the spring of 1989. "I can promise the plaque will be installed on the lander," the robot vehicle that will descend to the moon's surface, Mukhin said afterward. "This means it will remain on Phobos forever." The POST says the two moons of Mars, Phobos and Deimos, were discovered in 1877 by astronomer Asaph Hall of the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C. ********************* WASHINGTON POST, MARCH 18 "SOVIET SATELLITE LAUNCH" "The Soviet Union entered the commercial space race with its first paid-for-launch of a foreign satellite, a 1-ton weather monitor for the Indian government that was placed into a near- Earth polar orbit on a Vostok rocket from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazahstan." The POST says the head of the Soviet space engineering agency, Alexander Dunayev, said his government was losing money on the deal. No price was mentioned in the story. ******************* NEW YORK TIMES, MARCH 18 "U.S. REVISES SPACE MISSIONS" "The space agency has revised its schedule of space shuttle flights and cargoes, adding a mission that is to retrieve a bus- size satellite left in space in 1984 for what was to have been one year." The TIMES story says the satellite has led scientists to conclude that it could crash through the atmosphere and burn up if it is not retrieved. The story says the Shuttle schedule reverses the order of one military and once civilian flight early next year. It says this enables NASA to orbit a pair of communications satellites earlier than planned--because they will be needed in June 1989 when the Hubble Space Telescope is launched from a Shuttle. ******************** AEROSPACE DAILY, MARCH 18 "SUCCESS OF MANNED MISSION GOALS LINKED TO CORE TECHNOLOGIES" "Developing life support systems, determining criteria for crew selection and finding ways to deal with the rigours of long term space flight are some of the supporting research technologies which must be addressed further if NASA is to meet its long term space exploration goals, Ames Research Center officials reported." "We don't know how to do a lot of those things" necessary for long duration manned missions, said Bruce Webbon, chief of the Crew Research and Space Human Factors branch at Ames. "We haven't done the homework and the foundation isn't there." Webbon told the DAILY that project Pathfinder, which NASA requested $100 million in FY '89, will provide the missing link needed to develop the technology base which will make long term missions a reality. ********************* NEWSWEEK Magazine, MARCH 21 "THE SPACE RACE HEATS UP AGAIN" By: Frank Givney and John Schwartz "The ancient Romans had a saying: 'To the stars through difficulties.' America's private space industry might adopt it as a motto." The article says last month the Reagan administration issued a directive urging NASA to work more closely with the private sector, a boost that could be worth millions. It outlines the plans of Space Industries Inc., and its Industrial Space Facility; Space Services, run by former astronaut Donald "Deke" Slayton, and American Rocket Co. * * * * NEWSWEEK, MARCH 21 "IS THE NEW SHUTTLE ROCKET FIT FOR TAKEOFF?" By: Harry Hurt "More than two years after the Challenger disaster, the last shipment of main booster parts for the new space shuttle Discovery arrived at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida last week. Morton Thiokol, the Utah-based company that built the flawed Challenger booster, has made key changes in the solid rocket motors. But as technicians stack the parts for a planned Aug. 4 launch, a battle is still raging over whether the new booster is safe." The article goes on to discuss the various re-designed parts of the booster, and lists pro and con arguements about its ability to do the job safely. ******************** PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, MARCH 17 "SCIENTISTS: STUDY SUPPORTS THEORY THAT METEORITE DOOMED DINOSAURS" By: Thomas Maugh "Two scientists who experimented with a 50-foot 'gun' to simulate the impact of a giant meteorite on prehistoric earth have concluded that such a collision could have raised temperatures enough to have killed off the dinosaurs." The story says research by the California Institute of Technology suggests that if a meteorite or comet 10 miles in diameter struck 65 million years ago, it would have released two to five times as much carbon dioxide as was already in the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide would have produced a "greenhouse effect." The story says this would have killed off many of the dinosaurs as well as the leafy plants they fed on. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #186 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Apr 88 06:28:44 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA23713; Mon, 11 Apr 88 03:26:19 PDT id AA23713; Mon, 11 Apr 88 03:26:19 PDT Date: Mon, 11 Apr 88 03:26:19 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804111026.AA23713@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #187 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 187 Today's Topics: Question on Migma Hybrid engine Re: Antimatter Re: KAL 007 Apollo Responses of Congressman to letters The future of network special interest groups Re: Responses of Congressman to letters Passenger Space Flights Re: KAL 007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 88 15:22 EST From: SVISSAG%CLEMSON.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu Subject: Question on Migma Can anyone tell me what has happened to the Migma reactor? How is it comming along? Has the fifth and final (I think there were supposed to be five) prototype been completed? Did it work? Is there any particular publication I could refer to to keep up with this sort of thing? Thanks for any info or suggestions I might, or might not, receive. Steve L. Vissage II On Bitnet: SVISSAG@CLEMSON ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Mar 88 11:48 AST From: Subject: Hybrid engine I as wondering if anyone heard what has happened to the Dolphin rocket? The one using Polybutadiene and LOX for fuel? Solid plastic core pump LOX through it for a burn that is only a few percent lower than LOX/LH. Anyone outthere with some experince with this topic? I left my "old" News Week artical at home with the name of the indivual that designed the big dumb booster. Anyone know him personaly or have his address? I would like to talk with him about launchers. Anyone design a canned space station and willing to share their reading material with me? Would like to see some designs. To the indivudal that mentioned he is working on a Propane/LOX launcher, would like to hear from you. What is the progress. What are the chances of starting an indersty that launches from the ocean or air. What restrictions and follys would we need to overcome. Wonder if it would ever be possible to use a blimp to launch from? If you write me and I don't answer you the message was most likly lost. I loose a lot of my Space mail. I will try to send a message back. Sometimes the address is a pain to decypher. Thanks for the info about TWA and the moon tickets. Robert J. Hale III FNRJH@ALASKA bitnet ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 88 12:26:54 GMT From: agate!garnet!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: Re: Antimatter In article <575751917.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H writes: > 'The 'giggle factor' is over. Antimatter is real and > we know how to make it and keep it. It has promise.' Of course the 'giggle factor' is over. There's absolutely nothing funny about what DoD is going to actually use antimatter for. (Hint for the slow: it isn't to beat the Russkies to Alpha Centauri.) ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 88 16:27:00 GMT From: cca!mirror!prism!peter@husc6.harvard.edu Subject: Re: KAL 007 ************************************************************************* /* Written 8:04 am Mar 25, 1988 by PICARD@gmr.COM in prism:sci.space */ /* ---------- "KAL 007" ---------- */ > They said it was on a spying mission. Our President > and our news did not present evidence that it was on a spying mission > (all lights were out etc.) and made it appear that the soviets claimed > it was a spy plane rather than a spying mission. I remember reading that it was a passenger plane that was used for a spying mission (according to the U.S.S.R.). I never heard any of the evidence you mention. This may not belong on the net but can you give a run down of it? Any sources would also be appreciated. Ron Picard (PICARD@GMR.COM) General Motors Research Labs /* End of text from prism:sci.space */ ************************************************************************* KAL007 was not a spy plane, but a 747 'seen' from below and behind looks a lot like the kind of plane that is used to fly electronic intelligence missions from bases in the Aleutian(?sp) Islands. According to Seymore Hersch(?sp) in his book _The Target Is Destroyed_, KAL 007 caught the Russians with their pants down, when it strayed over the home base of the Soviet Pacific Fleet. Since the first set of fighters scrambled failed to intercept the plane, the Russians had to scamble another group of fighters before the 747 would leave their air-space. Apparently there was something akin to panic on the Russian side, based on the unusual radio traffic between Moscow and the Pacific Fleet Headquarters. The Russian fighter pilots, due to the night time conditions, never positively identified the 747 before shooting it down. It is believed that the fighters did fire a warning salvo of machine gun fire, but the 747 pilot would have had to look down and to the rear to see it. Since the pilot was unaware that he was in deep trouble, he probably would not have seen it. Hersch says that the disaster was caused by carelessness on the part of the Korean pilots when entering data into their inertial navigation system, by faulty human factors engineering of the navigation system's interface, and by a panic on the part of the Soviet Air Defense staff. He goes on to criticise the misuse of the disaster for political ends by current administration, and he criticises the Russians for not owning up to their mistake, for a tragic mistake it was. I recommend the book to anyone interested in the disaster. It is almost allegorical in the way it illustrates how a series of mistakes could so easily result in disaster between two nations with hair-trigger mentalities. It made me wonder and worry about the possibility of another, far greater disaster, for had not cooler, more informed heads prevailed on the US side, some Navy brass would have launched a punitive air strike at the Russians.... ---- Peter J. Stucki -- peter@mirror.TMC.COM UUCP : {mit-eddie, ihnp4, harvard!wjh12, cca, cbosg, seismo}!mirror!peter TryThis: peter@mirror.zone1.com (we forward for .zone1.com) Mirror Systems 2067 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA, 02140 Telephone: 617-661-0777 extension 131 "Don't hope for miracles! Rely on them!" --- ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 88 09:14:29 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Apollo I got no response the first time I asked this, so don't hold back if you have ANY information. Thanks in advance for any information. I am contemplating totally rewriting my interplanetary flight simulator to accurately simulate an Apollo mission. Can some one tell me where to find,or send me the necessary technical data? It would be at the level of keeping track of kg of fuel left, change in momentum/kg fuel, spacecraft mass, what orbit you're in (I'll assume the earth and moon are spheres). You're choices would be how much fuel to burn, and when, with the projected flightpath shown in advance. Considering the amount of computer time invested on real missions, I worry that it might not be possible to complete the mission by eyeballing the orbits, even with computer assist. You would then complete a realistic lunar landing from orbit. If I can find out how to make realistic terrain with fractals, I'll be able to generate interesting terrain for you to land in if you're off target. Also, is thewre a more accurate way to compute orbits than repeatedly calculating: xv := xv + MoonAcceleration+EarthAcceleration; yv := yv + MoonAcceleration+EarthAcceleration; x := x + xv; y := y + yv; that doesn't require calculations that doesn't require more than, say, four seconds to plot out what your orbit will be if you burn so much fuel in such and such a direction. Of course, I need to know what sorts of orbits were used, so you'll know what to aim for. Also, information on NASA's mission simulators would greatly help. Has someone already done this? -- Doug Reeder USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!douglas 10 Cyclopedia Square from BITNET: douglas@reed.UUCP Terminus City from ARPA: !tektronix!reed!douglas@Berkley Terminus,The Foundation Box 502 Reed College,Portland,OR 97202 ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 88 20:44:33 GMT From: nisc.nyser.net!weltyc@nisc.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Responses of Congressman to letters I have been writing letters regularly to Congress for about two years now, at the rate of maybe once or twice a month, about the space program. Mostly complaints, and a few (very few) praises. This week, I received the first-ever response. I sent letters recently to Bill Gray of Penn (chairman of the House Budget Committee) and Speaker Wright regarding the proposed cut of NASAs budget. Gray replied with a letter saying the Budget Committee is holding hearings on the issue of NASAs budget, and will formulate it's own version of the budget, but he would `remain mindful of my comments'. Wright apparently sent my letter to my Congressman, Sam Stratton, who sent me a letter saying that NASAs budget will be raised 1.25 billion in FY89. This, he claimed, is less than Reagan requested, but NASA is one of the very few agencies that will not experience a budget freeze. On one hand I must admit that the national deficit is a valid reason to cut back on spending, but the space station is vital to our future (or a moonbase)....maybe if I ran for president.....nah. Christopher Welty --- Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!rutgers!nysernic!weltyc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Apr 88 02:57 CST From: (Kevin 'Charlie' Brown) Subject: The future of network special interest groups While the following is not related directly to space, I feel it has a great deal of significance for all of us. I have, up until now, had access to the "sf-lovers" newsgroup. That is, until I received this in their latest digest: >Date: Fri, 1 Apr 88 08:59:51 EST >From: sfl@elbereth.rutgers.edu (SF-LOVERS) >Subject: LAST ISSUE > >Well folks, as Ralph Kramden has often said: "I've got a BIIIIIIIG MOUTH!!" >It seems that in the last year, there has been so much media attention in >magazines like Omni, Locus, IEEE Potentials, ACM Communications, Time, >Newsweek and others about SF-LOVERS, that it has attracted the attention of >"The Powers that Be" in Washington. > >I spent two weeks recently in Washington, D.C. in conference with William >Proxmire and several House and Senate committees. I have been questioned, >in length, about SF-LOVERS and the use of the computer networks. I have >had meetings with the President of Rutgers University, Ed Bloustein. In >short, it has been determined that SF-LOVERS Digest has, for the years of >it's existence, been grossly misusing public funds. There are criminal >actions pending now against me (and all the prior moderators) for this >misuse and other actions are contemplated for copyright infringements, >theft of services (using the Rutgers computers for private gain), and tax >invasion (the IRS claims that even though the digest generates no income it >is still a business and must file an Income Tax form). > >In short, this will be the *LAST* issue of SF-LOVERS. After this issue I >am, under orders from the U.S. District Court in New York, folding the >digest and deleting all archives and files pertaining to the digest in my >possession. Enjoy this last issue and remember fondly the days of >SF-LOVERS. Some day, we may return. Until then, save your back issues and >relish them, they may be worth something someday. > >Ex-Moderator SF-LOVERS Digest >sf-lovers-request@rutgers.edu (address goes away April 1, 1988) I have refrained from including the moderator's name in case he does not wish it to be known. That William Proxmire is in on this does not surprise me. The fact that this happened deeply concerns me. I have learned a great deal from the various newsgroups that are on the network, and would like to see their services continue. It would be a shame if the newsgroups on the network were shut down by the shortsightedness of bureaucrats and politicians. While SF-LOVERS was essentially a recreational newsgroup, I can easily imagine this action extending to other newsgroups as well. I hope, for all of us, that it will not. Signature: (yeah, I sign my checks like this.. :-) Kevin Brown (KCB9792@TAMSIGMA.BITNET) Texas A&M University Voice: (409)846-2667 US SNAIL: 4302 College Main #353 Bryan, TX 77801 Confucious say: "He who live by sword, die by gun!" Disclaimer: These opinions are not the opinions of Texas A&M University or anyone else, or even myself. In fact, they're just products of your imagination... :-) ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 88 17:57:41 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Responses of Congressman to letters In article <638@nysernic> weltyc@nisc.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) writes: >....maybe if I ran for president..... Sure Chris. Do it. In 1964 my Dad was among two dozen men to convince a B-grad actor to run for Governor of CA. I've been regretting ever since. You can't do much worse. What does this have to do with space? --eugene Style? Me? Let me get my surf board..... ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Apr 88 15:05:45 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: Passenger Space Flights X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@angband.s1.gov" Years ago, Society Expeditions advertised that they would launch people into space for the sum of $52,000, starting 1992. At present they have a vague design for a vehicle, nothing concrete. I do not know how many people registered. Society Expeditions is a legit business that journeys to exotic lands fot those with the bucks. I would bet serious money their plans do not materialize this century. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 88 01:10:14 GMT From: sonia!khayo@locus.ucla.edu (Erazm J. Behr) Subject: Re: KAL 007 A note to the readers of sci.space: I'm following up here for only one reason - the original article appeared in this group. Other than this, the topic has nothing to do with space. PLEASE use your favorite editor to erase "sci.space" from the "Newsgroups" line; direct ALL follow-ups & responses to talk.politics.misc or, by e-mail, to me. My apologies - Eric Behr This comes up now and then, just like lightbulb jokes and mercury-filled wires. In contrast with the latter two, however, this topic is my favorite for it clearly illustrates the Americans' tendency to disbelieve their government (sometimes rightly so) and to find excuses for other governments even when those clearly break all ethical/legal norms by their actions. Note that I'm not directing this against Warwick (in which case I would've descended 3 flights of stairs and put a stink-bomb in his office :-) but rather against those who will propagate misconceptions/hearsay as *fact*, simply because it suits them to do so in support of a particular political point they're trying to make. In article <10811@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> warwick@MATH.UCLA.EDU (my life isn't real) writes: >In article <201300004@prism> peter@prism.TMC.COM writes: >>KAL007 was not a spy plane, but a 747 'seen' from below and behind >>looks a lot >>like the kind of plane that is used to fly electronic intelligence missions Only it's 230 feet long, compared to 135 ft. for an RC-135; the wingspan is also clearly different. In this sense *all* 4-wing-mounted-engine planes look a lot like one another. >> ... [Deleted Stuff] ... >>Headquarters. The Russian fighter pilots, due to the night time conditions, >>never positively identified the 747 before shooting it down. It is believed >>that the fighters did fire a warning salvo of machine gun fire, but the 747 The Soviet pilot in an interview with Soviet TV claimed he fired tracers; it *may* be inferred from the recorded conversations that he did ("...now I will try a rocket..."); I could not find *any* other evidence of this claim. >> .... [More Stuff Deleted].... >>Peter J. Stucki -- peter@mirror.TMC.COM Warwick Daw: > >There was an American spy plane in the same area as KAL 007 at the (see below) >time it was shot down. The spy plane was a 717, which I think is a ^^^ RC-135 >modified version of a 707. Supposedly, the Russian pilots thought they >were shooting at the 717, having never gotten close enough or at the >right angle to identify the plane as a 747 (that distinctive bump >is only distinctive when the plane is viewed from the side). 1) The plane was in and out of Soviet airspace for more than 1 hour. At first it seems the Soviets identified it as an RC-135, but later re-classified it as "unidentified"; 2) At at least one point, just before shoot-down, the Soviet interceptor overtook the 747, coming as close as 2 km to it; from the recordings it seems that the KAL was then 70 deg. to his left. If he didn't identify the aircraft correctly, it was because he didn't really try to (it was dark, but the radar cross-sections of a 747 and an RC-135 must be easy to distinguish!). The most plausible reason was that the 747 was about 30 miles away from the international airspace. Shoot first, ask later. > >This information was in an article burried in the middle of the >New York Times AT LEAST six months after KAL 007 was shot down. >In other words, our government sat on this information until it >was no longer news. Here you get an F for logic. The fact that you saw it 6 months after the event doesn't mean that others didn't see it earlier... FYI: the tragedy occurred on Sept. 1, 1983. The Sept. 5 LA Times has a big-print header across the front page ("US spy plane..." etc.), with an article below beginning: "The White House acknowledges that a reconnaisance airplane (RC-135) was operating in the area" (I'm quoting from memory - I looked it up yesterday). That's hardly 6 months. The Sept. 19 issue of the Time Magazine has a long article in which the RC-135 is mentioned repeatedly. The area where the two planes were anywhere near each other was 1000 miles north of where the 747 was shot down; this was over 90 minutes before the missiles were fired. The RC-135 never entered Soviet airspace. >E. Warwick Daw warwick@math.ucla.edu Two more interesting tidbits: on Sept. 3 the Soviets admitted they intercepted the plane, but not that they shot at it, and said: "Fighters of the anti-aircraft defense, which were sent aloft toward the intruder plane, tried to give it assistance in directing it to the nearest airfield" [TASS] A little later, Pravda quoted the Sydney Morning Herald as saying "[the 747] could well have been mistaken for an E4B bomber..." (granted, E4B is 747-based, but (a) it is not a bomber, but a Presidential command post; (b) as far as I know there were at most 2 in existence at that point, both stationed permanently in the US). And so the story rolls on, gathering more and more colorful "details"... Eric ___________________________________________________________ Please use khayo@MATH.ucla.edu instead of CS.ucla.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #187 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Apr 88 06:25:54 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA25614; Tue, 12 Apr 88 03:23:33 PDT id AA25614; Tue, 12 Apr 88 03:23:33 PDT Date: Tue, 12 Apr 88 03:23:33 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804121023.AA25614@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #188 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 188 Today's Topics: Re: space news from Feb 22 AW&ST Re: Carr *STILL* does not understand refraction Re: Quote from Aviation Week Re: Libertarian space position Iranians in Space (was: Forget the Saturn V) Re: Libertarians love NASA? Re: commercialism of the space program Re: fuels other than hydrogen Re: Antimatter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 Mar 88 20:54:08 GMT From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: space news from Feb 22 AW&ST In article <1988Mar28.002506.12135@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >[Micro-editorial: In retrospect, it was clearly a mistake to give the USAF >primary responsibility for US military spaceflight. The US Navy, which has >a long history of being charged with supporting commercial sea users, would >have been a much better choice.] Not to mention, as a Navy friend of mine points out, that the Navy has vastly more experience with closed life-support systems and other aspects of long-term survival in hostile environments -- other than needing to get used to zero-g, any submarine crewperson would feel right at home in a space station.... >Bad luck for the Soviets, a double dose this time. Cosmos 1906, an imaging >satellite working for the new Soyuzkarta marketing organization, fails and >has to be blown up to prevent it making an uncontrolled reentry and possibly >falling into US hands. Or onto US heads :-) (or is that :-( ?) >"Noalias must go. This is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >non-negotiable." --DMR | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry Jordin Kare jtk@mordor.UUCP jtk@mordor.s1.gov ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 88 17:45:42 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (James W. Meritt) Subject: Re: Carr *STILL* does not understand refraction In article <4026@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (45263-SEVENER,T.J.) writes: >And there *is* an abrupt end to the atmosphere in the region >where the escape velocity approximates the velocity of the gas >molecules at the edge of the atmosphere. (future) shuttle pilots will be glad to hear this! Would you mind giving the altitude? Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Apr 88 01:14:25 PST From: BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa Subject: Re: Quote from Aviation Week Date: Sat, 2-APR-1988 01:17 PDT X-VMS-Mail-To: SPACE Phil Karn speaks of humanity "re-evolve"ing space flight capability thousands of years after a nuclear war. Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that humanity is living out its only chance to develop a space-faring civilization right now. The reason for this is that hydrothermal ore formation processes are inherently very slow and cannot be sped up without an economy of energy production far in excess of even the fringe ideas of Joseph Newman with his "energy machine" let alone the wildest claims of more mainstream fusion energy researchers. We are chewing up critical ores at a million times their formation rate and are not likely to find substitutes for all materials which sit at critical junctures of a space-faring civilization's technology. In short, if we, the baby-boomers blow it, we may doom terrestrial life to remain, forever, terrestrial. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Apr 1988 13:56-EST From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Libertarian space position Jim Bowery pointed out an issue that might cause a certain amount of confusion. When I post here I must where different hats on different occasions. If I post for NSS or Spacepac or Spacecause, I must represent the organization policy as well as I can. The same is true for Eugene Miya at Ames. If I post representing the Libertarian Party or their candidate, I must also represent their stand as fairly and as honestly as I can. My own personal opinion, not often expressed here, is that NASA should be chopped down to where things like Pathfinder are it's SOLE operation. I might also support some form of 'mail contract' for private launch systems if it was done more honestly and without the scandals of the 1920's. NACA did a fine job at what it was chartered to do: run a few research facilities whose raison d'etre was basic flight research for the infant aviation industry. I am personally in favor of a bunch of private Industrial Space Facilities and a External Tank Farm rather than a $30B federal money sink. The feds can lease the space they need to carry out a NACA-like role in space. Those of you who sometimes act in an official capacity will understand such dilemmas. As a board member of NSS, I have attempted and will continue to attempt to represent and carry out the policies of the society as fairly and accurately as I can. It would be my duty to resign if I felt I could not do so. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 88 15:54:03 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Iranians in Space (was: Forget the Saturn V) >From article <1127@its63b.ed.ac.uk>, by bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray): > In article <766@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu> mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: >>From article <1113@its63b.ed.ac.uk>, by bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray): >>> Note that Iran already has a space industry. >>Wot?? I think you mean INDIA - who have had 4 sats and a cosmonaut put up >>by the Soviets. The Shah's govt was planning a Zohreh domestic comsat before >>the revolution, but nothing ever came of it. The only thing Iran ever had >>was a few ground stations. > > No, I mean IRAN. > > The "Zohreh" domestic comsat project is still continuing > under the control of their SITAO (Satellite and > International Affairs Office). The satellites and ground > equipment are to be built in Iran. > > The Soviets took an Iranian airforce officer up on one of > their missions in the days before MIR, but this shouldn't > be surprising considering the number of other nationalities > of passengers carried by the soviets. > > A quick survey shows that they have flown cosmanauts from > Bulgaria, Cuba, East Germany, France, India, North Korea, > Poland, Romania, Syria and Vietnam, amongst others. > Bob. Dear Bob, I'd be really interested in any information you have on an Iranian or North Korean cosmonaut. I am only aware of: Czech (Remek, Soyuz 28/Salyut-6, 1978) Polish (Hermaszewski, Soyuz 30/Salyut-6, 1978) East German (Jahn, Soyuz 31/Salyut-6,1978) Bulgarian (Ivanov, Soyuz 33/Salyut-6, 1979) Hungarian (Farkas, Soyuz 36/Salyut-6, 1980) Vietnamese (Pham Tuan, Soyuz 37/Salyut-6, 1980) Cuban (Tamayo Mendez, Soyuz 38/Salyut-6, 1980) Mongolian (Gurragcha, Soyuz 39/Salyut-6, 1981) Romanian (Prunariu, Soyuz 40/Salyut-6, 1981) French (Chretien, Soyuz T-6/Salyut-7, 1982) Indian (Sharma, Soyuz T-11/Salyut-7, 1984) Syrian (Faris, Soyuz TM-3/Mir, 1987) with Bulgarian (TM-5), Afghan (TM-6) and French (TM-7?) currently in training and Austrian expected soon. I agree that the Iranians claim Zohreh still exists as a project, but my impression is that it's pretty much on paper at the moment. Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Apr 88 18:13:35 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Re: Libertarians love NASA? To: BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@NMFECC.ARPA Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa > I saw a message from Dale Amon asking us to lobby for full NASA funding. > Dale is quite vocal in proclaiming himself to be a libertarian. ... the > Libertarian Party ... recommended that NASA be abolished. Even the policy > statement of a Libertarian Party presidential candidate was clear in its > stance that NASA had held back U.S. progress in space for the last 20 years. Dale Amon does not speak for the Libertarian party. I have asked him more than once to change his stance or to stop calling himself a libertarian. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 29 Mar 88 10:21:24 GMT From: xanth!kent@mcnc.org (Kent Paul Dolan) Subject: Re: commercialism of the space program In article <8803281455.AA12832@NADC.ARPA> rachiele@NADC.ARPA (J. Rachiele) writes: > >There is one and only one motive of private industry, and that is to >MAKE A PROFIT! This is what, directly or indirectly, caused the space >shuttle disaster.[...] I feel much >more comfortable knowing that someones life on the line in a space >vehicle or in a space station in orbit, or in a manned colony on the moon, >is not depending on a high-level business exec looking at the bottom line >on a profit sheet! > Jim Rachiele Sorry Jim, my conscience won't let me let that one go by unchallenged. Elsewhere on the net today, I read a posting (of unknown accuracy) stating that for each marginal 1 human life saved, US nuclear reactor designers were spending $7,000,000,000! We have sat paralyzed in our space program since the Challenger tragedy, in response to a known failure mode which could be avoided by not launching in cold weather. What _unemotional_ reason was there not to continue the scheduled launches with that proviso while the ring seal was redesigned to allow cold weather launches? There _must_ be some limitation to what we spend to prevent the loss of the next human life in the space program, or we will never send a manned US space mission up again. In any large enough human enterprise, lives are lost to accidents. Actuaries can tell you almost to the cubic yard the ratio of lives lost to dam volume constructed, or of lives lost to caisson tunneling volume completed. As we gain experience, we will have the same figures for manned space work. If that $7,000,000,000 figure were correct (possible) and represented wages at $35,000 per year (unlikely, but for argument's sake) then it represents 200,000 person years of labor. That is too much! Thought of as money, no amount seems too high to spend to save a life. Thought of as expended meaning of other human lives, there must be a cut-off somewhere. Those same 200,000 person years could have been spent finding a cure for cancer, or building playgrounds for disadvantaged children, or researching the causes of and ways of preventing war; you get the idea. For everything, there is some balance that must be struck. The working lives of our population are a finite resource. The problem is one of "engineering management ethics", and probably the balance struck resulting in the loss of the Challenger was incorrect, but some decision must be made in every case. We simply cannot continue to have a space program involving risk to human life unless some person is charged with balancing cost against lost human lives, and the rest of us are willing to accept that such a decision must be made, and to live both with the decision, and with the inevitable resulting loss of lives. Those actuarial tables are real, and real people die raising dams and sinking tunnels, and it is as inevitable as anything statistical can be, and yet the engineering management decisions are made, and the dams are built, and the tunnels are dug, and the lives are lost and mourned by those who did everything reasonable to prevent their being lost. By the time we settle the Oort cloud, the loss of life will probably be enough to populate a middle sized European nation. Remember the loss of the Roanoke settlement, the loss of life at Plymouth? We will go because we must, we will die unwilling and struggling to the last to live, but we will go, or stop calling ourselves human. And someone will have to strike a balance at the bottom line that makes the going economically feasible, or we can't go on going. Kent, the man from xanth. Originator and "candidate" of the Birthright Party. "The Birthright of Humankind is the Stars!" Join us in talk.bizarre and help us plan the politics of a revitalized man into space program. If you care, then your input is needed. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 88 18:21:17 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: fuels other than hydrogen > ...i essentially divided the energies > of formation of various hydrocarbons by the weights of the reaction > products... I really wonder whether energy of formation is the right yardstick. Some of the rankings you come up with are very surprising, notably ethane better than methane -- as far as I know ethane has never even been thought about as a rocket fuel, while methane gets serious attention. My recollection (this is dim and may be incorrect) is that a useful approximate yardstick is percentage hydrogen by weight. Hydrogen, being very light and combining enthusiastically with a relatively small weight of oxygen, does most of the work; the carbon or whatever else is pretty much just along for the ride. I.e., hydrocarbons are a way of storing hydrogen without the hassles of liquid hydrogen. Methane wins over the more usual kerosene because it has nearly twice as much hydrogen, and ammonia is a serious contender for the same reason. (Methane and ammonia tend to be the fuels talked about for high-performance non-hydrogen non-kerosene chemical rocketry.) To add a practical note or two... Even if acetylene scores high on energy content, it is unusable because liquid acetylene is, I think, a dangerous explosive. Benzene likewise is out because it is extremely dangerous, both poisonous and carcinogenic. And yes, that startlingly low number for the density of liquid hydrogen is indeed correct. -- "Noalias must go. This is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology non-negotiable." --DMR | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 2 Apr 88 22:28:51 GMT From: agate!garnet!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: Re: Antimatter In article <1988Apr2.022820.15059@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo (Henry Spencer) writes: >Giggle. Snicker. Chortle. Guffaw. Roll about on the floor laughing at >the naivete of this silly comment. I refer you to the SCIENCE article I summarized in ARMS-D last year, about some researchers' alarm about where antimatter research is headed. It was not funny then. Give it another 20-40 years; I have faith in the ingenuity of American scientists. But not in their wisdom. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #188 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Apr 88 06:27:16 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA27456; Wed, 13 Apr 88 03:24:22 PDT id AA27456; Wed, 13 Apr 88 03:24:22 PDT Date: Wed, 13 Apr 88 03:24:22 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804131024.AA27456@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #189 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 189 Today's Topics: Jesse Jackson's space policy Re: Passenger Space Flights Computer/Robot Vision on the Shuttle Re: Units Re: Antimatter I-CON VII Ride report (was: Mars Declaration) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Apr 88 23:36:23 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!EWTILENI@princeton.edu (Eric Tilenius) Subject: Jesse Jackson's space policy The following is a DRAFT of Jesse Jackson's stands on space. The following is typed from a Draft released 2/29/88. For more information, contact: Jesse Jackson '88, 30 West Washington Street, Suite 300, Chicago, Illinois 60602 // 312-855-3773 DRAFT - EXPLORING SPACE TO BENEFIT ALL HUMANITY "For too long, our space program has been driven by military rivalries and corporate greed. The technology that can result from a space program oriented to public needs will be the economic backbone of our country and the world in the 21st century. It is time for new leadership, so that America's space program can go forward in partnership with all humanity." -- Jesse Jackson The development of high technology has given humanity the ability to send people into orbit around the Earth and to the Moon, and to send machines to the very ends of the solar system. Space exploration has produced an abundance of scientific knowledge about the Earth and about the other planets, increased our ability to do solar forecasting, made possible instantaneous worldwide communication, and created jobs by opening new markets and stimulating productivity. But space technology has its down side as well. Military space technology is spurring the arms race and increasing the risks of a nuclear war which would destroy humanity. The possession of this enormous capability carries with it the responsibility to ensure that technology is used wisely for the benefit of all people. The Reagan Administration has failed in that responsibility. It has seen the development of space weapons as a way to demonstrate superiority over the Soviet Union, and has misled the American people with its absurd claims that Strategic Defense Initiative, better known as Star Wars, can protect us all from the threat of nuclear war. At the same time, it has failed to give leadership in shaping a long-term vision of what good things our country, in cooperation with other nations, ought to be doing in space. To develop our space program to benefit all humanity, I propose to: * STOP THE MILITARIZATION OF SPACE A new direction in space policy requires abandonment both of the Star Wars program and of the development of anti-satellite weapons. Star Wars is a cruel hoax. It offers an impossible technological solution to a political problem. It will cost over a trillion dollars in the heavens. Space-based weapons will generate counter weapons which will generate counter-protective weapons which will generate first strike space plans. Our coffers will be robbed; our science distorted; and our insecurity increased. The Soviets have said that they are willing to curtail their own space weapons development. We ought to challenge them to keep their word by signing a mutual and verifiable agreement to keep space free of all weapons and nuclear war fighting systems. Satellites must play an important role in verifying this and all other arms control agreements. At the same time, we must be scrupulous in adhering to the most significant arms control treaty of recent decades, the 1972 ABM Treaty, which restricts the development of anti-ballistic missile systems such as Star Wars. We cannot make peace while undermining existing treaties. * SHARE SPACE TECHNOLOGY The United States must improve its efforts, through the United Nations and other international bodies, to see that technological developments in space truly do benefit all people everywhere. Space technology is not the province of just the U.S. and the Soviet Union. In 1967, an Outer Space Treaty was signed by over 100 nations, which says that space ought to be used for peaceful purposes that benefit all humanity. Today, many countries have active space programs. The Western European countries, Japan, China, and India have launched their own satellites. Many other countries use satellites for the environmental monitoring and communications to promote their own economic development. Satellites can observe the fragile environment of the Earth in a systematic and efficient fashion. Remote sensing of our planet is critical as we strive to protect and restore our ecology. Depending on its orbit, a single satellite can observe much or all of the surface of our planet. The valuable scientific information that results must be shared, along with the expertise to make use of it, for we have only one shared environment among all nations and peoples. * EXPLORE THE PLANETS Planetary exploration by robot spacecraft has produced a golden age of astronomy. The pace of that exploration, which teaches us much about the mysteries of our very origins, has slowed due to mismanagement and shortsightedness. We must turn to our planetary and space scientists for guidance as to the scientific priorities. It is important for us to learn more about the sun, the comets, the asteroids, Venus, Mars, Saturn and Jupiter. Whenever practical, these missions should be undertaken cooperatively with other nations. Scientific exploration is not cheap, but it is an investment in our future. * PARTICIPATE IN JOINT U.S.-SOVIET SPACE PROJECTS A joint U.S. - Soviet mission to Mars is an idea which has great potential to bring our peoples together in both practical and symbolic ways. Since Mars is the planet most like Earth, there is real scientific merit in learning more about it. Both countries are planning unmanned missions to Mars, and we ought to combine our efforts immediately. We also should begin discussions with the Soviets on the feasibility of sending a human crew to Mars in a joint U.S.-Soviet mission, with involvement by other nations as well. The U.S. is now planning a space station. We should direct the National Academy of Sciences to approach its Soviet counterpart which has had success with their Salyut and Mir stations, with the intention of jointly leading an international effort dedicated to studying the needs of a permanent presence of humans on an earth-orbiting space station. If such a presence is deemed to be of value, we should participate in the construction of such a space station. It should be charged with developing globally beneficial technology for communications, maritime and air traffic control, and astronomical, geological, and geophysical exploration. A space station can produce advances in scientific and commercial development, with strong leadership, capable management, and careful thought. A project this complex must not be done solely for reasons of prestige. When the space shuttle Challenger exploded in January of 1986, two women, a Black man, and an Asian-American man were among the seven who died. The Challenger disaster symbolizes both the crisis of the U.S. space program and its future strength. In order to revitalize the U.S. space program, it must truly be a program that all humanity can embrace. For too long, our space program has been driven by military rivalries and corporate greed. The technology that can result from a careful program of space exploration and development will be the economic backbone of our country and the world in the 21st century. Our children and grandchildren will benefit or suffer by the decisions we make now. It is time for new leadership, so that America's space program can go forward in partnership with all humanity. ------ END OF TEXT FROM JESSE JACKSON ------ ***** Position statements from the following candidates are on record. If you would like a copy of any, please send me EMAIL: Paul SIMON, Mike DUKAKIS, Al GORE, Jesse JACKSON In addition a letter from Congressman Bob Mrazek, the President's new National Space Policy, and the Mars Declaration are also available via EMAIL. If you wish to see copies of any of these, just drop me a note. - ERIC - *----------------------===> SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------* * ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU // ewtileni@pucc.BITNET * * rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni // princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni * * ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"* *--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------* ------------------------------ Date: 2 Apr 88 05:48:44 GMT From: imagine!pawl19.pawl.rpi.edu!jesup@itsgw.rpi.edu (Randell E. Jesup) Subject: Re: Passenger Space Flights In article <880401150545.00000AC8101@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: >Years ago, Society Expeditions advertised that they would launch people >into space for the sum of $52,000, starting 1992. At present they have >a vague design for a vehicle, nothing concrete. I do not know how many >people registered. Society Expeditions is a legit business that journeys >to exotic lands fot those with the bucks. I would bet serious money their >plans do not materialize this century. They started 6 months before the Challenger accident, I believe. After Challenger, they said that they still were planning on it, and that very few/no people had pulled out. The fee was 50,000 or so, and a reservation cost 5000 which goes into an escrow account (if they don't give you a ride, you get the money back.) The design shown on the news was SSTO, vertical takeoff/landing. Flight plan was 6-12 hours(?) in orbit, 20 passengers, pilot, co-pilot, stewardress/medical attendant, everyone has their own window for taking photographs. Last I heard (Challenger + 3-6 months) they were filled up for the first couple of years of flights, at 1 flight every week or 2 weeks. I think they were going to build 2 or 3 of the vehicles. It makes some sense that they might be able to do it, using fairly modern but not cutting edge technology. The payload requirements are very low compared to shuttle/boosters. 23 people @ 175lbs, about 4200 lbs, plus a few hours oxygen/etc. And I'm sure the orbit would be VERY low, which allows great pictures of the earth, and keeps fuel requirements for retro-burn to a minimum. The shuttle engines are very sophisticated so they can get maximum thrust out of the fuel, but getting that last 10% thrust probably cost them 50% of the cost of development/maintenance. Also, cheaper/simpler engines can be replaced more often, reducing the longevity requirements. I don't know if they planned to build their own engines, I suspect not. Does anyone have more details concerning the design, or their current status? // Randell Jesup Lunge Software Development // Dedicated Amiga Programmer 13 Frear Ave, Troy, NY 12180 \\// beowulf!lunge!jesup@steinmetz.UUCP (518) 272-2942 \/ (uunet!steinmetz!beowulf!lunge!jesup) BIX: rjesup (-: The Few, The Proud, The Architects of the RPM40 40MIPS CMOS Micro :-) ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 88 16:20:25 GMT From: wucs1!wucs2!wuccrc!dwex@uunet.uu.net (David Wexelblat) Subject: Computer/Robot Vision on the Shuttle While doing research for a Computer Vision seminar, I came accross a paper by T.E. Beeler on a robot vision system for sizing and cutting replacement tiles for the shuttle. This sparked my interest. Can people provide me with references to other papers on computer or robot vision systems used with the shuttle, either in manufacturing, or on missions. Please mail responses and I will summarize to the net. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- David Wexelblat Washington University in St. Louis (314) 889-4794 UUCP: dwex@wuccrc.UUCP or ..!{ihnp4,uunet}!wucs1!wuccrc!dwex ARPANET: wucs1!wuccrc!dwex@uunet.uu.net CSNET: wucs1!wuccrc!dwex%uunet.uu.net@csnet-relay or wucs1!wuccrc!dwex.uucp%bbncv.ARPA@csnet-relay ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 88 19:29:29 GMT From: meccts!viper!dave@UMN-CS.ARPA (David Messer) Subject: Re: Units In article <1806@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: >(b) 500N (xxx stone-furlongs/fortnight squared) > >(the conversion factor from Newtons to stone-furlong/fornight squared >escapes me at the moment :-) ). 500N = 5.726653e+11 stone-furlongs/fortnight squared Simple once you get used to the system... :-) -- If you can't convince | David Messer - (dave@Lynx.MN.Org) them, confuse them. | Lynx Data Systems -- Harry S. Truman | | amdahl --!bungia!viper!dave | hpda / Copyright 1988 David Messer -- All Rights Reserved This work may be freely copied. Any restrictions on redistribution of this work are prohibited. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Apr 88 02:28:20 GMT From: att-cb!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Antimatter > > 'The 'giggle factor' is over. Antimatter is real ... > > Of course the 'giggle factor' is over. There's absolutely nothing > funny about what DoD is going to actually use antimatter for. Giggle. Snicker. Chortle. Guffaw. Roll about on the floor laughing at the naivete of this silly comment. Do you have any idea how much antimatter is going to *cost*?!? Or how big and heavy the support equipment for safe antimatter storage on Earth's surface is going to be? For the foreseeable future, antimatter bombs will be bigger, heavier, and far less safe to handle than ordinary nuclear bombs (which are, for example, built to survive a high-speed aircraft crash without a major explosion -- with good reason, since aircraft do crash with bombs aboard). And not even the USAF could afford them. -- "Noalias must go. This is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology non-negotiable." --DMR | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 2 Apr 88 03:42:20 GMT From: ihnp4!twitch!hoqax!bicker@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (The Resource, Poet of Quality) Subject: I-CON VII I-CON VII New York's Largest Convention of Science Fiction, Science Fact, and Fantasy is coming to the State University of New York at Stony Brook April 15, 16, 17, 1988 Extensive Science and Technology Programming Track. Last year's talks included the history of the development of spacecraft, aerospace design, new directions in physics, future spaceflight, stargazing, genetic uplift, nuclear waste, and the Titanic. Lectures, Panel Discussions, An Art Show, Science Fiction and Fantasy Programming, Films, Videos, ... Admission for all three days is only $18 at the door. Single day rates: Fri - $8, Sat - $10, Sun - $10. Make checks payable to I-CON VII and send to PO Box 550, Stony Brook, NY 11790 Latest info is available through bicker@hoqam.UUCP (...ihnp4!hoqam!bicker) I-CON Programming Hours: Friday 6pm - 2am? Saturday 10am - 3am? Sunday 10am - 8pm? B. Kohn, I-CON VI Committee /kohn/brian.c AT&T Bell Laboratories Semantic Engineering Center The Resource, Poet of Quality ...ihnp4!hoqam!bicker (201) 949-5850 "It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." - Wm. Ralph Inge, D.D. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 88 17:36:29 GMT From: mtunx!lzaz!lznv!psc@rutgers.edu (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Subject: Ride report (was: Mars Declaration) In article <1988Mar25.175252.910@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > If you want more, you should read > the Ride Report, which said "Mars should not be our immediate goal" and > justified it at length. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry Sounds like a good idea to me. However, when our local chapter of the National Space Society sent GPO an order for a few copies, we were told it was back ordered, then told that it was out of print. Anyone know how to get hold of a copy these days? (The suggestion at the chapter meeting was to call our congressman, but he died on Friday, so *he's* no help!-) -Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet psc@lznv.att.com I'm not speaking for my employer, I'm just speaking my mind. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #189 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Apr 88 18:58:27 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00853; Thu, 14 Apr 88 03:21:45 PDT id AA00853; Thu, 14 Apr 88 03:21:45 PDT Date: Thu, 14 Apr 88 03:21:45 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804141021.AA00853@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #190 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 190 Today's Topics: Re: KAL 007 Re: KAL 007 Re: KAL 007 Re: Who's running for office Re: Ride report (was: Mars Declaration) Information wanted on "Space Camp" for Adults NASA Prediction Bulletins Space Digest V#, #180 Re: Passenger Space Flights Re: Mars Declaration Re: Mars Declaration MIR passover... Re: Who's running for office POSITION OF JUPITER ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 Mar 88 19:28:33 GMT From: warwick@locus.ucla.edu Subject: Re: KAL 007 In article <201300004@prism> peter@prism.TMC.COM writes: >KAL007 was not a spy plane, but a 747 'seen' from below and behind looks a lot >like the kind of plane that is used to fly electronic intelligence missions >from bases in the Aleutian(?sp) Islands. According to Seymore Hersch(?sp) in >his book _The Target Is Destroyed_, KAL 007 caught the Russians with their > ... [Deleted Stuff] ... >Headquarters. The Russian fighter pilots, due to the night time conditions, >never positively identified the 747 before shooting it down. It is believed >that the fighters did fire a warning salvo of machine gun fire, but the 747 > .... [More Stuff Deleted].... >---- >Peter J. Stucki -- peter@mirror.TMC.COM I have watched this conversation go back and forth for a while now, on the assumption that someone else would come forth with this bit of information. Since nobody has here it is: There was an American spy plane in the same area as KAL 007 at the time it was shot down. The spy plane was a 717, which I think is a modified version of a 707. Supposedly, the Russian pilots thought they were shooting at the 717, having never gotten close enough or at the right angle to identify the plane as a 747 (that distinctive bump is only distinctive when the plane is viewed from the side). This information was in an article burried in the middle of the New York Times AT LEAST six months after KAL 007 was shot down. In other words, our government sat on this information until it was no longer news. My Office mate has just told me that there is a very good article that appeared sometime within the last year or so in the Atlantic Monthly, which explains the chain of mistakes and errors that led to KAL 007 being shot down. E. Warwick Daw warwick@math.ucla.edu ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 88 19:37:05 GMT From: meccts!viper!dave@umn-cs.arpa (David Messer) Subject: Re: KAL 007 In article <880325154156.000004A6871@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@grouch.jpl.nasa.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: >Well, the fact that the Soviets knew what kind of plane they were shooting >down works both ways: I am sure that even an entire fleet of Aeroflot >passenger planes circling over D.C. would not be molested, although they >would be greeted by a fair number of fighters. Actually D.C. contains one of the only areas in the country where they WOULD be shot down. The White House and Capitol in particular are protected with anti-aircraft missles. -- If you can't convince | David Messer - (dave@Lynx.MN.Org) them, confuse them. | Lynx Data Systems -- Harry S. Truman | | amdahl --!bungia!viper!dave | hpda / Copyright 1988 David Messer -- All Rights Reserved This work may be freely copied. Any restrictions on redistribution of this work are prohibited. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 88 23:17:35 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: KAL 007 This subject has nothing to do with space. Please move it to rec.aviation or soc.politics.arms-d where it was raised and burned before. --eugene ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 88 05:31:02 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Who's running for office Some of you might be interested in John Palmer, Libertarian Party candidate for the US House of representatives in the 5th District in Alabama. He works with me on the Space Station program, and is for the development of space, although not by governments. Dani Eder/Boeing/Space Station Program/sscvax!eder ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 88 22:16:38 GMT From: josh@topaz.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: Re: Ride report (was: Mars Declaration) Sounds like a good idea to me. However, when our local chapter of the National Space Society sent GPO an order for [the Ride report], we were told it was back ordered, then told that it was out of print. Anyone know how to get hold of a copy these days? I believe it can be ordered through Aviation Week. There have been full page ads for it in recent issues. --JoSH ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 88 00:48:47 GMT From: erd@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ethan R. Dicks) Subject: Information wanted on "Space Camp" for Adults I just heard about an education experience for Adults, like "Space Camp" Can anyone furnish any details (location, cost, waiting time, qualifications)? Please reply via E-mail. Thanks, -ethan -- Ethan R. Dicks | ###### This signifies that the poster is a member in Specialized Software| ## good sitting of Inertia House: Bodies at rest. 2101 Iuka Ave. | ## Columbus OH 43201 | ###### "You get it, you're closer." ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 88 23:31:39 GMT From: ut-emx!tskelso@sally.utexas.edu (TS Kelso) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins For those of you who are interested in satellite tracking, the most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (512) 892-4180, and are updated several times weekly. As a service to the amateur satellite community, the most current of these elements are uploaded weekly to rec.ham-radio. The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. -- TS Kelso ARPA: tskelso@emx.cc.utexas.edu The Center for Space Research The University of Texas at Austin UUCP: {ihnp4,allegra}!ut-emx!tskelso ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 1988 From: DR9021@ucsfvm.ucsf.edu Date: Mon, 4 Apr 88 07:41:33 PDT From: Donna Reynolds (University of California, San Francisco) (415-476-4440) To: Subject: Space Digest V#, #180 Sorry to trouble you, but the above-referenced Space Digest arrived as garbage. Would you be so kind as to resend? Thank you for your assistance. -DR ------------------------------ Date: 2 Apr 88 23:00:54 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Passenger Space Flights > ... Society Expeditions is a legit business that journeys > to exotic lands fot those with the bucks. I would bet serious money their > plans do not materialize this century. A friend of mine speculates that Society Expeditions figures it will make a profit on publicity even if the hardware doesn't come through and they have to return all the deposits. Personally, I'm not prepared to bet *against* their plans working out some time soon, but I wouldn't be prepared to bet a lot in favor either. A high-risk venture. There is nothing in the laws of physics, or even in the limits of current technology, that makes it impossible, but there are a lot of obstacles to be overcome. -- "Noalias must go. This is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology non-negotiable." --DMR | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 2 Apr 88 23:12:59 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Mars Declaration > ... NOR WILL A MOON BASE. Neither is > "big" enough. We've been to orbit. We've been to the moon. Mars is > essential to creating the necessary romance. "But will you still love me after the romance is gone?" The only way to generate sustained public attention to the exploration of Mars would be to go in for it in a big way, essentially an attempt at permanent settlement right off the bat. The key is that serious *exploration*, not just science (a tricky distinction that I will expand on some other time), must continue. That means a major operation, permanent settlement, and taking of risks -- not just digging up rock samples from the 53rd location. I don't see it being funded at that level any time soon. > ... The problem with Apollo was that > when the public lost interest, all the technology created by the moon missions > was still in the hands of the government. This mistake must not be repeated. > The ideal Mars mission would be a government-owned interplanetary spacecraft > assembled at a privately-owned space station from parts lifted into orbit by > privately built launchers... I agree about the nature of the ideal Mars mission, but not about the underlying nature of the problem. Having the technology in private hands does no good if the government remains the only customer. I have news for you: private industry throws things out too, when they are taking up storage space and there is no prospect of making money off them any time soon. Unless you are suggesting that private Mars exploration would follow initial government ventures -- a proposition that is not obviously silly but not obviously practical either -- the ownership of the technology makes no real difference. It will still get lost if it's not used. -- "Noalias must go. This is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology non-negotiable." --DMR | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 2 Apr 88 23:24:06 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Mars Declaration > Just because something CAN be perverted into a one-shot deal does not > mean that it is either likely to be, or that it will be, especially if > we see that it remains part of a bigger picture of development. What we see is irrelevant; what the bean-counters see is what matters. And it's true that "can be a one-shot", "is likely to be a one-shot", and "will be a one-shot" are different statements; however, all three are true of the proposed Mars mission. > Mars is a long-term, many-year goal, and its international/political > aspects will help insure that we do not cut funding. To do so would be > to lose face in a way the U.S. is unlikely to do. HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! :-( :-( Please, child, go home and read about things like Spacelab and the International Solar Polar Mission. Or look at the wrangling over the "international" space station! The US can and does back out of major international space commitments. > Further, as someone else pointed out, a mission of this sort is likely > to put public support behind the space program... The same sort of public support that Apollo got? Again, I have news for you: the handwriting was on the wall for Apollo well before Apollo 11, and the public support didn't help one little bit. > As for the Ride Report, Sally Ride herself has signed to Mars Declaration. And if you read the Mars Declaration, you'll see why: all it says is "Mars is a nice idea". The Ride Report said that. It also said that certain other nice ideas should be pursued first. Those of us who are refusing to sign it are objecting not to the explicit wording, but to the obvious possibility that Chairman Carl will cite the results as backing for his Mars Right Now And The Future Be Damned campaign. -- "Noalias must go. This is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology non-negotiable." --DMR | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 88 14:35:48 GMT From: decvax!dartvax!eleazar!seldon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Joe Walker) Subject: MIR passover... I live in Hanover N.H. Where can I get information as to where and when a MIR passover might be. Am I too far north to see it? I have a friend that works late at the local observitory and we were both wondering about this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Walker | The dream is still alive!! U.S. Mail: |----------------------------------------- Dartmouth College | Space Camp -------------->Jun. 1983 H.B. 219, Hanover N.H. 03755 | Space Camp Lev 2 -------->Aug. 1984 E-Mail: | Space Academy ----------->Aug. 1985 BITNET: Seldon@D1.Dartmouth.EDU | Space Academy Lev 2 ----->Aug. 1987 UNIX:seldon@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU| *Let's hear from you campers out there!* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- !{harvard,linus,inhp4}!dartvax!eleazar!seldon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 88 14:02:43 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!garyt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Theis) Subject: Re: Who's running for office ATTENTION: A note to let all you Libertarian Party fans in the Chicago area know that Ron Paul, the official Presidential candidate of the LP, will be in town for two appearences. Friday, April 22, 11:30am City Club of Chicago $15.00/$17.00 --- Luncheon 312-565-6500 Saturday, April 23, 06:30pm Congress Hotel in Chicago $50.00 --- Dinner and cash bar I plan to attend and hope to see many other advocates of freedom there. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Apr 88 12:43 CDT From: Subject: POSITION OF JUPITER DOES ANYONE OF YOU ASTRONOMY PEOPLE OUT THERE HAVE A BASIC PROGRAM THAT CAN PREDICT THE POSITION OF THE PLANET JUPITER BY INPUTING THE DATE AND TIME ONE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE IT. PREFERRABLE IN BASIC WOULD BE NICE HOWEVER, ANY LANGUAGE WOULD BE APPRECIATED. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #190 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Apr 88 06:23:52 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02114; Fri, 15 Apr 88 03:21:37 PDT id AA02114; Fri, 15 Apr 88 03:21:37 PDT Date: Fri, 15 Apr 88 03:21:37 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804151021.AA02114@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #191 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 191 Today's Topics: Birthright Party Canonical Pledge List ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Apr 88 08:39:35 GMT From: xanth!kent@mcnc.org (Kent Paul Dolan) Subject: Birthright Party Canonical Pledge List Birthright Party regulars and waverers, A while back, I promised to answer this request from Cindy: Kent, Why don't you post the names of the 17 vote pledges? I know that I am lucky number 13, but who are your other supporters? Cindy and I got another similar request from Randy Martins. So here, finally, is the canonical pledge list, with comments, for my candidacy for Chief Somnambulist (a.k.a. president) of the United States of America, on the Birthright Party platform. As usual, followups directed back to talk.bizarre from this crossposted article. I am hard at work, and miles behind, on the draft party platform. (A lot of the pledge numbers changed; I had more than I counted before.) #1 From: Bruce Sutherland Tell you what, If you can mix supporting space exploration with impressing the need for caffeine, you've got my support. #2 From: Bob Deen @ NASA-JPL Image Processing Lab Hell, if that's your campaign platform, I'll vote for you! #3 From: seidel@oberon.uucp (Starman) Michael Seidel [Birthright Party Press Secretary Nominee] OK, you got number #3! I'd rather see money being spent on invading uninhabited (but soon to be inhabited) planets than on invading small Caribbean islands! #4 From: World Court Jester [National Science Foundation Chairman Nominee] Hey. I'll vote for you if you'll agree to put a little money away for Neuromancer-type AI research. Get the 'face vote and they'll make sure you win the election :-). #5 From: Greg Nowak BTW, you got my vote, too. Sock it to `em. #6 From: "The Pentagonal Potentate 2-6177" Rob Clark rutgers!psuvax1!psuvma.BITNET!cok <- this one works [kpd] Might as well speed this election thing up a bit. Ahem. I, The Pentagonal Potentate, hereby commit the Syd Barrett Cabal of the Pan-Pontification Committee for the Paratheo-Anametamystikhood of Eris Esoteric to the election of one Kent Paul Dolan to the office of President of the United States. Can't possibly be worse than the bozo who's there now. #7 From: "The Kzinti Ambassador, M.P." [Secretary of Peace and Emigration Nominee] rutgers!psuvax1!psuvma.BITNET!khd <- this one works [kpd] Subject: Vote for the Prexy. "I, the Kzinti Ambassador, hereby pledge my vote for President of the United States to you, Kent Paul Dolan." Only one qualifier. Set up some kind of rider on a bill you pass giving the net permanent anarchy. Then force it through Congress. #8 From: richard welty [Outer Planets Latex Novelty Expediter-in-Chief Nominee] ... oh, all right ... I'll vote for you (in return for a suitable bribe, of course -- what are you offering?) #9 From: headroom@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (The only computer-generated user at UWM) uwvax!uwmcsd4!headroom <- that one works [kpd] Mark "Giving the Apathy Vote" Lippert net.average.joe Hey, put me down for the big #8! I could use a big #8! Then maybe my thungh will get thawed out.... [SLOW NEWS FEED - hope #9 is OK, Mark. kpd] #10 From: ZEUS ...!unmvax!ariel!ma3751bg We are paraniod about being confused with Mexico, so please spell it [Albuquerque] right.. P.S. You got my vote, keep up the good work. #11 From: sflaher@polyslo.uucp (Steve Flaherty) Subject: Another vote After watching the machinations of the louts currently running on the big dollar tickets, your campaign has become more and more appealing. I hereby pledge the vote of one lurker. Far more vaulable than a vote from a posting bizarrite, due to the extreme measures required to get a lurker to actually create something on a keyboard. #12 From: gypsy@c3pe.UUCP saint gypsy, live from the gypsy roach motel BTW, my name is Meredith Tanner. okay? and i'll vote for you, too! i forget what you were running for... president or something? #13 >From: kyl@homxb.UUCP (Cindy) Subject: Re: talk.politics.bizarre (was Re: My thungh) OK, Kent, I am 10. Cindy [SLOW NEWS FEED strikes again! kpd] #14 >From: ccs026@deneb.ucdavis.edu (-=paul=-) (yo kent! didja get my vote? lots of messages have been going kabounce from here lately) -=paul=- #15 >From: silverio@jiff.berkeley.edu (christine silverio) The advertising firm of Silverio, Silverio, and Silverio (greg) wishes to announce its whole-hearted support of Kent, the Man from Xanth, as the Bizarre Party candidate in the 1988 presidential elections. Anything we can do, Kent, just let us know. The preceding announcement paid for by the Xanth Man for President Committee. | C J Silverio | KENT FOR PRESIDENT | ucbvax!brahms!silverio | Who cares why? | official brahms gangster | Just vote. #16 >From: ram@elmgate.UUCP (Randy Martens) [NASA Director Nominee] Well, it's time to consider the major Presidential candidates : [...] Kent, the man from Xanth : Promises to spend money on useful things like deep space exploration instead of nuclear weapons and contras. Promises to sleep alot, and therefore not cause trouble. hmmm..... and the winner is ..... [ ] KENT THE MAN FROM XANTH, FOR PRESIDENT !! SUPPORT THE BIRTHRIGHT PARTY !!! VOTE KENT !!!! (yes Kent, you can count me in. *sigh*) #17 From: thomson@cs.utah.edu (Richard A Thomson) Subject: Vote Pledge Count me in! I liked your first posting in sci.space a while back about being a potential space candidate. Since then I moved from Delaware to Utah, where I don't have access to talk.bizarre yet :-(. Ergo me missing your campaign efforts there. I would whole-heartedly support your election this term. I will see what I can do to about writing letters to local papers, etc. I will also attempt to upload your message to local BBS's. Do you have a more elaborate description of your policies that I could use. The one you posted to sci.space could be a little too bizarre :-) for some people to stomach. Perhaps something a little less sarcastic with focus on the main issue-- space exploration and EXPLOITATION instead of useless war-mongering. The line about Malthus was great; keep up the good postings and don't give up. #18 From: S. Elizabeth Van Wyk ...uwvax!uwmcsd4!sally <- this one works [kpd] Greetings!! Is your mailer still done, or after my *attempt* at a flame are you never writing to me again? I guess it's time to get to the heart of my letter. Can I be of any assistance in the campaign? The more I read, the more I'm convinced you're the only candidate worth voting for. Hey, no hard feelings. I don't know what got into me. The Muffin Queen 18.5# >From: svpillay@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kanthan Pillay) [I don't know about this one - I got back about 400 lines of passionate pro space posting, ending with the only words from the mailer:] Do I really need a signature? [Could be a pledge, more likely to be a slam about abusing net bandwidth. We won't count it.] #19 >From: CLT@PSUVMA.BITNET (Merlin of Chaos) ...!rutgers!psuvax1!psuvma.BITNET!clt I've been watching Pat Robertson do much better than he has any right to, so I've come to the big decision. Go for it, Kent. You have my vote. (That's one more pledge, folks! Keep 'em coming!) #20 From: logico!slovax!steve kpd> I am looking for a Vice Presidential candidate. She should be kpd> a minority person, to lend credence to this being a movement kpd> for the good of the whole nation. Any takers? How about any of the many net.goddesses??? Sure, buy my vote, I can be had. If all else fails : Susan St. James. #21 >From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) [A vastly stirring defense of the future of humanity] That was beautiful, Kent, just beautiful. I'll do it, I really will. You wouldn't have spent all the time necessary to write that if you didn't mean it. Vote the Birthright Party: Put a *Real* Corpse in Office in 1988. [Hmmm. Oh, well, a pledge is a pledge. kpd] #21.5 From: lauren@cbmvax.uucp (Lauren Brown CATS) Thanks for the kind words. You might almost have me promoting the Birthright Party ! :-) [Won't count this one either, but... kpd] #22 From: f12018ak@deimos.unm.edu.unm.edu (Yngvi Diamondeye Hammerfoot) |and may the Dwarves|<<<<<>| %Gregory J. LeVee |>>>>>| |f12018ak@deimos.UNM.EDU|><|Vote: Kent & the Birthright Party| [Never got a formal pledge letter, but that .siggie will do. kpd] #23 From: bu-it.BU.EDU!bucsb!boreas%bu-cs.bu.edu@uunet.UUCP (The Cute Cuddle Creature) -- Michael. P.S. -- What the heck. Here's another vote for you. --M. #24 >From: justin@inmet.UUCP -- Justin du Coeur II Let's trade. I'll become voter #14 if you'll drop one *teeny* tac-nuke on this Bradley place. [talk about SLOW NEWS FEED - at least we eliminated the "what do YOU call a soda" thread. kpd] #25 >From: lae@pedsga.UUCP Hello, my name is Leslie Ann Ellis. I am a systems engineer with Concurrent Computer Corp. in Tinton Falls, N. J. Kent's empassioned bid for the presidency did not fall on deaf ears (eyes?); I, too, believe that mankind's future lies in the colonization of space. Questions of a "standing room only" future aside, there is only a limited mass of the raw materials of life on our tiny planet. [...] I would like at this time to announce that I am available to aid Kent in his noble cause. #26 >From: hooker@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Bosk of Port Kar) -Devin [Technical Consultant on Aerospace Nominee] Subject: Another closet supporter surfaces Kent, You've got another vote here. Let's get the fuck off Earth - it can't support us any more. I'm an aerospace engineer - if you need technical support look to me. #27 >From: cs1552cy@hydra.unm.edu.unm.edu (Cipher) [Vatican Ambassador Nominee] All RIGHT already! Here's my vote! Take it! Please! ___ |X| Kent for Pres --- -Chap. Oksimoron the Portable, KSC, GM, Ev., Esq., Etc. -Josh Bell -Robert Vilheim #28 >From: cs2551aq@charon.unm.edu (Capt. Gym Quirk) Taki Kogoma Now that's over, let me add my endorsement (and that of the Imperial Secret Service) to Kent's candidacy. BTW, anyone ever have one of those decades? #29 From: [FCC Administrator Nominee] If I pledge the Birthright Party, can I be appointed head of the FCC? ...Jay Jay Maynard {ihnp4,bellcore,killer}!tness1!splut!jay Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. #30 From: jkrueger@dgis.ARPA (Jonathan Krueger) Your arguments are coherent and convincing. #31 From: bradley!bucc2!random (Brett Neumeier) Hereby do I pledge one (1) vote to the Birthright Party. I want to see if there really *are* any small furry creatures on Alpha Centauri, and getting off the planet so as to make future survival more likely seems like a good first step. #32 From: dieter@titan.uucp I hate to say it, but you do sound more realistic than any other candidate I've heard of yet. [...] I am quite willing to vote for you. Dieter (what this country needs is a good out-of-work actor who STAYS that way) Muller #33 From: Tracey A. Baker I know you're past #18 by now, but count me as whatever number is next (my favorites are 27, 33 and 37, so if you could arrange one of those, it'd be nice). [Took a bit of shuffling. kpd] #34 >From: ewilliam@garfield.UUCP (Edward Williams) I'd also like to add my vote for Ken[t] for pres. #34.5 From: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) YOU were surprised at the richard.sexton.fan.club ? Imangine How surprised I was. So Kent, what are these votes worth to you ? [That needs a bit of work to turn into a pledge, I think.] #35 From: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) [Official Aquaculturalist and Keeper of the Fonts Nominee] kpd-> Well, I've handed out the chairmanship of the FCC, the bar kpd-> position on Ganymede (or was it Ceres?), the press secretary kpd-> job, and several other plums of about equal value. I'm still kpd-> hoping presidential science advisor will get a pledge from kpd-> Herbert Spencer. Do you have an interesting talent you would kpd-> like to apply to the cause, and a job in mind where it might kpd-> fit? Sure. I'd like to be the official aquaculturalist and keeper of the fonts. [OK, _now_ that's a pledge.] kpd-> OK, we'll make you curator of the National Aquarium (Commerce kpd-> Building, basement floor); I'll have to look some to find out kpd-> who keeps the fonts; perhaps the GPO? #35.5 From: Subject: The Presidency Hey, I thought you were going to save the world from itself by running for president. What happened? Leslie [Was that meant to be a pledge, Leslie? kpd] #36 From: paradis@encore.uucp (Jim Paradis) Second, I'd like to say that I'm in full support of the space-industrialization provisions of the Birthright Party platform. Is that the only issue for the BP, or are there others? If it weren't for your position on drug testing, I'd endorse your candidacy 100% in a minute! Seriously. If that's a personal preference and not a Party position, you've got my vote! [Answer on this one in B. P. platform due out soon. Pledge accepted but subject to review. kpd] #37 >From: kettyle@homxc.UUCP (Starsha) Cheer up, I think you are a very nice person, and should be President. So, I am going to announce my support for your candidacy. Vote For Kent! Kent For President! Support the Birthright Party! That's all the pledges I have right now; anyone I missed, forgot to bribe, or otherwise maligned? These last two are just for fun, because I'm proud of them; they do not constitute pledges. Guess I'd better not quote without asking; pledges got fair warning. These two folks sent letters of appreciation for my Subject: Re: commercialism of the space program posting, which you might have read. From: Cathy Hooper From: Eugene N. Miya So, we are up to 37 confirmed pledges and a few maybes. I know there are supposed to be 11,000 readers out there. Let's have a little more participation, while I go back to work on my draft Birthright Party platform. Folks already on the list, if you have any last minute first draft pro-space exploration items for the BP platform, wing them my way! Kent, the (Birthright Party's Choice for Chief Somnambulist) man from xanth. "The Birthright of Humankind is the Stars!" +-------------------------------------------------------+ |\~ | | |~ . o o . :;: () -O- 0 . O | | |~ ^ | |/~ | | | You are Here | | | |Wouldn't you rather be out there --> | | | |Support the Birthright Party Today! | | | |(Note: Above diagram NOT to scale.) | +-------------------------------------------------------+ [This lovely banner, available at a terminal near you, brought to you through the keyboard talents of Michael P. Seidel, Press Secretary Nominee to the Administration of the Chief Somnambulist Candidate.] Join the KENT FOR PRESIDENT movement in talk.bizarre! ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #191 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Apr 88 06:22:34 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03601; Sat, 16 Apr 88 03:20:14 PDT id AA03601; Sat, 16 Apr 88 03:20:14 PDT Date: Sat, 16 Apr 88 03:20:14 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804161020.AA03601@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #192 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 192 Today's Topics: Re: Ride report (was: Mars Declaration) Re: The future of network special interest groups Re: Ride report (was: Mars Declaration) Space Settlement Act of 1988 Mir predictions It was nice knowing you, really. . . comments: (giberish) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Apr 88 17:07:22 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Ride report (was: Mars Declaration) In article <1351@lznv.ATT.COM> psc@lznv.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes: like a good idea to me. However, when our local chapter of the >Anyone know >how to get hold of a copy these days? (The suggestion at the chapter >meeting was to call our congressman, but he died on Friday, so *he's* >no help!-) > Try Aviation Week*, that's where I got my copy. --- --- --- --- --- -- *** mike (Cyberpunk in training) smithwick *** "After all, isn't our only real purpose in life merely to make the person next to us slightly more insane than we are?" - Me [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 88 17:14:10 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: The future of network special interest groups In article <8804011046.AA08636@angband.s1.gov> KCB9792@TAMSIGMA.BITNET (Kevin 'Charlie' Brown) writes: > >>Date: Fri, 1 Apr 88 08:59:51 EST >>From: sfl@elbereth.rutgers.edu (SF-LOVERS) >>Subject: LAST ISSUE >> [deleted stuff about proxmire,et al] >>In short, this will be the *LAST* issue of SF-LOVERS. After this issue I >>am, under orders from the U.S. District Court in New York, folding the >>digest and deleting all archives and files pertaining to the digest in my >>possession. Enjoy this last issue and remember fondly the days of >>SF-LOVERS. Some day, we may return. Until then, save your back issues and >>relish them, they may be worth something someday. >> >>Ex-Moderator SF-LOVERS Digest >>sf-lovers-request@rutgers.edu (address goes away April 1, 1988) > >That William Proxmire is in on this does not surprise me. > >The fact that this happened deeply concerns me. [deleted more stuff lamenting the passing of SF-LOVERS] I we don't get the rec.* groups, as the chief netster deemed them inappropriate, so I can't check for SF-LOVERS directly. But, one look at the date, April 1, tells me that this message is greatly suspect. [filler] [filler] [filler] [filler] [filler] [filler] [filler] [filler] [filler] *** mike *** -- *** mike (Cyberpunk in training) smithwick *** "After all, isn't our only real purpose in life merely to make the person next to us slightly more insane than we are?" - Me [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 88 17:48:52 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Ride report (was: Mars Declaration) Well, I have a typed up copy (of about 40 odd pages) from NASA HQ, but I can't stand over the copier (actually, I am, for the ridiculous number of copies for a conference paper, but that's a different problem). I offer to give ONE copy locally (Silicon Valley) for that person to redistribute. Technically, I can send out copies of this in Government envelopes, but I can't let that person take said postage out. Same goes for copying costs. So said person should request Self Addressed Stamped envelopes and you guys have to organize copy costs. Local volunteers? No going over to Stanford to ask Sally. Frankly, I'm not really impressed, it's just another bureaucratic document (wish list) which "B Ark" managers distance themselves from. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 88 19:42:05 GMT From: agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!web@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Space Settlement Act of 1988 What follows is a not quite verbatim rendering of Rep. Brown's bill, HR 4218, taken from the copy his office sent to me. This bill is scheduled to go before the full house on April 12, so if you have any opinion about it, write your representative today. Representative Brown's bill consists of the following amendments to the NASA charter, the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958: 1. Adding the paragraph: + The Congress declares that the extension of human life + beyond Earth's atsmosphere for the purposes of advancing + science, exploration, and development will enhance the + general welfare on Earth and that such an extension will + eventually lead to the establishment of space settlements + for the greater fulfillment of those purposes. 2. Providing the definition: + The term `space settlement' means any community of humans + living beyond Earth's atmosphere which exists with a + substantial degree of independence of resupply from Earth. 3. Requiring: + (a) Consistent with the national security interests of the + United States, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration + shall, in close cooperation with other appropriate agencies, + the private sector, academia, and the international community, + obtain, produce, and provide information relating to all issues + important for the development and establishment of space + settlements, including essential technologies. + + (b)Once every 2 years after the date of the enactment of this + Act, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall + submit a report to the President and to the Congress which-- + + (1) analyzes ways in which current science and + technology can be applied in the establishment + of space settlements; + + (2) identifies scientific and technological capacity + for establishing space settlements, including a + description of what steps must be taken to develop + such capacity; + + (3) examines alternative space settlement locations + and architectures; + + (4) examines the status of technologies necessary for + extraterrestrial resource development and use and + energy production; + + (5) reviews the ways in which the existence of space + settlements would enhance science, exploration, and + development; + + (6) reviews mechanisms and institutional options + which could foster a broad-based plan for international + cooperation in establishing space settlements; + + (7) analyzes the economics of financing space settlements, + especially with respect to private sector and international + participation; + + (8) discusses sociological factors involved in space + settlement such as psychology, political science, and + legal issues; and + + (9) addresses such other topics as the National Aeronautics + and Space Administration considers appropriate. 4. Requesting Funding: + There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics + and Space Administration for the purposes of this Act for each + of the fiscal years ending September 30, 1989, September 30, + 1990, and September 30, 1991, not to exceed $3,000,000. William Baxter ARPA: web@bosco.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {cbosgd,sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,ihnp4,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!bosco!web ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 88 06:18:59 GMT From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard Brezina) Subject: Mir predictions Hi folks; As of today, the entire satellite prediction system here is completely automated. This means that it can knock off and mail predictions to hundreds of subscribers with absolutely minimal effort on my part (of course I have been working on it rather intensively up till now). What this means is that I can put even more people on the distribution list. Right now there are 80 - the deluge of requests after I posted my first article came to me as an absolute surprise. For those of you already on the distribution list, there are additional features available. Namely, you can now receive predictions for satellites other than Mir - other interesting objects might be the other Soviet station Salyut 7, the detached but still active KVANT module, or some of the US objects, like the LDEF for those of you living south of latitude 35N. There will probably be other objects that you might have a special interest in. Let me know if interested. Also, parameters like the location of your station, the cutoff (minimum) elevation, or the Daylight Savings Time (has the computer confused you about it yet?) are freely adjustable on request. For now, I decided I will mail predictions weekly each Thursday afternoon, even when there are no Mir passes (because there will likely be passes of other satellites selected by other observers). If you are subscribed to Mir only, you'll just get a "No passes during this interval" message. For this week only, a prediction will also be mailed this Monday or Tuesday afternoon, depending on how many reports of Mir sigtings I receive today. I was unable to see Mir myself this weekend, mostly due to weather factors, and so was unable to determine a time correction. However, I have a single report from Al Holecek of Abilene TX who says Mir is 1-3 minutes late with respect to the predictions I already mailed to you. I've spent only about 10% of the total development time debugging the software, and so I will rely mostly on you to report bugs. Please bear with me through this initial stage. I estimate that bugs should be few and far between, but I could be wrong. (Note: The fact that you do not receive predictions at all could also be a bug, so please if you have written to me and are not receiving predictions, drop off a message!) The software involved was partly developed by myself and partly by Ted Molczan, another member of our Toronto satellite tracking group. It uses the NORAD SGP4 orbital model for predictions. So far, none of the software has been either tested or documented throroughly enough for distribution, but sooner or later I will make the better parts of it available. Good luck to all of you, and I hope to hear from you any criticisms or suggestions you might have about this service. I think it's great fun! -Rich Snowdog@Athena.MIT.EDU "Better the pride that resides In the Citizen of the World Than the pride that divides When a colourful rag is unfurled!" -Neil Peart, "Territories" ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 88 15:24:00 PST From: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" Subject: It was nice knowing you, really. . . To: "space" Reply-To: "KEVIN W. BOLD 0-1" I regret to inform you that I can no longer accept postings from you which do not have any explicit bearing on my duties at LAAFB. Please do not send me any more of such postings, as you may be liable to criminal proceedings if you do. /s/ Kevin Bold From: GSS2::BOLD 4-APR-1988 15:25 To: _MAILER! Subj: It was nice knowing you, really. . . I regret to inform you that I can no longer accept postings from you which do not have any explicit bearing on my duties at LAAFB. Please do not send me any more of such postings, as you may be liable to criminal proceedings if you do. /s/ Kevin Bold ------ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Apr 88 14:50 AST From: Subject: comments: (giberish) I recently received this message. Unless it is an delibert April fools message I received one day late please resend. Thanks. I always loose the whole message not receive giberish. Well it was april 1st yesterday. Robert J. Hale III #24 SMTP@INTERBIT Sat 02 Apr 1988 03:40 ( 411) U T Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #180 Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Received: From UWAVM(MAILER) by ALASKA with Jnet id 7460 for FNRJH@ALASKA; Sat, 2 Apr 88 03:40 AST Received: by UWAVM (Mailer X1.25) id 4378; Sat, 02 Apr 88 04:40:03 PST Date: Sat, 2 Apr 88 03:29:18 PST Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #180 Comments: To: Space@angband.s1.gov To: ROBERT HALE SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 180 Today's Topics: Re: very small launch vehoples KAL 007 Pallnets aligned in May? The moon as a researaunba r 00NASA Predictions Amhenia fuels 00 X-15 engine Mary'Decallradicon Welcome Back Support Space Settlement! opl KAL7 ic Re:vermall allunaunch vehes 00ortce DiE D submissctn. 00Libertariany'love ba SA? rad Harriman ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2-1c 88 05:24:16 GMT From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F C H) Subject: KAL7er Ry s mallahnce vcles In ardice <10081@steinmetz.stesteace metge.com> oelnnor%sungod@81.stinm.UUCP writes: : Slcthing Ryike Sly'already exists, although I'm not : sureom>f c@15xact payanyad ecaing. Itday Ryl lched : from aJo X5, I bgW1@sve, with f F aJ at may emum : ts,itude nedhena ll-Supwer climb. : e 8. Iy'called f 00NT : itIthensatets te killer. UnfppunatgWy Unr f space program, itwean't carry henactpayignnto orbit (altt oureontoit, yes...). ugom>f vnk m,hoorryayhenasuon afew tensayhSupunds, ts fted to LEOnetdictuituat nres zero veanycity. (hnn Frr May"Noom>neUUanallntedma Ryion aterriblewehoope om:jfat naenait.mu On f prwehayhbelctfree" May-- N1@sl Prest ------------------------------ Fri, D GMm: RON PICARDdiceON PID%gmillelm@reallcipi.Pa> C ered: t!007 >ioT veraidudt woomo spylct susmis.)Our RO a ident .coandom>.)Onewy'did 'msp a ent evidelaikk mt m,udty'wor fmo ng ylmis .co(er s ghalln-Sre.coa a etcs..fro d .cok mtm,hoomspePe rom:jSupwthan itIpworgmo nislct on. 5,rememberas eadir fmom:jSikkidu.cokpass5 Supwplandeltuit m u rd gWy a y'w spygmmis ylmcelrdlcttedf U.Sf URs...)5,neRe: ard any altt. ue ent RO 00oyaltmo nsp sus >iismo nay not, Ianyr fmon f Pa but, in RO it. eve henrun downayhit? AnveraltseesUUaltldnetso, I adSreveappud. Ron Pop eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee General Motory'Re raraunLabs Pr- 2222222222222222222222222222222 2- 88 198 068 00:16T 4 : bradley!bu y2!xaltt.alts@a.cs.ui!benai .PSub ROoomsallnal aled nedc n ----------------------------------- | much more of the same gibberish | ----------------------------------- ayhb>LioureoTo: ortcest V8 #180 ******************* ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #192 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Apr 88 06:24:26 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04772; Sun, 17 Apr 88 03:21:17 PDT id AA04772; Sun, 17 Apr 88 03:21:17 PDT Date: Sun, 17 Apr 88 03:21:17 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804171021.AA04772@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #193 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 193 Today's Topics: Re: The future of network special interest groups Re: KAL 007 Radiation Hardening Chips Re: Libertarians Love NASA Where is Apollo 13 LEM? Re: Mir elements, epoch 28 March Re: The future of network special interest groups Re: Jesse Jackson's space policy KAL (wasRe: space news from Feb 15 AW&ST) Re: Antimatter Re: KAL 007 mars Re: Support Space Settlement! Re: Mars Declaration ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Apr 88 23:07:10 GMT From: mtunx!mtune!mtgzz!mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.edu (Evelyn C. Leeper) Subject: Re: The future of network special interest groups In article <8804011046.AA08636@angband.s1.gov> KCB9792@TAMSIGMA.BITNET (Kevin 'Charlie' Brown) writes: > ... "sf-lovers" newsgroup ... their latest digest: > > >Date: Fri, 1 Apr 88 08:59:51 EST > >From: sfl@elbereth.rutgers.edu (SF-LOVERS) > >Subject: LAST ISSUE > > [stuff about how Proxmire is shutting down sf-lovers as a waste of money] > > The fact that this happened deeply concerns me. ... > I can easily imagine this action extending to other newsgroups as well. I > hope, for all of us, that it will not. Like it says in the summary, *read the date*! Ha, ha, chalk up another "Gotcha!" for Saul. SF-Lovers must be a great place to do this stuff; the Tiptree April Fool's posting there has also convinced a lot of people. Evelyn C. Leeper 201-957-2070 UUCP: mtune!mtgzy!ecl or ecl@mtgzy.att.com ARPA: ecl%mtgzy@att.arpa ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 88 19:02:55 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: KAL 007 In article <10811@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, warwick@MATH.UCLA.EDU writes: > In article <201300004@prism> peter@prism.TMC.COM writes: > >KAL007 was not a spy plane, but a 747 'seen' from below and behind looks a lot > >like the kind of plane that is used to fly electronic intelligence missions > >from bases in the Aleutian(?sp) Islands. According to Seymore Hersch(?sp) in > > There was an American spy plane in the same area as KAL 007 at the > time it was shot down. The spy plane was a 717, which I think is a > modified version of a 707. Supposedly, the Russian pilots thought they > were shooting at the 717, having never gotten close enough or at the > right angle to identify the plane as a 747 (that distinctive bump > is only distinctive when the plane is viewed from the side). 717 should be replaced by RC-135. The B-707 was modified to become the C-135 (first U.S. military jet transport) which became (with appropriate modifications) the KC-135 aerial tanker, and RC-135 recon aircraft. The RC-135 typically is operated as an ELINT collector, rather than a camera platform as for other "R" designation aircraft, like RF-4E or SR-71 types. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 88 00:00:01 GMT From: munnari!vuwcomp!dsiramd!pnamd!cstowe!wdr@uunet.uu.net (Bill & Greg) Subject: Radiation Hardening Chips HI there Y'all out in Netland, We (Commercial Software Ltd) are looking for information on radiation hardening chips. This is because we are involved in the SCONZ project (Space COmmunications New Zealand) and have been asked by SCONZQUANGO to obtain information on hardening chips for space radiation exposure. We have the technology to make the chips (using REALM (Rather Exotic Advanced Lead Molding technology)) but are unsure of what we should alloy the lead with to make it more resistent to radiation. We have read about the techniques for Silicon Hardnening, but they don't really apply in this case. We would appreciate any information on current research into lead hardening for radioactive environments. It would also be interesting to get any information on protection against EMP as we would like the satellite to function after any Nuclear War (as we would survive as no one could hit such a little place, Ahh - you say - what about the Nuclear Winter -- well, we have a big thermal blanket and sunlamp). What has this to do with a software company? Well, we have been asked to set up SPUSENET (SPace transmitted USENET) to reduce the costs of importing news from the US and AUS and we have access to the net whilst no one else in the group has. Thanx in Advance, |\ /| |//\\| / \ / \ / \ / \ / == == \ / <> <> \ ( || ) ( _||_ ) ( |____| ) \ / \" \____/ "/ \""\__/""/ \""""""/ \""""/ \""/ \/ Tonguesa Love from Greg and Bill and Zippy (or Bill and Greg and Zippy) ------------------------------ Date: Tue 5 Apr 88 01:34:00-PDT From: ~ Victor Von Doom ~ Subject: Re: Libertarians Love NASA Maybe I should let Dale Amon deal with this, but what the hell: > From: BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa > > Of course you could TRY to explain to us all how "full funding for NASA" > is consitent with official Libertarian Party statements like "abolish > NASA" and "NASA has held back progress in space for the last 20 years." One of the more obvious explanations: There's a difference between being a libertarian and being a Libertarian (i.e. a member of the Libertarian party), just as there's a difference between believing in democracy and being a Democrat. Alternately, one may be a member of the Libertarian party and not entirely agree with the party platform or candidate (A better question might be: Why is Ron Paul, an anti-abortion Republican reject, running as a Libertarian?) Specifically, on this issue, it's a serious problem for people like me who are more or less libertarians to decide whether to support government spending in areas we consider important, or to work on reducing spending overall. The theory is that if there was a serious cut in spending, the boost to the economy would make funding something like NASA unnecessary. Just to make this absolutely, clear: as taxation has increased, private spending on R&D has dwindled. It seems likely that there's a rough cause and effect relationship here. The fear is that if we abandon NASA, and if the cut in government spending does not occur, then we get the worst of both worlds. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, for example, to support full funding of NASA while demanding proportionate cuts in all government spending. (Sorry if the above isn't "good for a few yucks", but what do you expect from people like me who are "incapable of rational thought"? ) --- Joe Brenner ------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Apr 88 10:38:03 EDT From: Kenneth Ng Subject: Where is Apollo 13 LEM? My apologies for sending this to the list, I forgot the originator who made the query. I think I remember the Apollo 13 LEM landing in the Indian Ocean. There was a SNAP (System for Nuclear Auxilliary Power) generator on board that probably survived re-entry. Now I'll step aside and let the real net experts take over. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 88 18:20:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Mir elements, epoch 28 March Once again, the Soviets have reboosted Mir just before a cluster of overflights over the US. These data are from after the successful rendezvous and docking with Progress 35 on 26 March. For those that follow prediction bulletins from other sources, here are the vital statistics for Progress 35: Progress 35 1 18992U 88 89.83842298 0.00065358 35574-3 0 114 2 18992 51.6306 116.3176 0009365 283.7566 76.1288 15.79272163 956 ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 04:04:42 GMT From: weltyc@nisc.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Re: The future of network special interest groups In article <8804011046.AA08636@angband.s1.gov> KCB9792@TAMSIGMA.BITNET (Kevin 'Charlie' Brown) writes: >While the following is not related directly to space, I feel it has a great >deal of significance for all of us. I have, up until now, had access to >the "sf-lovers" newsgroup. That is, until I received this in their latest >digest: > ... >>Ex-Moderator SF-LOVERS Digest >>sf-lovers-request@rutgers.edu (address goes away April 1, 1988) > ... >The fact that this happened deeply concerns me. The fact that it was dated April 1 should have concerned you more. >I have learned a great >deal from the various newsgroups that are on the network... Well, I think you just learned something new, don't believe everything you read, especially not something written on April Fools Day... Unless you knew, in which case you got me.... Christopher Welty --- Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!rutgers!nysernic!weltyc ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 20:30:14 GMT From: oliveb!intelca!mipos3!td2cad!jreece@ames.arc.nasa.gov (John Reece ) Subject: Re: Jesse Jackson's space policy In article <4817@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >The following is a DRAFT of Jesse Jackson's stands on space. The following >is typed from a Draft released 2/29/88. > >For more information, contact: Jesse Jackson '88, 30 West Washington Street, >Suite 300, Chicago, Illinois 60602 // 312-855-3773 > Much deleted, but Jesse says lots of stuff like: > >The development of high technology has given humanity the ability to >send people into orbit around the Earth and to the Moon, and to send >machines to the very ends of the solar system. Space exploration has >produced an abundance of scientific knowledge about the Earth and about >the other planets, increased our ability to do solar forecasting, made >possible instantaneous worldwide communication, and created jobs by >opening new markets and stimulating productivity..... You get the idea. It should be pointed out here that Jesse Jackson was one of number of sign-carrying protestors on hand at Kennedy to protest the space program during the launch of Apollo 11.... John Reece ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 05:16:50 GMT From: pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) Subject: KAL (wasRe: space news from Feb 15 AW&ST) One very interesting story that I heard was that in the preceding hours before the incident, an American spy-plane, which looked a lot like a spy plane, had been repeatedly in the area, before the KAL flight went over.... "No luck - no golden chances, no mitigating circumstances now. It's only common sense - there are no accidents 'round here." ARPA : Philip.Verdieck@andrew.cmu.edu PV04+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET : r746pv04@CMCCVB UUCP : ...!{harvard,ucbvax}!andrew.cmu.edu!pv04 ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 88 20:13:59 GMT From: ubvax!vsi1!unisv!vanpelt@AMES.ARC.NASA.GOV (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: Antimatter In article <247@zeus.hf.intel.com> sdp@.UUCP (Scott Peterson) writes: >So, just how big a bomb could you make with [antimatter] anyway? Would you >need more than one? Rough approximation -- assuming you can mix the stuff with normal matter so that it anihilates quickly and completely, you get about a 1 megaton explosion for every ounce of antimatter. (So Roddenberry & co. were all wet when Kirk blew the atmosphere right off a planet with 2 ounces of antimatter.) -- Mike Van Pelt Unisys, Silicon Valley vanpelt%unisv@ubvax.ub.com Bring back UNIVAC! ...uunet!ubvax!unisv!vanpelt ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 16:31:36 GMT From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: KAL 007 In article <48118@sun.uucp>, fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: > The B-707 was modified to become the > C-135... It was the other way around. But the "modification" made the 707 a bigger plane. Bigger diameter fuselage, bigger tail, bigger landing gear, and after a few years, a new wing. The military version of the 707 is the C-137. David Smith ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Apr 88 08:09:42 MST From: Harold bidlack Subject: mars Cc: monagan@usafa.arpa One aspect of a manned mission to Mars that I thing should be discussed is the biological debate. In a past issue of Sky and Telescope, the late Jim Loudin discussed the near-impossibility of creating a Mars space suit which did not "leak" to some degree. Thus terrestrial microorganisms could, possibly, be transferred to the Martian surface. Remembering the Surveyor III lander's camera, when returned to Earth by the Apollo 12 crew, was found to contain bacteria which, while dormant, remained viable. In the less-hostile Martian climate, the danger of "earth germs" to any indigenous life forms _could_ be significant. Thus, Loudin argued, a manned landing on Mars should be delayed until we are ABSOLUTELY sure there is no life on Mars. Thoughts? Hal Bidlack@usafa.arpa ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Apr 88 09:12:26 PDT From: BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa Subject: Re: Support Space Settlement! Date: Thu, 7-APR-1988 09:14 PDT X-VMS-Mail-To: SPACE Rep. Brown's call for NASA to establish space settlements could be reasonable if it were modified to say instead that NASA should acquire the KNOWLEGE which would enable the establishment of space settlements and that this knowlege must be acquired through a broadly based RESEARCH program rather than through technology development or operations. (I use "technology development" here in the same meaning that NASA has given it, which is the same as the "development" portion of "research and development".) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Apr 88 09:19:21 PDT From: BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa Subject: Re: Mars Declaration Date: Thu, 7-APR-1988 09:21 PDT X-VMS-Mail-To: SPACE We should go to Mars when we are good and ready. Sally Ride signed the Mars Declaration because it does NOT call for an immediate "Mars Program" but rather is carefully worded to say "sometime in the next century" which is a reasonable time scale for us to expect to be good and ready. Let the Soviets go to Mars with ESA and whoever else wants to go. We should demonstrate the maturity, foresight and forebearance to not go shooting off toward another "goal" which has insufficient scientific or economic value to justify its cost. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #193 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Apr 88 06:23:30 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06123; Mon, 18 Apr 88 03:20:29 PDT id AA06123; Mon, 18 Apr 88 03:20:29 PDT Date: Mon, 18 Apr 88 03:20:29 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804181020.AA06123@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #194 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 194 Today's Topics: NASA contracting IS NOT "private enterprise" Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: How to become an astronaut? ``Soviet Space Trash Light Up Texas Sky'' Re: How to become an astronaut? Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: How to become an astronaut? Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: KAL 007 L5 Re: Jesse Jackson's space policy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 88 09:32:56 PDT From: BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa Subject: NASA contracting IS NOT "private enterprise" Date: Thu, 7-APR-1988 09:35 PDT X-VMS-Mail-To: SPACE I've heard a falacy start to crop up recently which should be recognized as such since it will receive increasing support by aerospace establishment interests, NASA and their naive supporters in an attempt to suppress the movement toward private involvement in space activities. The falacy is this: "NASA can promote the privatization of space by contracting out the work to private firms." This is nothing more than the statement: "Let's pursue business as usual." since NASA already contracts out most of the work it does to private firms. The way to promote private involvement in space is to create a robust and diverse market for launch and space services by dispersing NASA funding to a MUCH larger number of SCIENTISTS who will receive NO government supplied launch or space services, but rather are given sufficient funding to buy these services on their own. Not coincidentally, this is the only way that we can expect to acquire the knowlege about space necessary to uncover potential space applications which will have markets large enough to motivate private investment totally independent of government funding. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 88 21:07:15 GMT From: CAT.CMU.EDU!dep@pt.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ In article <48414@sun.uucp> dunc@sun.UUCP (duncs home) writes: >1. You need communications channels back to earth. A radio telescope on >the far side of the moon would need relay satellites in lunar orbit for >this purpose. ... Why do you need a relay satellite? We lay cables across the ocean, which is surely a rougher environment than the Moon. No current, no marine life, and no corrosion. The temperature extremes on the Moon shouldn't be all that difficult to handle. I can see laying fiber-optic cable using technology from derived wire-guided missiles: fire a missile containing 100+km cable, go to whereever it lands, splice the cable to a new missle, etc. Repeat 20 times.... -- "Fools are always at the bottom of David Pugh the food chain." Cesare, _Elf Defense_ ...!seismo!cmucspt!gpa!dep ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 16:48:46 GMT From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu (Terr S. Trial) Subject: Re: How to become an astronaut? In article <176@aplcomm.UUCP>, dpw@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (David P. Wenger) writes: > > ..... I have a great desire to become an astronaut and was > wondering if anyone out there knows what steps should be taken to accomplish > this goal. Coming up! > I've written NASA several times on this subject, but have Oh, you are just wasting your time... > ....as well as any type of general information would be greatly > appreciated. Step 1: Study Russian. An intensive course ASAP. Step 2: Contact the Soviet space program, and talk to the Mir/Soyuz-TM ground personnel. Step 3: Apply to become a Cosmonaut. Step 4: You don't have to pray. It doesn't work over there. Step 5:-) :-) :-) :-) ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 08:36:20 GMT From: hanauma.stanford.edu!joe@labrea.stanford.edu (Joe Dellinger,ESMB 471,7230463,4153244824) Subject: ``Soviet Space Trash Light Up Texas Sky'' Reprinted without permission from the Dallas Morning News, [It's much longer than this, lots of oohs and ahs which I edited out] Soviet Sky Show What flashed across the Texas sky Friday night (March 25) like a high-voltage sparkler was Soviet space garbage. A cargo rocket used to resupply a manned Soviet space station disintegrated about 10:50 PM CST as it reentered teh atmosphere over San Antonio, said Lt Col Ivan Pinnell, a spokesman for NORAD. The crumbling spacecraft blazed a brilliant southwest to northeast trail that was visible for about 75 seconds in Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. ``It was beautiful,'' said San Antonio resident Rita Carrillo. ``The colors changed from yellow to gold to red to pink, and it dripped fire as it flew across the sky... I thought it must be Halley's Comet.'' Motorists on I-35 near Waco pulled over to watch what looked like the sparks caused by a car dragging a loose muffler... The rocket was the second stage of the Progress 35 satellite, launched on Thursday... >>> Question: Forget about seeing MIR, I wanna see something like THIS! Any way to predict such events? And to think I flew back to CA on Thursday... it just ain't fair... \ /\ /\ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________ \ / \ / \ /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___ \/ \/ \/Steve Cole steve@hanauma.stanford.edu decvax!hanauma!steve\/\.-._ ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 88 15:10:21 GMT From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) Subject: Re: How to become an astronaut? David Wenger asks how to become an astronaut. He mentions that he already has the info on minimum requirements, so I won't go into those. When the first black American astronaut (sorry, I forget his name) was giving a speech at some school, I think a junior high, he was asked that question. He answered something like, "Go home tonight and do your homework. And tomorrow niight. Make sure you get it right. Now do that through high school, and college, and graduate school, and they'll come looking for you." I also read some piece that used a lot of cute phrases like "intelligence without genius" and "determination without stubbornness". It's really not entirely clear exactly what they want. So many people apply for the job, that choosing among them almost has to begin to get arbitrary at some point. I think most astronauts have an advanced degree. An ability to think and act independently coupled with a willingness to take orders. An even temperament is also a big plus. I think their selection field is also wide enough that the de facto health requirements are much higher than the official ones. Why should they bother with somebody who's going to get sick on them? A pilot's license is also a big plus, even if you're not going to fly the shuttle. It's a known fact that working for NASA or the military drastically improves your odds. I think out of the last class of something like 27, several were ex-military, most of rest worked for NASA, and only one or two had no such qualification. In short, be exactly what they're looking for, and very lucky. I don't think you'll find a more formal description of exactly what they're after, but if you do, please post it. --Rod ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 88 09:26:38 GMT From: sdcrdcf!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@hplabs.hp.com (John L McKernan) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ In article <1022@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: >I really wish people would stop clutching at straws, looking for every >possible application of their pet man-in-space project when many (if not >most) of the tasks can be done far more cheaply and effectively with >unmanned spacecraft. Fact 1. For as long as Homo Sapiens Sapiens has existed, we have expanded our range of habitation, or sought to fill uninhabited land. Conclusion 1. Man's future is in space and on other planets. Fact 2. A human being has more capabilities than any of his machines, by orders of magnitude. It is short sighted and an oversimplification to say that people should not go into space. Any reasonable space program requires both a strong manned and unmanned program. John L. McKernan. Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 88 16:38:13 GMT From: oresoft!beryl@uunet.uu.net (Beryl Gray) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ In article josh@topaz.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) writes: >-> The same issue of Air&Space contains an article entitled "Resist the >-> Pull of Mars" in which the author talks about "The dark far side of the >-> moon..." > >-> Since this is a credible magazine, I should give the guy the benefit >-> of the doubt and assume he is talking about the period of time that the >-> moon appears full from the perspective of the earth, but that's not how >-> it reads. > >One of the common meanings of "dark" in colloquial English is >"unknown", as in "darkest Africa", something the poster was possibly >in the dark about. "The dark side of the moon" simply means the side >facing away from the earth. >--JoSH Can we adopt the old Bob Heinlein convention of calling it "Farside?" -- Beryl Gray "Clear writers, like fountains, do not seem so deep uunet!oresoft!beryl as they are; the turbid look the most profound." -Walter S. Landor ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 14:42:54 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!wlp@ucsd.edu (Walter L. Peterson, Jr.) Subject: Re: How to become an astronaut? In article <176@aplcomm.UUCP>, dpw@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (David P. Wenger) writes: > > ... I have a great desire to become an astronaut and was > wondering if anyone out there knows what steps should be taken to accomplish > this goal. > ... > David Wenger David, If you have been following the news posted here in the past, then you should know your first step in becomming an astronaut; learn to speak Russian. Walt -- Walt Peterson GE-Calma San Diego R&D "The opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those GE, GE-Calma nor anyone else. ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!wlp wlp@calmasd.GE.COM ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 88 22:50:55 GMT From: bigtex!james@astro.as.utexas.edu (James Van Artsdalen) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ IN article <48414@sun.uucp>, dunc@sun.UUCP (duncs home) wrote: > [ power storage problems ... ] > Yes, you have to store the energy longer, but you have planet worth of raw > materials to assist. [...] Surely you're not suggesting trying to build parts of the observatory out of raw material on the moon. That implies to me sending up factories and other non-observatory-related things. I assume you have to want to build something much larger than a telescope before it's economical to do any material processing on the moon as part of the installation... An associated issue is the cost of a lander vs. orbiter. Even though the lunar observatory never need lift off, it still probably costs more to achieve a soft landing with a fairly heavy craft. In addition, the margin of error is greater. If the satellite goes into a slightly incorrect orbit it probably wouldn't significantly effect work: if a ground observatory lands too hard or in the wrong place, it's all over. Finally, if you do want to service it at some point, it's cheaper to get to something in orbit than on the ground. -- James R. Van Artsdalen ...!ut-sally!uastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746 ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 88 13:39:42 GMT From: ncspm!jay@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Jay C. Smith) Subject: Re: KAL 007 Note: this follow-up has been cross-posted to rec.aviation. In article <4642@hplabsb.UUCP> dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes: >In article <48118@sun.uucp>, fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >> The B-707 was modified to become the >> C-135... > >It was the other way around. Every time the subject of the 707 and C-135 comes up it degenerates into some sort of "chicken and the egg" discussion. I would appreciate it if someone would clear this up for me. I think this might be what happened, but I'm not sure: Boeing built a prototype passenger jet, but realized that a big military contract would be the best way to attract customers, so they actively sought to sell their prototype to the Air Force as a cargo plane (the C-135). A big military contract followed, the airlines soon wanted the plane, and it was updated and sold as the 707. The reason for confusion may be that while the C-135 was sold first, the 707 was always the ultimate intention. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jay C. Smith uucp: ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Apr 88 23:22 CDT From: Subject: L5 How can I find out more about the L5 organization? I am especially interested in its goals, and how one becomes a member. Phillip J. Birmingham * "I just found out today.. my rest-mass "Would anybody ELSE ask * energy is enough to run a Corvette for a question like that?" * approximately 1.4 million years." ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 88 17:13:43 GMT From: avsd!govett@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David Govett) Subject: Re: Jesse Jackson's space policy > > Until recently, the Soviets denied the existence of their SDI program, > > which seems to be better funded than ours. > > Fortunately, the laws of physics apply as much to the Soviets as they do > to us. Why should you care if the Soviets want to waste their money? As > far as I'm concerned, the more they blow on futile space defenses (as > opposed to additional conventional or nuclear offensive weapons) the > better. Hmm, maybe the Soviets KNOW all this, but they fund their own > "sdi" program just so we'll blow even more money on our own. They must > certainly *know* that the louder they protest, the more Reagan will dig > in his heels... > > > Also, arms agreements are unverifiable from space. > > Really? Then I guess the only reason we have programs like KH-11, Big > Bird, Vela, Rhyolite, Magnum, etc, is so we can watch and listen in on > Soviet leaders when they call their girlfriends from their limos. Of > course, I don't know how nuclear explosion detectors like those on Vela > would fit in... > For someone so sceptical of technical feasibility, you sure put a lot of confidence in satellites. The Soviets have stolen technical manuals on several of the birds you list above, and are quite familiar with their capabilities. Sure, a ferret satellite once got Brezhnev's limo, but so what? That doesn't tell you diddly about what is being produced where. If the Soviet SDI program is futile, what has been blinding our satellites? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #194 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Apr 88 06:24:16 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07715; Tue, 19 Apr 88 03:21:07 PDT id AA07715; Tue, 19 Apr 88 03:21:07 PDT Date: Tue, 19 Apr 88 03:21:07 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804191021.AA07715@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #195 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 195 Today's Topics: Schmitt Lecture - Apollo 17 Mir elements, epoch 4 April Mailer failures - CANOPUS space news from March 7 AW&ST space news from March 14 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Apr 88 17:44:03 GMT From: unmvax!charon!deimos.unm.edu!f12012ag@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Chang H. Park) Subject: Schmitt Lecture - Apollo 17 Astronaut and former U.S. Senator Harrison Schmitt will discuss the Apollo 17 mission to the Moon on the University of New Mexico campus Wednesday April 27 at 7:00 p.m. Harrison Schmitt, pilot of the final Lunar Module to land on the Moon, was the first geologist to study the lunar surface. Along with Gene Cernan, Apollo 17 Commander, and Ron Evans, the Command Module pilot, Schmitt carried out many experiments and observations. The presentation is being sponsored by the UNM chapter of the Students for the Exploration and Development of Space. In addition to Schmitt's lecture, which will include a slide presentation, a question and answer session is scheduled. The presentation will be in room 101 of Woodward Hall on the UNM campus. Admission is free. SEDS-UNM : Students for the Exploration and Development of Space Box 92 Student Union, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87106 (505) 277-3171 ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 88 19:43:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements, epoch 4 April Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 137 Epoch: 88 95.84809350 Inclination: 51.6238 degrees RA of node: 85.1781 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0010807 Argument of perigee: 306.8362 degrees Mean anomaly: 53.2165 degrees Mean motion: 15.80011058 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00046735 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 12226 Semimajor axis: 6708.50 km Apogee height*: 337.59 km Perigee height*: 323.09 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 88 22:00:48 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Mailer failures - CANOPUS Ignore this if you are not on the unabridged CANOPUS mailing list. This month, there were apparently numerous failures in attempting to send the unabridged CANOPUS to the mailing list. If you don't get the issue you were expecting, send me a good address. Following is the list of errors. These all worked all right last month, so something has changed. ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 cs.rpi.edu.arpa-mailer... 550 Host unknown 550 ... Host unknown 421 doc.cc.utexas.edu.arpa-mailer... Deferred: Connection timed out during user open with doc.cc.utexas.edu 550 edai.ed.ac.uk.arpa-mailer... 550 Host unknown 550 ... Host unknown 550 pyr.gatech.edu.arpa-mailer... 550 Host unknown 550 ... Host unknown 550 cca.ucsf.edu.arpa-mailer... 550 Host unknown 550 ... Host unknown -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 88 02:02:49 GMT From: necntc!linus!utzoo!henry@ames.arpa (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from March 7 AW&ST Official rationalization for the USAF's Atlas-Centaur Subsidy -- er excuse me, cancel that, I meant source selection for the Medium Launch Vehicle -- is underway. Announcement expected early May. [It shouldn't be hard to figure out who the winner will be...] NASA FY89 budget includes $195M for expendables: one Titan 4, two Titan 3s, and four Deltas. Testing of the NASA-Ames AX-5 hard-shell space-station spacesuit about to start. Its competitor from JSC will start testing next month. NASA FY89 asks $50M to start replenishment of the stock of shuttle structural spares, the old ones having been used for the new orbiter. NRC says NASA shuttle safety effort is hampered by complex and fragmented bureaucracy, and needs better organization. NRC also says that there are no specific reasons why shuttle flights can't resume this summer. House members say NASA will not get its full FY89 budget request; support for space in Congress is weak. US studying ground-launched missiles and laser systems as possible replacements for the cancelled Asat system. Also under study is what could be done about using the existing Asat hardware to provide minimal capability in a crisis. Vyacheslav Balebanov, Mir project official, says an earth-resources module will go up to Mir late this year. It will also include an X-ray telescope. An airlock module will also go up this year. Titov and Manarov do EVA Feb 26 to install a high-efficiency solar-array section on Mir's third array. Results from the Delta 181 SDI test appear mostly favorable, with some surprises. Details secret. The spacecraft is finishing up its playbacks of recorded data, and will switch to doing space science until its batteries die. Picture of Earth's limb at dusk from it. Still unresolved is why the spacecraft's two tracking computers disagreed at one point. Kaiser Engineers Australia Pty Ltd picked for feasibility study of the Cape York spaceport; they will manage the project if it goes ahead. KEA is a subsidiary of Kaiser Engineers, a US firm. The study will last two years and will include final site selection and a market study. Another three years and about $1.5G would bring the site to initial operational status. USAF cancels ASPS upper stage, a large shuttle upper stage meant as a backup for Titan-Centaur, due to shortage of money. [Interesting how backup systems were vitally important when it was the (NASA) shuttle being backed up with (USAF) expendables, and are low-priority now that it's the other way around.] Spacenet 3R, to go up on Ariane this week, will be first US domestic comsat to fly in two years. It carries GTE Spacenet transponders and a Geostar navsat package. GTE Spacenet is Arianespace's biggest US customer, although it wasn't meant that way (they used to be a big shuttle customer). They are thinking about alternatives to Ariane, but are strongly opposed to using the same vehicle or launch facility as US military programs. GTE Spacenet president says that the cancelled shuttle contracts are an obvious example of the US government reneging on supposedly-firm agreements without compensation. He does not want a repetition. He also does not think the US expendable companies have proven their commitment to the commercial launch business. GTE Spacenet will not use Proton but is thinking seriously about Chinese and Japanese launchers. DoC awards three small study contracts for next-generation civil remote sensing satellites. Eosat, the current Landsat operator, did not bid. Eight Ariane launches are planned this year, in an attempt to catch up after delays. First is V21 on March 11, with Spacenet 3R and France's Telecom 1C. (This launch is now critical to France due to Telecom 1B's attitude-control failure in orbit.) V21 was delayed repeatedly for several reasons, including investigation of unexpectedly-high temperatures in third-stage pump bearings. This investigation arose from Arianespace's new policy of thorough study of all telemetry, as a result of their conclusion that such a policy would have given advance warning of the third-stage ignition problems that grounded Ariane for quite a while. After V21 will be Intelsat 5 on May 11, followed by the first Ariane 4 at the end of May. The limiting factor in Ariane launch rate is now not manufacturing but the post-flight telemetry review, which takes three weeks. China and Brazil agree to develop a small earth-resources satellite for launch on Long March in 1992. Big story on Aerospace Plane work. Technology is progressing despite budget cuts and yet another management revision. First flight is behind schedule, now 1994-5. Despite early talk about commercial uses, the project is now highly classified. One controversial issue that is coming up is whether the X-30 should use rockets for final boost into orbit; the original hope was that scramjet technology would be used all the way to orbital velocity, with rockets only for orbital maneuvering. GAO and Defense Science Board reports on X-30 question excessive optimism on technology and predict schedule slips. Gamma-ray detector originally meant for shuttle flies on balloon in Antarctica, observing Supernova 1987A. Preliminary results suggest that the supernova explosion was asymmetrical. Major bottleneck in plans for Aug 4 shuttle launch is completion of orbiter modifications. Everything is on schedule now but there is no margin for problems. A 6-8 week slip is considered likely. One possible reason for a slip is that NASA has neither selected a crew- escape system nor decided whether it should be fitted for mission 26. West Germany writes off TVSat 1, after all attempts to free jammed solar array fail. This is a significant blow to Germany's post office (the owners) and the space-insurance business. The insurers are lucky this time, because the Germans were most worried about launch failures and selected insurance coverage that dropped 50% after launcher separation. Spinning the satellite did not work. Commanding full array extension deployed the other array fine but did nothing for the jammed one. Activating the array's Sun-tracking motors to wiggle the array did not help. Technicians have deployed the transmit antenna and will try to deploy the receive antenna; there is a slim chance that it might deploy if the solar array is not fully jammed, and this would make the satellite useful to a limited extent. The investigation report, not yet released, does not call for major redesign, pointing the finger instead at sloppy manufacturing and inadequate margins. The insurers are also preparing to pay off on France's Telecom 1B after its attitude-control failure. There is little hope of a fix. Letter column includes several responses to NASA's decision not to go metric on the space station, all negative. "If our space scientists have to convert liters into quarts or meters into feet to react in an emergency, our nation is in worse trouble than I realized." Most of the rest of the letter column is criticism of Van Allen's latest epistle. "Thanks to men with the Proxmire/Van Allen viewpoint, we have no coherent space program today..." Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 88 02:53:05 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from March 14 AW&ST [This is the "Aerospace Forecast and Inventory" issue; not a lot of actual news.] Forecast for NASA: uncertain. There is a distinct shortage of strong space supporters in Congress these days (supporters, yes, but not in strong political positions). NASA will be in a good position for major new undertakings if the shuttle works well for the next couple of years and the Hubble telescope, Galileo, and Magellan succeed. If not... The space station remains in jeopardy due to its lack of clear missions. NASA is hoping for a major new start in science each year for the next several years: AXAF in 89, CRAF and Cassini in 90, a major polar platform in 92, and a lunar orbiter in 93 [no mention of 91, oddly]. USAF pushing to keep two space-based surveillance efforts alive despite budget cuts: a space-based radar system for tactical use, and a space- based optical space-tracking system. The latter is of interest because the limited viewpoints of ground-based systems make it difficult to monitor events in the southern hemisphere and in equatorial orbits. USAF points out that while the US is talking about building the launch capability for a space-based defence system, the Soviets already have it: Energia. The USAF is also concerned that the Soviet shuttle will make it much harder to analyze Soviet payloads (because the shuttle looks much the same no matter what payload is inside, and the payload deployment can occur under on-board control far away from the ground- based sensors in the northern hemisphere). Launch counts for 1987: Soviets 95, all others 15. The Soviets appear to be moving their radar satellites to higher altitudes, which increases coverage but also makes them much less vulnerable to the US Asat system. First Ariane 4 is on track for launch at the end of May, carrying ESA's Meteosat metsat, the American Panamsat comsat, and Amsat's latest amateur-radio satellite. Arianespace and its contractors are gearing up for a launch surge to try to catch up on some of their backlog. To date 49 Arianes have been bought (20 have flown); negotiations for another 50 (all Ariane 4s) are underway. This will cover lauches until about 1998. Comsat manufacturers expect a rush of business in the next year or two, as many comsat operators are going to have to start thinking about replacing the large number of satellites orbited in the early 80s. Many of them will start running out of fuel in the early 90s, and the lead times dictate ordering of replacements soon. Although launcher makers don't want customers using Proton, many people are irked by the silliness of the US government's "technology transfer" argument against Proton, and wish a more supportable reason were given. The dreaded "data gap" in Landsat coverage is imminent. The existing satellites will probably start to die within a year, and launch of Landsat 6 is three years away. Continuity in the late 90s is also in doubt. Spot, on the other hand, has the situation in hand. Spot 1 is doing fine. Spot 2 is ready to fly and will get high priority from Arianespace if Spot 1 starts to fail. Spots 3 and 4 are in the works. The Soviet attempt to enter the remote-sensing market is not considered much of a threat so far. For one thing, their images are photographic rather than digital data, and the customers are geared for digital data. For another thing, there is no indication so far that the Soviets will take pictures to order (i.e. both place and time specified). 3M says commercial interest in microgravity materials work is picking up. 3M in fact will offer equipment leasing and support services to other shuttle microgravity users. Satellite-launch backlogs: Titan 19 (including GE's 15 reservations, not all of which may end up being taken), Delta 9, Atlas-Centaur 4 plus 4 options, Ariane 63 (!), Proton 1? (at least one US customer is thought to have a Proton reservation, but US government opposition makes this rather academic), Long March "several". At least one US booster company will probably die unless the US government actually implements its theoretical policy of buying launch services rather than just hardware. Some of the small startup companies will probably make commercial sales this year, although the size of the small-payload market is very unclear and overhead costs like insurance loom large for small companies. E Prime observes that the USAF wants $25M third-party-liability insurance for launch of a rocket weighing 80 pounds that travels only five miles. "A $2000 rocket and a $20000 payload will cost approximately $12000 in range costs and $25000 in insurance premiums." Japan is boosting its space budget 15%. H-1 is working well, with three successful launches. H-2 development is well under way. The possibility of delivering supplies to the space station with H-2 is under study, at NASA request (!). Japan is also looking at a three-stage solid-fuel replacement for the MU-3S booster currently used for science payloads; a small Venus mission might be the first mission. [Now, current news.] Soviet Union begins final preparations for first (unmanned) launch of its shuttle aboard Energia. It might happen in the next few weeks. DoD study finds that the space station has possibilities for various military uses, notably satellite servicing and construction. "It may be more practical and less costly to assemble possible large space structures, such as very large antennas and orbiting fuel storage farms, in space rather than designing them for self assembly, deployment, and repair." Deja Vu Dept: The Feb 14 test of a Titan SRB produced unusually severe erosion of internal insulation, with metal structure exposed in parts of the nozzle. Investigation underway. Long March launch March 7 from Xichang puts comsat into Clarke orbit. Train carrying SRB segments for STS-26 collides with car in Mississippi. No apparent damage to the segments, but extra inspections will be done. Letters page carries more criticism of the non-metric space station. "My bet is that the contractors are still attempting to hold on to English-system tooling to save money -- or keep out foreign contractors." (John Goodman, Peachtree City, GA) And more of Van Allen as well. "Last year a colleague and I managed to accomplish the first flight around the Earth via the poles in a single engine aircraft. Despite two years of planning and support from 10 governments and countless organizations, we encountered dozens of unanticipated problems along the way which required on-the-spot solutions. It seems unlikely that a preprogrammed computer, no matter how sophisticated, could have replaced us." (Richard D. Norton, Philadelphia) Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #195 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Apr 88 06:27:21 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09238; Wed, 20 Apr 88 03:24:17 PDT id AA09238; Wed, 20 Apr 88 03:24:17 PDT Date: Wed, 20 Apr 88 03:24:17 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804201024.AA09238@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #196 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 196 Today's Topics: space news from March 21 AW&ST Reply to MS info request How to become an astronaut? Re: Millions of comets hit Earth Millions of comets hit Earth Re: Libertarians love NASA? Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: fuels other than hydrogen Re: Re-evolving spaceflight after collapse of civilization ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Apr 88 02:12:11 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from March 21 AW&ST Editorial criticizing repeated reorganizations of the Aerospace Plane project, and also its deep secrecy, claiming that inadequate support for the program will lead to "bureaucratic strangulation". Soyuzkarta is interested in picking a US marketing agency. Geodyne is interested, as is Space Commerce Corp (which markets Proton). JPL tentatively picks Wild 2 as the target for Comet Rendezvous Asteroid Flyby, assuming a start next year. Tempel 2 was preferred, but is no longer possible after all the delays. CRAF launch would be Oct 1994 with arrival at Wild 2 in Feb 2001. [Cripes, the Soviets or the Europeans will be there first at this rate.] Instrumentation Technology Associates and U of Penn. find a possible problem for those planning to grow protein crystals in orbit: the crystals are fragile enough that high-G reentries might damage them. USAF interest in antimatter grows; it might be a reality early in the 21st century. Rand Corp says that near-term technology should be able to make and store antimatter at about $10M/mg [Robert Forward said a few years ago that at roughly that price, antimatter is competitive with *fusion* engines for in-space propulsion], and that supercollider technology might be able to lower that to $1M/mg. A shuttle-like vehicle about the size of Hotol could carry several times Hotol's payload by using about 35 mg of antimatter as its energy source. Engineering problems remain, notably the design of the actual rocket engine. A short-term approach would absorb the energy in a tungsten honeycomb and use that to heat propellant; this could yield 50-100 klbs of thrust at an exhaust velocity of 12 kps or so (this is 2.5 times H2/O2). More advanced designs could use a magnetic nozzle to confine the heated propellant, giving several hundred klbs of thrust at an exhaust velocity of maybe 200 kps, which "would enable every conceivable mission in the solar system". The most immediate need from the USAF viewpoint is a US source of antimatter; the only existing production facility is at CERN, which is partly Swiss and thus will not supply antimatter for defence-related work. Also of interest are high-energy exotic chemical propellants. The USAF is funding small studies on them, now that modern computers have made theoretical studies possible and laser technology has made experimental work practical. Materials under study are tetrahydrogen (H4), fluorine azide, asymmetric N2O2, and xenon-halide excimers. Tetrahydrogen would probably be the best propellant. Fluorine azide is too heavy to be a useful propellant, but is convenient for study work and also may lead to high-energy chemical lasers. Asymmetric N2O2, made by combining an excited oxygen molecule with a ground-state nitrogen molecule, could have an exhaust velocity of about 3.7 kps, 50% better than the best existing monopropellant. Most of these things are unstable at room temperatures, but storage in cryogenic ices seems practical. Ariane V21 launch on March 11 is successful, carrying GTE Spacenet 3R and Telecom 1C into orbit. Next Ariane launch is set for May 11. US is strongly opposed to use of Ariane to launch NATO's next series of comsats. The shuttle is officially prime launcher for them, but they might switch to expendables if shuttle delays continue. There is no doubt of Ariane's ability to launch them, since it is going to launch two British Skynet 4 comsats, which are almost identical to the NATO 4 series (not surprising, since British Aerospace builds both). The shuttle-vs-expendable decision for the first NATO 4 is likely to happen soon. "As far as the US is concerned, there is no way we will ever accept Ariane as an alternate to shuttle." The US *says* that its reason is that such NATO "infrastructure" contracts are normally required to stay within full members of NATO, and much of Ariane is built by countries which don't qualify (notably France). First US scientific launch since Challenger set for March 25: a small Italy/US/Germany satellite to go up on Scout from the San Marco platform [off Kenya]. [Actually this isn't such a big deal, since only the booster and a few of the instruments are from the US; the satellite was built in Italy and the launch crew is Italian too.] Estimate for cost of Canadian space-station contribution rises from $800M to $1.2G, raising some doubts in Canada. Official position is still "go", but this is a lot of money for Canada. Meanwhile, the Soviets were busy: one launch March 10th, two March 11th, one March 14th, and on March 17th they launched India's remote-sensing satellite (at a bargain-basement price, $6M). Soviets step up launch-marketing efforts. Photo of the Cyclone launcher (4000 kg into low orbit). New shuttle manifest. Two missions in 1988, TDRS Aug 4 and a DoD payload [thought to be an NSA Magnum listening satellite, as I recall] Oct 27. Missions 28 and 29 have been swapped to give more lead time for Magellan; 29 will carry another TDRS, then Magellan on 28, then an imaging spysat on 30. 31 will be the Hubble Telescope, officially June 1989 but more probably late that year. 32 will be LDEF retrieval, which has bumped the Astro-1 telescope package to 35. Also of note is 37, SDI Cirris plus USAF Teal Ruby plus SDI Spas (the German Spas platform carrying an SDI infrared-background-survey instrument), a new addition. There are two Spacelab missions in 1990. ISF goes up on 51, June 1991, while the NASA-leased Commercially Developed Space Facility is tentatively booked for May 1992; these two may in fact be the same thing, which would mean some reshuffling. The Aug 4 schedule for mission 26 is likely to slip to early fall. LTV and Italy's SNIA PBD sign agreement for development and marketing of a souped-up version of Scout, adding two SNIA PBD strapons and changing the fourth stage to another SNIA PBD motor. Big story on US Navy space systems. Little new except for an imminent buy of 9-10 new Navy comsats to replace aging FltSatCom and Leasat birds. The Navy might buy launch services commercially; the RFP asked bidders to provide this as an option. US Navy and NASA reach agreement on a complex barter deal to replace the Atlas-Centaur that was ruined in a pad accident. SDI speeds up work on a sounding-rocket particle-beam experiment, bringing its launch forward about six months to early 1989. This is at least partly an aftereffect of the cancellation of the much bigger particle-beam experiment SDI planned to fly on the shuttle. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 88 12:05:44 GMT From: pitstop!sundc!netxcom!rkolker@sun.com (rich kolker) Subject: Reply to MS info request Sorry to the rest of you, but my reply bounced... If you're at Drexel, why are you posting on APL (where I happen to be working on my Masters in Comp Sci) If you've spoken to NASA then you probably know the basics...at least a BS in a hard science or engineering (Comp Sci counts...I asked), the ability to pass a class 2 flight physical (not hard), vision at least 20/100 in each eye correctable to 20/20, three years experience in your field (additional education can be substituted for experience). These are the requirements for Mission Specialists, if you're planning on being a pilot, get into the service and start getting some jet time. Also on the application, although it's not required, is the question "Are you a licensed pilot?" I am now. Based on what I've seen and heard from those who have been selected, the following can't hurt: Advanced degrees (a lot of PhDs in the Astronaut Corps), being in good shape and physically active, a wide range of interests (You're going to be trained in all areas of science and engineering, so if you are too narrowly focused, you're not perfect for the job) You've got one advantage I don't, about 10 extra years. I'm 33 already and still working toward the same goal (the application goes in this fall when the Masters degree arrives). A couple of other things I've done: Attended Space Academy in Huntsville, AL - You can get some college credit for the 10 day Level II program. Scuba training (for neutral boyancy work and weightless familiarity) Become a licensed pilot (like I said above). I'm interested in exchanging information with others with the same goal I have...unfortunately, I may be off the net in two weeks, I don't know if the new job has access. Still, keep in touch. ++rich +--------------------------------------------------------------------^-------+ | Rich Kolker The work goes on... A|W|A | | 8519 White Pine Drive The cause endures... H|T|H | | Manassas Park, VA 22111 The hope still lives... /|||\ | | (703)361-1290 (h) And the dream shall never die. /_|T|_\ | | (703)749-2315 (w) (..uunet!netxcom!rkolker) " W " | +------------------------------------------------------------------V---V-----+ ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 88 22:54:33 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!aplpy.jhuapl.edu!dpw@mimsy.umd.edu (David P. Wenger) Subject: How to become an astronaut? I'm an undergraduate comp-sci and mathematics major at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pa. I have a great desire to become an astronaut and was wondering if anyone out there knows what steps should be taken to accomplish this goal. I've written NASA several times on this subject, but have received only general information on the subject (mostly concerning the eligibility requirements such as academics, health, etc.). If anyone out there is an astronaut, or is pursuing such a goal, I would be very interested in hearing your comments. Any information on topics for graduate study, as well as any type of general information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. David Wenger ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 88 23:08:11 GMT From: mtunx!whuts!sw@rutgers.edu (WARMINK) Subject: Re: Millions of comets hit Earth In article <61@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM>, freeman@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM (Jay Freeman) writes: > all those impacts; remember that the seismographs were more than sensitive > enough to detect the LEMs when they were crashed into the lunar surface > after various missions, and that a LEM is much less massive than a 30-foot > snowball and also moving at far less speed at impact. > Am I missing something? Was there a typo in the original posting? I read the 30ft as meaning 'left 30ft images', i.e. the cloud of water vapour could have been up to that size, but the comet causing it could be much much smaller. I'd be interested to find out what the resolution of the UV instrument was though... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "We demand rigidly defined areas of | Stuart Warmink, APT UK Ltd. doubt and uncertainty" (Vroomfondel) | !whuts!sw -----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of APT UK Ltd. <----------- ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 05:24:11 GMT From: bungia!datapg!sewilco@umn-cs.arpa (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Subject: Millions of comets hit Earth Hmm, something new in [knowledge of] the neighborhood. Millions of comets hit the Earth each year. Clayne Yeates of JPL has captured hundreds of images of small comets during a three-month period. The images are of small water-bearing comets, up to 30 feet in diameter, found at the rate of about one every minute. The observations were made to confirm a 1986 theory advanced by Louis A. Frank's team at the U of Iowa. Frank's team found 30,000 black spots in UV images of Earth. The theory was that the spots might be caused by water vapor from comets vaporizing about 180 miles above the Earth's surface. [Above information from an L.A. Times article] Yeates calls his results preliminary, probably awaiting confirmation. "One every minute" is 526,000 per year merely in the part of the sky which that telescope was covering. The Earth gains a lot of water each year from this. I assume Venus and Mars get a lot of hits as well, although the Earth-Moon system may present a much wider gravitational well. I wonder how Mars' atmosphere can lose all that water. -- Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco Data Progress UNIX consulting +1 612-825-2607 uunet!datapg!sewilco ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 88 06:51:56 GMT From: tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Todd L. Masco) Subject: Re: Libertarians love NASA? > *Excerpts from: 2-Apr-88 Re: Libertarians love NASA? "Keith F.* > *Lynch"@AI.AI.M (594)* > > From: BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa > > I saw a message from Dale Amon asking us to lobby for full NASA funding. > > Dale is quite vocal in proclaiming himself to be a libertarian. ... the > > Libertarian Party ... recommended that NASA be abolished. Even the policy > > statement of a Libertarian Party presidential candidate was clear in its > > stance that NASA had held back U.S. progress in space for the last 20 years. > Dale Amon does not speak for the Libertarian party. I have asked him > more than once to change his stance or to stop calling himself a > libertarian. > ...Keith Does this mean that someone who doesn't agree with all Republican dogma cannot call himself a Republican? Funny, I thought that diversity of opinion within EVERY group was what our system depended upon. [Watch out, Dale... you might be excommunicated.] Todd Masco ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 88 14:50:27 GMT From: mtunx!whuts!sw@rutgers.edu (WARMINK) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ In article <1290@hubcap.UUCP>, hubcap@hubcap.UUCP (Mike Marshall) writes: : The same issue of Air&Space contains an article entitled "Resist the : Pull of Mars" in which the author talks about "The dark far side of the : moon..." being a good place to conduct " ...sensitive radio astronomy... : without interference from terrestrial signals." : Since this is a credible magazine, I should give the guy the benefit : of the doubt and assume he is talking about the period of time that the : moon appears full from the perspective of the earth, but that's not how : it reads. Surely the "dark far side" of the moon is always shielded from *terrestrial* signals, regardless of whether it is actually dark or not at the time: it always faces away from the Earth. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "We demand rigidly defined areas of | Stuart Warmink, APT UK Ltd. doubt and uncertainty" (Vroomfondel) | !whuts!sw -----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of APT UK Ltd. <----------- ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 18:35:47 GMT From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) Subject: Re: fuels other than hydrogen In article <1988Mar30.182117.1034@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >To add a practical note or two... Even if acetylene scores high on energy >content, it is unusable because liquid acetylene is, I think, a dangerous >explosive. Benzene likewise is out because it is extremely dangerous, >both poisonous and carcinogenic. And yes, that startlingly low number for >the density of liquid hydrogen is indeed correct. Acetylene, at least, can be handled safely: it's used every day around the world in oxy-acetylene cutting torches. The key is how it's stored: unlike most bottled gases, the interior of a tank designed to contain acetylene is not hollow. It contains a porous ceramic material. A solvent is then used to diffuse the acetylene into the ceramic.If the tank is kept upright, as it's supposed to be, acetylene comes out of the valve as a gas seeping out of the ceramic. If the tank is laid on its side, the solvent will seep out with the acetylene and gum up the operation of the valve and torch. Now: would you want to have to construct an external tank designed to hold acetylene? Sounds like a difficult proposition to even construct, much less to do lightly enough to even get the thing off the ground! At least with thi storage method you can keep it at room temperature, but you probably need liquid density anyway, not gas... My $.02 worth. --Rod ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 88 18:12:15 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Re-evolving spaceflight after collapse of civilization In article <880402011425.2100021d@NMFECC.ARPA> BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@NMFECC.ARPA writes: > We >are chewing up critical ores at a million times their formation rate >and are not likely to find substitutes for all materials which sit >at critical junctures of a space-faring civilization's technology. > All that refined ore didn't just evaporate, did it? Recovering metals from old buildings, garbage dumps, and auto wrecking yards would be orders of magnitudes easier and cheaper than scouting out their ores and redeveloping the chemical and industrial base to refine them. Just think of all the aluminum cans... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #196 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Apr 88 06:26:13 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10950; Thu, 21 Apr 88 03:23:06 PDT id AA10950; Thu, 21 Apr 88 03:23:06 PDT Date: Thu, 21 Apr 88 03:23:06 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804211023.AA10950@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #197 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 197 Today's Topics: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Superconductors Re-evolving spaceflight after collapse of civilization Reasons for non-space-enthusiasts to support space exploration Re: Libertarians love NASA? Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: How to become an astronaut? Re: POSITION OF JUPITER Re: Space Station measurement system Re: Space Station measurement system Re: The moon as a research base Re: How to become an astronaut? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Apr 88 03:00:42 GMT From: silver!compton@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (David Compton) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ In article <48414@sun.uucp> dunc@sun.UUCP (duncs home) writes: >>2. You need power. This is much easier to obtain in orbit, since solar >>panels will be illuminated for roughly half of each orbit. On the If you would think about it, a satellite could be in sunlight almost all the time(e.g.) a polar orbit. This makes it a better alternative than the ground based nuclear plant. dave -- compton@silver.bacs.indiana.edu ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!silver!compton compton@silver.UUCP compton%silver@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 88 05:10:55 GMT From: phoenix!sjmoon@princeton.edu (Sang J. Moon) Subject: Superconductors I may be treading a beaten path, but I would like to know what uses the present or future space program has for superconductors. (Not only in this country) -- sjmoon@pucc | "Don't roam in the Wight Sang J. Moon | plains." aka Moonknight, defender of good stuff | Disclaimer: My words are mine, and your words are yours. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 19:19:06 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Re-evolving spaceflight after collapse of civilization In article <880402011425.2100021d@NMFECC.ARPA> BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@NMFECC.ARPA writes: > We >are chewing up critical ores at a million times their formation rate >and are not likely to find substitutes for all materials which sit >at critical junctures of a space-faring civilization's technology. > I believe metals are not NECCESARY for high technology. A society without easy access to metals might develop organic, ceramic, or other materials with the neccesary strength, durability, and other characteristics needed. If a society invested as much research in non-metallic structural materials as we have in metals, they could develop materials with the neccesary properties. Note, however, this could take hundreds or thousands of years, as we have taken. However, I'd rather not wait. -- Doug Reeder USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!douglas 10 Cyclopedia Square from BITNET: douglas@reed.UUCP Terminus City from ARPA: !tektronix!reed!douglas@Berkley Terminus,The Foundation Box 502 Reed College,Portland,OR 97202 ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 20:52:41 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Reasons for non-space-enthusiasts to support space exploration If anyone has a list of reasons for non-space-enthusiasts to support space exploration, could you please send it to me? -- Doug Reeder USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!douglas 10 Cyclopedia Square from BITNET: douglas@reed.UUCP Terminus City from ARPA: !tektronix!reed!douglas@Berkley Terminus,The Foundation Box 502 Reed College,Portland,OR 97202 ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 88 01:07:18 GMT From: mcb@tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) Subject: Re: Libertarians love NASA? Keith F. Lynch writes: > > From: BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa > > I saw a message from Dale Amon asking us to lobby for full NASA funding. > > Dale is quite vocal in proclaiming himself to be a libertarian. ... the > > Libertarian Party ... recommended that NASA be abolished. Even the policy > > statement of a Libertarian Party presidential candidate was clear in its > > stance that NASA had held back U.S. progress in space for the last 20 years. > > Dale Amon does not speak for the Libertarian party. I have asked him > more than once to change his stance or to stop calling himself a > libertarian. Abolition of NASA and the creation of a fully private-sector space industry is a libertarian ideal, and I support the LP's position on it, but I also live in the real world, and pay real-world federal and state taxes, as do lots of other people, and would MUCH rather tax revenues went to things like the space program than to income-redistribution programs and military adventurism. So long as the government has a monopoly on the U.S. space effort, we need to stick up for space funding. Of course I'd rather have it the "right" way, and I spend more time/money working on fundamental political issues than on appropriations (though I suport SpacePAC/Spacecause), but there's no contradiction in my mind between "short term" and "long term" goals... This position is shared by many libertarians with respect to various real-world public policy issues. Michael C. Berch mcb@tis.llnl.gov / {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!lll-tis!mcb ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 88 15:36:17 GMT From: moria!dunc@sun.com (duncs home) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ In article <1022@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > ... >1. You need communications channels back to earth. A radio telescope on >the far side of the moon would need relay satellites in lunar orbit for >this purpose. These satellites would themselves have to transmit within >view of the far side of the moon, possibly polluting the very spectrum >you spent so much to view in a pristine state. On the other hand, a >telescope in lunar orbit can provide its own store-and-forward relay. It >need not transmit anything at all while it is actually observing. There's no reason a relay satellite couldn't store and forward in exactly the same way. >2. You need power. This is much easier to obtain in orbit, since solar >panels will be illuminated for roughly half of each orbit. On the On the surface solar panels are illuminated for roughly half the time too. Yes, you have to store the energy longer, but you have planet worth of raw materials to assist. In return you get to make uninterrupted observations for as long as you choose. The orbital observatory spends half the time with the Earth shouting in it's ears and half the remainder with the Moon between it and whatever it's interested in. >surface, you will almost certainly need nuclear power sources to carry >you through the long 2-week lunar night. Thermal control is also much >easier in orbit. Of course much of a surface station could be buried to >help level out the day/night temperature fluctuations, except for the >antennas -- and these are likely to be very susceptible to severe >thermal-induced distortions. Could you explain again why having the antenna cycle from sunlight to shade every few tens of minutes provides better stability than having it happen every two weeks? >3. You need large antennas. You can build truly awesome arrays in zero-gee >that require very little mass. Not quite as easy even in 1/6 G. Probably true. On the other hand, it's probably easier to get all the bits pointed in the same direction when they're mounted on a large common platform. --Dunc ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 15:56:38 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (James W. Meritt) Subject: Re: How to become an astronaut? In article <176@aplcomm.UUCP> dpw@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (David P. Wenger) writes: }I'm an undergraduate comp-sci and mathematics major at Drexel University Unfortunately, one of the first things you must do is learn to speak russian..... :~( jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 15:28:10 GMT From: mtunx!whuts!sw@rutgers.edu (WARMINK) Subject: Re: POSITION OF JUPITER In article <8804041822.AA13294@angband.s1.gov>, AHD2044@TAMSTAR.BITNET writes: > DOES ANYONE OF YOU ASTRONOMY PEOPLE OUT THERE HAVE A BASIC PROGRAM THAT > CAN PREDICT THE POSITION OF THE PLANET JUPITER BY INPUTING THE DATE > AND TIME ONE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE IT. PREFERRABLE IN BASIC WOULD BE NICE > HOWEVER, ANY LANGUAGE WOULD BE APPRECIATED. Only recently a PC program appeared in 'comp.binaries.ibm.pc' which plots the positions for all the planets, lots of stars and the Sun and Moon for any place, time and date. It was called 'skyplot' and consists of 8 sections which should be 'cat' together (after removing rubbish) and 'uudecode'ed. The resulting file should be renamed SKY.EXE and run on a PC to extract all relevant files. As it has already appeared on the net, I would hesitate to post it again as it is a bit big really... Good luck, -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "We demand rigidly defined areas of | Stuart Warmink, APT UK Ltd. doubt and uncertainty" (Vroomfondel) | !whuts!sw -----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of APT UK Ltd. <----------- ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 88 16:58:54 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: Space Station measurement system In article <1184@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> schmitz@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU (Donald Schmitz) writes: [.. a bunch of stuff deleted..] >but rather the station instrument calibration. I would much rather measure >some things, like the cabin pressure I was about to walk into, in lb/in^2 >than Pascals, and count on doing the conversion to atmospheres (which is >what really matters) right. I can't say I'm fond of kiloPascals as a pressure measurement myself, either. But I'm not sure that either PSI or atmospheres is what you really want. Sure, you need a PSI or kiloPascal measurement to figure stresses on the pressure hull, etc, and some arbitrary measurement to keep the life support system calibrated. But when it comes to the air that I'm breathing (assuming an air-like O2/N2 mix) then from my pilot training I tend to convert to an equivalent altitude. Ie, air at up to 10,000 feet (down to about 10psi) is breathable 'indefinitely' without exertion, above that one needs supplementary oxygen. 12 to 13psi (about 5000') is perfectly comfortable for any reasonably healthy person (ask anyone who lives in Denver or Mexico City), and so on. Instrument calibrations depend not just on *what* you're measuring, but *why* you're measuring it. Altitude chambers measure pressure in feet altitude. Recompression chambers measure pressure in feet of seawater equivalent depth, etc. Ditto for other measurement systems. (I always wanted a speedometer calibrated in metres/sec, or Mach number :-) -- Alastair JW Mayer BIX: al UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 88 16:43:52 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: Space Station measurement system In article <1694@pompeii.UUCP> leif@pompeii.UUCP (Leif Kirschenbaum) writes: >In article <8803141519.AA22768@blues.db.toronto.edu> hogg@db.toronto.edu (John Hogg) writes: >> In article <1988Mar11.041245.8768@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >> >The space station will not be metric, for fear that it might affect safety >> >in an emergency when snap decisions are being made by ignorant astronauts >> >who have to convert metric units to archaic ones before thinking about them. >> >[AW&ST obviously did not word it quite that way...] [..stuff deleted..] >metric. I don't know which system NASA uses, but would be surprised if they >use English. I would think that anyone qualified enough to be an astronaut has >had more than the basic courses in science, and would therefore think in metric. It's a long way from a few science courses to "thinking in metric". The units you use tend to relate to what you're doing with them - I use metric for lab work and buying groceries and gas (although I still figure my gas consumption in miles/gallon), miles for figuring walking distances, km/hr for driving speed, and knots and nautical miles for flying. Likewise for flying I don't care so much about gallons (or litres) of fuel as I do about pounds of fuel. I'd say I tend to 'think' more in Imperial measure than metric, though I use both. Depends how you're brought up, and what your measuring devices are calibrated in. In any case, anyone with pilot training is going to tend to think in feet and nautical miles. >Even in snap situations (I certainly do- slugs are awfull difficult to relate to >and metric numbers are so much easier to compute- 10m/s/s for g, 1g/cc density >for water, etc.) Even if they hadn't, all the training NASA gives astronauts >(and I gather that it's a lot) should involve metric. So why the worry about >'ignorant' astronauts? Personally, I find it difficult to imagine a scenario where the difference in whether, say, a station module is 10m (33.something feet) long or 30 feet (9.something meters), or whether you've got 50kg or 110lb of thruster propellant is going to make a big difference. True, Air Canada ran into a little problem (the "Gimli Glider") with metric measurement of fuel left in one of their 767s (the fuel guages were inoperative, a dipstick measurement was converted to weight using the wrong conversion factor, inches to lbs instead of cm to kg, or some such), but if consistent units are used in the station, I can't see a similar situation occurring. >Does anyone know what system NASA uses to train its personnel and design its >systems? Does anyone know where it gets scientists who are willing to use >the English system to design spacecraft, instruments, equipment, etc? The thing is, *scientists* don't design spacecraft, instruments, etc, *engineers* do. And most engineers (in North America, anyway) were taught the Imperial system. (Not English - England went metric a while back...) -- Alastair JW Mayer BIX: al UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Apr 88 09:27:21 CDT From: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Abrams) Posted-Date: Fri, 8 Apr 88 09:27:21 CDT Subject: Re: The moon as a research base Cc: enos@doc.cc.utexas.edu In Space Digest, V8 #184, tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) writes: The far side of the moon is, of course the best place in the solar system for radio astronomy, being permanently shielded from Earth's radio noise by thousands of kilometers of rock. I've just returned from the Lunar Bases Symposium, held in Houston TX, where an entire session on "Scientific Investigations from a Lunar Base" where it was discussed that the moon and its environment were the best places, not only for r adio astronomy, but for optical, IR, X-Ray, neutrino, and gravitational radiati on. The first three obviously are due to shielding by the Earth, vacuum environ ment, and the ready availability of land (no squatters or protestors around). The last two are more physics oriented (time-of-flight measurements to improve guesses on neutrino masses; correlation of lunar gravitational radiation laser interferometer -- high vacuum -- with Earth-based instruments) but, eventually, they will be incorporated into neutrino and gravity wave observatories. The latter, incidentally, is what motivates me to work towards a PhD in this field (one that I probably won't receive until well after the establishment of a parmanently manned lunar base -- or so it seems at times)... Steve Abrams ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 21:41:49 GMT From: weltyc@nisc.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Re: How to become an astronaut? In article <176@aplcomm.UUCP>, dpw@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (David P. Wenger) writes: > > ..... I have a great desire to become an astronaut and was > wondering if anyone out there knows what steps should be taken to accomplish > this goal. Eugene Miya sent me this information a year ago, when I sent in a request, I was quite promptly sent an application for Mission Specialist and Astronaut: Astronaut Selection Board NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, TX 77050 I also called to find out what my chances were, etc, and I was told that (surpisingly?) competition is still quite intense. You need to be in EXCELLENT physical shape, decent vision (20/100 uncorrected for Mission Specialist, 20/20 for Astronaut), and have a pretty impressive background. In general if you don't have a graduate degree you're pretty much out of the running for Mission Specialist. They look for information going back as far as high school......They recommended I wait to apply until I get my PhD, as that would increase my chances significantly.... If this is indeed your dream, don't let cynicism stand in your way, you've got to fight to make it a reality. Christopher Welty --- Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!rutgers!nysernic!weltyc ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #197 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Apr 88 06:27:23 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12635; Fri, 22 Apr 88 03:24:16 PDT id AA12635; Fri, 22 Apr 88 03:24:16 PDT Date: Fri, 22 Apr 88 03:24:16 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804221024.AA12635@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #198 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 198 Today's Topics: 48 Hours space news from March 28 AW&ST space news from April 4 AW&ST Re: space news from April 4 AW&ST Re: Millions of comets hit Earth Condensed CANOPUS - March 1988 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Apr 88 19:05:53 GMT From: ncspm!jay@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Jay C. Smith) Subject: 48 Hours This week's "48 Hours," the CBS prime-time news program that isn't "60 Minutes" or "West 57th," is supposed to be about a shuttle mission simulation. Air time is 8:00 p.m. EDT on Thursday, April 21. Thought you might like to know, since this sort of information always comes in too late for TV Guide. Jay C. Smith uucp: ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 88 23:52:44 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from March 28 AW&ST Martin Marietta is studying a near-term manned Mars mission. It would need about 1.5 Mlbs in Earth orbit. Needed would be orbital storage of cryogenic propellants, aerobraking, and a lightweight spacesuit (the old lunar spacesuits would be too heavy in Mars's stronger gravity). Congress puts the Commercially Developed Space Facility on hold due to doubts about the need, and irritation that NASA didn't ask them about it first. NASA expects that Congress will okay it eventually, but some changes may be needed. NRC urges NASA not to fly the shuttle again until the cause of the nozzle boot ring failure in December is understood, and urges more testing before launch. This would probably cause delays, since there is no slack in the Aug 4 schedule. NRC is concerned that even the old boot-ring design should not be trusted until the failure of the new one is understood, which it isn't at the moment. NASA points out, though, that the analytical methods are not really trusted and testing is the real source of confidence in the boot-ring designs. A mid-April test will involve a deliberately weakened boot ring. Remaining full-scale tests before STS-26 are QM-6 (April 19, with defects in joint seals and boot ring), QM-7 (June, high temperature, flight loads, but no defects), and PVM-1 (July, still more drastic defects). NASA FY89 budget likely to lose about half the $2.5G increase requested over last year. NASA is looking at four sites for an Advanced Solid Rocket Motor production facility. Unresolved is whether the plant should be owned by the contractor or only operated by them. NASA-owned facilities would provide a more competitive situation for contractors. Morton Thiokol favors company-owned facilities; the other four interested companies all favor NASA ownership. Phase one work on the Awesomely Lucrative Spacelauncher, er excuse me the Advanced Launch System, resumes as USAF and NASA come to agreement on roles. USAF will be in charge, NASA will do full-scale propulsion work and hydrocarbon-fuel subsystem work, USAF Astronautics Lab will do hydrogen- fuel subsystem work, and USAF will pay for upgrading of NASA facilities for propulsion testing. British government expected to approve additional develoment funding for Hotol, to supplement substantial industry-provided funding. ESA and NASA come to tentative agreement on space-station participation! ESA also decides to give Britain a chance to change its mind about its recent refusal to get involved. Britain awards large contract to Marconi Space Systems for work on laser communications for satellites, to include lab demonstrations of hardware. Progress 35 tanker launched to Mir March 23rd. Drawings by Charlie Vick of the expected configuration of the Soviet shuttle stacked on Energia. From the back (looking at the orbiter's top) it actually looks a lot like the US shuttle except at the bottom, where Energia bristles with rocket engines and the orbiter tails off into a streamlined fairing. [Vick is one of the top Soviet-space-program watchers.] DoD formally approves SDI's Space-Based Interceptor experiment as compliant with the ABM Treaty, partly as a result of a number of changes made to the experiment to make it more compliant. [Also of note, from the March 12th issue of Flight International:] Alexander Dunayev, head of Glavkosmos, confirms that the second Energia will carry an unmanned shuttle orbiter, adding that it may not be quite what Western analysts expect. He says launch could be within a month but four months is more realistic. Dunayev thinks that if the automatic system works, there is no rush about putting men aboard. There may be two different versions of the Soviet shuttle, manned and unmanned. As some Western analysts have suggested, the shuttle's main mission is to bring major payloads down. [Energia is just fine by itself for taking them up.] Dunayev says that the third-stage failure in the first Energia test was pre-launch human error, and that the engine did fire but in the wrong direction. He confirms that parts of Energia are meant to be reusable, and says that tests indicate this is practical. The current Mir crew is intended to be up 400 days, although medical considerations may change this as the mission goes along. Bulgarian cosmonaut Alexandrov will not in fact do an EVA, and earlier reports about "space bicycles" referred to exercise bicycles rather than manned maneuvering units (although such things are planned for later). Pravda says that the Sanglok Mountain complex the Soviets are building is not an antisatellite laser station but a combined electro-optical space- surveillance site and astronomical observatory. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 19 Apr 88 04:15:35 GMT From: mnetor!spectrix!tmsoft!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from April 4 AW&ST Editorial criticizing Commerce Dept's attempt to dictate shuttle pricing policies, also its granting of an export licence for Mir microgravity experiments without consulting the entire US government about it. Zenith Star (SDI's big chemical-laser satellite) gets big budget boost. Getaway Special program has about 530 reservations, roughly 1/4 of them from outside US, with Germany in the lead followed by Canada and Japan. NASA says RFP for advanced-SRB development will be issue in June, work to start Jan. A segmented design will be used [boo hiss]. The question of whether facilities will be owned by the contractor or the government remains open. NASA wins battle with Commerce over shuttle pricing: should paying users pay full shuttle costs, or (since the shuttle would be flying even without them) only the extra costs required to fly them? Commerce, OMB, and DoD favored the higher price; everybody else, including customers and Congress, was opposed. Rep. Nelson says that if the Administration was favoring the higher price, "that's all we need to know to understand that those who are making policy in the Administration don't know much about commercial spaceflight". Rep. Walker (Nelson's Republican counterpart): "For the life of me, I can't understand what idiot decided this was a rational policy." He charges that advocates of the higher price were ignoring the law: in NASA's FY86 authorization bill, Congress set firm shuttle-pricing rules. DoT's Office of Commercial Space Transportation observes that in the present situation, full cost recovery is "nuts". Walker also tells Commerce that the unwillingness of Administration officials to supply details on how policy was set is grossly out of order. Budget situation looks sticky for space station and related projects. Congress tells NASA that its persistent assumption of 15-20% annual budget increases has no relation to reality. Also some criticism of the proposed CDSF lease deal, which says NASA will start paying on delivery even if the launch is delayed, but imposes no penalty for late delivery of hardware. Spacehab is also unhappy that leasing of ISF could reduce its business; NASA confirms that if it is paying for facilities, obviously it will use them before buying more. [Could it be my memory, or do I recall a time, only a couple of months ago at that, when Spacehab said it wanted no subsidies or special treatment, just flight opportunities?] Rep. George Brown introduces Space Settlement Act, making human settlement of space an official long-term goal and requiring regular NASA reports on progress. He is also making loud noises about more money for civilian space. Picture of Hughes's latest Jarvis design, aiming at the ALS program. Think of a slightly short shuttle tank, with 50%-scale replicas of itself clustered around its base. The strap-ons would be recovered, but not the core. Propulsion is identical for strap-ons and core: each has four clusters of eight RL-10 engines [the Centaur engine], for a total of 224 [!!] engines if all six strap-ons are used. Everything would be firing at launch, with the core then shutting down and restarting later at high altitude. The RL-10 was picked for reliability, performance [not as good as the SSME but not bad], and cost [much less than the SSME]. Hughes is proposing launch from Palmyra Island (vaguely near Hawaii) from an austere facility. British government semi-reverses itself, saying that it might return to some of the big ESA projects if they can be revised to reduce costs and increase benefits. Andrew Stofan, outgoing space-station admin, says NASA is ready to start shuttle flights again, and should have done so 18 months ago, but that everybody is paranoid about safety due to intense unfavorable publicity. "There is only one way to be safe -- never fly..." "NASA's been a risk-taking agency. If they stop doing that, NASA's not a viable agency any more." He also slams Congressional micromanagement and the "infinite amount of time and energy" required to solve problems when everybody in Washington wants a say. NASA names crews for 1989 shuttle missions. Nobody remarkable. [In particular, John Young isn't going to fly the Hubble Telescope mission, as he was going to before Challenger. Young in fact is in the doghouse these days. Shortly after Challenger, he openly criticized the lack of astronaut involvement in engineering... something widely felt to be mostly his fault, since his predecessors insisted on astronaut involvement and generally got it. If you've wondered why he got kicked upstairs from his position as chief astronaut, my spies tell me this had a lot to do with it.] [Finally, a repetition of old news: for those interested in a copy of the Ride Report, AW&ST sells them. $14.95 plus "appropriate sales tax" to The Ride Report (A128), Aviation Week & Space Technology, PO Box 5505, Peoria, IL 61601. They take Visa, Mastercard, AmEx, Diner's Club.] -- "Noalias must go. This is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology non-negotiable." --DMR | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 88 03:42:52 GMT From: pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) Subject: Re: space news from April 4 AW&ST Hey... space news from April 4 AW&ST, and today is April 19th... My God! It's only two weeks old!!!!!!! What's wrong Henry ????? ;-} ARPA : Philip.Verdieck@andrew.cmu.edu PV04+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET : r746pv04@CMCCVB UUCP : ...!{harvard,ucbvax}!andrew.cmu.edu!pv04 ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 20:57:37 GMT From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com (Jay Freeman) Subject: Re: Millions of comets hit Earth If that were so, then there should be at least hundreds of thousands of new craters on the MOON each year, each caused by the impact of a small comet. I think we have enough high-resolution lunar photography, over a sufficient time base, so that any such phenomenon would be pretty obvious. (I mean the stuff from the lunar orbiters, such craters might be too small to be easily detectable with Earth-based telescopes.) I also suspect that the seismographs left by the Apollo missions would have been kept pretty busy by all those impacts; remember that the seismographs were more than sensitive enough to detect the LEMs when they were crashed into the lunar surface after various missions, and that a LEM is much less massive than a 30-foot snowball and also moving at far less speed at impact. Am I missing something? Was there a typo in the original posting? -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 88 21:47:31 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Condensed CANOPUS - March 1988 This is the condensed CANOPUS for March 1988. There are 9 articles, three presented by title only, three condensed to become very short, and three condensed but somewhat longer. The shuttle manifest included in this issue has been posted separately to sci.space.shuttle. All articles have been highly condensed and often rearranged. Material from me is in {braces}, and expressions of opinion are signed {--SW}. The unabridged CANOPUS has been sent to the special mailing list. CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Send correspondence about its contents to the executive editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded). Send correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA, 1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019. Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS widely, either electronically or as printout copies. If you do, however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many others receive copies. CANOPUS is partially supported by the National Space Science Data Center. {Three articles by title only} NEW INITIATIVES OFFICE IN HOUSTON - can880305.txt - 3/8/88 RAYMOND HEACOCK - can880306.txt - 3/8/88 {at JPL} HIGH-ENERGY ASTROPHYSICS MISSION DESCRIBED - can880309.txt - 3/16/88 {Details of instruments on SHEAL} {Three very short, condensed articles} SAN MARCO DELAYED - can880302.txt - 3/3/88 Studying Earth's atmosphere. Scout launcher. Delayed one week. NEW SPACE STATION HEAD NAMED - can880304.txt - 3/8/88 James Odom, currently director of science and engineering at Marshall Space Flight Center, as of April 1. ASTRONAUTS FORM CUSTOMER RELATIONS GROUP - can880307.txt - 3/8/88 Six astronauts have been assigned to customer relations duties for prospective Space Shuttle and Space Station experimenters. According to a NASA announcement, "The group focuses on increasing scientific and engineering flexibility of experiments in space without violating Shuttle operational guidelines." {Three longer condensed articles.} "SMALL" EXPLORER A.O. PLANNED - can8809301.txt - 3/3/88 {condensed} An "Announcement of Opportunity" is to be issued by NASA by early May for small Explorer spacecraft that would be launched aboard Scout expendable launchers. With the new program NASA is "trying to get back to doing space science research quickly," said George Newton, manager of advanced programs in NASA's astrophysics division. The AO will be aimed at "mature instruments" that can be designed, built and flown with relatively little development work. The first launch is to come in 1991. Newton said that the goal is to fly one or two Scout Explorers a year. {Quicker flight opportunities are definitely a step in the right direction. Now let's just hope they can pull it off.--SW} {Larger Explorers, probably requiring Delta-class launchers.} In February, NASA selected for Phase A study four concepts from a field of 44 proposals. The four selected are: Lyman Far UV Spectroscopic Explorer, Warren Moos, Johns Hopkins University. {A successor or a companion to IUE, which recently had its tenth birthday.} Nuclear Astrophysics Explorer, James Matteson, University of California at San Diego. It would produce high-resolution observations of gamma ray lines, with emphasis on neutron stars, supernovas, and nucleosythesis. {A similar instrument was dropped from GRO in a cost-saving move a few years ago.} Advanced Composition Explorer, Edward Stone, California Institute of Technology. Analyze the makeup of solar, interplanetary, and galactic "cosmic ray" particles. Mesosphere/Lower Thermosphere Explorer, Paul Hays, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. {Earth's atmosphere} The number of spacecraft that will be selected for flight will depend on the funding outlook. {Probably at most two.} Development is to start in 1991 and the first launch will be in 1995-96. NASA DEVELOPING SPACE SCIENCE STRATEGY - can880303.txt - 3/7/88 A "serious strategy planning effort" began last fall, said Joseph Alexander, assistant associate administrator for space science and applications, and is about a month from completion. Alexander said it resulted from Associate Administrator Lenard Fisk's desire to provide a more realistic approach to developing missions. {Fisk was a relatively new appointee. More realistic planning has been long overdue.--SW} The general outline of the strategy follows five major themes. In priority they are: COMPLETION OF ONGOING PROGRAMS. MAJOR AND MODEST NEW STARTS. SMALL MISSIONS. USE OF SPACE STATION. RESEARCH AND SUPPORT. Alexander noted that the 1989 budget request to start the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF) fits the major program category. Completion of the Space Infrared Telescope Facility, the last of the four Great Observatories for space astrophysics, is planned, too. {for 1993 new start, I think.--SW} (The other Great Observatories are the Hubble Space Telescope and the Gamma Ray Observatory). The next major program, the Mariner Mark 2 series planetary spacecraft, will be sought in 1990, with the Comet Rendezvous/ Asteroid Flyby as its first mission followed a few years later by the Casini Saturn/Titan mission. It is planned that ultimately there will be at least one planetary mission in its prime data gathering phase each year. {This almost surely requires increased funding, unless they're planning to eliminate non-planetary missions.--SW} "SPACELAB 5" REUNITED, LDEF RETRIEVAL SET - can880308.txt - 3/16/88 {condensed. Shuttle manifest posted separately in sci.space.shuttle} {last article} Major features of the latest Space Shuttle manifest are unchanged, and a number of space science and applications missions are given firm slots rather than just a listing of needed bookings. The manifest shows payload assignments through late 1993 (rather than 1989), and builds to a flight rate of one mission per month in 1992. ASTRO consists of the Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope (HUT), the Wisconsion Ultraviolet Photopolarimeter (WUPPE), and the Goddard UV Imaging Telescope (UIT). SHEAL consists of the Broad-Band X-ray Telescope (BBRXT) and the Diffuse X-ray Spectrometer (DXS). A third X-ray telescope was dropped several years ago to conserve costs. ASTRO now will fly with the BBRXT. Spacelab 5 used to be ASTRO plus SHEAL, but they were separated a few years ago. Recovery of LDEF will come more than five years after its April 1984 launch on the Solar Max Repair Mission. LDEF's orbit is decaying somewhat faster than expected. Unlike Skylab, it has no attitude control system which engineers could use to select is entry point. Further, many of its experiments may be useless from extended exposure to radiation; it was only supposed to be up 9 months. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #198 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Apr 88 06:24:39 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14320; Sat, 23 Apr 88 03:21:33 PDT id AA14320; Sat, 23 Apr 88 03:21:33 PDT Date: Sat, 23 Apr 88 03:21:33 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804231021.AA14320@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #199 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 199 Today's Topics: Today's Anniversary Re: Today's Anniversary Re: Superconductors Re: Libertarians love NASA? remote sensing of Mars and private industry Re: Radiation Hardening Chips Re: Jesse Jackson's space policy searching for astronomy discussion groups by e-mail Re: Re-evolving spaceflight after collapse of civilization Re: Antimatter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Apr 88 22:30:10 GMT From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) Subject: Today's Anniversary Today is a special day. On 1961 April 12, the first human flew in space. He was Yuri Gagarin, and he was launched from Russia into Earth orbit. The conquest of space had begun. The British Broadcasting Corporation brought the news to a small farmhouse in Wales, in what was then the County of Flint, where a schoolboy tried to explain what it all meant to his grandmother. Of course, we knew it had to happen. We'd read about Goddard, about von Braun and the V-2, about the British Interplanetary Society. We'd read Tsiolkovsy's books; we treasured Ley & Bonestell's 'The Conquest of Space'; we had grown up with the romances of Wells, Verne, and the modern writers of speculative fiction. I was fifteen. My first thought was one of simple joy, that at last we were on our way. The theoretical groundwork had been done; the backyard engineering of the pioneers was behind us; the heavy rockets at Peenemunde - however abused - had proven that the technology was adequate. It was now a matter of will, and drive, and heroism; things with which mankind has rarely been under-supplied. My second thought was panic. I was too young! Now that the long, slow period of growth, from wild propagandists, random rabid enthusiasts, through private engineers and amateurs, to working programs - now that this was over, progress would surely be fast. Rocketry was now in the stage that aviation had reached by about 1920, or steamships by about 1820. A manned space station was next; then the moon landing; and then the real adventure, the thing we dreamed about: Mars. And what chance would I have, of being on the expedition that would be launched during the opposition of 1971? ---- Well, twenty-seven years have passed since that day. How have we done? Recall that, thirty years after the other Rocket, of Stevenson, you could buy a train ticket from London to Edinburgh. Thirty years after Wilbur and Orville left the ground, you could buy an airline ticket that would take you around the world. How did we get here, where all the West in concert cannot even replicate the achievment of Vostok 1, and put a man into Earth orbit? I remember the steam engine of Heron of Alexandria, that could have changed the world; and the society, rooted in slavery and oppression, that ignored its promise, and used it to fake temple miracles. I remember Cheng Ho, who almost alone tried to make China into a transoceanic empire; and whose dream was crushed by the mandarins, who saw any change as a threat to their control. I remember Robert Fulton, trying to convince a sick tyrant that ships could indeed move against the wind, and that his tyranny could profit by funding them. And I remember Neil Armstrong, taking a small step on the moon. Today is a day to look again at Bonestell's paintings. To replay the gramophone record the Russian Embassy sent me, of Gagarin's words crackling down from space. To leaf through the closing pages of Spengler's 'Der Untergang des Abendlandes', where he predicts in frightening terms the stifling bureaucratic totalitarianism that is our inevitable fate: as the influential loot the treasury; as the powerful stifle all initiative that does not serve their ends; as the mob and their toadies destroy the Laws; and as at last the coming Caesar consummates the triumph of blood and iron. Today is a day to weep, for the dream is over. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 88 14:37:36 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Today's Anniversary >From article <5036@aw.sei.cmu.edu>, by firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth): > Today is a day to weep, for the dream is over. No, Robert - the dream goes on. It just is gonna take a little longer to make real, that's all. Course, if we don't get our act together soon, we'll have to dream in a certain other language, but that point's been laboured enough recently in sci.space. The dream of Apr 12, 1961 is finally being realized in its homeland, and so I wish you a happy 'Denya Kosmonavtika' (cosmonaut's day). But the anniversary I keep is Dec 21, 1968 - can it really be almost twenty years since humans first escaped from the Earth's gravity well and voyaged around another world? By the time that anniversary comes around I hope Americans will be flying in space again and we'll be gearing up to get our part of the dream going again. Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 88 16:47:45 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Superconductors In article <2422@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> sjmoon@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Sang J. Moon) writes: >I may be treading a beaten path, but I would like to know what uses >the present or future space program has for superconductors. "You are forgiven, my son..." You are only the second request I've seen. "There are many uses.." say the people who don't really know anything except the ruediments of superconductivity. The uses these materials will see in space will be anything which benefits having current flow thru them: computers, power systems, motors, etc. There are still too many unknowns: mass production, can you make wire? Does this stuff fall apart thru time? can it be radiation hardened? Etc. etc. The problem is like this: Chu's ceramic works in LN2. Do we start to gear up for LN2 technology (we can, witness the ETA-10)? Or do we wait for the promised (like AI, fusion, and remote sensing) room temperature SC? If we wait, it may never appear (there are limits to these things), if we go to LN2, then we have this obsolete stuff if room temp stuff appears. The third course (bureaucratic) is waiting and use existing stuff (non-SC). I would rather buy Genetech or minisuper stock myself than SC companies. Just too much hype in this field right now. A good talk was given last summer at Stanford on the promise of SC materials in the supercollider. NASA is not specifically targeting anything to use the new superconductors. There is insufficient knowledge to apply them to like or project "threatening" space missions. On the other hand, NASA is supposed to take risks. It's a tradeoff. You will notice no one at NASA has made any of the IBM material for instance (H.S. do it, right? ;-), and there has been only one internal meeting I am aware of on the topic. There's more to space than flowing electrons. If you are willing and in able health, maybe we can make a fly-by wire SC plane and let you be the first to test fly it ;-). We will try our best to prevent you from augering in. Ooops, we forgot the aerodynamics! Back to the drawing board...... It has been printed that research takes 20 years to see practical applications (a figure typically printed in the 1960s, may not take exponential growth into account). Superconditivity will be an interesting case to see in all of your life times. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 21:12:32 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Libertarians love NASA? > > Dale is quite vocal in proclaiming himself to be a libertarian. ... the > > Libertarian Party ... recommended that NASA be abolished... > > Dale Amon does not speak for the Libertarian party. I have asked him > more than once to change his stance or to stop calling himself a > libertarian. It is possible to be libertarian without being Libertarian, in the same way that it is possible to be democratic without being a Democrat. Don't confuse the general philosophy with the political party. -- "Noalias must go. This is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology non-negotiable." --DMR | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Apr 88 11:12:27 MST From: mocvax!mc%miranda.uucp@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Mike Caplinger) To: mocvax!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: remote sensing of Mars and private industry D. Starr says: > I would even maintain that our commercial > remote-sensing capabilities have reached the point where even the > pre-departure remote surveys of Mars (Mars Observer and its followups, > for instance) should really be contracted out to private industry (eg, > Spot Image). I feel compelled to point out that the Mars Observer Camera isn't being built by NASA, but by a team of people at Arizona State University and Caltech. We're contracting out some of the work (optics and support structure mostly, for example Perkin-Elmer is making the glass) and doing most of the electronics and software ourselves. This is a rather capable instrument, better than any non-military device that's ever been flown in Earth orbit (resolution of 1.4 meters narrow angle, and global coverage in two colors with a wide-angle lens system.) I'm really not sure what you're objecting to. Sure, MO is NASA-funded. But most of the instruments are being built by university research teams who contract out to industry to get some of the stuff built. Do you believe SPOT Image is going to *pay* for a survey of Mars? Besides, they're not the best example anyway; do you think they weren't subsidized by the French government? Mike Caplinger ASU/Caltech Mars Observer Camera Project mc@moc.jpl.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 22:43:50 GMT From: quintus!ok@unix.sri.com (Richard A. O'Keefe) Subject: Re: Radiation Hardening Chips In article <75@avsd.UUCP>, govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes: > > We (Commercial Software Ltd) are looking for information on > > radiation hardening chips. This is because we are involved in the > > SCONZ project (Space COmmunications New Zealand) and have been > > asked by SCONZQUANGO to obtain information on hardening chips for > > space radiation exposure. > I though that you New Zealanders gave up nuclear-related technologies > Lange ago so that the Soviets wouldn't notice you. Do I detect an > incipient backbone? NZ didn't "give up nuclear-related technologies". It repudiated nuclear _weapons_, a very different thing. You think it doesn't take backbone to stick to your principles (come to that, to the principles of the _American_ Methodist Bishops) despite Uncle's tantrums and threats? [NZ, by the way, stuck within the letter of the ANZUS pact, of which I have a copy. The US did _not_.] > By the way, couldn't you come up with more euphonic acronyms than > SCONZ and SCONZQUANGO? "Scones" is the English name for what USAns call "biscuits". Sounds euphonious to me. QUANGO is a standard English acronym, standing for "QUasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation". But the cream of the joke is that the flamer apparently didn't notice the dateline: 1 Apr 88, or that while rec.humor was among the Newsgroups, comp.lsi and sci.electronics (which would have been the appropriate newsgroups if the request had been genuine) were not. Nice one, Zippy and (Gregg and/or Bill). Kua nui te kata. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 18:30:32 GMT From: ulysses!thumper!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Jesse Jackson's space policy > Until recently, the Soviets denied the existence of their SDI program, > which seems to be better funded than ours. Fortunately, the laws of physics apply as much to the Soviets as they do to us. Why should you care if the Soviets want to waste their money? As far as I'm concerned, the more they blow on futile space defenses (as opposed to additional conventional or nuclear offensive weapons) the better. Hmm, maybe the Soviets KNOW all this, but they fund their own "sdi" program just so we'll blow even more money on our own. They must certainly *know* that the louder they protest, the more Reagan will dig in his heels... > Also, arms agreements are unverifiable from space. Really? Then I guess the only reason we have programs like KH-11, Big Bird, Vela, Rhyolite, Magnum, etc, is so we can watch and listen in on Soviet leaders when they call their girlfriends from their limos. Of course, I don't know how nuclear explosion detectors like those on Vela would fit in... Phil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1988 17:00:33.33 EDT From: (Jim Shaffer, Jr.) Subject: searching for astronomy discussion groups by e-mail To: I'm trying to compile a definitive list of astronomy and astronomy-related discussion groups run by electronic mail. I would appreciate hearing from everyone who has information on the subject. It doesn't matter whether it's mainframe networks, commercial bulletin boards, FidoNet boards, completely un-networked BBSs, or what. I want to hear about it. Please send to me directly, because I'm temporarily unsubscribed from the Space discussion. Thank you in advance, Jim Shaffer, Jr. ShafferJ%Bknlvms.Bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 88 14:34:01 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (James W. Meritt) Subject: Re: Re-evolving spaceflight after collapse of civilization In article <48472@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: > In article <880402011425.2100021d@NMFECC.ARPA> BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@NMFECC.ARPA writes: > >are chewing up critical ores at a million times their formation rate > >and are not likely to find substitutes for all materials which sit > >at critical junctures of a space-faring civilization's technology. >Recovering metals from old buildings, garbage dumps, and auto >wrecking yards would be orders of magnitudes easier and cheaper >than scouting out their ores and redeveloping the chemical and >industrial base to refine them. We are doing that now: A major source of aluminum is the cans, and a major source of copper is dug up underground cables (as we shift to fiber optics). I think the substitutes will prove to be very interesting, though. Sort of like evolving from a class I star.... (ceramics, fusion, biologics,...) Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 05:24:27 GMT From: littlei!zeus!sdp@uunet.uu.net (Scott Peterson) Subject: Re: Antimatter In article <8188@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >In article <575751917.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H writes: > >> 'The 'giggle factor' is over. Antimatter is real and >> we know how to make it and keep it. It has promise.' > >Of course the 'giggle factor' is over. There's absolutely nothing >funny about what DoD is going to actually use antimatter for. > >(Hint for the slow: it isn't to beat the Russkies to Alpha Centauri.) So, just how big a bomb could you make with the suff anyway? Would you need more than one? Scott Peterson OMSO Software Engineering Intel, Hillsboro OR sdp@sdp.hf.intel.com uunet!littlei!foobar!sdp!sdp ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #199 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Apr 88 06:29:04 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15519; Sun, 24 Apr 88 03:22:29 PDT id AA15519; Sun, 24 Apr 88 03:22:29 PDT Date: Sun, 24 Apr 88 03:22:29 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804241022.AA15519@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #200 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 200 Today's Topics: 707/717/720/c-135 history (was Re: KAL 007) Re: Jesse Jackson's space policy Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: How to become an astronaut? Re: 707/717/720/c-135 history (was Re: KAL 007) Re: How to become an astronaut? Aerospace Concepts Curriculum Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: KAL 007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Apr 88 18:32:33 GMT From: steinmetz!sunup!welty@uunet.uu.net (richard welty) Subject: 707/717/720/c-135 history (was Re: KAL 007) (this is crossposted; edit the news.groups line appropriately if necessary) In article <48118@sun.uucp>, fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: * The B-707 was modified to become the * C-135... In article <4642@hplabsb.UUCP> dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes: =It was the other way around. In article <815@ncspm.ncsu.edu> jay@ncspm.ncsu.EDU (Jay C. Smith) writes: >Every time the subject of the 707 and C-135 comes up it degenerates into >some sort of "chicken and the egg" discussion. I would appreciate it >if someone would clear this up for me. I think this might be what >happened, but I'm not sure: Boeing built a prototype passenger jet, >but realized that a big military contract would be the best way to >attract customers, so they actively sought to sell their prototype >to the Air Force as a cargo plane (the C-135). A big military >contract followed, the airlines soon wanted the plane, and it was >updated and sold as the 707. >The reason for confusion may be that while the C-135 was sold first, >the 707 was always the ultimate intention. This is nearly correct, Jay. The original aircraft was the Boeing 717, which built in the hopes of obtaining a large government contract for tankers (the KC-97s were in obvious need of replacement.) The Air Force agreed, and ordered large numbers of this aircraft, designating it the KC-135 (the cargo variants came later -- the tanker was first.) Boeing then used the profits from the Air Force contract to complete the design of the type 707, which is a similar aircraft, but has suprisingly few parts in common with the KC-135. In addition, there is a variation on the 707 called the 720 which some airlines use, although there is a bit of confusion over the model numbers -- some planes designated 720s by the airlines are really 707s, and some 707s have a few 720 features. The C-137 (Air Force One) and the E-3A Sentry (the AWACS) are based on commercial 707s, and not on 717s, incidentally. Mike Trout has a large C-135 history, which he mailed to me a while back. I could post it if anyone is interested (or he could, I suppose.) ---- Richard Welty Phone H: 518-237-6307 W: 518-387-6346 welty@ge-crd.ARPA {rochester,philabs,uunet}!steinmetz!welty ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 88 17:13:43 GMT From: avsd!govett@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David Govett) Subject: Re: Jesse Jackson's space policy > > Until recently, the Soviets denied the existence of their SDI program, > > which seems to be better funded than ours. > > Fortunately, the laws of physics apply as much to the Soviets as they do > to us. Why should you care if the Soviets want to waste their money? As > far as I'm concerned, the more they blow on futile space defenses (as > opposed to additional conventional or nuclear offensive weapons) the > better. Hmm, maybe the Soviets KNOW all this, but they fund their own > "sdi" program just so we'll blow even more money on our own. They must > certainly *know* that the louder they protest, the more Reagan will dig > in his heels... > > > Also, arms agreements are unverifiable from space. > > Really? Then I guess the only reason we have programs like KH-11, Big > Bird, Vela, Rhyolite, Magnum, etc, is so we can watch and listen in on > Soviet leaders when they call their girlfriends from their limos. Of > course, I don't know how nuclear explosion detectors like those on Vela > would fit in... > For someone so sceptical of technical feasibility, you sure put a lot of confidence in satellites. The Soviets have stolen technical manuals on several of the birds you list above, and are quite familiar with their capabilities. Sure, a ferret satellite once got Brezhnev's limo, but so what? That doesn't tell you diddly about what is being produced where. If the Soviet SDI program is futile, what has been blinding our satellites? ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 18:56:41 GMT From: ulysses!thumper!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ > ... The dark far side of the > : moon..." being a good place to conduct " ...sensitive radio astronomy... > : without interference from terrestrial signals." Yes, it's a great idea. In fact, it's already been done. Only it was an unmanned probe in lunar orbit instead of a manned base on the surface. The spacecraft recorded its observations during the time it was shielded from earth, and it relayed them back down when earth was visible. I really wish people would stop clutching at straws, looking for every possible application of their pet man-in-space project when many (if not most) of the tasks can be done far more cheaply and effectively with unmanned spacecraft. In the case of lunar-shielded radio astronomy, lunar orbit makes a lot more sense than the lunar surface for several very good reasons: 1. You need communications channels back to earth. A radio telescope on the far side of the moon would need relay satellites in lunar orbit for this purpose. These satellites would themselves have to transmit within view of the far side of the moon, possibly polluting the very spectrum you spent so much to view in a pristine state. On the other hand, a telescope in lunar orbit can provide its own store-and-forward relay. It need not transmit anything at all while it is actually observing. 2. You need power. This is much easier to obtain in orbit, since solar panels will be illuminated for roughly half of each orbit. On the surface, you will almost certainly need nuclear power sources to carry you through the long 2-week lunar night. Thermal control is also much easier in orbit. Of course much of a surface station could be buried to help level out the day/night temperature fluctuations, except for the antennas -- and these are likely to be very susceptible to severe thermal-induced distortions. 3. You need large antennas. You can build truly awesome arrays in zero-gee that require very little mass. Not quite as easy even in 1/6 G. Even Arthur C. Clarke originally conceived of his geostationary satellite relays as being manned. Fortunately, technological developments (and some economic common sense) have made that romantic notion unnecessary. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 88 20:44:54 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ In article <1335@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>, dep@CAT.CMU.EDU (David Pugh) writes: > In article <48414@sun.uucp> dunc@sun.UUCP (duncs home) writes: > >1. You need communications channels back to earth. A radio telescope on > >the far side of the moon would need relay satellites in lunar orbit for > >this purpose. ... > > Why do you need a relay satellite? We lay cables across the ocean, > I can see laying fiber-optic cable using technology from derived > wire-guided missiles: fire a missile containing 100+km cable, go > to whereever it lands, splice the cable to a new missle, etc. Why make work for yourself? Take a line-of-sight bearing in the direction of your transmitting statioon that can see Earth. Place a relay on the horizon at that bearing. Repeat until you can see the transmitting station. Use lasers to transmit data from the observatory to the downlink station (uplink? I get confused easily.). No weather to degrade the laser signal, no kids on tricycles to knock over the relays. Set up two or three relay paths for redundancy. Save fiber optics for your lunar cable TV network. (To make it harder to bootleg programming, of course.) seh ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 88 23:03:51 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: How to become an astronaut? In article <5212@venera.isi.edu>, rod@venera.isi.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) writes: > > When the first black American astronaut (sorry, I forget his name) was Guion Bluford. There was another, earlier, black astronaut...but he never made it into space, having died in a training accident. (T-38 crash, I think.) ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 88 22:00:31 GMT From: steinmetz!sunbarney!welty@uunet.uu.net (richard welty) Subject: Re: 707/717/720/c-135 history (was Re: KAL 007) (this is crossposted; edit the news.groups line appropriately if necessary) I've come up with a bit of additional information, and am filling it in with this posting ... In article <815@ncspm.ncsu.edu> jay@ncspm.ncsu.EDU (Jay C. Smith) writes: ... about the C-135 and the 707 ... In article <10312@steinmetz.ge.com> I wrote: >The original aircraft was the Boeing 717, which built in the hopes of >obtaining a large government contract for tankers (the KC-97s were in >obvious need of replacement.) The prototype was of a jetliner, although the tanker variant was always intended too. The prototype is described by one of my sources as a `gamble'. It was a very successful one. > The Air Force agreed, and ordered large >numbers of this aircraft, designating it the KC-135 (the cargo variants >came later -- the tanker was first.) The first order for the KC-135 came 3 weeks after the prototype flew. 29 were ordered. 732 KC-135A aircraft were built, with a peak production rate of approx. 20 per month. > Boeing then used the profits from >the Air Force contract to complete the design of the type 707, which >is a similar aircraft, but has suprisingly few parts in common with the >KC-135. The 707 has a wider fuselage and a completely different airframe. Other systems were throughly revised as well. The C-135 and the 707 are in no way, shape, or form the same aircraft. ---- Richard Welty Phone H: 518-237-6307 W: 518-387-6346 welty@ge-crd.ARPA {rochester,philabs,uunet}!steinmetz!welty ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 88 19:18:44 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: How to become an astronaut? >From article <48770@sun.uucp>, by fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix): > In article <5212@venera.isi.edu>, rod@venera.isi.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) writes: >> >> When the first black American astronaut (sorry, I forget his name) was > > Guion Bluford. > > There was another, earlier, black astronaut...but he never made it > into space, having died in a training accident. (T-38 crash, I think.) This was Maj. Robert A Lawrence, who was in the third group of trainees for the USAF's MOL military space station program; he died in late 1967 in a T-38 crash. When MOL was cancelled in 1969 most of its astros got reassigned to NASA; Lawrence would probably have made his first flight as commander of an early Shuttle mission. None of the black pilot astronauts has yet commanded a mission. Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 88 16:06:36 GMT From: cu-den!udenva!isis!scicom!cyrill@boulder.colorado.edu (Cyro Lord) Subject: Aerospace Concepts Curriculum The Division of Continuing Education of the University of Colorado at Denver in cooperation with the International Space Development Conference presents: INTEGRATING AEROSPACE CONCEPTS INTO THE CURRICULUM An Educator's Special Conference Package This course is designed to provide educators with methods of integrating aerospace concepts into the curriculum. Emphasis will be on utilizing aerospace education to enrich and/or update existing curricula. Knowledge or experience inaviation or space is not required. Topics include: *AEROSPACE IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD *SELECTED AEROSPACE CONCEPTS *AEROSPACE EDUCATION RESOURCES *INTEGRATION OF AEROSPACE EDUCATION INTO THE CURRICULUM Educators participating in this course will become certified by NASA to borrow the lunar (moon roock) samples for use in their classrooms and will receive special classroom activities for elementary and secondary levels. INSTRUCTORS: Dr. Christian Romero and Dr. Victoria Duca. What: El or Sec Ed 580-1 (SEC. 052). Intergrating Aerospace Comcepts into the Curriculum. When: Memorial Day Weekend. Education sessions will be held on Saturday, May 27, 9am through dinner, and Sunday, 8am to 5pm. Luncheons, both days, and dinner on Saturday feature special speakers and are part of the educational program. Where: Stouffer Concourse Hotel, 3801 Quebec, Denver, Co. Fee: $140. This is a special package for educators only and it represents and outstanding opportunity and saving for teachers. It includes conference registration, one hour graduate credit, two luncheons and a dinner with special speakers. The entire conference from Friday evening to Monday evening is included in this fee. TO REGISTER: You may register at the door or you may send you registion in advance. 1988 International Space Development Conference P.O. Box 300572 Denver, CO. 80218 (303)692-6788 or (303)388-2368 -- Cyro Lord Alpha Comm. Dev. Corp. - DOMAIN cyrill@scicom.alphacdc.com UUCP {ncar,nbires,boulder,isis}!scicom!cyrill "Endeaver to Persevere" ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 88 07:56:58 GMT From: ulysses!thumper!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ > If you would think about it, a satellite could be in sunlight > almost all the time(e.g.) a polar orbit. Not really. To do what you want for an appreciable length of time, you want a "sun synchronous" orbit phased over the terminator. This is actually pretty easy to do with the earth (almost every launch from Vandenburg goes into sun-synchronous orbit, though usually not over the terminator). But a sun-synchronous lunar orbit is much more difficult because of the moon's far more irregular gravity field, and because of the earth's proportionately larger perturbations. I was thinking of a lunar equatorial orbit mainly because it's much cheaper to get there. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 88 13:51:19 GMT From: ukma!uflorida!codas!novavax!potpourri!bseymour@NRL-CMF.ARPA (Burch Seymour) Subject: Re: KAL 007 in article <8803251355.AA22449@angband.s1.gov>, PICARD@gmr.COM (RON PICARD) says: > I remember reading that it was a passenger plane that was used for a > spying mission (according to the U.S.S.R.). I never heard any of the > evidence you mention. This may not belong on the net but can you give > a run down of it? Any sources would also be appreciated. According to William Burrows in his book "Deep Black", page 172-3. The US routinely flys RC-135S ELINT (electronic intelligence) missions to collect data from Soviet missile tests. On a night in early September 1983 one of these RC135S (Cobra Ball) aircraft had been in the immediate vicinity of the KAL 747. The theory is the Soviets thought they had caught one of the RC135S's on a penetration attempt and shot it down but actually destroying KAL-007 by mistake. -bs- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #200 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Apr 88 06:28:52 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA16838; Mon, 25 Apr 88 03:25:50 PDT id AA16838; Mon, 25 Apr 88 03:25:50 PDT Date: Mon, 25 Apr 88 03:25:50 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804251025.AA16838@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #201 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 201 Today's Topics: Birthright Party Canonical Pledge List, second edition ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Apr 88 12:57:47 GMT From: xanth!kent@mcnc.org (Kent Paul Dolan) Subject: Birthright Party Canonical Pledge List, second edition Cross posted to draw a crowd of people with strong opinions. Followups already directed to talk.bizarre, Birthright Party Headquarters Birthright Party regulars and waverers, and new readers, Well, surprisingly to me, after all the hate and discontent expressed, the pace of pledges actually picked up quite a bit with the publication of the first canonical pledge list. I guess everyone likes to see their name on the small screen! We now have 48 pledges and the continuing waverers list. It looks like Nigel's chance for pledge #69 is arriving apace! I'll be gone for a week; enjoy the peace and quiet! #1 From: Bruce Sutherland Tell you what, If you can mix supporting space exploration with impressing the need for caffeine, you've got my support. #2 From: Bob Deen @ NASA-JPL Image Processing Lab Hell, if that's your campaign platform, I'll vote for you! #3 From: seidel@oberon.uucp (Starman) Michael Seidel [Birthright Party Press Secretary Nominee] OK, you got number #3! I'd rather see money being spent on invading uninhabited (but soon to be inhabited) planets than on invading small Caribbean islands! #4 From: World Court Jester Hey. I'll vote for you if you'll agree to put a little money away for Neuromancer-type AI research. Get the 'face vote and they'll make sure you win the election :-). #5 From: Greg Nowak BTW, you got my vote, too. Sock it to `em. #6 From: "The Pentagonal Potentate 2-6177" Rob Clark rutgers!psuvax1!psuvma.BITNET!cok <- this one works [kpd] Might as well speed this election thing up a bit. Ahem. I, The Pentagonal Potentate, hereby commit the Syd Barrett Cabal of the Pan-Pontification Committee for the Paratheo-Anametamystikhood of Eris Esoteric to the election of one Kent Paul Dolan to the office of President of the United States. Can't possibly be worse than the bozo who's there now. #7 From: "The Kzinti Ambassador, M.P." [Secretary of Peace and Emigration Nominee] rutgers!psuvax1!psuvma.BITNET!khd <- this one works [kpd] Subject: Vote for the Prexy. "I, the Kzinti Ambassador, hereby pledge my vote for President of the United States to you, Kent Paul Dolan." Only one qualifier. Set up some kind of rider on a bill you pass giving the net permanent anarchy. Then force it through Congress. #8 From: richard welty [Outer Planets Latex Novelty Expediter-in-Chief Nominee] ... oh, all right ... I'll vote for you (in return for a suitable bribe, of course -- what are you offering?) #9 From: headroom@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (The only computer-generated user at UWM) uwvax!uwmcsd4!headroom <- that one works [kpd] Mark "Giving the Apathy Vote" Lippert net.average.joe Hey, put me down for the big #8! I could use a big #8! Then maybe my thungh will get thawed out.... [SLOW NEWS FEED got you, Mark! kpd] #10 From: ZEUS ...!unmvax!ariel!ma3751bg We are paraniod about being confused with Mexico, so please spell it [Albuquerque] right.. P.S. You got my vote, keep up the good work. #11 From: sflaher@polyslo.uucp (Steve Flaherty) Subject: Another vote After watching the machinations of the louts currently running on the big dollar tickets, your campaign has become more and more appealing. I hereby pledge the vote of one lurker. Far more vaulable than a vote from a posting bizarrite, due to the extreme measures required to get a lurker to actually create something on a keyboard. #12 From: gypsy@c3pe.UUCP saint gypsy, live from the gypsy roach motel BTW, my name is Meredith Tanner. okay? and i'll vote for you, too! i forget what you were running for... president or something? #13 >From: kyl@homxb.UUCP (Cindy) Subject: Re: talk.politics.bizarre (was Re: My thungh) OK, Kent, I am 10. Cindy [SLOW NEWS FEED strikes again! kpd] #14 >From: ccs026@deneb.ucdavis.edu (-=paul=-) (yo kent! didja get my vote? lots of messages have been going kabounce from here lately) -=paul=- #15 >From: silverio@jiff.berkeley.edu (christine silverio) The advertising firm of Silverio, Silverio, and Silverio (greg) wishes to announce its whole-hearted support of Kent, the Man from Xanth, as the Bizarre Party candidate in the 1988 presidential elections. Anything we can do, Kent, just let us know. The preceding announcement paid for by the Xanth Man for President Committee. | C J Silverio | KENT FOR PRESIDENT | ucbvax!brahms!silverio | Who cares why? | official brahms gangster | Just vote. #16 >From: ram@elmgate.UUCP (Randy Martens) [NASA Director Nominee] Well, it's time to consider the major Presidential candidates : [...] Kent, the man from Xanth : Promises to spend money on useful things like deep space exploration instead of nuclear weapons and contras. Promises to sleep a lot, and therefore not cause trouble. hmmm..... and the winner is ..... [ ] KENT THE MAN FROM XANTH, FOR PRESIDENT !! SUPPORT THE BIRTHRIGHT PARTY !!! VOTE KENT !!!! (yes Kent, you can count me in. *sigh*) #17 From: thomson@cs.utah.edu (Richard A Thomson) Subject: Vote Pledge Count me in! I liked your first posting in sci.space a while back about being a potential space candidate. Since then I moved from Delaware to Utah, where I don't have access to talk.bizarre yet :-(. Ergo me missing your campaign efforts there. I would whole-heartedly support your election this term. I will see what I can do to about writing letters to local papers, etc. I will also attempt to upload your message to local BBS's. Do you have a more elaborate description of your policies that I could use. The one you posted to sci.space could be a little too bizarre :-) for some people to stomach. Perhaps something a little less sarcastic with focus on the main issue-- space exploration and EXPLOITATION instead of useless war-mongering. The line about Malthus was great; keep up the good postings and don't give up. #18 From: S. Elizabeth Van Wyk ...uwvax!uwmcsd4!sally <- this one works [kpd] Greetings!! Is your mailer still done, or after my *attempt* at a flame are you never writing to me again? I guess it's time to get to the heart of my letter. Can I be of any assistance in the campaign? The more I read, the more I'm convinced you're the only candidate worth voting for. Hey, no hard feelings. I don't know what got into me. The Muffin Queen 18.5# >From: svpillay@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kanthan Pillay) [I don't know about this one - I got back about 400 lines of passionate pro space posting, ending with the only words from the mailer:] Do I really need a signature? [Could be a pledge, more likely to be a slam about abusing net bandwidth. We won't count it.] #19 >From: CLT@PSUVMA.BITNET (Merlin of Chaos) (Christopher Tate) ...!rutgers!psuvax1!psuvma.BITNET!clt I've been watching Pat Robertson do much better than he has any right to, so I've come to the big decision. Go for it, Kent. You have my vote. (That's one more pledge, folks! Keep 'em coming!) #20 From: logico!slovax!steve kpd> I am looking for a Vice Presidential candidate. She should be kpd> a minority person, to lend credence to this being a movement kpd> for the good of the whole nation. Any takers? How about any of the many net.goddesses??? Sure, buy my vote, I can be had. If all else fails : Susan St. James. #21 >From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) [A vastly stirring defense of the future of humanity] That was beautiful, Kent, just beautiful. I'll do it, I really will. You wouldn't have spent all the time necessary to write that if you didn't mean it. Vote the Birthright Party: Put a *Real* Corpse in Office in 1988. [Hmmm. kpd] #21.5 From: lauren@cbmvax.uucp (Lauren Brown CATS) Thanks for the kind words. You might almost have me promoting the Birthright Party ! :-) [Won't count this one either, but... kpd] #22 From: f12018ak@deimos.unm.edu.unm.edu (Yngvi Diamondeye Hammerfoot) |and may the Dwarves|<<<<<>| %Gregory J. LeVee |>>>>>| |f12018ak@deimos.UNM.EDU|><|Vote: Kent & the Birthright Party| [Never got a formal pledge letter, but that .siggie will do. kpd] #23 From: bu-it.BU.EDU!bucsb!boreas%bu-cs.bu.edu@uunet.UUCP (The Cute Cuddle Creature) -- Michael. P.S. -- What the heck. Here's another vote for you. --M. #24 >From: justin@inmet.UUCP -- Justin du Coeur II Let's trade. I'll become voter #14 if you'll drop one *teeny* tac-nuke on this Bradley place. [talk about SLOW NEWS FEED - at least we eliminated the "what do YOU call a soda thread. kpd] #25 >From: lae@pedsga.UUCP Hello, my name is Leslie Ann Ellis. I am a systems engineer with Concurrent Computer Corp. in Tinton Falls, N. J. Kent's empassioned bid for the presidency did not fall on deaf ears (eyes?); I, too, believe that mankind's future lies in the colonization of space. Questions of a "standing room only" future aside, there is only a limited mass of the raw materials of life on our tiny planet. [...] I would like at this time to announce that I am available to aid Kent in his noble cause. #26 >From: hooker@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Bosk of Port Kar) -Devin [Technical Consultant on Aerospace Nominee] Subject: Another closet supporter surfaces Kent, You've got another vote here. Let's get the fuck off Earth - it can't support us any more. I'm an aerospace engineer - if you need technical support look to me. #27 >From: cs1552cy@hydra.unm.edu.unm.edu (Cipher) [Vatican Ambassador Nominee] All RIGHT already! Here's my vote! Take it! Please! ___ |X| Kent for Pres --- -Chap. Oksimoron the Portable, KSC, GM, Ev., Esq., Etc. -Josh Bell -Robert Vilheim #28 >From: cs2551aq@charon.unm.edu (Capt. Gym Quirk) Taki Kogoma Now that's over, let me add my endorsement (and that of the Imperial Secret Service) to Kent's candidacy. BTW, anyone ever have one of those decades? [last four in a row - is that a record? kpd] #29 From: [FCC Chief Nominee] If I pledge the Birthright Party, can I be appointed head of the FCC? ...Jay Jay Maynard {ihnp4,bellcore,killer}!tness1!splut!jay Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. #30 From: jkrueger@dgis.ARPA (Jonathan Krueger) Your arguments are coherent and convincing. #31 From: bradley!bucc2!random (Brett Neumeier) Hereby do I pledge one (1) vote to the Birthright Party. I want to see if there really *are* any small furry creatures on Alpha Centauri, and getting off the planet so as to make future survival more likely seems like a good first step. #32 From: dieter@titan.uucp I hate to say it, but you do sound more realistic than any other candidate I've heard of yet. [...] I am quite willing to vote for you. Dieter (what this country needs is a good out-of-work actor who STAYS that way) Muller #33 From: Tracey A. Baker I know you're past #18 by now, but count me as whatever number is next (my favorites are 27, 33 and 37, so if you could arrange one of those, it'd be nice). [Took a bit of shuffling. kpd] #34 >From: ewilliam@garfield.UUCP (Edward Williams) I'd also like to add my vote for Ken[t] for pres. #34.5 From: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) YOU were surprised at the richard.sexton.fan.club ? Imangine How surprised I was. So Kent, what are these votes worth to you ? [That needs a bit of work to turn into a pledge, I think.] #35 From: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) [Official Aquaculturalist and Keeper of the Fonts Nominee] kpd-> Well, I've handed out the chairmanship of the FCC, the bar kpd-> position on Ganymede (or was it Ceres?), the press secretary kpd-> job, and several other plums of about equal value. I'm still kpd-> hoping presidential science advisor will get a pledge from kpd-> Herbert Spencer. Do you have an interesting talent you would kpd-> like to apply to the cause, and a job in mind where it might kpd-> fit? Sure. I'd like to be the official aquaculturalist and keeper of the fonts. [OK, _now_ that's a pledge.] kpd-> OK, we'll make you curator of the National Aquarium (Commerce kpd-> Building, basement floor); I'll have to look some to find out kpd-> who keeps the fonts; perhaps the GPO? #35.5 From: Subject: The Presidency Hey, I thought you were going to save the world from itself by running for president. What happened? Leslie [Was that meant to be a pledge, Leslie? kpd] #36 From: paradis@encore.uucp (Jim Paradis) Second, I'd like to say that I'm in full support of the space-industrialization provisions of the Birthright Party platform. Is that the only issue for the BP, or are there others? If it weren't for your position on drug testing, I'd endorse your candidacy 100% in a minute! Seriously. If that's a personal preference and not a Party position, you've got my vote! [Answer on this one in B. P. platform due out soon. Pledge accepted but subject to review. kpd] #37 >From: kettyle@homxc.UUCP (Starsha) Cheer up, I think you are a very nice person, and should be President. So, I am going to announce my support for your candidacy. Vote For Kent! Kent For President! Support the Birthright Party! #38 From: John Berryhill net.Lectroid You have my vote....if Red Lectroids can vote, that is. #39 From: Wizo T_Deacon Secretary without Portfolio to The Reverend with No Name @ The Lord Julius Cabal Ah, what the hell. I must be good for at least a half-vote, being a net.sidekick. Count me in. #40 From: lanced@pur-ee.uucp (Daniel R Lance) [USGS Off Planet Operations, Division Chief Nominee] What a chance -- to get in on the ground floor of a real, intelligent political movement. Count me in -- I want off of this planet. #41 From: hplabs!rutgers!rochester!ritcv!ritcv:jdb9608@sun.UUCP (D) Glad to have you back, Kent! Chalk up another vote, from me. #42 From: rhorn@infinet.uucp (Rob Horn) Great .sig. How about making it a bumper sticker. Then we can get everyone to vote Birthright Party. You've got my vote. #43 From: jra1_c47@ur-tut.uucp Your platform was excellent. And you covered issues which are not currently "in" as far as the press is concerned. However, this might be a fatal flaw-- someone who covers "popular" (as defined by the press) issues will get more support than someone who doesn't. Doesn't matter though... *I'll* vote for you. -- Jem "Say it... don't laugh. Say it!" "Pr-presi-president B-Bu- hahahahaha!" #44 From: ucscc.UCSC.EDU!spcecdt%ucscb.UCSC.EDU@uunet.UUCP (Space Cadet) p.s. you have my vote!!! Hello, lift. # We're going to space if we have to walk. -Jerry Pournelle -Marvin the PA # The meek will inherit the earth. WE will go to the stars! John H. DuBois III # spcecdt@ucscb.ucsc.EDU ...!ucbvax!ucscc!ucscb!spcecdt #45 From: skitchen@ATHENA.MIT.EDU Scott Kitchen And since your shot at the presidency won't be harmed by my doing this, you can have my vote, too. I think that makes me something around 40 or so. Besides, I want to help Nigel make 69... See you 'round t.b... ("Psst! Hey, boss!") ("Now, what, Guido?") ("Kent's a good man.") ("Thanks, Guido. You've got good taste.") #46 From: douglas@reed.uucp (P Douglas Reeder) I'm trying to organize a local chapter of the Birthright Party (we may not get any members here at Reed). [I guess that's enough enthusiasm to count as a pledge! kpd] #47 From: dahutch@sequent.uucp (dahutch) You never responded when I said you have my vote, so here it is again. ;-) ps: remember, you've got my vote! #48 From: Panicked Undergrad [Government Accounting Office, Orbital Audits Division Chief Nominee] I find talk.biz a little boring without variety that the Birthright Party HQ communiques fail to provide. Mind, you're not in my kill file; I'd like the BP raised myself (remember, I'd LIKE to go to Ganymede (although Titan may be a better bet)). [...] --So hey, sign me up for the Birthright Party. Go forth, shake hands, stab backs--for your good cause. Slant some GAO reports in a sensible direction. Of course, I'll want to be the Orbital Auditor just as soon as we move enough stuff out there to justify it...think you can swing that? Get everyone's BP up in '88--vote Birthright! Steve Geswein, The Panicked Undergrad That's all the pledges I have right now; anyone I missed, forgot to bribe, or otherwise maligned? These last two are just for fun, because I'm proud of them; they do not constitute pledges. Guess I'd better not quote without asking; pledges got fair warning. These two folks sent letters of appreciation for my Subject: Re: commercialism of the space program posting, which you might have read. From: Cathy Hooper From: Eugene N. Miya So, we are up to 48 confirmed pledges and a few maybes. I know there are supposed to be 11,000 readers out there. Let's have a little more participation, while I go off for a week to try a chance at a real job while we await the returns at the polls. While I'm gone, keep working on Birthright Party Platform ideas for me. I got inputs on 1) the question of how the nation cares for our children, 2) an addition to my salinification of the soil position, documenting heavy metal poisoning by improper irrigation, and 3) an input from a Canadian reader on the subject of US foreign relations. Thanks to all three writers; I will make (in one case, already have made) use of your input. Lots to do, get those local party groups going! Let talk.bizarre know your plans, successes and failures. Spread the word to BBS and nets. Kent, the (Birthright Party's Choice for Chief Somnambulist) man from xanth. "The Birthright of Humankind is the Stars!" Keep those Birthright Party presidential vote pledges coming in, kiddies. Still looking for that big #49! Just 99,999,952 to go for a win in '88! "That man sleeping in the gutter? Yeah, him, that's the one. I'm trying to get him honest work. Could you sign this petition to put his name on the ballot for 1988? Sure, the presidency. We have a tradition of sleeping presidents. The safest kind, if you ask me. Wake 'em up and they invade defenseless Caribbean islands. Last time I saw _him_ awake, he muttered something about spending _his_ invasion budget on space exploration. Hey, come back, it's not that unlikely! Damn, lost another one! What have people got against spending money where there's some chance of return, anyway?" +-------------------------------------------------------+ |\~ | | |~ . o o . :;: () -O- 0 . O | | |~ ^ | |/~ | | | You are Here | | | |Wouldn't you rather be out there --> | | | |Support the Birthright Party Today! | | | |(Note: Above diagram NOT to scale.) | +-------------------------------------------------------+ [This lovely banner, available at a terminal near you, brought to you through the keyboard talents of Michael P. Seidel, Press Secretary Nominee to the Administration of the Chief Somnambulist Candidate.] Join the KENT FOR PRESIDENT movement in talk.bizarre! ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #201 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Apr 88 06:26:21 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA18718; Tue, 26 Apr 88 03:23:20 PDT id AA18718; Tue, 26 Apr 88 03:23:20 PDT Date: Tue, 26 Apr 88 03:23:20 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804261023.AA18718@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #202 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 202 Today's Topics: Re: How to become an astronaut? Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Mars and AIS Re: How to become an astronaut? (patiences) Re: Libertarians love NASA? Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ VISTA Martian clay Hawaiian launch sites Re: Re-evolving spaceflight after collapse of civilization Re: Abolish NASA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Apr 88 23:09:33 GMT From: cascade!bhayes@labrea.stanford.edu (Barry Hayes) Subject: Re: How to become an astronaut? The other day I had a very short conversation with Millie Hughes-Fulford, the Payload Specialist for the Life Sciences Lab going up in 1992 or so. She has been in training for the mission since 1984. She will have spent seven years of her life getting ready for a seven day mission. I want to go into space, but I don't think I'd be willing to trade seven years for it. I know others who would, but think about it; would you? ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 88 04:45:25 GMT From: bigtex!james@astro.as.utexas.edu (James Van Artsdalen) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ IN article <1384@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>, compton@silver.UUCP (David Compton) wrote: > If you would think about it, a satellite could be in sunlight > almost all the time(e.g.) a polar orbit. This makes it a better alternative > than the ground based nuclear plant. I am not an astronomer, but it seems to me that if it is useful to place an observatory on the far side of the moon so that Earth isn't radiating at the telescope, it would also be useful to place the observatory to avoid the Sun shining on it. Is this not the case, or am I missing the benefit of placing an observatory on the moon? -- James R. Van Artsdalen ...!ut-sally!uastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746 ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 88 00:47:11 GMT From: avsd!govett@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David Govett) Subject: Mars and AIS This AIS (American Ignorance Syndrome) epidemic has really gotten out of hand. Sometimes I wonder whether people are really as ignorant as they seem. Other times, I'm sure. Why the indignity? Recently a local news show speculated on the existence of life on Mars. So far, so good. But I about choked on my tofu-flavored bean sprouts when they said, "We here at Channel X are conducting a poll on life on Mars. If you believe there is life on Mars, call 800-xxx-xxxx and your vote will be automatically tabulated. If you think there is no life on Mars, call.... Tune in tonight at 11 for the results." It was then I realized that the age of touch-tone science and the 800-number scientific method had arrived at last. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 88 18:57:25 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: How to become an astronaut? (patiences) In article <397@cascade.STANFORD.EDU> bhayes@cascade.STANFORD.EDU (Barry Hayes) writes: >She will have spent >seven years of her life getting ready for a seven day mission. I want to >go into space, but I don't think I'd be willing to trade seven years for >it. I know others who would, but think about it; would you? Consider. I worked on a spacecraft which was launched in 1978. While in grad school, I did some reading and learned the mission was first proposed in the oceangraphy literature in 1964. The ideas probably kicking around in 1959. Frank Estabrook, the head of the Galileo mission proposed that mission around 1970 with a 1978 launch, then (when I think of Galileo being launched) 1982, then the rest of documented by Nova. The cost of replacing that mission in 1987 dollars is so obscene, I can't think of posting it. The problem is not unique to space. Consider the times it takes to build telescopes, particle accelerators. It's all part of the cost (money as well as time) for BIG Science. Science will teach you patience, or you will come up with a better way (like Newton). On the other hand, two friends who are astronauts never dreamed they would be astronauts, they just found themselves in the right place at the right time [PhD in Planetary Science, Caltech, and (ex-USAF Academy) PhD Astrophysics UCLA both at JPL]. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 88 09:44:32 GMT From: mcvax!cernvax!hslrswi!ken@uunet.uu.net (Ken Ferschweiler) Subject: Re: Libertarians love NASA? In article <352107.880402.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: >Dale Amon does not speak for the Libertarian party. I have asked him >more than once to change his stance or to stop calling himself a >libertarian. The party which advocates liberty, freedom, no-government-intervention, etc., discourages its members from speaking their minds? -ken If disclaimers are outlawed, only outlaws will have disclaimers. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 88 15:30:17 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (James W. Meritt) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ In article <1782@polyslo.UUCP> jmckerna@polyslo.UUCP (John L McKernan) writes: >Fact 2. A human being has more capabilities than any of his machines, by orders > of magnitude. How about "A human being is more versatile than any of his machines so far" A phrase like "more capabilities" is subject to misunderstanding. i.e. if the capability in question is lifting rocks, a crane does that real well. "We" (assuming not a netted AI) are just more versatile - we do ANYTHING!!! Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 88 20:37:23 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (James W. Meritt) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ In article <1481@bigtex.uucp> james@bigtex.UUCP (James Van Artsdalen) writes: >IN article <1384@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>, compton@silver.UUCP (David Compton) wrote: >> If you would think about it, a satellite could be in sunlight >> almost all the time(e.g.) a polar orbit. This makes it a better alternative >> than the ground based nuclear plant. >I am not an astronomer, but it seems to me that if it is useful to place >an observatory on the far side of the moon so that Earth isn't radiating at >the telescope, it would also be useful to place the observatory to avoid the >Sun shining on it. Is this not the case, or am I missing the benefit of >placing an observatory on the moon? I am afraid that I cannot envision a point which is both hidden from the earth and hidden from the sun on the surface of the moon, unless you mean in a hole. Where did you mean? Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Apr 88 12:44:37 PDT From: super@csa5.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) Reply-To: M_Helm@csa5.lbl.gov Subject: VISTA [I found this item on my dep't. bulletin board. I don't know how long it has been there, but the article appears to be from about 1 February, from the Berkeley newspaper _The Daily Californian_. Reprinted w/o permission] HUMAN VOYAGE TO MARS! IT'S A SCIENCE FICTION DREAM COME TRUE by Seth Sutel These are the voyages of the Starship VISTA, and its 100-day journey to our neighboring planet, Mars.... A trip to Mars has been mere science fiction for years, but if a plan proposed by Charles Orth of the Lawrence Livermore Lab is carried out, such a trip may actually become reality by the year 2020. Orth and his colleagues at NASA, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and other space science research centres have developed a plan for a spaceship that would be capable of safely carrying up to 10 astronauts to the red planet. Orth and his colleagues have taken a proposal devloped by Livermore scientist Rod Hyde and made it "more complete and detailed" according to a paper Orth published last June. The ship would be shaped like an enormous cone a little wider than a football field and coast gracefully thruough space, blunt-end first with a 110-ton payload. [There's also a drawing of the vehicle in the article] It would cruise at an speed of 28 to 32 miles per second, allowing the 55 million mile trip to Mars to be made in about 100 days. Using current technology, the trip would take up to three years, which is much longer than a human can remain helathy in space, due to the dangers of cosmic radiation and zero gravity. VISTA -- Vehicle for Interplanetary Space Trave Applications -- would enable 10 astronauts to spend about 10 days on the planet surface. It would be powered by a laser-fusion method originally devloped for applications in energy production. Fifty-gram fuel pellets would be shot from the cone's apex at the rate of about five per second. The pellets, made of hydrogen isotopes (deuterium and tritium) and liquid hydrogen, woudl be imploded by converging laser beams, causing a fusion reaction similar to those that occur in the centers of stars. The resulting nuclear explosions would occur inside a bottle-shaped magnetic field, which would shape the plasma and debris of the fusion process into a stream that could be shifted in order to steer the ship. This field would be created by a superconducting magnet, heavily shielded by lithium, at the small end of the cone-shaped ship. The lithium shield would absorb some of the heat from the explosions to make electricity to power the magnet, lasers and life-support systems of the ship. The lithium shield would also protect the ship from the dangerous heat and neutrons emitted by the blasts creating a cone shaped "shadow" around the ship. Because its design is far from aerodynamic and its exhaust quite dangerous, VISTA would have to be constructed in orbit with material brought up to the space station, Orth said. Its engines would be far enough from the earth so that no radiation would reach it. Once near Mars, the astronauts would use landing craft to reach the planet's surface. Orth stressed that the success of the plan depends on technology that sill has not been fully developed, but will hopefully be available by 2020. This technology includes advanced lasers, more powere-efficients compounds to use in fuel pellets, stronger radiator coils to generate electricity, and hardware that would be able to fire over 100 million fuel pellets. Orth feels that much can be learned about the origins of the solar system and perhaps the universe from a manned mission to Mars. But he also stressed the "spiritual" goal fo the mission, to "satisfy man's urge to explore, to do new things."o new things." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Apr 88 12:45:23 PDT From: super@csa5.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) Reply-To: M_Helm@csa5.lbl.gov Subject: Martian clay [From v16n17 of the Berkeleyan, April 6-19 1988, {UC house organ} Reprinted w/o permission, from the "Research Notes" section--no byline] "Let's Take Another Look at That Clay" The puzzling chemical activity detected on Mars a decade ago may have been a sign of life halted in the earliest stages of evolution when water froze forever on the red planet, according to biochemist Hyman Hartman. Hartman, a research associate in computer science [?], is urgin a revival of NASA's civilian scientific space program and a return to Mars to re-examine the life-like chemistry first detected on Mars during the 1976 Viking mission. In 1976, two of the automated experiments aboard the Viking lander found the chemical signs of life on Mars they were designed to detect. Yet the failure of other instruments to find any organic compounds led most biologists to conclude that Mars is lifeless. Organic compounds are building blocks of all life on Earth, and their absence on Mars squelched speculation of life on our neighboring planet. But if life emerged from iron-rich clays, rather than from organic molecules, the signs detected by the Viking experiments might indeed be signs of life, said Hartman. Co-author of the book _Clay Minerals and the Origin of Life_, Harman spoke on th elink between the clay-life theory and evidence detected by the Viking mission to Mars at a NASA conference on Mars missions in March. He urged the space agency to cooperate with Soviet scientists who have proposed a return to Mars to determine what drives the life-mimicking chemistry detected in 1976. Hyman also told the conference that the militarization of space is killing NASA's civilian space program, and with it, the opportunity to join the Soveits in a proposed mission to explore Mars for new signs of life. Last year, the Soviets porposed a joint mission to Mars to continue the life search begun by the US in 1976, but so far no American response has been heard, according to Hartman. In effect, America's civilian, scientic exploration of space has given way to purely military commitments, without any public debate in this country, he said. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 88 02:06:06 GMT From: burdick@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Matt Burdick) Subject: Hawaiian launch sites There has been some talk about the article "Resist the Pull of Mars" in the April/May edition of _Air & Space_ magazine. In the same issue is a short article about Hawaii checking on the possibility of launch sites there (flip back to page 16 to find it). Apparently, a Massachusetts consulting company called Arthur D. Little suggested that Hawaii set up a launch site and theme park to help the state's economy. A committee in Hawaii liked the idea and recommended the state should hire a "space czar". It was estimated that a site to launch sounding rockets would cost $30 million, or $300 million to get something in orbit. Funding and location are both up in the air: funding would come from launch customers, and land that people would be willing to give up for something like that is scarce there (although one company, C. Brewer and Co., has offered to donate 500 acres to the project). Does anyone have any comments about the pros/cons of a Hawaiian launch site? -- UUCP: {ihnp4,pyramid,akgua}!iuvax!burdick All these nodes are yours ARPA: burdick@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu Except nsavax BITNET: burdick@iubacs.bitnet Attempt no logins there Use them together Use them in peace ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 88 17:03:48 GMT From: joe@athena.mit.edu (Joseph C Wang) Subject: Re: Re-evolving spaceflight after collapse of civilization All this talk of recycling materials after the collapse of civilization reminds me of what happpened the last time civilization collapsed in Europe. Most of the Roman ruins you see today are ruins because people found them to be convenent quarries and sources of lime. -------------------------------- Joseph Wang (joe@athena.mit.edu) 450 Memorial Drive C-111 Cambridge, MA 02139 ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Sat, 9 Apr 88 00:26:12 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Abolish NASA Herman Rubin writes: > I see no inconsistency between advocating the abolition of NASA and > advocating its adequate funding if it is not abolished. As long as the > government has a stranglehold on space, limiting the bureaucrats to > strangling instead of doing something useful will not help us get into > space. When something gets big enough to strangle you, Dale Amon works with SpaceCause to save you by giving it your wallet in hopes that it might leave you alone. At first I had trouble seeing how this was consistent with Libertarian ideals. Then I recalled the Libertarian opposition to antitrust laws. It all makes sense now. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #202 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Apr 88 06:25:43 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA20468; Wed, 27 Apr 88 03:22:46 PDT id AA20468; Wed, 27 Apr 88 03:22:46 PDT Date: Wed, 27 Apr 88 03:22:46 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804271022.AA20468@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #203 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 203 Today's Topics: Re: Jesse Jackson's space policy Re: Re-evolving spaceflight after collapse of civilization Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: Hawaiian launch sites Re: Hawaiian launch sites Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: KAL 007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Apr 88 21:44:39 GMT From: ulysses!thumper!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Jesse Jackson's space policy > For someone so sceptical of technical feasibility, you sure put > a lot of confidence in satellites. I don't quite know how to respond to this sort of comment, because it appears that you don't care to take the time necessary to examine the issues individually and decide each on its merits. But I'll try. I also recommend highly the book Deep Black. If you read it, you will learn that reconnaissance satellite capabilities are well established. Military reconnaissance was the first "practical" use of space, predating even communications (still the only really practical commercial space application). Then-president Lyndon Johnson is quoted early in the book as saying that the investment made to date in the entire US space program had already paid off several times over by the savings in US programs shown to be unnecessary by the information returned from reconnaissance satellites. Verifiability is an important part of any arms treaty. The phrase "national technical means", found so frequently in arms treaties, is nothing more than a euphemism for "spy satellites". They are so important to verification that you will find that many treaty provisions were specifically written with the ability of satellites to monitor them in mind. The best example is the principle of limiting the number of launchers (easy to see) as opposed to the number of warheads (not so easy to see). > The Soviets have stolen technical manuals on several of the birds you > list above, and are quite familiar with their capabilities. > Sure, a ferret satellite once got Brezhnev's limo, but so what? > That doesn't tell you diddly about what is being produced where. In my opinion, the value to the Soviets of having the technical manual to any particular US spy satellite has been greatly overblown. There's much you can conclude about a satellite's capabilities just by applying some elementary physics. (This may come as a big shock, especially to you SDI fans, but making a project secret and giving it an unlimited budget doesn't exempt it from the laws of physics. Believe it or not.) The KH-11 photos of the Soviet aircraft carrier that were first published in Jane's and again in Deep Black have a resolution of about 1 foot. This is exactly what you would expect for a visible-light image taken from that distance (~900 km) with a diffraction-limited objective of about 2 meters in diameter (the largest that would fit comfortably in the fairing of a Titan III-D). The Soviets know the laws of physics as well as we do, and they also have the benefit of their own experience to know what they are or aren't likely to get away with. Rather than repeat the details, go read the book. I think you'll find it pretty convincing. > If the Soviet SDI program is futile, what has been blinding our > satellites? If by this you are referring to the reports that Soviet lasers have been aimed at US spysats, then a) I'm not at all convinced of the reliability of these reports, considering their source (certain US officials whose personal empires stand to grow enormously if the reports are taken as accurate) and b) even if they are true, this has very little to do with SDI, but a lot to do with ASATs and arms treaties. It's far, far easier to shoot down a few unarmed and fragile reconnaissance satellites in well-known orbits when you can take your time (and several shots, if necessary) than it is to shoot down several thousand sub-orbital missiles within minutes of their unannounced launching and be sure of getting each and every one. Unfortunately, the general public doesn't understand the distinction, and this naivete plays directly into the hands of those pushing SDI. (For example, the much-ballyhooed "Homing Overlay" PR stunt of a few years ago resembled an ASAT interception much more than a realistic demo of a ballistic missile defense). The technology for ASATs (Anti-Satellite weapons) is well established, with the US having a definite technology lead. Unfortunately, it is a very dangerous development because of the importance of reconnaissance satellites to verifying arms control agreements and in keeping things stable. It may have actually occurred to the more thoughtful (or intellectually honest, if there are any) SDI-ers that the relative ease with which space-based sensors could be temporarily blinded by lasers or blown out of the sky with ASATs constitutes a very grave vulnerability of the whole system. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 88 19:29:07 GMT From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Re-evolving spaceflight after collapse of civilization In article <8645@reed.UUCP>, douglas@reed.UUCP (P Douglas Reeder) writes: > In article <880402011425.2100021d@NMFECC.ARPA> BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@NMFECC.ARPA writes: > > We > >are chewing up critical ores at a million times their formation rate > >and are not likely to find substitutes for all materials which sit > >at critical junctures of a space-faring civilization's technology. > > > Since the atoms of iron, for instance, still exist, we must look at where they end up. For example, automobile axles and engine blocks will tend to survive a long time, since they will be bathed in oil. So wherever a lot of cars are found, will in hundreds or thousands of years become an iron mine or ore deposit (depending on the progression of rust). Another source of iron is reinforcing bars in reinforced concrete. There the iron is encased in concrete, which will tend to protect it for quite some time. Another wonderful place to find stuff will be garbage landfills. Stuff like aluminum cans will presumably last a long time if protected by burial. Another use for landfills is a source of easy to get natural gas. In a suburb of Seattle where I lived until last month, a landfill has numerous holes poked in it to release natural gas being generated by the decomposition of gargbage. The gas is being burned in a flare (like an olympic torch), but it could be put to use by a restarting civilization. Dani Eder/Boeing ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 88 03:13:02 GMT From: ulysses!thumper!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ > I am not an astronomer, but it seems to me that if it is useful to place > an observatory on the far side of the moon so that Earth isn't radiating at > the telescope, it would also be useful to place the observatory to avoid the > Sun shining on it. Is this not the case, or am I missing the benefit of > placing an observatory on the moon? The question dealt specifically with RADIO telescopes, not optical ones. The idea is to use the moon to shield radio telescopes from the intense din of artificially generated signals coming from the earth and near-earth orbit. If you are doing very low frequency observations I suppose the moon would also help shield against most of the naturally generated signals coming from the earth's atmosphere (e.g., lightning) and the region of space near the earth. (VLF through HF astronomy would in any case have to be done from space to get past the earth's reflecting ionosphere, as would microwave astronomy much above 20 Ghz or so in order to avoid atmospheric absorption). Although the sun does emit radio frequency energy, it emits proportionately far more at infrared and visible wavelengths than does the earth. Thanks to things like FM, VHF and UHF TV broadcast transmitters, the earth already rivals the sun at meter wavelengths, and when the radars crank up at Arecibo, Goldstone or Haystack, the earth becomes one of the brightest objects in the entire galaxy at the right frequencies and directions. Since the earth's atmosphere doesn't scatter RF like it does visible (especially blue) light there's no problem in operating surface radio telescopes during the day. Of course, in space or on the airless moon there is no optical scattering either, so you can also operate optical telescopes during the day. You just put a baffle around the front, like the one on the Space Telescope. In fact, with small antennas operating at VHF frequencies it's actually easier to "see" the hotter parts of the galaxy than it is to "see" the sun. The sun may have an effective noise temperature at VHF of a hundred thousand kelvin vs a few thousand for the galactic center, but the hot parts of the galaxy are much larger and fill much more of the antenna's beamwidth. I can easily see the difference when I aim my amateur satellite antenna (14 element yagi on 145 Mhz with GaAsFET preamp) first in and at right angles to the galactic plane. However, to really "see" the sun takes somewhat larger antennas (so the sun fills more of the smaller beamwidth) and this is in fact a very common method for evaluating the performance of large antennas. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 88 03:06:46 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Re: Hawaiian launch sites In article <7494@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> burdick@iuvax.UUCP (Matt Burdick) writes: >Does anyone have any comments about the pros/cons of a Hawaiian launch >site? Well, if the Los Angeles Times article is correct (a couple of days ago, page 3) then one Hawaiian senator has already tried-- and failed miserably to get grass-roots backing. In fact, according to the article, most of the Hawaiians are against such a project. [Sorry I don't have the article to hand; the janitors around the dorm are pretty zealous with throwing out "yesterday's news".] -- Joe Beckenbach (CS BS '??) I'D RATHER BE ORBITING All this bloody insurance! What will I have to insure next to keep legal-- the dorm's cats' right hind legs? ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 88 05:45:56 GMT From: imagine!pawl22.pawl.rpi.edu!jesup@itsgw.rpi.edu (Randell E. Jesup) Subject: Re: Hawaiian launch sites Put the launch site on top of one of the volcanos (dead, of course). You should save quite a bit of fuel due to less think atmosphere to fly through. Anyone have any number on high points/fuel consumption? Also, Hawaii is farther south (I believe) than Florida, though not real close the the equator. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 88 04:09:34 GMT From: unmvax!charon!deimos.unm.edu!f12012ag@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Chang H. Park) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ In article <1022@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: >> ... The dark far side of the >> : moon..." being a good place to conduct " ...sensitive radio astronomy... >> : without interference from terrestrial signals." > >Yes, it's a great idea. In fact, it's already been done. Only it was an >unmanned probe in lunar orbit instead of a manned base on the surface. >The spacecraft recorded its observations during the time it was shielded >from earth, and it relayed them back down when earth was visible. > >I really wish people would stop clutching at straws, looking for every >possible application of their pet man-in-space project when many (if not >most) of the tasks can be done far more cheaply and effectively with ^^^^^^^^^^^ Are you sure about this??? -------------------------------| It seems to me that long term observations of some objects would be easier to carry out on the moon, as opposed to a satellite. (Which would be orbiting the moon....at times having the moon itself eclipse the very object under observation!) >unmanned spacecraft. In the case of lunar-shielded radio astronomy, >lunar orbit makes a lot more sense than the lunar surface for several >very good reasons: > >1. You need communications channels back to earth. A radio telescope on >the far side of the moon would need relay satellites in lunar orbit for >this purpose. These satellites would themselves have to transmit within >view of the far side of the moon, possibly polluting the very spectrum >you spent so much to view in a pristine state. On the other hand, a >telescope in lunar orbit can provide its own store-and-forward relay. It >need not transmit anything at all while it is actually observing. Come on! This is a weak argument. For one thing, the same store and forward technology could just as easily be used for the moon to earth relay satellites. >2. You need power. This is much easier to obtain in orbit, since solar >panels will be illuminated for roughly half of each orbit. On the >surface, you will almost certainly need nuclear power sources to carry This may be true...but what about running cables to the other side of the moon to carry electricity while the telescope is in the lunar night. Several solar power arrays would keep the telescope powered continuously. Superconducting cables would help...even to the point of eliminating the need for a relay sat. in orbit. Just place your communications antenna on the earth-facing side of the moon! >you through the long 2-week lunar night. Thermal control is also much >easier in orbit. Of course much of a surface station could be buried to >help level out the day/night temperature fluctuations, except for the >antennas -- and these are likely to be very susceptible to severe >thermal-induced distortions. > [....] > >Phil Just thought I`d say something. The radio telescope on the moon is a great idea. Even if people use it as an excuse for getting men & women in space, so what! What`s wrong with that? Isn`t that the goal we all have...or am I being silly Let`s explore the possibility of having both oribiting and surface telecopes. Ollie Eisman - N6LTJ -- SEDS-UNM : Students for the Exploration and Development of Space Box 92 Student Union, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87106 (505) 277-3171 ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 88 15:11:38 GMT From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!raveling@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Paul Raveling) Subject: Re: KAL 007 In article <815@ncspm.ncsu.edu> jay@ncspm.ncsu.EDU (Jay C. Smith) writes: > >Every time the subject of the 707 and C-135 comes up it degenerates into >some sort of "chicken and the egg" discussion. I would appreciate it >if someone would clear this up for me. I think this might be what >happened, but I'm not sure: Boeing built a prototype passenger jet, >but realized that a big military contract would be the best way to >attract customers, so they actively sought to sell their prototype >to the Air Force as a cargo plane (the C-135). A big military >contract followed, the airlines soon wanted the plane, and it was >updated and sold as the 707. > >The reason for confusion may be that while the C-135 was sold first, >the 707 was always the ultimate intention. Right. The original 707-80 prototype began flying in 1954 (or was it '53?). It was somewhat regarded as an answer to the British Comet. The -80 was shorter than any of the production aircraft, didn't have such niceties as lots of windows or an airline interior. It also had a distinctive chocolate brown and yellow paint job. Next came the KC-135, which allowed using government money to develop the product. I doubt that either airlines or Boeing alone could have commited enough cash to do it any other way. Boeing's Renton plant switched from KC-97's and C-97's to KC-135's in about '56 or '57. Finally, commercial 707's began with the 120 models, which used virtually the same airframe as KC-135's. Pan Am #1 flew and entered service in 1958. --------------------- Paul Raveling Raveling@vaxa.isi.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #203 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Apr 88 06:26:59 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA22376; Thu, 28 Apr 88 03:23:23 PDT id AA22376; Thu, 28 Apr 88 03:23:23 PDT Date: Thu, 28 Apr 88 03:23:23 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804281023.AA22376@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #204 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 204 Today's Topics: RE: Brown Bill Re: Re-evolving spaceflight after collapse of civilization Re: RE: Brwon Bill Re: Hawaiian launch sites Re: Hawaiian launch sites Re: Hawaiian launch sites Re: 707/717/720/c-135 history (was Re: KAL 007) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 10 Apr 1988 16:54-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: RE: Brown Bill Just thought I'd give Henry a dig... Exhibit A: >> Rep. George Brown (D) of California has proposed the `Space >> Settlement Act of 1988' [HR 4218], which would add to NASA's charter >> the specific goal of establishing space settlements, and would >> require NASA to report on progress in this area on a regular basis. > I'm afraid that the sensible thing to do is to oppose this bill unless > it also provides guaranteed *funding* for this activity. NASA's > biggest problem (besides being a government agency, I mean...) is the > widening Exhibit B: > The space program needs an ongoing goal that cannot be perverted into > a one-shot mission which leaves us not much better off than we were > before. This is just one of the many, many reasons for opposing a big I would suggest that the latter is EXACTLY what Congressman Brown is up to. He is not naming a program, not telling NASA exactly what they should do when. He is suggesting the NASA charter include self-sufficient settlements as an agency goal. By directing official attention at space settlement he hopes to make it impossible for a future James Beggs to ignore such 'radical' and 'visionary' ideas. It is Brown's intention that key technologies required for self-sufficient settlements have a high profile and a high priority. ASSUMING we decide to keep NASA around, what better goal could we POSSIBLY ask for? With high level attention focused on the space program for a change, right now is the time to force a permanent shift in policy. Waiting for a new administration is not a good idea: I doubt the over all climate will be as good as it is right now for many years to come. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 88 03:16:40 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.bellcore.com (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Re-evolving spaceflight after collapse of civilization > ... A society without easy access to metals might develop organic, > ceramic, or other materials with the neccesary strength, durability, > and other characteristics needed... Perhaps. It's easy enough to substitute such materials for specific uses of metals; it's not quite so simple to bootstrap a civilization with them. Metals are awfully useful in making sophisticated non-metallic materials. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 88 19:56:52 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!Brian_C_McBee@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: RE: Brwon Bill NASA was originally an R&D agency - That's what it does best, and that's what it should stick to. Permanent settlements in space will come when someone with the bucks to make it happen can see a profit in it. I expect to see it within my lifetime. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 88 19:40:32 GMT From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) Subject: Re: Hawaiian launch sites In article <641@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU> jesup@pawl22.pawl.rpi.edu (Randell E. Jesup) writes: >Put the launch site on top of one of the volcanos (dead, of course). >You should save quite a bit of fuel due to less think atmosphere to fly >through. Anyone have any number on high points/fuel consumption? One reason for the sea level location of launch sites is transportation. A lot of big parts are carried on barges. To build a railroad up the side of a mountain is difficult; to build an engine capable of hauling a train carrying a rocket up a mountain at 13000 feet is harder (you also have trouble with landing sites for support aircraft). Maybe a supercharger on the engine would work. If you could do it, you are above almost half the atmosphere. I think that translates to 500 m/s gain. John Carr "No one wants to make a terrible choice jfc@athena.mit.edu On the price of being free" -- Neil Peart ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Apr 88 10:52:52 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: Re: Hawaiian launch sites X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@angband.s1.gov" As far as I know, the biggest pro by far is the geographical position (southernmost point of the USA, despite what the monument at Key West says), which provides additional energy to reach orbit, although not as much as the ESA gets in Guyana. Another pro would be that Hawaii would have a source of income that could back up their income from tourism, which is about 60% of their total, I believe. Cons: cost of transporting boosters there. The Saturn V first and second stages were barged to Canaveral, and the third stage flown in on a Super Guppy, so on the face of it it appears impossible to launch anything that big. If you can get the External Tank over there then the Space Shuttle can be launched (Honolulu airport is a designated emergency landing site and has very long runways). Does anyone know where Ariane is built and how it is shipped to Kourou? I have a personal con: I find South Point to be an area of outstanding natural beauty and refreshingly bereft of civilization; I would be sorry to see a favorite vacation spot deprived of that which I value in it. Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 88 19:56:59 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Hawaiian launch sites Ach! You guys have such a lack of sensitivity! A great way to wreck one of the best optical observing sites in the world. Okay, SPACE at all costs. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA soon to be aurora.arc.nasa.gov at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!" {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 88 02:57:22 GMT From: ut-emx!juniper!mentat@sally.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: 707/717/720/c-135 history (was Re: KAL 007) In article <10312@steinmetz.ge.com> welty@sunup.UUCP (richard welty) writes: >(this is crossposted; edit the news.groups line appropriately if necessary) > >In article <48118@sun.uucp>, fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >* The B-707 was modified to become the >* C-135... A number of people have been using the "C-135" designation. It's very important to remember that the military variant was first and foremost a TANKER, i.e., a KC-135. >The original aircraft was the Boeing 717 The "Boeing 717" was the 367-80, the "Dash 80" testbed. It was never a production model, nor intended as such (see below). >The Air Force agreed, and ordered large numbers of this aircraft, >designating it the KC-135 (the cargo variants came later -- the tanker >was first.) Boeing then used the profits from the Air Force contract >to complete the design of the type 707, which I really doubt that Boeing used any "profits." Break-even takes a long time. Boeing had to sell 400 747's before it broke even (1976, nearly eight years after rollout) on that project. >In addition, there is a variation on the 707 called the 720 which some >airlines use, although there is a bit of confusion over the model >numbers -- some planes designated 720s by the airlines are really 707s, >and some 707s have a few 720 features. No, the 720 is a totally distinct airplane. The airlines might confuse the passenger emergency cards, but from a maintenance/flying viewpoint, they're two very different airplanes. The 720's sort of like a short 707, a hot-rod (see below) >Mike Trout has a large C-135 history, which he mailed to me a while >back. I could post it if anyone is interested (or he could, I >suppose.) Please do! ------------------------------------------- Here's the history of the 707, derived from Boeing's "Jet Transport Performance Methods," copyright 1957 by the Boeing Company. January 1964 revision. Note that it ignores the KC-135 entirely, but provides a framework within which other information can be applied. 0-1 History and Development In May, 1954, a new airplane was rolled out of the Renton, Washington plant. This airplane, the propotype of America's first jet transport, was an investment of the Boeing Airplane Company, and represented the company's re-entry into the field of commercial aviation. For a decade, production strength was being poured into the national defense effort. Now there appeared a place on the production line for other than military aircraft. The decision to offer a jet transport to the nation's airlines was not a new idea. Early design studies were begun in 1946 and carried on through the years. The success of the B-47 bomber instilled even more confidence in the undertaking. In late 1947 and in 1948 an appreciable amount of preliminary work was done on a commercial jet transport configuration. This was largely directed toward an investigation of the possible economics of the configuration to see if such a transport would be commercially feasible. Very little drawing board design work was attempted and the characteristics assumed for the studies were taken directly from the contempory swept wing bomber investigations. Work accomplished during 1947 and subsequent years in some cases was placed under the designation of Model 473. Some designs proposed in this era were the 473-12, 473-14, 473-19, and 473-29 models. By mid-1949 it had become apparent that neither Boeing nor the potential users possessed sufficient knowledge of the factors which would be involved in a jet operation. Consequently, Boeing undertook a comprehensive study, based upon the performance of a hypothetical airplane. Included were not merely takeoff and landing distances and cruising speeds, but the entire picture of jet transport operation. The airplane upon which the study was based was powered by four engines having characteristics somewhat similar to those of the military J-57 engine manufactured by Pratt & Whitney aircraft. It had a wing area of 2500 square feet with a sweepback of 35 degrees, with aero- dynamic characteristics similar to those of the B-52. This study constituted by far the most thoroughly-filled package of jet-transport information assembled by anyone to that time. So favorable was the reaction of potential customers that a small project was organized to begin actual design and wind tunnel work. The most significant result was a 1950 design called the 473-60. It was similar to the airplane of earlier performance work except that it had a slightly smaller wing of 2300 square feet. The wing characteristics were virtually identical to those of the B-52. The landing gear was a tricycle type having all three gears supported in the body, resulting in a very narrow tread. The "60" was proposed in two versions: aa domestic model weighing 135,000 pounds, and a transocean model offered in weights up to 180,000 pounds. A wind tunnel model was made and a full aerodynamic study carried out. In the process, it appeared that improvements should be made in certain areas, particularly the landing gear. While the Model 473-60 study was underway, considerable preliminary design and aerodynamic work was being done on improvements to the C-97 configuration. A variety of engines were investigated, including advanced versions of the Pratt & Whitney R-4360 and turboprop installations. Two of the designs that appeared on the drawing board prior to 1950 were the 367-14 and the 367-22. These models retained the then current C-97 wing and landing gear features but incorporated various engine changes. The improvements were not as great as anticipated, and the designs undertook a further change. By 1950, a configuration was proposed which was expected to remedy some of the problems encountered in attempting to improve the C-97. The model was designated 367-60 and was powered by four turboprop engines. It was characterized by a gulled-wing designed to lower the floor and to provide propeller clearance. Sweepback was beginning to look profitable and an 18 degree sweep was selected for this model. However, progress of the turboprop engine development was disappointing and serious consideration was given to the turbojet engine. Late in 1950 work was begun on Model 367-64, a design based around a C-97 body, four jet engines and a new landing gear. The wing had an area of 2500 square feet and 25 degrees of sweepback. The increased sweep was found to give more desirable Mach number characteristics. A great deal of effort went into this design. The amount of wind tunnel testing that was done was more than many high speed airplanes have had prior to first flight. Although this design, commonly known as the "Advanced C-97," was a good airplane, it became evident by late summer of 1951 that it would not be sold. All was not lost, for the vast fund of knowledge gained from turboprop and turbojet investigations brought about a better understanding of design and operational requirements of a jet transport. The landing gear problem, which had been difficult in earlier designs, had been worked out on the 367-64. In other ways, including body shape, development work on the "64" pointed to further improvements. For example, the fuel capacity of the 367-64 was less than desired. This was partially due to the fact that the wing had been severely thinned in order to achieve Mach number objectives. In addition, the thinning had produced a wing that would be difficult to fabricate from a manufacturing standpoint. To adjust these factors, a new wing was laid out which was thicker and had a 35-degree angle of sweepback. Even here, previous efforts were not lost, as the wing was essentially the "64" wing rotated an additional 10 degrees about the root. The result of the additional sweep reduced the span from 140 feet to 130 feet but maintained the gross area at 2500 square feet, including an inboard trailing edge extension which faired the landing gear. It is this wing, with refinements to airfoil sections and trailing edge extension, which is on today's 707 prototype. Many of the drawings at the end of 1951 were now being labeled Model 707, as they were the products of joint efforts to incorporate the work of the past months into a saleable article. It appeared also that a demonstration airplane was required to convince potential customers of the advantages of jet transportation to a degree sufficient to warrant their large investment in new equipment. Models 707-5 and 707-6 evolved to a point where a decision to build a prototype airplane was forthcoming. In May 1952, work was begun although for economic reasons the model number was changed from 707 to 367-80. It was designed also to keep the prototype light in weight and simple in design and operation. During the course of the design, a number of changes were made. The most significant of these was the change from dual engine pods to four single pods. Subsequent attempts to enlarge the body cross-section were discontinued in favor of making the change on production models. The models discussed herein are but a few of the 150 "paper" airplanes that make up the ancestral lines of the 707. The years of research, investigation, and production ingenuity culminated on July 15, 1954, when the 367-80 prototype made the historic first flight from Renton Airport. Landing was made at Seattle, Boeing Field, after a flight of one hour and 24 minutes. Two versions of the production 707 airplane exist: the "Stratoliner," and the "Intercontinental." The Stratoliner airplane was designed to serve the longer domestic and most intercontinental routes and has a range capability of over 3500 nautical miles. The Intercontinental was designed to carry a 40,000 pound payload over 5000 nautical miles. There are variations within the models and series depending upon the requirements of the customers. Following closely on the heels of the family of 707 airplanes is the medium range Model 720. Although similar to its predecessor in appearance, it is a completely new design from a weight and structural strength viewpoint. Variations of Model 720 exist largely due to the type of power plant equipment used. The development of a turbofan engine with its higher thrust ratings and vastly improved specific fuel consumption makes the Model 720 an attractive package. The most recent addition to the family of Boeing airplanes is the Model 727. It features the latest advances in jet engine technology and aerodynamics. Its smaller size and versatility provide low cost air transportation in the short-to-medium range class. Over a period of 4 1/2 years, thousands of details and design features were studied for feasibility and checked out against specific airline objectives. Having detailed and tested a total of 68 different airplane designs, the final form of the 727 was established. The Model 727 differs noticeably in appearance from its predecessors, in that it is equipped with three turbofan engines and a dominating empennege section. Two of the three engines are mounted in pods at each side of the rear fuselage. The cowl-enclosed third engine is suspended from a beam at the rear of the fuselage, with the air intake located at the base of the vertical fin. The engine location dictated the design of tail, such that the horizontal stabilizer is attached to the top of the fin structure. The vertical stabilizer is swept sharply aft to give the control surfaces maximum effect for minimum size and weight. A high degree of "commonness" has been preserved between the 707/720 and the 727 airplanes. Any changes in the systems were made only on the basis of improvements possible due to experience and to advances in the state of technology, or due to the aircraft's intended short-haul, minimum ground time use. Low speed performance is built into the wing by means of high-lift devices. These consist of triple-slotted trailing-edge flaps and leading edge flaps and slats. The 727 uses dual hydraulic packages to power the primary flight controls throughout complete surface travel. Elevators and ailerons are aerodynamically balanced to allow manual operation. The rudder has a third hydraulic system available for backup purposes. To reduce the turn-around time and make the airplane as self-sufficient as possible, an aft airstair is installed as an integral part of the fuselage. In addition, a forward airstair can be installed at the option of the customer. To provide electric and pneumatic power for ground operation an airborne auxilliary power unit can be installed in the wheel well. Advanced high-lift devices enable the 727 to operate at full payload (24,000 lbs) from 5000-foot runways. The 727 is capable of carrying 70-114 passengers at speeds up to 600 miles per hour over a distance ranging from 150 to 1700 miles. ---------------------------------------- Robert Dorsett {allegra,ihnp4}!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!mentat University of Texas mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu at Austin {allegra, ihnp4}!ut-emx!juniper!mentat ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #204 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Apr 88 06:31:47 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA24009; Fri, 29 Apr 88 03:21:39 PDT id AA24009; Fri, 29 Apr 88 03:21:39 PDT Date: Fri, 29 Apr 88 03:21:39 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804291021.AA24009@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #205 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 205 Today's Topics: Re: 707/717/720/c-135 history (was Re: KAL 007) Re: KAL 007 Re: KAL 007 Re: KAL 007 Re: Dash-80 707 prototype Re: Mars Re: mars Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Apr 88 00:51:20 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!ICEMAN@princeton.edu (Joakim Karlsson) Subject: Re: 707/717/720/c-135 history (was Re: KAL 007) In article <4129@whuts.UUCP>, sw@whuts.UUCP (WARMINK) writes: >Am I alone in trying to figure out what this (interesting) topic is >doing in sci.space? It is here because there is not a "sci.aerospace" or a "sci.aviation" group, but I'm not sure people want this. I'd like to either see "sci.space" be renamed to "sci.aerospace", and include both aeronautical and astronautical issues, *or* create a "sci.aviation" ("sci.aero"?), that would keep aeronautical engineering issues out of "rec.aviation" and out of "sci.space", instead of in both. Joakim Karlsson iceman @ pucc.Princeton.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 88 22:43:37 GMT From: pitt!cisunx!sngst@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Sanjiv N. Gupta) Subject: Re: KAL 007 In article <815@ncspm.ncsu.edu> jay@ncspm.ncsu.EDU (Jay C. Smith) writes: >Every time the subject of the 707 and C-135 comes up it degenerates >into some sort of "chicken and the egg" discussion. ... The reason >for confusion may be that while the C-135 was sold first, the 707 was >always the ultimate intention. I dunno which came first, but I do know that the Boeing model number for the C-135 is 717 (didn't you ever wonder why they went from 707 to 727? That's why) That would seem to imply that the 707 came first, but its not neccessarily the case. Both were derived from the Boeing model 360, which resembles both aircraft, but isn't exactly either. For those who haven't looked carefully, by the way, the 707 and the C-135 are *not* the same plane. They differ considerably in appearance...check out the wings, for one thing...the C-135 has straight trailing edges while the 707 has the 'crank' in it that most Boeing commercial transports have (does anyone who does aerodynamics know why?). Sanjiv Gupta ------------------------------ Date: 15 Apr 88 22:35:54 GMT From: ssc-vax!stuart@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Stuart Lewis) Subject: Re: KAL 007 Well, as I read through the net further I saw a number of other articles on the subject and realized I was wrong on some counts. The aircraft wasn't the 720 but the -80. The 720 was later. Most of my information I got from the book "Vision...." which I mentioned in my original posting, but then it's been a while since I read it. I do stand by my statement that the 707/-80 was strictly a commercial venture by the companies board of directors - they banked nearly everthing on it's being a success. That I do remember from the text. As history has shown, Chairman of the Board Bill Allen made the right gamble. Someone else mentioned the color scheme - a combo of yellow and some shade of red - ugly as sin! You can find color photos of the -80 in various old-timers offices here in the company. Someone also mentioned the airframe diameters being different which is true too. They look like the same aircraft (707/KC-135) from the outside, but then who has eyes that can detect a few inches diameter variation on something that size! Stuart Lewis Boeing Aerospace Co. ssc-vax!stuart ------------------------------ Date: 15 Apr 88 21:46:58 GMT From: ssc-vax!stuart@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Stuart Lewis) Subject: Re: KAL 007 I haven't been on the net for about 2 weeks so I hope I'm not re- hashing something already said, but...... Actually, the 707 was first. It first flew in 1955 (I'm pretty sure), and made history in 1958 as the first trans-oceanic commercial jet transport when PanAm flew from New York to London. Anyway, the 707 copied a great deal of technology and design from the first swept wing bomber - the B-47. The 707 or Boeing Stratojet was designed from the very beginning as a commercial transport - period. Assembly of the B-52 was at and end and Boeing gambled (litteraly) everything they had on the commercial 707 (then called the 720) production. After a few years of very successful performance in the commercial market the gov't took interest in applying the technology to the military. In the early 1960's development and conversions to the 707 began and the first military 707 was born - the KC-135 tanker. This was at a time when nearly all the military airlift capability was still prop driven! Sure, the bomber and fighter force was jet, but for running cargo they still flew prop Boeings and Douglas and the like. The military Boeings include the aforementioned KC-135, the RC-135 (Recon. & Intel. gathering) of the KAL 007 saga, the E3A Sentry (AWACs c^3 mission), and currently under production - still undergoing shakedown, certification and design by-off - the E6, a U.S. Navy submarine communications aircraft. I may quite possibly be wrong, but I don't think that there exists a C-135 for purely cargo mission - I believe that role is entirely done by the C-130, C-131, C-5, and C-141 - all non-Boeing aircraft. If there are any ex- Air Force out there maybe they could post more info. For additional reading try "'Vision', The Saga of the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company". Sorry, I don't remember the publisher or author but is is interesting reading. Stuart Lewis Boeing Aerospace Co. ssc-vax!stuart ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 88 23:31:32 GMT From: cute@sphinx.uchicago.edu (John Robert Cavallino) Subject: Re: Dash-80 707 prototype Just had one item to add to the 707 discussion -- some of you might not know this, but the Dash-80 itself is stored in "mothballed" condition at Davis- Monthan AFB in Tucson, AZ., along with multitudes of other surplus planes and plane parts. They have public tours where they bus you around the storage areas, and you can actually get out and walk right up to the planes. I'll never forget the rows and rows and rows of what looked like hundreds of B-52s, stretching as far as I could see. BTW, they also have the B-52 that launched the X-15s. Anyone else ever taken the tour? JohnC ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Apr 1988 17:11-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Mars I've just recently returned from the Lunar Bases Symposium in Houston, and I'd point out that a number of experts made statements that boiled down to: "When they start doing the real engineering, the disagreements between Mars and Moon advocates will go away. For engineering and cost reasons, you have to build the lunar base first. You have to test the equipment where you can get home or be rescued if there are problems. And the economics of lunar O2 refueling at L2 make the Mars trip affordable." The above is a composite of several speakers statements, and points of agreement in their questioning and comments to each other. The lunar O2 scenario had tables and tables of hard data on payloads, mass fractions and $$$'s behind it. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 88 13:58:59 GMT From: oliveb!felix!ccicpg!turnkey!stanton!donegan@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Steven P. Donegan) Subject: Re: mars In article <8804071509.AA24359@usafa.ARPA>, bidlack@USAFA.ARPA (Harold bidlack) writes: > One aspect of a manned mission to Mars that I thing should be > discussed is the biological debate. In a past issue of Sky and > Telescope, the > Thus, Loudin argued, a manned landing on Mars should be delayed until > we are ABSOLUTELY sure there is no life on Mars. > Thoughts? > Hal Bidlack@usafa.arpa I, being a computer science worker for 15 years, have yet to see ABSOLUTE proof of anything. I feel we should expend every REASONABLE effort to keep our contamination of space to a minimum. I don't believe that we should keep from exploring other planets due to the (impossible as I see it) requirement of zero contamination. We must remove all of our eggs from this one very fragile basket - we must explore space for the future of humanity. Steven P. Donegan Sr. Telecommunications Analyst Western Digital Corp. donegan@stanton.TCC.COM ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 88 03:27:15 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.bellcore.com (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ > ... If the satellite goes into a slightly incorrect orbit it probably > wouldn't significantly effect work... Thinking of that, don't forget that the lunar-orbiting observatory is going to need regular orbit corrections. The lunar gravitational field is pretty lumpy and perturbs orbits badly; my impression is that almost any lunar orbit eventually ends up intersecting the surface. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 88 07:27:30 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ > Thinking of that, don't forget that the lunar-orbiting observatory is > going to need regular orbit corrections. The lunar gravitational > field is pretty lumpy and perturbs orbits badly; my impression is that > almost any lunar orbit eventually ends up intersecting the surface. Correct. For this purpose, you can use a small fraction of the fuel you would otherwise spend on taking everything down to the surface in a soft landing. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 88 08:13:44 GMT From: ulysses!thumper!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ > It seems to me that long term observations of some objects would be > easier to carry out on the moon, as opposed to a satellite. (Which > would be orbiting the moon....at times having the moon itself eclipse > the very object under observation!) You're forgetting that a base on the moon's surface would also be eclipsed by the moon itself. Once an object set, you'd have to wait 2 weeks, not just 12 hours, to see it again. From lunar orbit you'd have even less time to wait. (Please don't tell me about siting bases on the moon's poles. You'd not be shielded from the earth, which was the whole point of this exercise, and a single base would never see half of the sky). Not that many astronomical observations require such long and uninterrupted views of a single object. Remember that the Space Telescope will be similarly limited, yet it will still be a very powerful instrument. > Come on! This is a weak argument. For one thing, the same store and > forward technology could just as easily be used for the moon to earth > relay satellites. Agreed. But if you need lunar satellites for communications, why not just put the instruments there too? > This may be true...but what about running cables to the other side of > the moon to carry electricity while the telescope is in the lunar > night. Now YOU'RE way out on a limb (weak pun unintended) here. Ever hear of the engineer's corollary to Occam's Razor? The simplest and cheapest way to do job reliably is usually the best way. > Just thought I`d say something. The radio telescope on the moon is a > great idea. Even if people use it as an excuse for getting men & > women in space, so what! What`s wrong with that? Isn`t that the goal > we all have...or am I being silly Now we come to the real heart of the matter. You're now admitting what I said in my first item, that everyone was falling all over themselves trying to find some practical excuse, no matter how stretched, for putting as many people in space as possible. Isn't this exactly the mistake NASA made with the Shuttle? Obviously it didn't learn much the first time, because now it's doing it all over again with Space Station. Look, I really *do* enjoy manned missions. I was one of the few people around here to see Challenger blow up on the TV in real time, because the major networks (and most other people) had long tired of shuttle launches by then. Not me. But at least I try to be up front about it -- I admit that I enjoy manned missions strictly for entertainment and/or educational value. My share in a Shuttle launch is a lot less than a movie ticket. But I don't try to rationalize that sending up seven people is the best way to launch a communications satellite, or conduct earth resources photography, or any of a long list of things that have been done perfectly well and far more cheaply (if with less glamor) with unmanned launchers. The one aspect of the STS-51L mission that really did require a human presence in space was the part everyone was looking forward to -- Christa McAuliffe's science lesson. The shuttle is admirably suited to this sort of thing, which is completely worthwhile if inspires youngsters into careers in engineering or science. But don't kid yourself -- for the vast majority of practical space applications, you're a lot better off in the long run by going after the simplest and most direct approach to the problem, and only VERY rarely does this require humans in space. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Apr 88 12:04:46 EDT From: Lee Brotzman Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ hubcap@gatech.edu (Mike Marshall) writes: >The same issue of Air&Space contains an article entitled "Resist the >Pull of Mars" in which the author talks about "The dark far side of the >moon..." being a good place to conduct " ...sensitive radio >astronomy... without interference from terrestrial signals." > >Since this is a credible magazine, I should give the guy the benefit of >the doubt and assume he is talking about the period of time that the >moon appears full from the perspective of the earth, but that's not how >it reads. The term "dark" has another meaning in astronomy. A good "dark" site for an observatory is one which has little or no light pollution. Using the astronomical interpretation, the far side of the moon is "radio dark", i.e. there is no interference from the radio emissions from earth. The moon would be a fantastic site for astronomy in any wavelength, since there is no obscuring atmosphere to absorb or scatter light and it would provide a stable platform free from the nightmares of accurately pointing a free flying observatory like the Hubble Space Telecope (HST). "Deep sky" observations could be made with exposure times ranging from hours to weeks. One thing about the Hubble Space Telescope that is rarely mentioned is that, since it will be in low-earth orbit, the amount of actual observing time is very limited. Something like 50% of the time HST is in orbit it can't observe because the earth takes up nearly half of the sky. The maximum exposure time for any one observation is 30-40 minutes. The International Ultraviolet Explorer, on the other hand, has been known to make single exposures of up to 18 hours in length, which is only possible because it is in geo-synchronous orbit. The reduced exposure times are partially compensated for by more sensitive digital detectors, but for spectra of very faint sources, only long exposures will do. Operating an astronomical observatory on the moon shouldn't be much more difficult than some of the present earth sites. Mauna Loa looks like it's right out of a lunar picture book :-) -- Lee Brotzman, ST Systems Corp. Contracted to the Astronomical Data Center, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (No, ST does not stand for "Space Telescope") The above statements are my own, and do not represent the opinions or policy of my employer, or the Astronomical Data Center. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 88 18:09:21 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ In article <211@aplcomm.UUCP>, jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt) writes: > In article <1481@bigtex.uucp> james@bigtex.UUCP (James Van Artsdalen) writes: > >I am not an astronomer, but it seems to me that if it is useful to > >place an observatory on the far side of the moon so that Earth isn't > >radiating at the telescope, it would also be useful to place the > >observatory to avoid the Sun shining on it. > I am afraid that I cannot envision a point which is both hidden from > the earth and hidden from the sun on the surface of the moon, unless > you mean in a hole. Where did you mean? A large Farside telescope would have 14-day-long nights...this would give you a place to make very long exposures with reduced tracking efforts, no weather to worry about, no local light pollution sources, and less vibration from local truck traffic. seh ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #205 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Apr 88 06:24:17 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA25693; Sat, 30 Apr 88 03:21:12 PDT id AA25693; Sat, 30 Apr 88 03:21:12 PDT Date: Sat, 30 Apr 88 03:21:12 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8804301021.AA25693@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #206 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 206 Today's Topics: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ Re: How to become an astronaut? Re: How to become an astronaut? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Apr 88 16:11:36 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ I asked my friend at NASA Goddard, Dr. Thomas Clark, about the radio astronomy satellites I mentioned earlier. Here is his reply. Note the *big* advantage zero gravity had in constructing large antennas. Phil ------------------------ The satellite was Radio Astronomy Explorer-B which flew circa 1971. RAE-A & B were the largest satellites ever flown. From the central body (roughly a 1M tub) were deployed 6 long booms. 4 of them were 750' long each, with the 'up' and 'down' pairs constituting long terminated vee antennas; thus the 'height' was 1500', taller than the Empire State building. The included angle on each vee was about 25 deg (I could get the exact figure if it is needed). At an angle approximately 60 deg to the plane of the 'X' made by the vee antennas was a 630' long libration boom (similar in concept to the pole carried by a tight-rope walker). RAE-A went into earth orbit in late 1968, and RAE-B flew circa 1971 in lunar orbit gravitationally scaled to it's terrestrial twin. The vee antennas were terminated by cutting the booms about 1/4 of the way back from the tips and inserting a resistor element. Thus at freqs where the ends segment is an odd number of quarter-wavelengths, the termination suppresses the far-end reflection and the antenna becomes unidirectional. Primary observing frequencies were 1.31, 3.93, 5.55 MHz. In addition, the s/c had short, well calibrated dipoles for non-directional radiometric measurements. The antennas were made of Be-Cu tape about 1.5" wide, with the edges serrated so that they locked rigidly when deployed; thus the booms were about 0.5" in diameter. The very long booms were silvered on the outside & blackened on the inside, and perforated with a semi-random hole pattern to minimize differential thermal distortions; the holes let through enuff sunlight to illuminate the 'backside' from the inside. Needless to say, this was a gravity-gradient stabilized satellite par excellence. I was one of the project scientists on RAE and managed about a half-dozen publications, mostly on the spectrum of the low-frequency synchrotron radiation from cosmic ray electrons in our galaxy. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Apr 88 18:58:21 GMT From: pacbell!att-ih!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ >... For this purpose, you can use a small fraction of the fuel you >would otherwise spend on taking everything down to the surface in a >soft landing. Don't forget to add the fuel you use in bringing materials up from the lunar surface to orbit. Any major facility is probably going to find it cost-effective to use lunar materials to some extent. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 88 01:47:03 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ > Don't forget to add the fuel you use in bringing materials up from the > lunar surface to orbit. Any major facility is probably going to find > it cost-effective to use lunar materials to some extent. I doubt it. Despite their enormous antennas, RAE-1 and RAE-2 mass was only about 417 and 328 kg, respectively. RAE-2 (the lunar orbiting spacecraft) was launched on a Delta, not the exactly the largest rocket ever built. You can build truly enormous, extremely lightweight structures in zero-g that would fall apart on a planetary surface. All it takes is clever engineering. You know, for a group of people that keeps prodding others to use their imaginations, the man-in-space crowd is unremarkably uncreative at solving engineering problems. According to them, the answer to every problem is "put a human up there". :-) Phil ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 88 20:34:51 GMT From: sun.soe.clarkson.edu!montague@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Michael Montague) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ >From article <1559@bigtex.uucp>, by james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen): > In article <1988Apr15.185821.804@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Don't forget to add the fuel you use in bringing materials up from >> the lunar surface to orbit. Any major facility is probably going to >> find it cost-effective to use lunar materials to some extent. > Out of curiosity, what are a bunch of lunar rocks going to be used > for? I assume you're implying that a mining/manufacturing plant would > be boosted from Earth to process the rocks into something useful. > Won't this cost as much as the original observatory? One possiblity to get the lunar rocks into orbit is through the use on an electromagnetic cannon. A small one was built at Princeton a couple of years ago I think. The processing plant could be designed to be mostly self replicating. So you boost one into orbit from earth, and have it reproduce itself. Now using these processing plants the lunar rocks can be used to make a variaty of things. Space Colonys, a space ship to go to Mars, power satellites, and so on. If I remember correctly, lunar rocks consist mostly of silicon and alumnimum. Hence, we dont have to haul nearly as much stuff out of the earth's gravity well. Michael. -- Internet: montague@sun.soe.clarkson.edu | Woody's my hero... Bitnet: montague@CLUTX.BITNET | uucp: {rpics, gould}!clutx!montague | ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 88 14:34:24 GMT From: pacbell!att-ih!chinet!bigtex!james@ames.arc.nasa.gov (James Van Artsdalen) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ In article <1988Apr15.185821.804@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > Don't forget to add the fuel you use in bringing materials up from the > lunar surface to orbit. Any major facility is probably going to find > it cost-effective to use lunar materials to some extent. Out of curiosity, what are a bunch of lunar rocks going to be used for? I assume you're implying that a mining/manufacturing plant would be boosted from Earth to process the rocks into something useful. Won't this cost as much as the original observatory? James R. Van Artsdalen ...!ut-sally!utastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746 ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 88 14:50:30 GMT From: mtunx!whuts!sw@rutgers.edu (WARMINK) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ In article <760@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>, montague@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Michael Montague) writes: > One possiblity to get the lunar rocks into orbit is through the use on an > electromagnetic cannon. A small one was built at Princeton a couple of years The raw materials exist, and could even be 'shot' into moon orbit cheaply, but it is quite a step to go from moon rocks to finished product, e.g. another processing plant or satellite, as mentioned above. There is nothing to say it can't be done, the question is at what cost? Just think of all the processing involved just to get some aluminium components: smelting, extracting the aluminium, alloying, rolling/and or machining...and that is just one metal. It is worth considering all the equipment necessary to build that first processing plant, then you get an idea of just how big (and heavy, and expensive) it must be in order to replicate itself. The processing plant may well turn out to be heavier (since that is what matters when launching stuff) than the finished product(s). Is it worth it? ------------------------------ Date: 19 Apr 88 17:38:26 GMT From: sun.soe.clarkson.edu!montague@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Michael Montague) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ >From article <4164@whuts.UUCP>, by sw@whuts.UUCP (WARMINK): > another processing plant or satellite, as mentioned above. There is > nothing to say it can't be done, the question is at what cost? Agreed. > Just think of all the processing involved just to get some aluminium > components: smelting, extracting the aluminium, alloying, rolling/and But there are a couple of things to remember. Big in space does not necessarily mean expensive. Without any gravity (or very little), many new processing techniques will probably be developed. Perhaps these would not be as expensive or require as much heavy material to do as the corresponding earth bound process would. In the long run, I think that it would be much cheaper to use materials from the moon (and asteroids etc.) rather than continue to haul everything up from earth. Michael. Internet: montague@sun.soe.clarkson.edu Bitnet: montague@CLUTX.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 88 08:06:01 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Moon or Mars? Editorial in _Air & Space Smithsonian_ > > ... Any major facility is probably going to find it cost-effective > > to use lunar materials to some extent. > > I doubt it. Despite their enormous antennas, RAE-1 and RAE-2 mass was > only about 417 and 328 kg, respectively... Phil, when I say "major facility", I am not talking about a few hundred kilos of satellite with long antennas. However useful the results from RAE-[12] were, Arecibo they were not. There is a limit to how lightly you can build a structure that is exposed to tidal forces and periodic reboost. RAE-[12] were an extreme best case, not a typical one. > You know, for a group of people that keeps prodding others to use > their imaginations, the man-in-space crowd is unremarkably uncreative > at solving engineering problems. According to them, the answer to > every problem is "put a human up there". :-) You know, for a group of people that claims to be forward-looking, the "keep space for the robots" crowd is remarkably short-sighted in their notion of what "major" facilities and missions are. According to them, the answer to every problem is "why should we worry, our current mission won't run into it". :-) Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 88 19:01:38 GMT From: killer!bigtex!james@AMES.ARC.NASA.GOV (James Van Artsdalen) Subject: Re: How to become an astronaut? IN article <397@cascade.STANFORD.EDU>, bhayes@cascade.STANFORD.EDU (Barry Hayes) wrote: > [...] She will have spent seven years of her life getting ready for a > seven day mission. I want to go into space, but I don't think I'd be > willing to trade seven years for it. Owen Garriott, who recently retired, spent nearly twenty years as an astronaut and flew only two missions. And that considering there weren't nearly as many astronauts back then. The current crop will be lucky to *average* seven years. James R. Van Artsdalen ...!ut-sally!uastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746 ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 88 03:13:05 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.bellcore.com (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: How to become an astronaut? These are strictly my own thoughts and opinions; I have no special pipeline into NASA. However, I'd be surprised if any of this was far wrong. First and most important, you must realize that THE CONCEPT OF "ROUTINE ACCESS TO SPACE" IS DEAD. In the West, anyway. For at least the near future, and probably for a long time unless one of the less orthodox private launch firms is wildly successful. That means that if you want to go into space, you have to work for the government. There will be a *few* non-government people in space, but that's not the way to bet if you want to maximize your chances. There are two ways to go: pilot and mission specialist. If you want to become a pilot astronaut, you're going to have to become a military pilot first. No exceptions. You need lots of fast-jet time, and there is no civilian way to get that. Yes, there are a few civilian fast-jet jobs... but military pilot training is pretty much a prerequisite for getting one of them. Neil Armstrong was a civilian test pilot when he became an astronaut, but he learned to fly in the military. Okay, so you want to become a mission specialist. The important thing to realize here is that there are few openings and many, many applicants. It is not enough to be able to do the job. Probably most of the people reading this could; I'm pretty sure I could. You have to be better than all the other people trying for the job. This means being better in a lot of silly, irrelevant ways, as well as the ones that matter. NASA's problem is not selecting qualified people, it's weeding out all but a few of the qualified ones; most any excuse will do. You have to avoid giving them an excuse to weed YOU out. For example, you will need a PhD. Not because it has diddly-squat to do with being an astronaut -- it pretty much doesn't -- but because a lot of your competitors have PhDs. You should obviously be in good physical condition, with no obvious medical disqualifications. In particular, look at group pictures of astronauts and note how few of them wear glasses. (John Young wore glasses to land Columbia on STS-1, but he *didn't* wear them when he was picked to be an astronaut many years ago!) You should be good at public speaking. Partly because astronauts get a lot of media attention and NASA wants people who will cope well. The big reason, though, is that you're going to have to sell yourself to NASA's selection people, against lots of competition. Similarly, you should be of orthodox appearance. I usually wear my hair somewhat long, and am seldom seen in anything but T-shirt and bluejeans. Not atypical for Usenet readers, I suspect. But that's not the image you want to project to become an astronaut. What you want is the rising-young-executive look, respectable and orthodox. Same reason: you've got a tough selling job to do, and your appearance will influence people. Likewise, you don't want a lot of weird behavior conspicuously on record. Save that for *after* you qualify! :-) Along related lines, a career as an astronaut has a pretty good chance of requiring a security clearance sooner or later. (Maybe right away, I'm not sure.) It shouldn't be hard to think of things you should avoid if you want to qualify for one. Security clearances are not like criminal charges: conclusive proof of guilt is NOT required. If you aren't a US citizen, either become one or forget it. Getting back to education, you want hands-on background in a hands-on field. Forget theory; the theoreticians will stay on the ground. Forget computer programming too; programming can and will be done on the ground. Pick something in engineering or experimental science, and get your hands dirty a lot. Get a pilot's license and fly a lot. Officially this does not matter for mission specialists. In practice NASA is known to be prejudiced in favor of pilots for *all* astronaut jobs. Go to work for NASA. The pay is not great and the job security probably won't be either, but NASA is known to have a *strong* prejudice in favor of NASA employees. This one they even admit to, if pressed. Think space, especially when you're actually trying to qualify. If they ask you what sort of animal you'd like to be reincarnated as, if you had to pick one (this is said to be a standard question), pick a soaring bird even if you would really prefer to be a man-eating tiger. If they ask you for an essay on one of several topics, and only one of them is about space, that's the one you pick. And so on. NASA wants highly motivated people, remember. Finally, keep trying. Quite a few of the current astronauts didn't get in on their first try. Being lucky wouldn't hurt, either. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #206 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 1 May 88 06:32:59 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA27057; Sun, 1 May 88 03:24:33 PDT id AA27057; Sun, 1 May 88 03:24:33 PDT Date: Sun, 1 May 88 03:24:33 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805011024.AA27057@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #207 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 207 Today's Topics: Re: How to become an astronaut? Re: How to become an astronaut? Re: How to become an astronaut? Re: Jesse Jackson's space policy Fwd: NASA decides on shuttle escape system Advertisement from Aviation Leak Optical Processing and Space Station Automation Query... Re: network special interest groups (sf-lovers) Re: Jesse Jackson's space policy Re: Superconductors ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Apr 88 07:24:50 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: How to become an astronaut? To all you people dreaming and scheming about how to get yourselves into space: How about sublimating some of that energy into projects that are actually going to fly, not just in your lifetimes but in the next few years? There are several small, informal organizations that specialize in giving ANYONE with the necessary technical skills and time to volunteer an opportunity to contribute directly to the design, construction and operation of a real live satellite in earth orbit. The best known such organization is AMSAT, the Radio Amateur Satellite folks. AMSAT has major spacecraft development groups in West Germany and the US, and affiliated organizations all over the world. To date, two satellites in the Phase III series were built and launched (with one launch failure) and a third is ready to go up on the first Ariane 4 in about 6 weeks. In the past decade several newer organizations have established their own track records. The University of Surrey in the UK, Weber State College in Utah, the Japanese national ham radio organization and at least two separate groups in the USSR have all successfully designed and built, with volunteer labor, small satellites of their own that were carried into orbit by various existing launchers (Delta, Shuttle, H-1, etc). So... for those of you who are getting tired of sitting around, reading sci-fi, listening to tapes of old L-5 speeches, waiting for Super Saver fares to be announced on the shuttle... why not get involved in actually DOING something! It may not sound very exciting to be able to say that my finger prints are on something in earth orbit that I helped build and operate, but believe me, it is to me. If you're interested, write to AMSAT PO Box 27 Washington, DC 20044 and offer your services. We're working on quite a few projects right now -- the Phase 3-C launch I mentioned earlier, a low-altitude store-and-forward packet radio project that has gained quite a bit of momentum in the past half year with the appearance of some launch opportunities, and Phase 4, an ambitious plan for one or more geostationary repeater satellites. AMSAT news items are regularly carried on the rec.ham-radio USENET group. Join us! Phil Karn, KA9Q Asst VP Engineering, AMSAT ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 88 11:32:07 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: How to become an astronaut? In article <1988Apr10.031305.24364@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >If you aren't a US citizen, either become one or forget it. There are other astronauts than American citizens you know. You could become a West German or French citizen. ESA's manned spaceflight programme has it's first flight scheduled for 1996. (on the Hermes shuttle). A number of other ESA member states also have astronaut training programmes. But.... There aren't many manned missions planned yet, and the last I heard, no-one is recruiting any more astronauts at present. The current group of astronauts will probably supply all the crew for Columbus too. The rest of the posting still applies. You would need VERY good qualifications. Side note: One of the main characters in a recent BBC TV series, STAR COPS, was an ex-NASA astronaut who joined ESA. He didn't like the military dominance of the US space programme. The series is set in the late 2020s. Very good series. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 88 05:07:11 GMT From: nuchat!splut!stu@uunet.uu.net (Stewart Cobb) Subject: Re: How to become an astronaut? > >If you aren't a US citizen, either become one or forget it. > > There are other astronauts than American citizens you know. > > You could become a West German or French citizen. ESA's manned > spaceflight programme has it's first flight scheduled for 1996. (on > the Hermes shuttle). Not only that. We have flown non-citizens on our shuttle. Salman Al-Saud, Saudi Arabia, 51-G Patrick Baudry, France, 51-G (he has also flown a Russian mission!) Mark Garneau, Canada, 41-G Rienhard Furrer, West Germany, 61-A Ulf Merbold, West Germany, STS-9 Wubbo Ockels, West Germany, 61-A The above is a partial list, compiled from a report to Congress: Astronauts and Cosmonauts Biographical and Statistical Data (revised June 28, 1985) Check your local GPO bookstore... -Stu -- | Stewart Cobb (Hacking GNC for STS) ... sun!housun!nuchat!splut!stu | N5JXE @ KA5KTH or WB5BBW ... seismo!soma!uhnix1 / | << Insert the usual disclaimer >> ... hoptoad!academ / | Sattinger's Law: It works better if you plug it in. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 88 03:55:31 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.bellcore.com (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Jesse Jackson's space policy > ... There's > much you can conclude about a satellite's capabilities just by applying > some elementary physics. (This may come as a big shock, especially to > you SDI fans, but making a project secret and giving it an unlimited > budget doesn't exempt it from the laws of physics... One should be a *little* cautious when making such statements, however. The laws of physics, our current understanding of them, and a specific person's interpretation of them are three different things, and only the first is guaranteed to be immune to the effects of money and effort. There are plenty of historical examples of predictions based on the latter two going down in flames, sometimes fairly promptly. While there is much that can be *guessed* about a satellite's capabilities just by applying elementary physics, there is always room for doubt about whether somebody has found a clever way around the rules. Reading the manual is better! -- "Noalias must go. This is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology non-negotiable." --DMR | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Apr 88 07:18:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Sclafani X-Andrew-Message-Size: 2514+0 Subject: Fwd: NASA decides on shuttle escape system ------------------------------ Forwarded message begins here: ------------------------------ From: kroon@alice.UUCP Newsgroups: rec.skydiving Subject: NASA decides on shuttle escape system Message-ID: <7800@alice.UUCP> Date: 8 Apr 88 14:05:29 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ NASA has decided that on future shuttle flights, each shuttle will be equipped with a telescoping pole, to make it easy to bail out. The pole escape method was chosen over an alternative that would have used rockets to propel the crew away from the shuttle in an emergency. By sliding down the pole, the astronauts would clear the shuttle's tail before parachuting into the sea, NASA says. The telescoping pole was selected as it has shown to be safer, simpler to operate, lighter weight and easier to support than the tractor rocket system. A NASA spokeswoman, said the 10-foot pole already is being installed in Discovery and will be ready for the first flight, scheduled for Aug. 4. The aluminum and steel pole weighs 241 pounds, 70 pounds lighter than the rocket system. If the shuttle had to ditch _ either on an aborted launching or on return from space _ the pole would be extended out the side hatch and the crew would attach themselves to it with rings on their parachutes and slide down, one at a time. During launch and landing, the unextended pole will be pointed toward the hatch. It will be stowed while the shuttle is in orbit. Engineers say the new escape system cannot be used while the shuttle is connected to the rockets. NASA already has replaced the spacecraft's hatch so it can be jettisoned with explosive bolts and it is installing a partial pressure suit, oxygen equipment, a parachute, a life raft and survival equipment for each crew member. Under the rocket system, the astronauts would have to jettison the hatch, and, one-by-one, lie on a metal ramp that slanted out the door. Each one would have to attach a line to a small rocket housed in an adjacent rack and be pulled out. The pole system was tested in February and March, using a fixed pole that extended through a hatch-like opening in a C-141 cargo plane. Navy parachutists completed 66 jumps, using cords attached to their parachute harnesses to slide down the pole and descend to a safe landing. NASA said the side hatch jettison system can also be helpful if an emergency should require a quick crew exit once the ship is on the ground. The new hatch contains an escape slide similar to those on commercial airliners. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 88 21:12:00 GMT From: necntc!frog!john@ames.arpa (John Woods, Software) Subject: Advertisement from Aviation Leak The following advertisement (quoted only in part) appeared in the 29 February Aviation Week and Space Technology: `` Count Us Among The Movers and Shakers In Space Mitsubishi Electric is certainly a mover. Witness our ion engine. Weighing in at a modest 3kg [that, of course, should be "massing in" :-], it provides ultra-reliable long-term power out of all proportion to its size, for precise positioning and orientation. Maybe one day a scaled up version will power the first flight to the stars. Count on us being there, too. ...'' Yeah, and count on the US to be a complete third-world backwater by that time... -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu FUN: THE FINAL FRONTIER Zippy the Pinhead in '88! ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 88 18:46:04 GMT From: bobw@boulder.colorado.edu (Bob Wald) Subject: Optical Processing and Space Station Automation Query... Hi There! I'm writing a graduate term paper for a class entitled "Fourier Optics and Optical Computing" as an *overview* of applicable optical technologies deemed useful for space station automation. Emphasis on intelligent optical pattern recognition and optical control processing, optical or electro-optical computing ideas, fiber optic and laser communications, possible avenues for the optical interconnection of these, as well as advantages of optics over electronics in this environment etc. will(hopefully) be addressed. If possible, could you please reply thru net mail to the above address on any *readily obtainable* references which may be of help. (I am told our library has a fair amount of NASA material, as well as many of the technical optical journals...) Many thanks in advance! Bob ------------------------------ Sender: "Jo_M._Anselm.henr801E"@xerox.com Date: 11 Apr 88 06:32:27 PDT (Monday) Subject: Re: network special interest groups (sf-lovers) From: "Jo_M._Anselm.henr801E"@xerox.com I guess it's a good thing you're concerned about the future of newsgroups, but you should look harder at the date of that issue. The moderator upholds a sacred tradition, and would probably be delighted by your response. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Apr 88 19:28:06 GMT From: phri!dasys1!tbetz@nyu.edu (Tom Betz) Subject: Re: Jesse Jackson's space policy In article <776@td2cad.intel.com>, jreece@td2cad.intel.com (John Reece ) writes: > > It should be pointed out here that Jesse Jackson was one of number of > sign-carrying protestors on hand at Kennedy to protest the space program > during the launch of Apollo 11.... > > John Reece d d Jesse Jackson was a very young man then, and saw the Moon program for the wasteful and short-term project that it was. Had we been engaged in slowly pushing forward the frontiers as the Soviets have instead of blowinbg all our capital on trips to the moon, we'd have permanent bases there now, and be on our way to Mars. If I knew then what I know now about what Nixon's plans for the space program were (slow, lingering death, because it was started by Kennedy, a man he hated) I'd have been out there on the picket lines as well. -- Tom Betz {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\ Big Electric Cat Public Unix {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!tbetz New York, NY, USA {sun}!hoptoad/ ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 88 21:59:25 GMT From: weltyc@nisc.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Re: Superconductors In article <2422@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> sjmoon@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Sang J. Moon) writes: > >I may be treading a beaten path, but I would like to know what uses >the present or future space program has for superconductors. (Not >only in this country) > Supercondictivity does have very exciting prospects, in and out of space. But it is difficult to get around all the hype. Here is what this months Nasa Tech Briefs says about what NASA is doing: First of all there is a clear advantage to space applications, the current superconductors can be used since space is cold enough (just keep it away from direct sunlight...), so many of these do not need to wait for the mythical "room temperature superconductor". Sensors: Nasa plans to use the new ceramics to improve the detection range of space-born sensors. NASA Marshall is researching using a `superconducting quantum interference device' (SQUID) which will be used on `deep space gravity probes'. NASA JPL is working on superconducting-insulating-superconducting (sounds like a Josephine (sp?) Junction) junction for atmospheric remote sensing satellites, which would be ten times more sensitive than current models. Power and Propulsion: Current battery systems for the Shuttle and other spacecraft are quite limited. Superconducting batteries are being ressearched at NASA Lewis for extending space missions and the lifetimes of space probes. Also electromagnetic launchers are beginning to look feasible. Space shield: [this sounds incredible, but I don't know...] Apparently NASA Lewis is also looking into the feasibility of a superconducting magnet being used as a heat shield. If the magnetic feild was intense enough, and concentrated at the front of a reentering spacecraft, it would keep the hot, ionized gases away from the craft...[wow] Although we're probably all familiar with the problems that the current superconductors have (especially current density), apparently NASA IS working and researching this stuff for space applications. There was no mention as to when they thought any of this would come about, and it may very well be (although I'm not really qualified to say) that this is all just pie in the sky kind of thinking.... Christopher Welty --- Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!rutgers!nysernic!weltyc ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #207 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 2 May 88 06:35:57 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA28496; Mon, 2 May 88 03:32:34 PDT id AA28496; Mon, 2 May 88 03:32:34 PDT Date: Mon, 2 May 88 03:32:34 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805021032.AA28496@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #208 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 208 Today's Topics: Libertarians... Next Year in L5! National Space Society "Policy" becoming an astronaut (additional comment to Henry's) Quoting without permission Re: space news from March 7 AW&ST (Defense of James van Allen) Re: remote sensing of Mars and private industry Re: Jesse Jackson's space policy Re: Antimatter Ride Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 88 09:23:52 EST From: laura@vax.darpa.mil Posted-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 88 09:23:52 EST To: laura@vax.darpa.mil, space@angband.s1.gov >From: BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa >Phil Karn speaks of humanity "re-evolve"ing space flight capability >thousands of years after a nuclear war. Unfortunately, there is reason >to believe that humanity is living out its only chance to develop >a space-faring civilization right now. The reason for this is that >hydrothermal ore formation processes are inherently very slow and cannot >be sped up without an economy of energy production far in excess of even >the fringe ideas of Joseph Newman with his "energy machine" let alone >the wildest claims of more mainstream fusion energy researchers. We >are chewing up critical ores at a million times their formation rate >and are not likely to find substitutes for all materials which sit >at critical junctures of a space-faring civilization's technology. >In short, if we, the baby-boomers blow it, we may doom terrestrial life >to remain, forever, terrestrial. I've heard this sort of statement before, and I really think it is exaggerated. The human race is far more flexible and inventive than this gives it credit for. There seems to be a presumption here that humans will drag themselves up from the wood burning stage, look around, say "Ooops! No fossil fuels! Guess that's that!" and stay farmers forever. There are plant-based fuels, you know. They may not be optimal, but neither is oil. It's rather like those people who look at the universe, point out all the various delicate balances which allow life and intelligence to exist, and say "[insert divine/non-divine force of your choice] must have designed this for us!" This ignores the fact that in universes where such balances were off, there wouldn't be any life around to see them... This is a word for this sort of thinking (what is actually one of multiple paths looks singular and inevitable to those on it), and I can't remember it. Any help? Laura Burchard laura@vax.darpa.mil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Apr 88 09:48:43 CDT From: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Abrams) Posted-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 88 09:48:43 CDT Subject: Libertarians... >From Keith Lynch... "Dale Amon does not speak for the Libertarian party. I have asked him more than once to change his stance or to stop calling himself a libertarian." In all my conversations with Dale, he has *NEVER* come across as trying to represent the Libertarian Party. He usually , through words or buttons, indicates that he is a *member* of the Libertarian Party, but I've never heard him lay claim to *representing* the Party. Also, I should like to remind Keith that membership in an organization doesn't automatically mean that one supports all that party's platform. Dale should not have to "change his stance or to stop calling himself a libertarian." Constructive criticism is what makes organizations strong and any group group that, as you imply, asks members to resign rather than voice opposing viewpoints is certainly not worth my support. Steve Abrams ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 88 23:00:09 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov (MacLeod) Subject: Next Year in L5! During the Passover season I was reading soc.culture.jewish and I was impressed all over again by the faith of the Jews in returning to the Promised Land. It occurred to me that those who dream of living in space would do well to cultivate the same faith and patience and belief in the future, though we should not have to wait as long. So, inspired by their example, let us say to each other, to refresh our spirits, Next Year in L5! Michael Sloan MacLeod amdahl!drivax!macleod ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Apr 88 09:48:50 PDT From: BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa Subject: National Space Society "Policy" Date: Tue, 12-APR-1988 09:50 PDT X-VMS-Mail-To: SPACE Dale Amon excuses his call for lobbying to obtain full NASA funding by claiming he was obligated to act in an official capacity for the National Space Society. This is false. Neither Dale, nor ANY board member, is obligated to act in an official capacity on this network. I verified this fact in a conversation with Glen Wilson who stated while it is desirable for board members to show solidarity when they speak for the National Space Society, there is no obligation for them to speak for the National Space Society in any official capacity. The real question is this: Why does Dale work against the establishment of a spacefaring civilization by espousing views which are against that aim which he is not obligated to espouse? Further, since the Legislative Committee of the National Space Society refuses to accept and circulate input from members of the Society (speaking from personal experience and the experience of others who have tried on many occasions) the current "policy" statements are nothing more than the personal positions of the members of the Legislative Committee, primarily Sandra Adamson (who receives income from the Space Station program), Scott Pace (Rand Corporation) and Mark Hopkins (Rand Corporation). These individuals also have close ties with the political action organizations SpacePac and SpaceCause, upon which NSS has been made finanically dependent and which, themselves, are dependent on the Aerospace Industries Advisory Council -- an arm of the aerospace establishment used to launder lobbying money and thus get around the Ethics in Government Act (Hatch Act). I am running for the board of directors the the National Space Society so that I can work to rid our organization of these corrupting influences, restore the Society to its appropriate focus on apolitical educational activities and begin to represent the MEMBERSHIP rather than the views of a few NASA lackies. Dale should immediately cease espousing the views of these individuals and stand up for what he believes is right. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Apr 88 16:14:02 pdt From: Eugene N. Miya Subject: becoming an astronaut (additional comment to Henry's) DUMB MAIL SYSTEMS! I tried to send this as mail, but it did not get thru. If you expect a reply, start placing return addresses in the bottoms of your notes. >Well, gee, what do you want to know? Let's break this down. > >1) Learn how to fly. (Fun spare time activity) >2) Learn some empirical science: aeronautics, astronomy, geology, >materials, etc. > >Anything else? >Learn patience, discipline, get into physical shape. > >>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: Henry is generally correct and fair to what he posted. Any ways to correct or add to some of the things Henry has said. First off, it has not in the past really helped to be a NASA employee. USAF, definitely, but in the 8th and beyond call for astronauts, they specifically were weeded out. The change came around the 10th call when outside mission specialists started to come in. It turned out a few were inside and this gave some advantage, but the advantage was slight. Several astronauts have flown without PhDs. What's his name from Hughes killed on the Challenger was one of several. BUT get a PhD it helps. Several foreign astronauts have flown. In fact in some ways, if you can get into the early stages of a foreign country's space program, we have some advantages (PR). There is an impressive list of foreign astronaut material in the bi-yearly Congressional report. Mostly, you have to have patience. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Apr 88 18:13:16 pdt From: Eugene N. Miya Subject: Quoting without permission Too many postings, I'm going to lose respect. Anyway, I would like to make a comment that I think too many network discussions get away with murder by posting articles, quotations, and other material by other folks. Well, I'm being a bit harsh, but I hope you get my point. I want to encourage you guys to seek permission to use material that you get from other sources. Yes, it will take a bit longer, but it's a better learning experience for you. It will give you a chance to communicate with some great as well as some not so great thinkers. It's too easy to misinterpret based on short snipetts of material. So stop it. Check your sources, and talk to some of these guys before you "post without seeking permission." You might learn something to add to it. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 88 18:19:40 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@AMES.ARC.NASA.GOV (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: space news from March 7 AW&ST (Defense of James van Allen) In article <1988Apr11.020249.8269@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Most of the rest of the letter column is criticism of Van Allen's latest >epistle. "Thanks to men with the Proxmire/Van Allen viewpoint, we have >no coherent space program today..." James van Allen is hardily in the same category as Proxmire. The problem comes from the political and social motivations for going into space. There is a tendency to believe that "going into space" constitutes "science" like "space science" is naively a part of "astronomy." Dr. van Allen and many others are the people responsible for keeping the SCIENCE in space and not just the political hype of sending people up. I would not blame van Allen that there is no coherent space policy, I can see few coherent policies anywhere in Government (economic trade, research, education, even the military ;-). Perhaps we need two (correction three) space programs: military, civilian political (for those who need firsts) and civilian science. 8-) [I know some would argue we have this already.] Added note: mail is getting especially bad. Please add a return address to your signatures otherwise, don't expect replies. Also I want to try and assemble a set of most asked questions (things we will see again and again, like "why not use expended Shuttle tanks for something?") I will post and we can iterate (when I get some time). >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 88 15:24:28 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. Starr) Subject: Re: remote sensing of Mars and private industry [Plot summary to this point: I said (among other things) that the right way to do a manned Mars mission would include farming out all the pre-flight surveys of Mars (e.g, Mars Observer and followups) to private remote- sensing firms such as Spot. Mike Caplinger, who I infer works on MO, noted the advances in the MO camera, and that it's being built by universities and private industry, so what was I complaining about? Besides, he added, Spot is subsidized by the French government. If you need to know more, consult the earlier postings.] Perhaps my original point didn't come through clearly enough. I was trying to say that even a one-shot Mars mission could be of long-term benefit if each step along the way had as a goal (equal in importance to reaching Mars) helping to develop a private, non-governmental presence in space. In the area of pre-flight surveying, I would contract out the entire job to some remote-sensing company with adequate technology. Right now Spot is about the closest thing to what I'd want; its subsidy from the French government is unfortnate, but it's better than having the whole job *performed* by an agency of the US government. Note that I said I'd contract out the *whole* job; I'd be buying not a camera or a spacecraft; I'd be buying *pictures*. It would be up to the contractor to decide what kind of cameras to use, the design and number of spacecraft and how they'd get to Mars. As I see it, if a remote-sensing outfit's already got a spacecraft that can operate for a few years in Earth orbit (Spot had, I believe, demonstrated this capability) and can find a subcontractor able to deliver to the vicinity of Mars (something Arianespace seems to have demonstrated with Giotto--not the same location, but the same kind of job), the remaining problems (primarily communication-related) should be well within the grasp of a private company, and as such the government has no business running the survey task itself. This is a *lot* different from MO, where the contractors deliver cameras and components to be put on a spacecraft specified (if not designed) by a government agency, to be sent to Mars and operated by a government agency. Now, I'd assume that MO has scientific purposes beyond just mapping Mars well enough to permit a landing. That research does still seem to be within the context of what a government, but I don't see it as justifiying the government staying in the business of building and launching spacecraft: they should be saying "we have this experimental equipment, it weighs this much, consumes this much power, needs this kind of support; we're taking bids for the service of providing support and delivery to Mars orbit." ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 88 16:22:06 GMT From: avsd!govett@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David Govett) Subject: Re: Jesse Jackson's space policy > In article <776@td2cad.intel.com>, jreece@td2cad.intel.com (John Reece ) writes: > > > > It should be pointed out here that Jesse Jackson was one of number of > > sign-carrying protestors on hand at Kennedy to protest the space program > > during the launch of Apollo 11.... > > > Jesse Jackson was a very young man then, and saw the Moon program for the > wasteful and short-term project that it was. Had we been engaged in slowly > pushing forward the frontiers as the Soviets have instead of blowinbg all our > capital on trips to the moon, we'd have permanent bases there now, and be on > our way to Mars. If I knew then what I know now about what Nixon's plans > for the space program were (slow, lingering death, because it was started by > Kennedy, a man he hated) I'd have been out there on the picket lines as well. If Ronald Reagan had been the one picketing the launch of Apollo 11, would you say the same thing? I think not. I think you are being hypocritical. Isn't it funny how easy it is to minimize the actions of anyone if you support them? JJ can do no wrong in your eyes. I've got news for you. If you think the space program has suffered over the past twenty years, it's nothing compared to what JJ would try to do if he were elected. He'd try to spend the entire NASA and DOD budgets on the one special interest group he represents, and say to hell with America's future in space. Sure, I know what his speech writers say, but I don't believe that self-serving posturing for a second. ------------------------------ Date: Wed 13 Apr 88 10:53:55-PDT From: MATTHEWS%ASD.SPAN@star.stanford.edu Subject: Re: Antimatter Henry Spencer writes: > Do you have any idea how much antimatter is going to *cost*?!? About $1M per milligram, according to the quoted Av Week article, using a facility comparable to the Superconducting Supercollider. Current (or near future) costs run more like $10M/milligram. According to my calculations (which may be off by an order of magnitude or so), it takes about 7.5 grams of antimatter to equal the energy release of a one- megaton H-bomb. So, you'd be looking at about $7.5 Billion per megaton at production efficiencies we'd be likely to get by the turn of the century... not exactly cost competitive with old-fashioned fusion technology. Considering the much more cost-effective uses to which such a rare commodity could be put, I would think that the last thing they would want to do with antimatter is use it to blow something up... ............................................................................. Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not for my employer. Mike Matthews ARPANet: MATTHEWS%ASD.SPAN@STAR.STANFORD.EDU Lockheed-EMSCO SPAN: ASD::MATTHEWS Houston, Texas ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1988 14:05-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Ride Reports For those who are NSS members, it might be worth calling the DC office to see if they have any in stock. I'd be surprised if they didn't have some for sale. Also, there was a second printing. If worst comes to worst, you might try directly contacting the Office of Exploration, since they are the ultimate source of the book. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #208 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 3 May 88 06:32:48 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00653; Tue, 3 May 88 03:29:41 PDT id AA00653; Tue, 3 May 88 03:29:41 PDT Date: Tue, 3 May 88 03:29:41 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805031029.AA00653@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #209 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 209 Today's Topics: Re: ``Soviet Space Trash Light Up Texas Sky'' Antimatter and request for M. Wiener Re: Jesse Jackson's space policy Re: becoming an astronaut (additional comment to Henry's) Re: greenhouse effect / solar power satellites Re: Antimatter Mir predictions and more mail trouble Re: Superconductors Re: Antimatter Re: space news from March 14 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Apr 88 19:09:58 GMT From: cu-den!udenva!isis!scicom!wats@boulder.colorado.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: Re: ``Soviet Space Trash Light Up Texas Sky'' In article <46@canopus.UUCP>, joe@hanauma.stanford.edu (Joe Dellinger,ESMB 471,7230463,4153244824) writes: > > as it reentered the atmosphere over San Antonio, said Lt Col Ivan Pinnell, > a spokesman for NORAD. > Any way to predict such events? And to think I flew back to CA on Me too! Ivan Pinnell must be the public relations officer. This would be a good task for someone on the NET in colo Spgs (local call) to call him regularly and submit the info for the rest of us curious skywatchers. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Apr 88 15:36 CDT From: Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey Subject: Antimatter and request for M. Wiener Original_To: SPACE Readers should be aware that over here in the Bitnet cave we see only the shadows of Usenet dancing on the wall. In other words, we read those messages gatewayed from sci.space into Arpanet and concatenated by Ted Anderson into the Space Digest. (Kind souls on Arpanet mail the Digest into the Bitnet world, where friendly robots redistribute copies of it.) This means we don't get to read *every* message that percolates across Usenet, though we seem to read most of them. An example of this is Matthew P. Wiener's recent discussion with Henry Spencer on the military uses of antimatter. --First Dale Amon's announcement about the Aviation Week piece (21 May 1988 issue, page 19) appeared. (Space Digest #178, 31 March). --Some days later we got Matthew's response to Dale's report (Space Digest #187, 11 April). --Then Matthew's response to Henry's criticism of his posting (Space Digest #188, 12 April). This included a vague reference to a *Science* article that Matthew had cited to the Arms-Control Digest last year. --Henry's criticism appeared a day later (Space Digest #189, 13 April). I knew if I was patient, I would eventually see the whole correspondence. Since I'm having trouble reaching him directly, I'd like to ask Matthew Wiener here to post the reference to the *Science* piece on antimatter and the military. The way the Usenet-Internet link works, the posting you are now reading probably appeared on Usenet several days before I wrote it...(-: ______meson Bill Higgins _-~ ____________-~______neutrino Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory - - ~-_ / \ ~----- proton Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET | | \ / SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS - - ~ ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 88 20:55:00 GMT From: portal!atari!daisy!wooding@uunet.uu.net (Mike Wooding) Subject: Re: Jesse Jackson's space policy In article <1036@thumper.bellcore.com>, karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > > For someone so sceptical of technical feasibility, you sure put > > a lot of confidence in satellites. > > Verifiability is an important part of any arms treaty. The phrase Its not just an important part, its the entire foundation. without it the treaties are un-tenable. > "national technical means", found so frequently in arms treaties, is > nothing more than a euphemism for "spy satellites". They are so Satellites only? No ground based electronic surveillance or airborne recon? No seismic monitoring? > important to verification that you will find that many treaty provisions > were specifically written with the ability of satellites to monitor them > in mind. The best example is the principle of limiting the number of > launchers (easy to see) as opposed to the number of warheads (not so > easy to see). > > In my opinion, the value to the Soviets of having the technical manual > to any particular US spy satellite has been greatly overblown. There's There's obviously room for intellectually honest people to disagree here, (you are only giving an opinion.) > > If the Soviet SDI program is futile, what has been blinding our > > satellites? > > If by this you are referring to the reports that Soviet lasers have been > aimed at US spysats, then a) I'm not at all convinced of the reliability You may not be convinced, but would you concede that others might have grave concerns? > of these reports, considering their source (certain US officials whose > personal empires stand to grow enormously if the reports are taken as > accurate) and b) even if they are true, this has very little to do with > SDI, but a lot to do with ASATs and arms treaties. The same US officials who would be responsible for verifying the treaties by "national technical means"? Or are those officials somehow more responsible than the latter. > The technology for ASATs (Anti-Satellite weapons) is well established, > with the US having a definite technology lead. Unfortunately, it is a The technology may be established, but the implementation is still in the R&D phase. > very dangerous development because of the importance of reconnaissance > satellites to verifying arms control agreements and in keeping things > stable. > > It may have actually occurred to the more thoughtful (or intellectually > honest, if there are any) SDI-ers that the relative ease with which > space-based sensors could be temporarily blinded by lasers or blown out > of the sky with ASATs constitutes a very grave vulnerability of the > whole system. But then why would anyone bother to attack the system when it clearly wouldn't work anyway. I'm really just trying to cast some doubts that the issues are quite so cut and dried. As far as relying entirely on spy satellites to verify arms treaties, don't you think thats putting a lot of faith (and eggs) in one basket? If you guess wrong, maybe you're dead. Some of the short-comings of satellite surveillance is that it is not continuous (once each pass is all you get), and it takes time to adjust orbits to examine "interesting" items. And even 1 foot resolution doesn't do much good on an overcast day. And examining the insides of buildings, unless of course the have sky-lights. Seems to me at best it might be one of many tools, perhaps including on site inspections. Oh, there is one more drawback to the use of spy satellites. You must be able to get them into orbit. :-) But then no one in our gov't would dream of putting all of their eggs in one basket, would they? :-) I hope you don't think I'm empire building or too intellectually dishonest if I don't find your faith in spy satellites terribly re-assuring. m wooding ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 88 14:46:35 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: becoming an astronaut (additional comment to Henry's) >From article <8804122314.AA16522@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov>, by eugene@PIONEER.ARC.NASA.GOV (Eugene N. Miya): > > > First off, it has not in the past really helped to be a NASA employee. > USAF, definitely, but in the 8th and beyond call for astronauts, > they specifically were weeded out. The change came around the 10th call > when outside mission specialists started to come in. It turned out a > few were inside and this gave some advantage, but the advantage was > slight. Several astronauts have flown without PhDs. What's his name > from Hughes killed on the Challenger was one of several. BUT get a PhD > it helps. > > --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA I beg to differ, Eugene. I don't have the figures in front of me, but almost every mission specialist selected since the early 1980's (at least the last three selections) has been working in some capacity for NASA or the DoD. Jemison was the only exception in the most recent group. It's true that a PhD isnt necessary, but I would point out that Jarvis (= whatshisname from Hughes) was a payload specialist not a career astronaut. That is the other way to fly without working for NASA - work for a company that's going to use the STS to put something up. Except, after 51L they're clamping down on such payload specialist joyrides. I don't mind going to work for NASA, but I wish they would relax that uncorrected vision requirement! Yours myopically and (for now) earthbound, Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 88 00:15:47 GMT From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) Subject: Re: greenhouse effect / solar power satellites In article <226@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes: : Not being much of an astrophysicist, could someone comment on putting : dust in an orbit between the earth and the sun? The position I have in : mind is an orbit closer to the sun at the point where the earth's : gravity balances the suns to the extent that it could orbit at the : (slower) speed that the earth does. It sounds to me like it would orbit : properly, but I have no idea how far from the earth this point is, nor : does it seem overly stable. The point of which you are thinking, one of the Lagrange points, is not stable. An object placed there will drift away. John Carr "No one wants to make a terrible choice jfc@athena.mit.edu On the price of being free" -- Neil Peart ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 88 12:33:34 GMT From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrlnk!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Mark Johnson) Subject: Re: Antimatter In article <8804131919.AA28318@angband.s1.gov> MATTHEWS%ASD.SPAN@STAR.STANFORD.EDU writes: >megaton H-bomb. So, you'd be looking at about $7.5 Billion per megaton at >production efficiencies we'd be likely to get by the turn of the century... >not exactly cost competitive with old-fashioned fusion technology. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ so who sez warfare has anything to do with cost effectiveness??? (Unfortunately, only 1/3 :-) here, it hurts every time I see how much they take out of my paycheck for "defense"...I guess I shouldn't complain, the evidence (no nuke war yet in 20+ years) indicates that deterrence, for now, seems to work. It has, however, begun to show some cracks.. -- Mark Johnson (mjohnson@ncrwic.UUCP) NCR Engineering & Manufacturing-Wichita, KS phone: (316)636-8189 email:...!rutgers!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson US snailnet: 3718 N. Rock Rd., Wichita, KS 67226 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 88 17:55:01 GMT From: snowdog@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Brezina) Subject: Mir predictions and more mail trouble Hi gang, For those of you on the satellite prediction distribution list, I just want to mention that Mir is 3 minutes late as compared to the predictions you have received as of last Thursday or thereabouts. This is according to observations by Mike Salmon of Norwich, England. The next batch of predictions will be distributed tomorrow afternoon starting at 1800 UTC; it will cover all of next week. The second window now starts for the US, so most of you should enjoy some pretty good passes. My thanks goes to Mr. Kenny for providing me with timely orbit updates; the new predictions should be right on the nose, at least initially. If any more of you would like to see Mir, give me a shout and I'll put you on the distribution list. Remember, I need the name of your town, its latitude and longitude to 2 decimal places, its approximate elevation above sea level, your local time zone, and whether you use Daylight Saving time. Predictions for other satellites are available (yes, the whole NORAD catalog); if you would like to see other object too, please specify. I have had more mail trouble getting predictions to some of you. If some of you have sent me mail but got no response, that means your mail is not reaching me because I do answer every message I receive. You could putting a brief message here on usenet and I'll see if I can get in touch. To Adam Hamilton of Edinburgh Scotland There was something wrong with your email address. Please drop off another message, perhaps giving me some helpful hints about the peculiarities of you mail system. It's weird; the system seems to reverse the names of the nodes, and it can't find one called UK.AC.ED.ETIVE. There will be some useful passes for San Francisco starting on the 18th. I will post these within a few days. Clear skies to all of you across the world, -Rich "Invisible to telescopic eye, Infinity, the star that would not die..." -Neil Peart, "Cygnus X-1" ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 88 12:41:28 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (James W. Meritt) Subject: Re: Superconductors In article <653@nysernic> weltyc@nisc.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) writes: }Space shield: [this sounds incredible, but I don't know...] Apparently }NASA Lewis is also looking into the feasibility of a superconducting }magnet being used as a heat shield. If the magnetic feild was intense }enough, and concentrated at the front of a reentering spacecraft, it }would keep the hot, ionized gases away from the craft...[wow] What's incredible about that??? The Enterprise had that YEARS ago!! Deflectors up, Scotty!!!!! Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 88 12:47:51 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (James W. Meritt) Subject: Re: Antimatter In article <8804131919.AA28318@angband.s1.gov> MATTHEWS%ASD.SPAN@STAR.STANFORD.EDU writes: >Considering the much more cost-effective uses to which such a rare commodity >could be put, I would think that the last thing they would want to do with >antimatter is use it to blow something up... Seems there is a better, safer way of zapping the enemy. LiD2 is fairly stable under ordinary conditions. How would one deliver a few grams of antimatter without being VERY obvious what you are doing, not to mention that launching that sucker would probably be sufficient acceleration to negate almost any non-material containment system you care to come up with. antimatter bombs: just say no. Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 88 17:02:43 GMT From: paul.rutgers.edu!styx.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) Subject: Re: space news from March 14 AW&ST Henry Spencer writes: > Deja Vu Dept: The Feb 14 test of a Titan SRB produced unusually severe > erosion of internal insulation, with metal structure exposed in parts of > the nozzle. Investigation underway. Who manufactures the Titan SRB? (I've a suspicion, but just wanted to make sure.) - Steve. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #209 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 4 May 88 06:27:34 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02450; Wed, 4 May 88 03:24:31 PDT id AA02450; Wed, 4 May 88 03:24:31 PDT Date: Wed, 4 May 88 03:24:31 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805041024.AA02450@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #210 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 210 Today's Topics: Re: greenhouse effect / solar power satellites Good book on the X-15 Re: space news from March 14 AW&ST Solar Sat Power Stations & greenhouses AMPTE/CCE Report from JPL newsletter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Apr 88 12:43:47 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (James W. Meritt) Subject: Re: greenhouse effect / solar power satellites In article <1033@daisy.UUCP> wooding@daisy.UUCP (Mike Wooding) writes: }In article <1840@ssc-vax.UUCP>, eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: }> In fact, if there is not enough time to run all our power }> plants backwards to get the CO2 out of the atmosphere before we }> fry, intentionally placing mirrors in orbit to deflect inco iming }> sunlight might give us more time to solve the problem. } Might be easier to make a cloud (of dust?) for a little shade } on a hot day. Wouldn't stay around a long time, but then that } could be an advantage. Gets noticeably cooler during an eclipse } which lasts only minutes. Were talking a LOT of dust though, } more than might be reasonable to lift from earth, but there's } the moon. And with a mass launcher, and maybe some static } charge to disperse, ... well you get the idea? Could it be } kept from falling to earth? Would it matter if it did? Not being much of an astrophysicist, could someone comment on putting dust in an orbit between the earth and the sun? The position I have in mind is an orbit closer to the sun at the point where the earth's gravity balances the suns to the extent that it could orbit at the (slower) speed that the earth does. It sounds to me like it would orbit properly, but I have no idea how far from the earth this point is, nor does it seem overly stable. Could a, say, 5% reduction in incoming solar flux be achieved in this way (balancing the "extra" beamed in from those billions and billions of SPSs ;~))? Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Apr 88 16:36 CDT From: Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey Subject: Good book on the X-15 Original_To: SPACE Since there was a lot of discussion recently about technical details of the X-15 rocket plane, I thought I'd recommend a book my colleague Mike Herren (HERREN@FNALB.BITNET) picked up. It has a tremendous amount of very detailed information as well as plenty of photos. Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET SPAN/HEPnet: 43011::HIGGINS ======================================================================= HELLO BILL! HERE'S THE PERTINENT POOP ON THE X-15/X-15A-2 DATA BOOK. AEROFAX DATAGRAPH 2 NORTH AMERICAN X-15 / X-15A-2 By Ben Guenther, Jay Miller, and Terry Panopalis Copyright 1985 Stock Number 0302. ISBN 0-942548-34-5 Published by: AEROFAX, INC. P.O. BOX 120127 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76012 Phone: 214-647-1105 I'm sorry but I don't remember the list price but I think it was around $10. As you'll recall, the book contain the complete flight log and several pages of colour photos of both the X-15 and B-52 support planes. I hope this helps you. M.W.Herren ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 88 18:27:32 GMT From: hpda!hpcupt1!hpcuhb!hpsel1!campbelr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bob Campbell) Subject: Re: space news from March 14 AW&ST >> Deja Vu Dept: The Feb 14 test of a Titan SRB produced unusually severe >> erosion of internal insulation, with metal structure exposed in parts of >> the nozzle. Investigation underway. > > Who manufactures the Titan SRB? > > (I've a suspicion, but just wanted to make sure.) > > - Steve. ---------- The test was performed in San Jose, CA at the United Technologies Chemical Systems Division plant. Although the test was announced in advance, it surprised quite a few of us who were sleeping in on Valentines Day. Bob Campbell Some times I wish that I could stop you from campbelr@hpda.hp.com talking, when I hear the silly things you say. Hewlett Packard - Elvis Costello HP-UX System Interface & Recovery Testing ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 88 17:47:10 GMT From: steinmetz!ge-dab!ge-rtp!edison!rja@uunet.uu.net (rja) Subject: Solar Sat Power Stations & greenhouses All these postings on SSPSs brings to mind a couple questions. Back when I last looked into these things in a serious way (circa 1981) one of the big technological problems was how to get the power from space (wherever) through the atmosphere with reasonable efficency. Some kind folks at NASA/Langely gave me copies of some studies that NASA had contracted for. The studies indicated that the the problems were quite extensive and pointed out that the atmospheric transmission losses would actually tend to promote a "greenhouse effect" although they were understandably uncertain whether the "greenhouse effect" existed or posed a problem. My later study of satellite communications technology and transmission losses tended to confirm the impressions I received from these NASA papers. Have there been breakthroughs in transmission technology ?? Doesn't this imply that folks concerned about the "greenhouse effect" should NOT be in favor of SSPSs ?? For that matter, the Laws of Thermodynamics imply that it isn't the source of the energy that matters, but rather how much of it is in the ecosystem. Shouldn't we be promoting terrestrial solar power instead, since to the extent we use that to replace carbon fuels, nuclear power, etc. we are actually reducing the energy input to the system ?? ______________________________________________________________________________ rja@edison.GE.COM or ...uunet!virginia!edison!rja "Noalias must go, this is non-negotiable" DMR ______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Apr 88 13:41:55 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: AMPTE/CCE Report from JPL newsletter X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@angband.s1.gov" "At 1234 hours, GMT, Saturday, March 12, the AMPTE/CCE spacecraft passed through the 2,000th perigee of its continuing mission to return data about the physics of the magnetosphere within which our planet exists," reported Al Beers, sec. 202, JPL. "This event occurred during the 1,304th day of the spacecraft's mission." The Active Magnetospheric Particle Tracer Explores (AMPTE) Project is a cooperative effort of the U.S., the Federal Repu'lic of Germany, and the United Kingdom. JPL is responsible for mission operations and data collection and storage. The mission was carried out to obtain a better understanding of certain mechanisms and physical properties of the Earth's magnetosphere. Scientists wanted to know how particles from the solar wind enter our magnetosphere, the characteristics of their energy transfer, and the population and energy states of the trapped particles. Beers explained that the three nations developed separate spacecraft which were stacked on a launch vehicle and injected into Earth orbit in August, 1984. Each spacecraft carried five scientific instruments not only to perform independent studies of physical phenomena, but to function cooperatively with other spacecraft for a series of unique experiments. Experiments involved the creation and monitoring of two artificial comets, as well as the release of chemicals into the solar wind and into the 'tail' of the magnetosphere and monitoring the flow of tracer particles. The German spacecraft, the Ion Release Module, carried 16 containers of chemicals to be selectively released. The United Kingdom subsatellite contained a radar and maneuvering system to work with the Ion Release Module to measure effects of the chemicals as they ionized. The United States' Charge Composition Explorer (CCE) was designed to monitor characteristics of the ions, their quantities and energy states as they approached Earth. The British mission prematurely lost spacecraft radio contact in January, 1985, after five months of flawless operation. The German spacecraft completed its primary mission and a significant extended mission before suffering a power system failure in August, 1986. "Only the U.S. spacecraft, designed for a five-year normal life, survives," Beers said. ... Accepted theory associated with the behavior of energetic particles within the magnetosphere was almost completely disproved. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #210 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 5 May 88 06:22:50 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04180; Thu, 5 May 88 03:19:51 PDT id AA04180; Thu, 5 May 88 03:19:51 PDT Date: Thu, 5 May 88 03:19:51 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805051019.AA04180@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #211 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 211 Today's Topics: Mir elements, epoch 20 April ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Apr 88 17:00:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements, epoch 20 April Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 157 Epoch: 88111.84196177 Inclination: 51.6244 degrees RA of node: 2.1970 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0010636 Argument of perigee: 4.0490 degrees Mean anomaly: 356.2625 degrees Mean motion: 15.81687808 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00032962 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 12479 Semimajor axis: 6703.76 km Apogee height*: 332.73 km Perigee height*: 318.47 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #211 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 6 May 88 06:37:30 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05977; Fri, 6 May 88 03:34:00 PDT id AA05977; Fri, 6 May 88 03:34:00 PDT Date: Fri, 6 May 88 03:34:00 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805061034.AA05977@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #212 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 212 Today's Topics: 48 Hours Re: 48 Hours (post facto) Re: 48 Hours (post facto) Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Apr 88 14:26:50 GMT From: ncspm!jay@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Jay C. Smith) Subject: 48 Hours I saw CBS' "48 Hours" last night about NASA, and a shuttle mission simulation in particular. The one thing that really struck me was: The astronauts are wearing pressure suits during launch again. And they're blue. I'm sure this was mentioned somewhere before, wasn't it? How did I miss this? What's the official reason for returning to pressure suits? Increased safety, of course, but then how was their absence after the first four shuttle flights justified? Jay C. Smith uucp: ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 22 Apr 88 19:07:33 GMT From: portal!atari!apratt@uunet.uu.net (Allan Pratt) Subject: Re: 48 Hours (post facto) >From article <845@ncspm.ncsu.edu>, by jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu (Jay C. Smith): > This week's "48 Hours," the CBS prime-time news program that isn't "60 > Minutes" or "West 57th," is supposed to be about a shuttle mission > simulation. > > Air time is 8:00 p.m. EDT on Thursday, April 21. Well, this got to my site too late, but I did notice the listing in the paper, and caught the show. I thought the parts which DIDN'T have Dan Rather in them were great. But I felt Dan took an unnecessarily antagonistic position in his interviews, focusing on the negatives and not any positives. He kept asking the astronauts about the disaster and how that kind of thing affects their thinking, and he asked again after they'd answered, rather than moving on. The ultimate insult was in his wrap-up at the end: he said "*If* the shuttle goes up..." (Emphasis mine.) Nobody but Dan expressed any doubt at all that the shuttle would go up, yet I'm sure this left the impression in Joe American that the issue was still in doubt. But then again, I haven't watched CBS News in weeks -- I deliberately avoid Dan Rather whenever I can. (I do watch CBS weekend news... I keep hoping for Charles Kuralt or Charles Osgood.) Did anyone else get this impression of the coverage? ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 88 17:36:01 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: 48 Hours (post facto) This is part of a series of tests I'm trying. In article <1046@atari.UUCP> apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) writes: >But I felt Dan took an unnecessarily antagonistic position in his >interviews, focusing on the negatives and not any positives. Unfortunately, I missed this show (tried to see it). I would hope Mr. Rather would focus on the negatives. This is how safety is accomplished. Note: I also believe the activity is EXTREMELY risky. [Note KFL's previously published comments that spaceflight should be accessible to everybody.] >He kept asking the astronauts about the disaster and how that kind of >thing affects their thinking, and he asked again after they'd answered, >rather than moving on. There is no time for feeling or thinking at the velocities we are dealing with. If this is true, then this would detract from the program. It's the scale of things that most people have difficulty comprehending. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA soon to be aurora.arc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: 22 Apr 88 15:27:29 GMT From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!loosemor@tis.llnl.gov (Sandra Loosemore) Subject: Is it CBS or NASA? Last night there was a documentary on CBS featuring Dan Rather and several other reporters giving an inside view of training for the next space shuttle mission. Besides having interviews with the astronauts and some other well-known people (Asimov, Boisjoly, etc), they also showed the flight controllers and the people running the simulation at work, and some other training facilities like the WET-F tank. What bothered me is how blatantly *sexist* this broadcast made NASA appear. The only women that I could see at work were a tour guide and one of the people who was running the simulation, who was kept very much in the background and never got to say a word on camera. When they talked about the future space station, the reporter and the interviewee (both male) started giggling like teenagers when discussing how men and women would be able to live and work together in space for six months at a time. In short, CBS made it seem like NASA was strictly a good-ol-boys organization, even down to visiting the bar where they guys hang out after work. Is this an accurate picture of how NASA works? Or is CBS just living up to its reputation for biased reporting again? -Sandra Loosemore {decwrl, utah-cs}!esunix!loosemor ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 88 17:56:49 GMT From: layman@athena.mit.edu (Tracey A. Layman) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? NASA is not necessarily sexist. As women have been seeking their equal rights, and "coming into their own" these days aeronautics, and astronautics are among the fields with the lowest percentage of women. Therefore, don't blame NASA, blame a lack of motivation. (Or smarts, no I won't say it. It's too sick.) Tracey Layman: mit-eddie!layman@athena.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 88 18:45:44 GMT From: ai!williams@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Karen Williams) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? I think the shuttle accident is giving NASA a chance to revert to the old all-white all-male control structure. I recently saw a bit on tv about the team preparing for the next shuttle flight, and they were all white men in their late thirties or so. Of course, the shuttle accident could have killed all of the female, non-white astronauts that NASA had, and all the female, non-white people who worked for NASA quit in protest, and they haven't had enough going on to hire new people yet. Karen Williams ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 88 17:17:06 GMT From: lucerne!marla@sun.com (Marla Parker) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? In article <809@esunix.UUCP> loosemor@esunix.UUCP (Sandra Loosemore) writes: >...an inside view of training for the next space shuttle >mission. ... they also showed the flight >controllers and the people running the simulation at work... >What bothered me is how blatantly *sexist* this broadcast made NASA appear. >... >Is this an accurate picture of how NASA works? Or is CBS just living >up to its reputation for biased reporting again? My sister works at NASA in the group that runs the sims and trains the shuttle astronauts. She told me she is going to be training the astronauts for STS29, which is going to fly before STS28 for some reason. Anyway, she is a feminist, so I'm going to send her your posting and see what she says. Unfortunately she is not on the net, but I'll post her response. Marla Parker {ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!marla marla@sun.com ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 88 20:41:06 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? This is being follow up from sci.space and not soc.women which this machine does not receive. I don't know if this will make it to the net, assume it does. The following is my opinion and not that of the Agency. It involves working slightly more than 10 years at two Centers, 4 projects, Details to HQ, JSC, GSFC, LeRC, and LaRC, working with male and female managers. I generally found most of the women harder workers than men for the "same" positions. loosemor@esunix.UUCP (Sandra Loosemore) writes: > A CBS summary Again, I did not see the tape, but it seems Asimov was out of place [Ah, could we not have had Le Guin instead?]. >What bothered me is how blatantly *sexist* this broadcast made NASA appear. I will not try to tell you there isn't sexism in the Agency. I believe there is, but like the rest of society, it's changing slowly. >CBS made it seem like NASA was strictly a good-ol-boys organization, >even down to visiting the bar where they guys hang out after work. This comment is independent of sexism, and I would also agree it is true. Note this comes from education (the PhD process), and the military, and is also visible in things like the airline and other parts of the aerospace industy (see below). I have battled with this old-boy network many times and typically lost. Check a map, SOME (not all) of this would be evident by seeking the centroid of NASA Centers in geography. It's not sexism there, classical behavior [God's way] in many places. >Is this an accurate picture of how NASA works? Or is CBS just living >up to its reputation for biased reporting again? It's an observation of some parts of it (Manned Space, note the Official adjective). Other parts tend to ignore it, note the Unmanned part of the Agency which I have grown to prefer in someways. I can also comment about CBS to a degree because I used to correspond with Don Hewitt, 60 minutes, during his early days with that show. I used to write letter to him, and one of my DSN (Deep Space Network) managers had a husband who wrote the news. Don't blame CBS, it's really our (the viewing audience's) pentant for sensationalism. layman@athena.mit.edu (Tracey A. Layman): >NASA is not necessarily sexist. aeronautics, and astronautics are >among the fields with the lowest percentage of women. Therefore, don't >blame NASA, blame a lack of motivation. Mommas don't let your daughters grow up to be cowgirls Make them Doctors, not lawyers, make them scientists and engineers. Teach them math, not art, . . . . . "Women and minorities" [are they talking to me in the latter?] are officially an area of concern in the AIAA (the aerospace professional group). We would also have to encourage women to join the Air Force and Naval Aviation as well. This does not sit well with those seeking peace. In article <5650@spool.cs.wisc.edu> williams@ai.cs.wisc.edu (Karen Williams) writes: >the team preparing for the next shuttle flight, and they were all white >men in their late thirties or so. This comment about 30s is flattering to the Agency, the average age is now in the 40s. I would generally agree with all you people have said except Tracey's first line, it is sexist. It is also changing and is under great political pressure. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA soon to be aurora.arc.nasa.gov at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 88 13:22:33 GMT From: ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!peking@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (L.Perkins) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? In article <809@esunix.UUCP> loosemor@esunix.UUCP writes: >Is this an accurate picture of how NASA works? Or is CBS just living >up to its reputation for biased reporting again? On the whole yes. At the risk of being flamed by the few in NASA who are not that way I speak as a former NASA contractor employee who has observed that behind the high tech futuristic image that the agency likes to project, is a 1940's era red neck engineering club. This agency is the good ol' boys in action. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 88 13:24:35 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? >From article <5650@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, by williams@ai.cs.wisc.edu (Karen Williams): > I think the shuttle accident is giving NASA a chance to revert to the > old all-white all-male control structure. I recently saw a bit on tv > about the team preparing for the next shuttle flight, and they were > all white men In fact, the next few missions have all male crews. They have just named a couple of women to later crews, starting about the fifth mission. So it looks very much like an attitude of 'oh dear, we can't risk our dear delicate women on risky missions..' - (gasp, where are these people *coming* from?) However, at least after Sally Ride's mission seven other professional women astronauts got to fly as regular members of shuttle crews (as opposed to 'Gee look a woman can fly in space, isnt that amazing?') In contrast, the only women the Soviets have flown have been 'The First Woman in Space', 'The First Woman in Space for Twenty Years Just Before Sally Ride', and 'The First Woman to make a Space Walk' (Radio Moscow commentary: 'the fact that a woman can now make a space walk by a WOMAN proves the advanced state of Soviet space technology.' Huh?? ). General Leonov stated recently 'Yes, we did have some girls in the program, but we sent them all home a while ago.' Grrr. This is not to excuse the NASA attitude, just to point out that it could be worse. But there is clearly a danger that women could be relegated to minor roles in the space program. There are currently no potential women spaceship commanders as all the women astronauts are 'mission specialists' (scientists/engineers) rather than 'pilot astronauts' who are almost all chosen from the military test pilot and fighter pilot corps, still all male as far as I am aware. Only 'pilot astronauts' are eligible to command. As an aside, it seems to me that Dr. Resnik was one of the few examples I can think of offhand of a woman losing her life not as a victim but in the traditional male heroic mold - a trained professional risking her life for something she thought was important and noble, and had played a part in planning and creating. (unlike the teacher, who was a passenger without the technical training to fully appreciate the risks or participate in the planning and development of the mission). On prime time TV in front of all those kids, too..will it have any effect on their perceptions of bravery as an appropriate female characteristic? Can any soc.women comment on other examples of heroic women who died or risked their lives for some such positive (I believe) goal rather than (Florence Nightingale role model) in support of some man's goal? Earhart? Hypatia? Jeanne d'Arc perhaps? Jonathan McDowell Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 88 23:05:06 GMT From: turing.arc.nasa.gov!bualat@icarus.riacs.edu (Maria Bualat) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? I have been working for NASA for about 9 months now, so I'm not sure how qualified I am to participate in this discussion. For the record, I'm an electronics engineer (Those of you familiar with the system here know that everyone's an electronics engineer, but I really am one.) in the Information Sciences Division here at Ames. In my limited experience, I can't say that I've encountered much sexism. There seems to be a reasonalbe ratio of women to men workers (in technical positions) considering the ratios I encountered in school. We've women in positions of authority (branch chief and project heads) and the average age overall (men and women) seems to be in the mid-thirties. Again, I don't know what the situation is around the rest of the center, let alone the agency. I think one of the reasons for the situation in my own division is that we work primarily in artificial intelligence and computer science (software and hardware). These fields tend to attract more women than some of the other technical fields. Also, AI is still relatively young. I can believe, however, that sexism could be a problem in other divisions and at other centers. Having now had first hand experience with the bureaucracy of a government agency, I can see how change would come about at a very slow rate. Maria Bualat ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 88 15:48:45 GMT From: marque!gryphon!mhnadel@csd1.milw.wisc.edu (Miriam Nadel) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? In article <809@esunix.UUCP> loosemor@esunix.UUCP (Sandra Loosemore) writes: >Is this an accurate picture of how NASA works? Or is CBS just living up >to its reputation for biased reporting again? I would say the truth is somewhere inbetween. The number of women working at NASA varies a lot from site to site (I assume the show was portraying Johnson Space Center in Houston since that's where astronaut training is done). My experience with NASA was at Ames and I wasn't a regular employee there (I had a NASA traineeship as a grad student and visited Ames periodically) so it may not be directly applicable. But I never saw another technical woman there. I used to go to workshop meetings on the program I worked on (CELSS - which for non sci.space types stands for Closed Ecology Life Support Systems and is administered by the Life Sciences division) and out of typically 60-75 participants I would be the only woman there. To be fair, I know at least two other women were involved in that program, both in academia and both far enough away to conceivably make it difficult for them to go meetings. (Which raises a question about whether women in academia may sometimes be denied conference travel, which is a very important perk for those who wish to get ahead.) I'm not sure blatant sexism is the reason, though. NASA has some particular hiring problems, being somewhat more prone to government imposed hiring freezes than the commercial sector is. And the available applicant pool is quite small (there aren't a lot of women with advanced degrees in science or engineering). Those women who are qualified are likely to be able to do better financially (I make about half again as much working in the private non-profit aerospace world than I would working for NASA). And though we may wish otherwise, NASA no longer has the reputation of a place to be if you want to work with the latest and greatest. Miriam Nadel ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #212 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 7 May 88 06:35:13 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07406; Sat, 7 May 88 03:31:54 PDT id AA07406; Sat, 7 May 88 03:31:54 PDT Date: Sat, 7 May 88 03:31:54 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805071031.AA07406@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #213 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 213 Today's Topics: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Apr 88 02:31:15 GMT From: jenkins@purdue.edu (Colin Jenkins) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? In article <809@esunix.UUCP> loosemor@esunix.UUCP (Sandra Loosemore) writes: [On CBS report (48 hours?) on NASA] >What bothered me is how blatantly *sexist* this broadcast made NASA >appear. The only women that I could see at work were a tour guide and >one of the people who was running the simulation, who was kept very >much in the background and never got to say a word on camera. I saw that report. I could have swore they interviewed Sally Ride with a caption that read "former astronaut" or words to that effect. >-Sandra Loosemore Colin ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 88 17:04:05 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? I note Maria and Miriam's article. Permit me to add two more observations. In 1980 Dan Erickson and I (both JPLers, Dan now works on Galileo) were at a GSFC meeting on software. Dan had been there a week before attending an EE hardware meeting in the same room. Dan noted there were absolutely no women in the hardware meeting and perhaps 10% women in the software meeting (more now if Beth Katz as anything to do with it....). My current Division chief, female, has been promoted much more slowly than probably otherwise. Part is due to being female, part due to being in a support rather than a research or flight project division. She is shortly due for retirement. She has stories to tell some day. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA soon to be aurora.arc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 88 16:57:18 GMT From: mtunx!mtuxo!tee@rutgers.edu (54317-T.EBERSOLE) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? In article <830@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu>, mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: > In fact, the next few missions have all male crews. They have just named a couple of > women to later crews, starting about the fifth mission. So it looks very much like > an attitude of 'oh dear, we can't risk our dear delicate women on risky missions..' > - (gasp, where are these people *coming* from?) However, at least after Sally Ride's > mission seven other professional women astronauts got to fly as regular members of > shuttle crews (as opposed to 'Gee look a woman can fly in space, isnt that amazing?') > (etc.) ======We interrupt this newsgroup for a small flicker of a flame============ Could those of you blessed with terminals which allow you to write 90 or more characters/line have some pity on those poor deprived souls, like me, whose terminals will only print 80 characters/line? I realize that content is vastly more important than form, but if you're going to take the time to express your views, why not make them presentable? A few blank spaces at the end of a line, proper paragraph structure, a quick check for spelling, and other such discipline, might help writers form articles which more correctly express their true thoughts. Good writing takes time. If you don't have the patience to collect your thoughts, express them as well as you can, and, at least occasionally, use your editor, perhaps you can at least be brief. Those of you who must read these at 40 characters/line will have to write your own flames, as this one is not all-inclusive. ======="We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast."=============== P.S. I did find the article in question to be informative. I've heard a few well-known industry advisers (W. Edwards Deming, Peter Drucker) claim that Japan will start to experience a decline because they don't use at least half of their creative, hard-working potential by excluding women from having a voice in work decisions. The same conclusion undoubtedly will apply to NASA if those attitudes persist. -- Tim Ebersole ...!{allegra,ulysses,ihnp4,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee [As Moderator I'd like to support this sentiment. I normally go through and justify things to 72 columns to provide a bit more margin for error. It would be nice if this wasn't necessary. -Ted Anderson] ------------------------------ Date: 1 May 88 19:22:26 GMT From: agate!skippy!fester@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (lea fester) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Posted for Karen Zukor ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I work at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, on NASA projects, and I am a woman. Basically, I concur with the thoughts of Eugene Miya (from sci.space), that there is sexism (against women employed) at NASA, and that it is the same sexism that is prevalent in the society at large, and probabaly for that matter at CBS. Of course there are some specific inequalities I could point to (like the fact that in the 8 story building where I work there are three women's bathrooms and six men's bathrooms, despite a fairly balanced pool of employees) but I like to think these are changing. A related issue is the composition of the workforce at JPL. Because JPL likes to hire people who have Ph.D.'s in science, the scientific workforce is prodominantly male, and will continue to be so, until women begin to earn a higher percentage of Ph.D.s in mathematics, physics, electrical engineering, and astronomy, the fields of most of the people I have met here. (My guess is that in the above mentioned fields women earn maybe 25% of the Ph.D.s, so JPL in 1988 will hire only 1/4 women.) I think JPL does hire "its" percentage of women, in this sense. The total workforce at JPL is more balanced, because women make up most of the secretarial staff. I must say I found it hard to characterize my feelings about sexism here, because my impressions are dominated by the fact that I find far less sexism here than I encountered in math graduate school. In math grad school, people were constantly quoting to me statements by mathematicians of the past and present that women could not do math. Certain professors were known to be uncomfortable with women as students. Women had a lower success rate than men, even with the same mathematical backgrounds. I felt so relieved when I came to work here, that my first thought about sexism here was there was no appreciable amount, but in my mind this is appreciable compared with what I had previously experienced. These are my thoughts, and do not necessarily reflect NASA's or JPL's views. Karen Zukor e-mail: zukor%logos.jpl.nasa.gov@hamlet.caltech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 1 May 88 05:57:09 GMT From: phri!dasys1!lkw@nyu.edu (Laura Watson) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? In article <7975@ames.arpa> eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene N. Miya) writes: > Mommas don't let your daughters grow up to be cowgirls > Make them Doctors, not lawyers, make them scientists and engineers. Well, if I went down and applied for a job as an astronaut, do you think they'd take me? I think it'd be fun. What qualifications does an astronaut have to have? (My Momma told me she would've liked to have been an astronaut....) Now is the time for all good women to come to the aid of feminism. Laura Watson {uunet}!mstan\ Big Electric Cat Public Unix {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!lkw New York, NY, USA {sun}!hoptoad/ ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 13:26:33 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? >From article <51490@sun.uucp>, by falk@sun.uucp (Ed Falk): > I find the idea repulsive that women are weak or fragile or something > and have to be kept away from doing what they want for their own good. Hear, hear. But it's an attitude I still come across amazingly frequently. How can people grow up these days and still come out with stuff like that? Oh well, I guess I know the answer, but.. what do you say in reply to people like that? > p.s. Could I second the request that people watch the linelength of > their postings? > -ed falk, sun microsystems GUILTY! GUILTY! Mea culpa, I realised just seconds too late that I had sent it off in a wide window. I have now finally learnt how to use 'format paragraph' in this editor. Yours properly singed and contrite, Jonathan ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 16:23:55 GMT From: sworking@TEKNOWLEDGE-VAXC.ARPA (Scott Workinger) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? In article <4206@dasys1.UUCP> lkw@dasys1.UUCP (Laura Watson) writes: >Well, if I went down and applied for a job as an astronaut, do you >think they'd take me? I think it'd be fun. What qualifications does >an astronaut have to have? Seriously, Laura. Why don't you apply? It could be a great experience. I understand that they're now taking mission specialists. (ie. You don't necessarily have to be a pilot.) I'm sure that you need to be pretty fit, but that's something that you have control over. Reach for the stars. Scott ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 16:39:01 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? In article <4206@dasys1.UUCP> lkw@dasys1.UUCP (Laura Watson) writes: >Well, if I went down and applied for a job as an astronaut, do you >think they'd take me? I think it'd be fun. What qualifications does >an astronaut have to have? (My Momma told me she would've liked to >have been an astronaut....) Well, Jo Bea (who is supposed to fly when ever the next SIR (Shuttle Imaging Radar) mission goes up has a PhD in Planetary Science from Caltech. Her alternate (Mikie, from the the commercial, otherwise Mike) has a PhD from UCLA and was an AF Academy wash out (eyes went bad). They both run 10Ks with Jo Bea's husband (Mike going for marathons). So good physical health is a factor. A tolerance for BS (PhD=Piled higher and Deeper). Patience. Frankly, I sort of wonder why they selected PIs (principal investiagtors) rather than an EE to fix the thing while in flight. Get the paperwork (where it begins) from NASA JSC near Houston. Added note: Read Jim B.'s postings they are interesting. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA soon to be aurora.arc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 88 18:29:40 GMT From: maslak@unix.sri.com (Valerie Maslak) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? By "victims of male technology" I understood a condemnation of the macho attitude that led NASA not to include any sort of escape mechanism in the shuttle. Which of course would imply some sort of cowardice and fear of battle and might be misused if someone chickened out and pushed the "let me out" button...right??? Can't have those heros chickening out, can we? Valerie Maslak ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 88 15:15:19 GMT From: sworking@TEKNOWLEDGE-VAXC.ARPA (Scott Workinger) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? In article <1988May2.232932.5095@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>... I could have swore they interviewed Sally Ride with a caption that >>read "former astronaut" or words to that effect. > >It's true, she's left NASA. The scuttlebut is that she left NASA when NASA stopped flying after the challenger tragedy. The reason I heard attributed was that she joined NASA to fly. Since they weren't flying she wanted to get on with her life. When you consider how long an astronaut has to wait to get even a single mission in the best of times, it's not surprising. Scott ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 16:43:04 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpe!ccitt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (452is-Perkins) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? In article <4916@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, layman@athena.mit.edu (Tracey A. Layman) writes: > NASA is not necessarily sexist. As women have been seeking their > equal rights, and "coming into their own" these days aeronautics, and > astronautics are among the fields with the lowest percentage of women. > Therefore, don't blame NASA, blame a lack of motivation. (Or smarts, > no I won't say it. It's too sick.) > Tracey Layman: mit-eddie!layman@athena.mit.edu I can't see why that would stop you. I assume you mean that since women are doing so well in private industry, NASA doesn't feel motivated to hire them and give them jobs. Or maybe you mean that NASA isn't smart enough to give out jobs based on ability not gender. Silly me not to notice that all gender based barriers in employment, in education, especially math and science, and in our society in general had disappeared while I was writing code and not paying attention. Thanks for your sharing your enlightenment. Kate Perkins replies to ihlpg!kapa ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 88 02:20:53 GMT From: natinst!bigtex!james@cs.utexas.edu (James Van Artsdalen) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? I did not see the broadcast: don't watch CBS at all (poor journalism). Key point: JSC's charter is NOT research. This is strictly an engineering site at best. They hire what engineering schools turn out, and at least some of those schools turn out few women engineering graduates indeed. As recently as five years ago I was an undergraduate at The University of Texas at Austin in the Electrical Engineering school, and there were almost no undergraduate women. Computer Science appears to have been >50% women, but definitely not EE! As for the good 'old boys, well, it IS a conservative area. Clear Lake City, and Friendswood especially, is Southern Baptist country. Anything that sounds like liberalism isn't going to go at all. I doubt there is any intentional discrimination, but were there a need for change - well, we've seen in the last couple of years that change comes very slowly at NASA these days. Got a chuckle out "the bar where the guys hang out". To the best of my knowledge, the best place to "see and be seen", NASA style, is still lunch at Frenchy's (sp?) at NASA Rd. 1 & El Dorado. Go there if you visit the center just to see the celebrity pictures. I doubt many management types hang out at a bar, and unless things have changed greatly, getting plastered at a bar would bring a quick end to an astronaut's career if it got in the papers. PS. This is the "new model" Van Artsdalen, not that "older model" who still lives in Houston and would be annoyed were he to see his name on this article :-) -- James R. Van Artsdalen ...!ut-sally!utastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746 ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 23:48:00 GMT From: nsc!csi!jwhitnel@hplabs.hp.com (Jerry Whitnell) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? In article <4206@dasys1.UUCP> lkw@dasys1.UUCP (Laura Watson) writes: >Well, if I went down and applied for a job as an astronaut, do you >think they'd take me? I think it'd be fun. What qualifications does >an astronaut have to have? (My Momma told me she would've liked to >have been an astronaut....) >Laura Watson {uunet}!mstan\ There was an article on the qualifications that NASA is looking for in their astronauts in NASA Technical Briefs (I think the name is correct) about 2 years ago. All I can remember is that they wanted an advance degree in the sciences or engineering and that you be under 5' 9". The ironic thing about this article was that it came out right after the Challenger explosion. ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 88 12:50:08 GMT From: mfci!root@YALE-BULLDOG.ARPA (SuperUser) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? In article <22238@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> sworking@teknowledge-vaxc.UUCP (Scott Workinger) writes: >Seriously, Laura. Why don't you apply? It could be a great Here's the address: Mr. Duane L. Ross Manager, Astronaut Selection Office National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas 77058 It doesn't cost anything to apply. They'll send you an application with instructions for including other things, like college transcripts and medical history. The application says that only pilots have to be physically perfect (and have a zillion flight hours already in high-performance experimental aircraft.) Mission specialists have much more lenient requirements. Bob Colwell mfci!colwell@uunet.uucp Multiflow Computer 175 N. Main St. Branford, CT 06405 203-488-6090 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #213 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 8 May 88 06:46:46 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08732; Sun, 8 May 88 03:30:57 PDT id AA08732; Sun, 8 May 88 03:30:57 PDT Date: Sun, 8 May 88 03:30:57 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805081030.AA08732@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #214 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 214 Today's Topics: Re: RELEASE/Remote Sensing DUKAKIS Space Position Paper (repost) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 88 21:53:09 pdt From: Eugene N. Miya Subject: Re: RELEASE/Remote Sensing Newsgroups: nasa.nasamail.l Cc: Here's an interesting article. --eugene ================================================ Jim Ball Headquarters, Washington, D.C. April 15, 1988 (Phone: 202/453-8604) Charles Redmond Headquarters, Washington, D.C. (Phone: 202/453-1547) Myron Webb National Space Technology Laboratories, Miss. (Phone: 601/688-1413) RELEASE: 88-53 NASA SELECTS PROJECTS FOR PUBLIC/COMMERCIAL USE OF REMOTE SENSING The National Aeronautics and Space Administration today announced the selection of 20 research projects to develop new public and private sector applications of space-based and airborne remote sensing technologies. Funding of the projects represents the initiation of a new program aimed at increasing broader use of NASA-developed technology for gathering and analyzing valuable information about Earth and ocean resources through remote satellite or aircraft observations. The program, jointly sponsored by NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications and Office of Commercial Programs, Washington, D.C., will fund up to $4 million of research annually. Projects funded under the program will identify and research new commercial products and services that might be developed from use of existing technology and explore ways of improving and expanding the uses of remote sensing by public sector agencies or commercial ventures. Commercial development projects will be managed by the Office of Commercial Programs through the Earth Resources Laboratory at NASA's National Space Technology Laboratories (NSTL), Mississippi. Public sector applications projects and those requiring significant technology development will be managed by the Earth Science and Applications Division of NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications. The 20 projects selected for negotiation leading to 1-year funding contracts, with options to extend funding two additional years, are: COMMERCIAL APPLICATION PROJECTS o Development of Practical, Cost Effective Methods Utilizing Satellite Data for Forest Resources Management, proposed by investigators affiliated with James W. Sewall Co., Old Town, Maine; NSTL Earth Resources Laboratory; the University of Maine, Orono. o Commercial Development of an Ice Data and Forecasting System, proposed by investigators affiliated with Batelle, Columbus, Ohio; Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio; User Systems Inc., Annandale, Va.; Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif.; Weather Management Consultants, Anchorage, Alaska; Mobil Research and Development Corp., Farmers Branch, Texas; Amoco Production Co., Denver, Colorado; Unocal, Brea, Calif. o An Evaluation of Current, and Recommendations for Future Uses of Remotely Sensed Data for Commercial Forest Inventory, proposed by investigators affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley. o Application of the Airborne Ocean Color Imager for Commercial Fishing, proposed by investigators affiliated with NASA's Ames Research Center (ARC), Mountain View, Calif.; Daedalus Enterprises, Ann Arbor, Michigan; National Marine Fisheries Center, NSTL; Zapata Haynie Corp., Hammond, La.; Spectro Scan Inc., Miami, Fla. o An Environmental and Archeological Assessment of the Piedras Negras Region of Guatemala and Mexico, proposed by investigators affiliated with Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro; NSTL; National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.; Geoinformation Services, Starkville, Miss. o Commercial Environmental Sensitivity Index Mapping Using Remote Sensing and GIS Technology, proposed by investigators affiliated with RPI International, Inc., Columbia, South Carolina; University of South Carolina, Columbia; NSTL Earth Resources Laboratory. o Efficient Updates of Vector-Coded Geographic Information Systems Using Remotely Sensed Data, proposed by an investigator affiliated with San Diego State University, San Diego, Calif. o Using Landsat to Provide Potato Production Estimates to Columbia Basin Farmers and Processors, proposed by investigators affiliated with Cropix, Inc., Hermiston, Oregon; Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon; ARC. o Algorith Development for an Integrated Satellite APT and Ocean Color Scanner Receive/Process/Display System for Ocean- Going Vessels, proposed by investigators affiliated with Systems West, Inc., Carmel, Calif. PUBLIC SECTOR APPLICATIONS/TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS o Detection of Seasonal and Annual Changes in Migratory Waterfowl Habitats in the Central Valley of California, proposed by investigators affiliated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and ARC. o Applications of Remote Sensing for Landslide Hazard Assessment, proposed by investigators affiliated with ARC; U.S. Geological Survey; the U.S. Forest Service. o Use of Spectral Resonance Imaging Techniques for the Detection of Surface Alternation Effects Associated with Hydrocarbon Reservoirs, proposed by investigators affiliated with ARCO Oil and Gas Co., Dallas, Texas and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. o Development of Application of Remote Sensing of Longwave Heating from TIROS Operational Sounder, proposed by investigators affiliated with the University of Maryland, College Park; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the National Weather Service. o Compiling and Editing Area Sampling Frames Using Digital Data for Land Use Analysis and Boundary Definition, proposed by investigators affiliated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and ARC. o Application of Remote Sensing and Image Processing Technologies: Sediment Transport and Land Loss Processes, Coastal Louisiana, proposed by investigators affiliated with Louisiana State University; Louisiana Geological Survey; NSTL. o Automated Satellite-Based Alarms: A Proposal to Develop and Operate a Satellite-Based Fire Detection and Monitoring Program for Western U.S., proposed by investigators affiliated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; U.S. Department of Interior; the U.S. Department of Agriculture. o Locating Subsurface Gravel Deposits with Thermal Imagery, proposed by investigators affiliated with the U.S. Forest Service and NSTL. o Applying Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques in Solving Rural County Information Needs, proposed by investigators affiliated with Purdue Research Foundation; Purdue University DRT, Inc., all of Lafayette, Indiana. o Satellite Inventory of Minnesota Forest Resources, proposed by investigators affiliated with the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul. o Geographic Information Analysis: An Ecological Approach for the Management of Wildlife on the Forested Landscape, proposed by investigators affiliated with Oregon State University; the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Science Lab. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Apr 88 02:19:43 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!EWTILENI@princeton.edu (Eric Tilenius) Subject: DUKAKIS Space Position Paper (repost) With some big elections coming up, and due to the large number of requests for this I've been receiving lately, here is a report of Mike Dukakis' Space Position Paper... ALSO AVAILABLE BY EMAIL: Jesse JACKSON, Al GORE, Paul SIMON; ALSO, The Mars Declaration, President's Nat'l Space Policy, and Mrazek on Space Send EMAIL if you'd like a copy of any of the above. ************************************************************************* MIKE DUKAKIS ON THE ISSUES: RESTORING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IN SPACE A generation ago, President John F. Kennedy raised the sights and the spirits of all Americans by challenging our scientists and citizens to go forward with a bold program of space exploration. Mercury, Gemini and Apollo fired our imaginations and our pride; Voyager, Viking and Skylab explored the depths of our solar system and the resources of our planet, gave us new insight into the origins of our universe and provided new knowlege and understanding with which we could improve the quality of life on earth. Sadly, in recent years, our space program has lost its sense of purpose. Despite annual expenditures approaching $10 billion per year, NASA is demoralized and our space effort is in disarray, our space science program no longer leads the world, and the tragedy of the space shuttle Challenger has created doubts about the ability of the United States to operate effectively in space. Our space program has been dominated by military considerations, while our competitiveness in the world-wide commercial market has steadily eroded. A NEW NATIONAL CONSENSUS For seven years, the current Administration has pursued a program-by-program, piecemeal approach to our space effort. The time has come to renew our commitment to an imaginative, well-desiged space policy. To turn away from the fantasy of Star Wars and to seek again to explore space for the benefit of all mankind. The next President must forge a new national consensus behind our goals in space: A vision that will guide our policies throughout the next decade and into the next century. We must begin by addressing our basic aims in space: how to reinvigorate our space science program, how to maintain America's technological edge in the face of increasing foreign competition; how to meet our requirements for space transportation; and how to define the role of manned space activities. The massive federal budget deficit will limit the resources available to the next President. He must work with Congress to set clear priorities and attainable goals, while strengthening partnerships between the federal government, our universities and the research community, and the private sector. PROMOTING A COMPETITIVE AMERICAN SPACE INDUSTRY We need a space policy that will promote the competitiveness of American industry in the growing international market and expand job opportunities, while serving fundamental national goals in space. We should encourage commercial uses of space. The federal government must provide our private sector with the opportunity to invest in and develop space- related technologies, transportation systems and satellites. As President, I will encourage private investment by creating partnerships between the federal government and the private sector that emphasizes joint research programs. I will set forth clear policies for commercial competition to help promote our ability to meet the world-wide demand for launch services. And I will reinvigorate the White House office of Science and Technology Policy and charge it with the responsibility for ensuring effective coordination among government agencies and greater private sector involvement in our nation's space effort. REINVIGORATING SPACE SCIENCE Rather than spend billions of dollars for projects that serve narrow interests -- such as the "Orient Express" space plane that will fly from New York to Tokyo in three hours, we should invest in a space program that will benefit our nation and humankind as a whlle. We should emphasize research, the development of innovative technology and space science, to expand our knowlege of the earth's resources and the world's oceans, improve communications and reveal the mysteries of the universe. We must develop a comprehensive, long-term plan to assure stable funding for important space science projects such as the Venus Radar mapper, the Mars Observer, the Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility and the Hubble Space Telescope. ASSURING OUR ACCESS TO SPACE Second, we must restore our space transportation capability. I support the recommendation of the Challenger Commission to return the shuttle to service with a reduced flight schedule to help ensure higher safety standards, and to build a fourth orbiter, using proven technology. At the same time, the disruption caused by the shuttle disaster and the failures of the Titan and Delta rockets makes clear the need to diversify our nation's launch capability and devlop affordable alternatives to the shuttle (such as new expendable launch vehicles) for delivering important payloads into space. AN AFFORDABLE, PRACTICAL SPACE STATION Third, we should review the options for the space station. I support the development, at a prudent pace, of a technologically sophisticated space science and engineering laboratory -- but there are a number of less costly alternatives to the station now envisioned by NASA. These alternatives -- including a station that need not be permanently manned -- could be in operation much sooner and could meet most, if not all of the requirements of the larger, permanently manned space station. SKILLED MANAGEMENT FOR NASA Fifth, I will appoint skilled managers at NASA who will restore professionalism and competence to our space program. Managers who will set high standards for NASA personnel and contractors -- and who will make sure that those standards are met. The continuing failures in our shuttle program are symptomatic of management gone awry -- our nation deserves better. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN SPACE Finally, I will ask the Soviet Union, and other space-faring nations, to join with the US in more cooperative efforts in space. While we must be careful to protect sensitive technologies in these cooperative programs, they offer an unparalleled opportunity for all nations to work together on projects which will benefit us all. We should renew the US- USSR Space Science Agreement, coordinate the 1989 Soviet mission to Phobos with the US Mars Observer flight, and invite the USSR to join with the US, Japan and the European Space Agency in the International Solar Terrestrial Physics Program. And we should explore with the Soviet Union and other nations the feasibility and practicality of joint space engineering activities that might pave the way to a joint manned mission to Mars. ENHANCING OUR SECURITY IN SPACE I strongly oppose the Administration's militarization of space. Star Wars and anti-satellite weapons not only make our nation less secure; they divert funds and attention from far more important space research efforts. As President, I will direct the Pentagon to focus its efforts on programs that will enhance our security, such as improved satellites for arms control verification and early warning of attack, communications, navagation, and meteorology. And I will challenge the Soviet Union to join with us in new agreements to protect our vital space activities and enhance our security. By negotiating a ban on testing anti- satellite weapons -- including lasers and electronic interference. By developing guidelines for space operations -- such as "keep out zones" that will reduce the danger of attack on satellites. And by placing limits on military activities by humans in space. INSPIRING THE NEXT GENERATION OF SPACE SCIENTISTS The future of the American space program depends on its ability to inspire and attract the bright young people of our nation. I support the establishment of educational programs that will motivate young people to explore careers in space science and technology. NASA, its scientists and engineers, and the private sector can be an important part of that effort. During the 1960's, our space program became a symbol of what the American mind and spirit can accomplish. As President, I will work with all those involved in the adventure of space to restore our sense of pride and purpose; and to explore the final frontier. -- Mike Dukakis * For more information, write to: Mike Dukakis for President, 105 Chauncy St. , Boston, MA 02111 // 617-451-2480 ****************************************************************************** - ERIC - *----------------------===> SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------* * ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU // ewtileni@pucc.BITNET * * rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni // princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni * * ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"* *--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------* ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #214 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 9 May 88 06:29:28 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00860; Mon, 9 May 88 03:26:18 PDT id AA00860; Mon, 9 May 88 03:26:18 PDT Date: Mon, 9 May 88 03:26:18 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805091026.AA00860@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #215 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 215 Today's Topics: Re: greenhouse effect / solar power satellites Re: antimatter Jim Loudin IUE (NASA Press Release) Antimatter Advertising, technology leakage, and space remote sensing MAGAZINES Private industry... Space cities ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Apr 88 07:40:21 GMT From: markey@tybalt.caltech.edu (Ron A Markey) Subject: Re: greenhouse effect / solar power satellites In article <226@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes: >Not being much of an astrophysicist, could someone comment on putting >dust in an orbit between the earth and the sun? The position I have in >mind is an orbit closer to the sun at the point where the earth's >gravity balances the suns to the extent that it could orbit at the >(slower) speed that the earth does. It sounds to me like it would orbit >properly, but I have no idea how far from the earth this point is, nor >does it seem overly stable. Could a, say, 5% reduction in incoming >solar flux be achieved in this way (balancing the "extra" beamed in >from those billions and billions of SPSs ;~))? > > >Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. > Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! >Q.E.D. >jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 The distance from the Earth to the center of mass of the cloud works out to be about 1,530,000 km. Given that the moon is out there swinging around 400,000 km, I don't think that it would be to awfully stable. I anyone is interested in the math, send me mail and I'll give it to you. Another problem with this pops to mind. This dust is not just going to block the sunlight, it is going to absorb and re-radiate it. Given that the cloud is going to spread out (it would even if the moon weren't screwing things up) and potentially occupy a lot of sky it seems likely that it will eventually end up contributing to the problem that it is supposed to solve by absorbing a LOT of energy and radiating it at Earth. - Ron (markey@tybalt.caltech.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Apr 88 16:02 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Re: antimatter To: att-cb!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, space@angband.s1.gov In response to: >> > 'The 'giggle factor' is over. Antimatter is real ... >> Of course the 'giggle factor' is over. There's absolutely nothing >> funny about what DoD is going to actually use antimatter for. Henry Spencer wrote: > Giggle. Snicker. Chortle. Guffaw. Roll about on the floor laughing at > the naivete of this silly comment. (followed by comments on the ridiculousness of antimatter bombs.) I don't think this sort of condescending ridicule is appropriate. One can easily imagine military applications of antimatter, although not in the near future. Antimatter might be effective in a beam weapon. In a normal-matter neutral particle beam weapon, energy is conveyed to the target by the kinetic energy of the beam's particles. The particles must be quite energetic, and the accelerator must have a large power source. In an antimatter beam weapon, energy is released when the beam's particles annihilate in the target. That could shrink the size of the accelerator by many orders of magnitude. It might be possible to use antimatter to initiate fusion reactions. For example, one might use chemical explosives to implode fusionable material onto a small kernel of antimatter. A temperature of around 10 KeV or so is required to ignite DT, so very little antimatter is required (assuming enough of the energy can be deposited locally). An antimatter explosion would produce radiations not found in a conventional nuclear device. Decay of neutral pions would produce very energetic photons, and decay of charged pions produces muons. Annihilation of antimatter in nuclei might produce neutrons more energetic than those produced by fusion. Unlike conventional nuclear bombs, antimatter bombs can in principle be made as small as one likes, and are essentially fallout-free. A bomb containing a few tens of nanograms of antimatter might make an effective tactical radiation weapon (less if fusion reactions can be initiated), assuming handling problems can be solved. That might require the synthesis of higher antielements, but that's not obviously impossible. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Apr 88 15:37:57 MST From: Harold bidlack Subject: Jim Loudin One of the nation's great space popularizers and one of the most knowledgeable persons about the US and USSR space programs has died. Jim Loudin of the University of Michigan passed away from natural causes on Jan 27th in his home near Dexter, Michigan. Jim hosted for 18 years a very popular lecture series on space related topics, and was the NPR space reporter during the Viking Mars lander program. He was also a friend, and his loss will be felt by all whose lives he touched. He was 45. He will be missed. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 88 19:33:32 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: IUE (NASA Press Release) Here's a NASA press release from back in January. I'm posting it a bit late, but it's still relevant. My own comments are in {braces}. (The release is a bit long, but you can hit 'n' when you've read enough.) Charles Redmond Headquarters, Washington, D.C. January 22, 1988 (Phone:202/453-1549) Randee Exler Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt ,Md. (Phone:301/286-7277) INTERNATIONAL ULTRAVIOLET EXPLORER MARKS DECADE OF RESEARCH When NASA launched a space-based telescope called the International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE), it was expected to last only 3 years, perhaps 5 at the most. On Jan. 26, the IUE will complete a decade of continuous operation during which it was instrumental in some of the most important advances in modern astronomy. The IUE is credited with the discovery of galactic halos (hot gas which surrounds our galaxy {They must mean other galaxies; I don't think IUE has seen the halo of our Galaxy.}), monitoring volcanic activities on Io (a moon of Jupiter), beaming the first images ever recorded of Halley's comet from space and monitoring, since Feb. 24, 1987, the intense emissions of ultraviolet radiation from Supernova 1987A, an exploding star approximately 163,000 light years from Earth. Dr. Yoji Kondo, IUE project scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, Md., maintains, "The IUE is one of the most productive telescopes on or off the planet. "One measure of the productivity of a scientific instrument is the number of papers published in referred journals about work using that instrument," he said. "As the IUE completed its 10th year in orbit, more than 1,400 articles, based on IUE observations, have been published in refereed journals. This far exceeds the number of articles based on data from other telescopes in similar journals during the same time period. The papers are based on research of astronomers from around the world who conduct their studies in real-time on both sides of the Atlantic." {For comparison, the leading US journal publishes about 1000 papers per year. Of course, many IUE papers contain data from other telescopes too.} The IUE was placed in a geosynchronous orbit over the Atlantic Ocean, enabling operations around the clock. The satellite telescope is controlled from the science operations center at GSFC for 16 hours and in Spain, with the Villafranca Ground Station near Madrid, for 8 hours. IUE staff astronomers at GSFC, under contract by the Computer Sciences Corporation, Beltsville, Md., assist visiting astronomers with their work. The Bendix Field Engineering Corporation performs spacecraft maintenance operations 24 hours-a-day from GSFC. The IUE is a joint effort of NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA) and the British Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC). Goddard scientists, engineers and technicians designed, integrated and tested the IUE. An ESA team built the solar array and the ground facilities near Madrid. SERC, in collaboration with University College, London, provided four TV camera detectors for transforming the spectral displays into video signals. These organizations select observers and programs through annual proposal competitions. In January 1987, the total number of U.S. guest proposals for the 10th year of operation reached 320, the highest number for any year. Over the years, the total number of IUE guest observers at GSFC came to more than 800 different astronomers, while the number for the control center in Spain totaled more than 750. "These figures indicate that a very substantial number of the world's astronomers have used the IUE for their work at one time or another," said Kondo. Goddard engineers, astronomers and analysts encountered a serious problem with IUE when one of its remaining three gyros failed and the spacecraft lost its pointing capability in 1985. Of the IUE's original six gyros (three had previously failed in 1979, 1982, and 1983), the 1985 gyro failure left only two working gyros. Spacecraft traditionally need a minimum of three gyros to determine the spacecraft roll, pitch and yaw reference to point at targets and maintain stabilization during observations. The problem of maintaining three-axis stabilization with only two gyros is considered nearly impossible to achieve. A plan was devised and implemented by Goddard's guidance and control team, led by GSFC engineer Henry Hoffman, that asubstituted one axis of the IUE's sun sensor for the lost gyro, thus maintaining three-axis control on only two gyros. Not only did using the sun sensor stabilize the ailing spacecraft, but pointing accuracies and stability remained virtually unchanged. "The IUE has an entirely new set of control laws which bear no resemblance to what was there before," explained Hoffman. "We have a one-gyro system sitting in our hip pocket," he added. This software has been fully checked out on the ground and will be uplinked to the IUE if and when one of the remaining two gyros fails. The one gyro system uses the second axis of the sun sensor in lieu of one of the remaining two gyros. "We have a concept and plans for developing a zero-gyro system," Hoffman claimed. "Two reference axes will be derived from the sun sensor, and the third reference by carefully managing the speed of the spacecraft's reaction wheels." The zero-gyro concept is being studied and appears feasible at this time. There are many ground-based telescopes much larger and more powerful than the IUE but being space-borne vastly improves the acquired images due to the absence of clouds or atmosphere that obscure vision. {"Improves" is a bit of an understatement, since the atmosphere is completely opaque at the ultraviolet wavelengths where IUE works.} -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 88 20:51:42 GMT From: josh@topaz.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: Antimatter Hmmm. It just occurs to me: how much antimatter would it take to ignite a lithium deuteride pellet? or indeed something harder to fuse? One might get a signigicant power multiplier that way (assuming that antimatter is the critical-cost component). --JoSH ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Apr 88 15:41:16 pdt From: Eugene N. Miya Subject: Advertising, technology leakage, and space remote sensing I call reader attention to Page 22-23 of the April 15 issue of Datamation (go to nearest library or big computer center). Datamation for those not in the know is a freebie especially to IBM oriented (well that's not completely fair), mainframe oriented COBOL shops. This is an ad placed by DEC using Westinghouse Defense as an example to promote VAX(tm) /VMS systems. The ad is not unique, probably every company has vested interest touting their clients. Anyway, I call your interest to the radar image on page 22. Now the article notes key words like B-1B, but there is no indication that said radar image is from the B-1 radar system. Pick picking up a map of WDC one can determine the orientation of the image (can you identify North? {Not Ollie}) Good, don't post it. What direction is the radar signal coming from (upper right corner of the picture, I mean image) which is what direction? (Don't post it!) Read on. A quick observation of photos (conventional) can pickout features for the two usual tests of spatial resolution (separation and the other one). It would be interesting to correlate specular highlights and shadow areas as well. Interesting areas to note: the right most side of the pentagon shaped building: note how the signal diminishes with distance, note the start of the shadow of the "crown" of the pentagon shaped bulding. The angles and distances are all important. The parking areas also can provide interesting information about the characterstics of the radar system in use. It's interesting to note many more things, but I WANT TO POINT OUT TO READERS HOW REMOTE SENSING INTEPRETERS THINK ABOUT DATA, and how seemingly innocuous information is leaked to the Soviet Union for those concern with these issues, and a few other questions like this. Now, note: the picture I paint is far from complete, but lots of things can be deduced from this image. I hope a few of your become interested in satellite remote sensing. A few of you will probably seek this ad and find a map of the area and look at these things (like determine building height, this is called "ancillary data"). The really sharp guys will try to determine the material for the pentagon shaped building (determine the dielectric constant). One might chip off a piece of a side for analysis, this is called "ground truth." They are all probably on Green Street in SF or off that hill in WDC. Yes, you too can learn lots about forward and side looking synthetic aperature radar systems. True you don't know aircraft altitude, but that's just another piece of the puzzle. Go have some fun. Some times I wish I could turn off the way I think. ;-) --eugene s|. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Apr 88 13:50:55 EST From: Talisma%RCN.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu Subject: MAGAZINES ARE THERE ANY OTHER ON-LINE MAGAZINES AVAILABLE? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Apr 88 11:19:20 CDT From: "John Kelsey" Subject: Private industry... It seems like this has been brought up before, but what's to keep a private firm from creating its own mini-space-program, say, for some of the communications satelites? Couldn't McDonnell-Douglas (sp?) or some such air- craft company build its own small booster, then rent some land in So. America or someplace like that to launch it? From the article Henry Spencer quoted, it sounds like there would be no shortage of demand at all. Is the federal gov't restricting this kind of stuff, or have no companies seen a profit potential great enough to cover the costs? -- John Kelsey, C445585@UMCVMB.bitnet (Fiver) "Cyberpunk : Intimidation through superior technology." ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 88 03:20:28 GMT From: steinmetz!ge-dab!codas!novavax!maddoxt@uunet.uu.net (Don Joslyn) Subject: Space cities With regard to the current state of development of space cities, particularly their design: I am working on a novel, part of which is located in (surprise!) a space city. (If you want to check me out before wasting any time engaging in correspondence, see _Omni_ for June, '85, April, '86, March, '88; _Asimov's_ for Sept. [or Oct.? Nov.? damn, I can't lay my hands on the issue at the moment] . . . also _Mirrorshades_ anthology. I'm also cited in the back of _Neuromancer_ as the inventor of ICE, if that means anything to you.) Also, you should know the novel will be published by Tor, and I'll certainly give proper credit to anyone who helps out. Anyway, while I have read many of the usual semi-popular pieces on space cities, from Gerard O'Neill to T. A. Heppenheimer, I am sadly out of it with regard to the latest happenings. So I'm looking for help on questions like these: who is doing the most interesting work in design of space cities right now? What major revisions in the overall concept have been proposed in the past few years? Does [insert specific harebrained idea] seem like a reasonable device/design parameter? Ideally, I would (very very much) like to e-correspond with someone on the net who would be willing to read & respond to my ideas; I'm into the book at the point where I really need to firm up the design of the habitat. One other thing: while I'm not a truly "hard" sf writer, in the old tradition of, say, Hal Clement, I want to extrapolate from the most interesting current ideas generated by people doing the real skull work. So I don't feel constrained by current technology, probably not even by current science, but I don't want to contravene reality itself (if that makes sense). If you're interested, drop me e-mail (maddoxt@novavax.UUCP) and let me know. Ask whatever questions you've got, and I can send you details. (I've got to tell you, there's an additional fascination in doing this, working the net this way: this is the stuff I write about.) Thanks in advance for your replies. If anything interesting happens, I'll post it. Tom Maddox ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #215 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 May 88 06:30:21 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02712; Tue, 10 May 88 03:27:08 PDT id AA02712; Tue, 10 May 88 03:27:08 PDT Date: Tue, 10 May 88 03:27:08 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805101027.AA02712@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #216 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 216 Today's Topics: Re: TVSat situation Re: Superconductors Re: space news from March 28 AW&ST Re: space news from March 28 AW&ST Re: Solar Sat Power Stations & greenhouses Re: space news from March 14 AW&ST Re: Nippon in Space Re: TVSat situation Re: Superconductors Re: Private industry... Leasecraft and ISF/CDSF Re: Millions of Comets etc... Lunar Construction Cometesimals (was: Millions of comets hit Earth) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 88 10:16:28 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: Re: TVSat situation >West Germany writes off TVSat 1, after all attempts to free jammed solar >array fail. I wonder if it has occured to the Soviets to detour one of their many orbital flights by this satellite and have one of their guys or gals lean out of the hatch and remove that one remaining retaining bolt that earlier reports speculated is still in place and jamming that solar array? If they did it without any fuss or prior announcement, and then just notified the West Germans, "hey, we stopped by and fixed your busted satellite while we were passing by. No big deal... Just being neighborly..." -- that would be a fantastic propaganda coup (plus a clear demonstration of their capabilities, which should help their international space-sales organization!). I'm making some assumptions here -- the main one is that the TVSat is still in low orbit and hasn't yet been boosted up to geosync. (But if the Soviets could fix it *there*, that would certainly be something to brag about... :-) Another is that the Soviets have any interest in helping the West Germans with anything. But their being able to fix this particular satellite, which, in use, would affect millions of DBS-receiving Europeans directly, would far overshadow the US' past in-orbit repair of Solar Max, which, though scientifically valuable, was still far distant from the man-in-the-street. If they did it quietly, with no announcement or live-from-space video, then if they failed they could just ignore it and proceed normally with the rest of that mission. Even if tracked as coming close, they could say they were practicing rendezvous or take some pictures to give to the West Germans to perhaps show the actual cause of the failure. To me, it looks like they couldn't lose. (It's not like there was anybody else up there to see just what they were doing! :-() Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 88 19:14:20 GMT From: cae780!leadsv!pat@hplabs.hp.com (Pat Wimmer) Subject: Re: Superconductors I read the other day that the race to patent these new wonder materials is underway. Guess who is way out ahead of the rest of the world in applying for patents? It ain't the good ol' US of A! Pat ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 88 21:38:02 GMT From: livesey@sun.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: Re: space news from March 28 AW&ST In article <1175@its63b.ed.ac.uk>, bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) writes: > > In an unexpected announcement yesterday, Monday 18th April, > The British Government changed it's previous position on > the funding of space science, and is now to provide > 250 million pounds to ESA over the next 10 years to take a > 5.5% share in the Columbus project. > > This change in policy seems to have happened after a > House of Lords comittee report last month was highly > critical of Government space funding. > > The Government minister who made the announcement, and who > earlier criticised ESA for being a "hugely expensive club" > and "Over-ambitious", now says that sufficient changes have > been made to make British participatrion worthwhile. It's very gratifying to see that the Upper House is still performing its role efficiently. It's also gratifying to see that the threat of non-participation by one member state is enough to influence ESA goals. jon. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Apr 88 15:44:52 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: space news from March 28 AW&ST In article <1988Apr17.235244.214@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >ESA and NASA come to tentative agreement on space-station participation! >ESA also decides to give Britain a chance to change its mind about its >recent refusal to get involved. It's funny you should say that. In an unexpected announcement yesterday, Monday 18th April, The British Government changed it's previous position on the funding of space science, and is now to provide 250 million pounds to ESA over the next 10 years to take a 5.5% share in the Columbus project. This change in policy seems to have happened after a House of Lords comittee report last month was highly critical of Government space funding. The Government minister who made the announcement, and who earlier criticised ESA for being a "hugely expensive club" and "Over-ambitious", now says that sufficient changes have been made to make British participatrion worthwhile. British Aerospace is expected to be the main contractor for an Earth observation platform. Other British companies are expected to provide operation control facilities and data processing. Also yesterday, the appointment of the new Director-General of the UK's National Space Centre was announced. He is Mr Arthur Prior, 49, a Department of Industry regional officer in Birmingham for the past three years. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 88 07:56:49 GMT From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Solar Sat Power Stations & greenhouses > Shouldn't we be promoting terrestrial solar power instead, since to the > extent we use that to replace carbon fuels, nuclear power, etc. we are > actually reducing the energy input to the system ?? Not necessarily. The obvious place to put large-scale terrestrial solar power facilities is in deserts, normally high-albedo places that reflect or re-radiate most incoming energy right back out into space. Remember too that conversion of light to electricity is quite inefficient. As I recall, solar power satellites actually add less energy to the biosphere than desert-based terrestrial solar power, because they put the very inefficient conversion to electricity outside the atmosphere. -- "Noalias must go. This is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology non-negotiable." --DMR | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 19 Apr 88 21:00:34 GMT From: unisoft!hoptoad!dasys1!tneff@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: space news from March 14 AW&ST In article <1988Apr13.025305.5212@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > [excellent news roundup omitted] > >Train carrying SRB segments for STS-26 collides with car in Mississippi. >No apparent damage to the segments, but extra inspections will be done. In the interests of decency, let's note that the occupants of the car were, tragically, killed. I forget whether 2 or 4 people died, but I believe a day of mourning was declared at Canaveral. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: are you kidding? ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 88 11:12:16 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Nippon in Space In article <78@avsd.UUCP> govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes: >Ohmygod! A space camp race. Coming soon. The Soviet version. Headquarters to be in a special Nova Mir module. and add 1/2 :-> Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 88 15:56:59 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan) Subject: Re: TVSat situation >From article <8804202213.AA10239@angband.s1.gov>, by wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI): > I'm making some assumptions here -- the main one is that the TVSat > is still in low orbit and hasn't yet been boosted up to geosync. > Regards, Will Martin Sorry- TV-SAT is in near geostationary orbit, slowly drifting above the goestationary ring, according to NORAD's tracking data. Maybe NASA's OMV will go fix it in a decade or so. Jonathan McDowell PS to Soviet space fans - Soviet launches continue apace with the launch of the fourth Photon recoverable materials processing satellite, Kosmos-1939. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 88 17:12:48 GMT From: avsd!govett@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David Govett) Subject: Re: Superconductors in article <2886@leadsv.UUCP>, pat@leadsv.UUCP (Pat Wimmer) says: > Summary: Who owns the commercial applications? > > I read the other day that the race to patent these new wonder > materials is underway. Guess who is way out ahead of the rest of the > world in applying for patents? It ain't the good ol' US of A! > While it is true that Japan has filed for over 2000 patents (at $20,000 apiece) relating to superconductivity, it is important to remember that not all patents are of equal value scientifically or monitarily. Many patents are merely slight variants of others. Also, quantity is no substitute for quality. One of the reasons Japan has filed for so many patents is that they fear the US will lock up basic patents on superconductivity. It's the basic patent that pays. This is not intended to diminish Japan's activity in the field of superconductivity. They certain seem to be more aware of its commercial potential than do US corporations. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 88 22:05:09 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Re: Private industry... In his article John Kelsey (C445585@UMCVMB.BITNET) writes: > > It seems like this has been brought up before, but what's to keep a >private firm from creating its own mini-space-program, say, for some of the >communications satelites? Couldn't McDonnell-Douglas (sp?) or some such air- >craft company build its own small booster, then rent some land in So. America >or someplace like that to launch it? From the article Henry Spencer quoted, >it sounds like there would be no shortage of demand at all. > Is the federal gov't restricting this kind of stuff, or have no companies >seen a profit potential great enough to cover the costs? Apparently there is no governmental incentive at all to allow any commercial American efforts in space: 1- The US is under a UN treaty/agreement that makes each government responsible for its citizens' actions while outside atmosphere. 2- The NASA efforts are stalling; if the government-backed efforts are failing miserably, how can a less-supported effort succeed? { NO FLAMES! I call it as I have seen it.} 3- The government has historically tried (and usually succeeded) in placing as much state-of-the-art resources and material in the hands of itself in the forms of its military and nonmilitary facets. Outside use is much less controllable, and governments (especially bureaucratical) derive their justifications and internal status from amount of control over some area. The only reason I can see for the US government to allow for the commercial space efforts is to farm out harmless branches of research and development, letting the private sector take the risks, tax any profits, and classify projects if "national security is involved". This takes effort and is in general counter to the trends I feel have been moving through bureacracy for the past several years. In short, a private firm is fighting in a rigged no-win game to provide an American-based effort. An international spread could allow a better chance, but government is government the world over; it would take immense pressures from industry to start turning any given governmental behemoth, or a complete reworking. -- Joe Beckenbach CS BS ?? -- I'D RATHER BE ORBITING ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Apr 88 09:27 MDT From: HOFGARD_J%CUBLDR%VAXF.COLORADO.EDU@cunyvm.cuny.edu Subject: Leasecraft and ISF/CDSF I would be interested in comments regarding similarities and s differences between Fairchild's Leasecraft program (whichgramd essentially failed) and ISF/CDSF situation. Any thoughtsnSpace out there? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Apr 88 12:28 EDT From: (SULTAN) Subject: Re: Millions of Comets etc... It seems that the 'small comet' debate has now hit SPACE DIGEST. For those interested, most of the debate/discussion over the theory that the Earth is constantly being bombarded by small comets has already taken place in the pages of Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). The relevant issues are: GRL Vol 13, No. 4 (pp. 303-310 is Frank et al's original paper) GRL vol 13, No. 6, 7, 9, 13, 14 GRL Vol 14, No. 3, 5, 7 Mostly these are short articles that raise objections to the theory, (like Jay Freeman did in SPACE DIGEST V8N198 with the 'where are the lunar craters?' objection) followed by Frank et al's reply. Most of the standard objections have already been addressed in these letters. If you think you have a new one, check the back issues before posting it. If anyone knows more about the alleged JPL photos of said comets, I'd be interested in hearing about it. Peter Sultan Boston University Center for Space Physics ------------------------------ Subject: Lunar Construction Date: Fri, 22 Apr 88 13:41:24 -0500 From: Fred Baube Q1: What was/is the composition of lunar samples ? Wasn't it silicon, aluminum, and oxygen in "ideal" proportions for use in solar cells, construction, and air-or-fuel ? Wasn't it found to be excellent for terrestrial vegetables ? Q2: How much variation was there in the composition of samples ? As much as in, say, terrestrial samples ? Q3 (ridiculous): Couldn't von Neumann machines completely process the Moon into something like Trantor ? There's no climate or strong gravity to complicate things, just vacuum and solar flares :-) /f ------ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Apr 88 13:45:17 CDT From: kistler%Iowa.Iowa@iago.caltech.edu (Allen C. Kistler) Subject: Cometesimals (was: Millions of comets hit Earth) > From: bungia!datapg!sewilco@umn-cs.arpa (Scot E. Wilcoxon) > Subject: Millions of comets hit Earth I don't work in that group, but it's within 30 sec walking distance so ... > ... > I assume Venus and Mars get a lot of hits as well, although the Earth-Moon > system may present a much wider gravitational well. I wonder how Mars' > atmosphere can lose all that water. It doesn't. It (re)freezes. Every few million years Mars warms up (since the water that is in vapor form creates a greenhouse effect just like CO2); the ice thaws; rivers flow on Mars. There are lots of images of dry river beds on Mars, river beds millions of years younger than the craters 10 feet away. THEN Mars loses the water, because it's so warm. Start all over again, etc. > From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com (Jay Freeman) > If that were so, then there should be at least hundreds of thousands of > new craters on the MOON each year, each caused by the impact of a small > comet. I think we have enough high-resolution lunar photography, over a > sufficient time base, so that any such phenomenon would be pretty > obvious.... I > also suspect that the seismographs left by the Apollo missions would > have been kept pretty busy by all those impacts; remember that the > seismographs were more than sensitive enough to detect the LEMs when > they were crashed into the lunar surface after various missions, and > that a LEM is much less massive than a 30-foot snowball and also moving > at far less speed at impact. The thing you have to get out of your head is that these are rocks. You admit they're snowballs, but you're still thinking of them as rocks. The heat of impact vaporizes them before they make a crater. The most they do is stir up the surface. There are photographs of small vapor plumes on the moon. The lunar seismometers are designed to detect low frequencies only, like moonquakes (or LEM's). These impacts are high frequency and consequently out of the seismometers' bandwidth. > From: mtunx!whuts!sw@rutgers.edu (WARMINK) > I read the 30ft as meaning 'left 30ft images', i.e. the cloud of water vapour > could have been up to that size, but the comet causing it could be much much > smaller. I'd be interested to find out what the resolution of the UV > instrument was though.... The cometesimals are 10 to 12 m balls of carbon-covered ice. Upon entry they become 50 km balls of UV absorbing vapor. The resolution of DE is about 0.20 to 0.29 degrees, depending upon the geometry at the time. This is just enough to see the ``holes'' in the dayglow. The temporal resolution is fine enough (but also variable) that you can watch the dark spots move across the viewing screen. For those that are interested, _Geophys_Res_Lett_ in 1986 and 1987 had more specific and accurate info than maybe _Omni_ or the LA _Times_. :) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: "Even if I mangled them, the positions in the above text are entirely somebody else's." Allen Kistler kistler%iowa.iowa@Iago.Caltech.edu Internet <- good luck! iowa::kistler SPAN <- always works ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #216 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 May 88 14:35:39 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04512; Wed, 11 May 88 03:24:47 PDT id AA04512; Wed, 11 May 88 03:24:47 PDT Date: Wed, 11 May 88 03:24:47 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805111024.AA04512@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #217 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 217 Today's Topics: May in Space Mir elements, epoch 5 May space news from April 11 AW&ST Unused Saturn V's Re: Cometesimals (was: Millions of comets hit Earth) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Apr 88 02:25:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: May in Space MAY IN SPACE HISTORY 5 Alan Shepard becomes first American in space, in 15-minute suborbital flight of Freedom 7. (1961) 11 Albert Einstein presents General Theory of Relativity. (1916) 13 Soviet cosmonauts Anatoliy Beresovoy and Valentin Lebedev depart Baikonur Cosmodrome to begin record-setting 211-day stay in space aboard Salyut 7 space station. (1982) 14 Skylab, first manned space station, launched. (1973) Ground controllers discover that the laboratory has damage to thermal shield and solar cell array. 16 Gordon Cooper completes 22 orbits of the Earth in Faith 7. (1963) 17 Birthday (1836) of Joseph Norman Lockyer, discoverer of helium in the spectrum of the Sun. Nasa launches first geosynchronous-orbit meteorological satellite, SMS-1. (1974) 18 Apollo 10 mission to rehearse lunar landing launched, with crewmen Eugene Cernan, Thomas Stafford, and John Young. (1969) 20 Pioneer Venus 1 spacecraft launched. (1978) Pioneer Venus 1 later produces first global radar map of Venus. 24 Malcolm Scott Carpenter completes 3 orbits of the Earth in Aurora 7. (1962) 25 Arthur C. Clarke proposes the placement of relay satellites in geosynchronous orbit. (1945) John F. Kennedy declares landing a man on the Moon to be US national space objective. (1961) First Skylab crew, comprising Joseph Kerwin, Charles `Pete' Conrad, and Paul Weitz, launched. (1973) 28 Monkeys `Able' and `Baker' travel 300 miles into space aboard Jupiter-C missile. (1959) Mars 3, USSR mission to Mars, launched. (1971) 29 Einstein's General Theory of Relativity tested during solar eclipse. (1919) 30 Mariner 9, first craft to orbit Mars, launched. (1971) 31 Construction begins on Soviet space launch facilities at Baikonur Cosmodrome. (1955) ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 88 04:07:00 GMT From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements, epoch 5 May Mir 1 16609U 88126.30389225 0.00020274 13584-3 0 1876 2 16609 51.6201 287.7444 0022386 291.3488 68.4997 15.74916017127072 Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 187 Epoch: 88126.30389225 Inclination: 51.6201 degrees RA of node: 287.7444 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0022386 Argument of perigee: 291.3488 degrees Mean anomaly: 68.4997 degrees Mean motion: 15.74916017 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00020274 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 12707 Semimajor axis: 6722.96 km Apogee height*: 359.85 km Perigee height*: 329.75 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 88 00:49:35 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from April 11 AW&ST More problems with the Hubble Telescope: the launch in late 1989 will be just before the solar cycle peaks in 1990, and there are already indications that this peak may be a record-breaker. The significance of this is that increased solar activity means increased air drag, and the telescope is big and fairly light, hence seriously affected. There has always been intent to reboost the HST occasionally, but if the pessimistic forecasts come true, reboost might be needed only a year after launch! Viable alternatives are a higher orbit (possible but with little margin for trouble during deployment) and a lengthy launch delay (which everyone would prefer to avoid). [Not all of this is from AW&ST; the detail is from Planetary Encounter, the newsletter I've mentioned in the past -- $35/12 issues, Box 98, Sewell NJ 08080.] USAF Space Division plans to reexamine cryogenic shuttle upper stages. The USAF would like a shuttle upper stage that could put 15 klbs into Clarke orbit, and this doesn't look practical without cryogenic fuels. Another company announces interest in doing things with shuttle external tanks: Global Outpost Inc of Virginia has approached NASA about using the tanks as experiment platforms, starting in the early 1990s. Unlike External Tanks Corp, GO does not plan to pressurize them as shirtsleeve environments. ET has asked the government to give it all rights to all external tanks [!], with it serving as intermediary for other customers to amortize management and operational costs over as many tanks as possible. ET promises to be real nice to other users. GO, predictably, prefers to deal direct with the government, and sees no need for a middleman. ET has asked the government to let it use the intertank area of the tanks on early shuttle flights, first to measure atmospheric density and drag in the tank's suborbital trajectory and then to experiment with using residual propellants for attitude control; it might even be possible to put paying suborbital payloads in there. Aussat is expected to pick its next satellite supplier around the end of May. Intelsat will make its choice in the fall. Dept of Transport would like to double the budget of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation, on the grounds that recent budget cuts have jeopardized proper supervision of the launch industry. DoT also foresees a growing need to get involved in private launch-site development, both within and outside [!] the US, and will be ill-prepared to "assist" such development without more funding. [For some strange reason, I cannot seem to recall any industry whose early growth was badly hampered by a lack of government regulation and interference! If OCST would stick to safety issues and only safety issues, they wouldn't be short of manpower. What, you thought that was all they did? Ho ho. :-(] Eosat restarts work on Landsat 6 after finally reaching agreement with DoC over it. Development stopped two years ago when government funding stopped; $220M has now been made available. There is no longer any hope of avoiding a data gap, as 6 will go up in mid-91 (Titan 2 from Vandenberg) but 4 and 5 won't last that long. Eosat hopes to hold the gap down to 18 months. NASA and contractors put heads together on insulation separation in SRBs and a possible problem with loose screws in SSME LOX pumps. Minor areas of debonding in the SRB insulation are not considered a disastrous problem, and it undoubtedly happens a fair bit due to stresses after SRB stacking, but recent debonding somewhat exceeds the current official limits. The big problem is that there is no longer any slack in the schedule for sorting out things like this, and the early-August date will thus slip. Eutelsat investigating a scheme using two or more small satellites in the same orbital position for direct TV broadcasting. NASA picks the telescoping-pole system as the low-altitude controlled- flight escape system for shuttle crews. [For those who don't remember, the problem is that the shuttle is too fragile for safe ditching or belly-landing, and someone just jumping out the hatch is likely to hit the wing.] Modifications and prototype fit checks on Discovery to be done this week, with a flight-qualified pole to be installed in July. Navy parachutists tested a prototype pole mounted on a C-141B; they reported that it works even better than expected. More tests will be run in June to certify the flight hardware, including parachutes, harnesses, the roller-equipped rings that fit over the pole, and the pole itself (which is about 5 m long and 8 cm in diameter). The pole was picked over tractor rockets because of lighter weight, longer life (the rockets have only a 5-year shelf life), less attention needed during orbiter processing, and greater safety (since carrying live rockets in the cabin presents significant risks). The pole is thought to be just as quick if not quicker in getting people out. [Frankly, I always thought the pole was the clear choice and the tractor rockets were obviously a dumb idea.] [Some of the detail in the above is from World Spaceflight News, same price and address as Planetary Encounter. I highly recommend both of them to people who want the details of most anything space-related.] Germany and Arianespace agree to move launch of TVSat 2 up to next year, from 1990, since TVSat 1's stuck solar array has proved unfixable. San Marco D/L atmospheric research satellite launched by Scout March 25 from the San Marco platform off Kenya. Full development on Hermes starts this month, design to be complete by the end of 1990. Two will be built, the first to start drop tests in 1996 and the second to fly the first (unmanned) mission in mid-97. The first manned mission will be April 98 using the first Hermes. Debate continues on whether the escape capsule planned for Hermes can be built within the time and money available, and whether it would be a viable escape method in a catastrophic accident, but officially it is still in the plans, if only to avoid public outcry if there was an accident and there wasn't an escape system. State commission asks Florida legislature for $500k for a feasibility study of a state-run spaceport. Commission also recommends state money for a commercial-space insurance fund. Hawaii is already pursuing the idea of a state spaceport and has picked a location (Palima Point). Virginia and Texas are also interested. Australia's Cape York is ahead of all competitors so far. Indonesia is looking at the idea, with enthusiastic support from Arianespace. Japan is scouting Pacific locations, and is reported to have offered to finance Cape York [Australia declined]. [This one is not space at all, but I can't resist.] Presidential Airways, a small airline based in Washington DC, reports a rush of charter inquiries from US presidential candidates, because its jets have "Presidential" prominently displayed on side and tail! Aerospace Forum article by two people from UCLA's Center for International and Strategic Affairs, urging that any future strategic-missile-reduction treaty provide for conversion into space launchers. This is not possible under the impending INF treaty, although the intermediate-range missiles are a bit small to make good boosters anyway. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Apr 88 10:29 EST From: GODDEN%gmr.com@relay.cs.net Subject: Unused Saturn V's Last month I saw an aging Saturn V on the ground at Cape Canaveral and I recall reading on this list that there are 2 others (Houston and Huntsville?). I commented to someone at work that it is absurd that so much money was spent building these spacecraft when they were never used, and he called me too lenient saying he thought it was criminal. He has a point. If we spent all that money building those guys, why didn't we spend a little more and USE the damn things? What's the scoop? Who's to blame? Why aren't they in prison? Why do I smell the stench of Congress? -Kurt Godden GM Research ------------------------------ Date: 22 Apr 88 22:31:18 GMT From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com (Jay Freeman) Subject: Re: Cometesimals (was: Millions of comets hit Earth) In article <880422134517.2698@Iowa> kistler%Iowa.Iowa@IAGO.CALTECH.EDU (Allen C. Kistler) writes: > >> From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com (Jay Freeman) > >> If that were so, then there should be at least hundreds of thousands of >> new craters on the MOON each year, each caused by the impact of a small >> comet. I think we have enough high-resolution lunar photography, over a >> sufficient time base, so that any such phenomenon would be pretty >> obvious.... I >> also suspect that the seismographs left by the Apollo missions would >> have been kept pretty busy by all those impacts; remember that the >> seismographs were more than sensitive enough to detect the LEMs when >> they were crashed into the lunar surface after various missions, and >> that a LEM is much less massive than a 30-foot snowball and also moving >> at far less speed at impact. > >The thing you have to get out of your head is that these are rocks. You admit >they're snowballs, but you're still thinking of them as rocks. The heat of >impact vaporizes them before they make a crater. The most they do is stir up >the surface. There are photographs of small vapor plumes on the moon. It shouldn't matter what they are made of; the kinetic energy of a 10-meter sphere of unit density, moving at a speed of several tens of Km per second, is on the order of one gram times c-square. That's as much energy as is released in a small nuclear explosion -- one the size of the weapons used by the US in World War II -- without regard to whether it's made of rock, ice, jello or chocolate fudge. It's hard to imagine releasing as much energy as in a Hiroshima-sized atomic bomb, within a circle ten meters in diameter, in less than a thousandth of a second, without making a crater. >The lunar seismometers are designed to detect low frequencies only, like >moonquakes (or LEM's). These impacts are high frequency and consequently out >of the seismometers' bandwidth. Huh?? When you whack on something hard, you expect a louder noise, not a different pitch, than when you whack on it more gently. The analogy here is Moon <-> bell (or drumhead, or tabletop); LEM impact <-> little hammer blow; impact of meteoroid or cometesimal <-> big hammer blow. I know the Apollo seismometer data were used to rule out frequent impacts of LEM-sized meteors on the Moon, presumably the same data would rule out the impact of LEM-sized cometesimals. Do you have any more specific journal references? -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #217 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 May 88 06:34:45 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06302; Thu, 12 May 88 03:31:59 PDT id AA06302; Thu, 12 May 88 03:31:59 PDT Date: Thu, 12 May 88 03:31:59 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805121031.AA06302@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #218 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 218 Today's Topics: Open response to the Chair of the NSS Legislative Committee Re: Superconductivity applications How hot is it in space? Preliminary Most asked questions Re: Cometesimals (was: Millions of comets hit Earth) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Sat, 23 Apr 88 13:12:49 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) Subject: Open response to the Chair of the NSS Legislative Committee Open response to Scott Pace, Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the National Space Society regarding unethical exercise of authority and mismanagement of the Society: You quote me: > "...The real question is this: Why > does Dale work against the establishment of a spacefaring civilization by > espousing views which are against that aim which he is not obligated to > espouse?" > You respond: > If he opposed them so strongly that he could > not support them for the Society, he could have stayed silent or even > resigned. This is exactly my point. The message "cooperate, stay silent or resign" is the message we are receiving from the National Space Society these days. The free expression and exchange of ideas is the basis of a free society. Totalitarian societies must suppress the free exchange of ideas and ensure that everyone espouses the same view to maintain their immoral authority. Examples of such societies are Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, from time to time, NASA and The National Space Society. Established legal precident requires every man to resist immoral authority. Simply following the rules is not good enough when the rules are evil. Therefore, all members of the National Space Society should resist your authority solely because of your statement that Dale Amon can either cooperate, be silent or resign. I call upon them to do so. Our chapter is not the only one which is disgusted by the way a few unethical people have climbed on top of our Society. Tactics which divide and suppress these chapters are starting to fail. In response to these tactics, we have begun to form a network of resistance. > I am not aware of material from > you that we have failed to circulate. My primary contact was with Legislative Committee founder Sandra Adamson (Space Station contractor employee). My contact was made in good faith without knowlege of her conflict of interest, therefore it was NOT confrontational. Even so, she made it clear that she was working on the Space Station program and that my input objecting to the Space Station Program as well as other aspects of NASA reform (all of which I have subsequently posted on this net) was unwelcome. > I am aware of material from Andy > Cutler, also of the San Diego chapter. I have discussed its contents > extensively with him and other Committee members - and we have treated it > on an equal basis with any other input from fellow NSS members. The Dukakis organization appears to have a far greater awareness of Andy's proposed policy ideas than the NSS Legislative Committee. I checked with Andy Cutler. He recently talked to other members of the Legislative Committee who had neither seen the letter nor heard of the ideas represented in it. Your "circulation" of these ideas must have been very ineffective to achieve such a low level of awareness in the other members. Your recent political mailing to the membership of NSS stated the falsehood that Dukakis has made no formal statement on space policy except for a few negative comments. It is clear that you acted in bad faith because of two damning facts: 1) A simple call Dukakis' campaign headquarters would have correctly informed you about his space policy and 2) The policies of other candidates were include even though they released theirs AFTER Dukakis organization publicized theirs. Since Andy had significant input on the Dukakis policy, your pattern of behavior is consistent with the goal of keeping these policy options from coming to the attention of the Society's membership. > I work on military space policy issues ... It is an accepted standard of behavior that one must avoid "not only actual conflicts of interest, but must refrain from engaging in conduct that gives the appearance of a conflict of interest." (Executive order 11222 8 May 1965). It is clear that you are in an actual conflict of interest. Even if you do not accept this it is inconceivable that you are not giving the appearance of a conflict of interest. Therefore if you adhere to standards of personal conduct you should resign your positions of trust and authority with the National Space Society. > You last statements, while nonsense, alleged violations of Federal > law. If you believe them to be true, the correct action would be to report > it to the Federal Elections Commission and the Attorney General's Office > nearest you. You should be prepared to to provide hard evidence to a Grand > Jury. I take arguements over policy, political strategy, and even insults > as part of my work with the Society. I accept your invitation to contact the appropriate law enforcement agencies, Scott. The Federal Attorney will decide whether there are sufficient grounds to come up hard evidence for a Grand Jury. I'll be happy to assist him/her in doing just that. I'm sure they'll find your position as head of the Legislative Committee, board positions on SpacePac and SpaceCause and employment with a government think tank on military space policy, to be interesting. I was originally hoping to keep this in the space interest community, but your challenge along with Sandra Adamson's rebuff has made it clear that something must be done about you two. Mark Hopkins, while no longer employed by RAND, was so employeed when he founded the political action organizations and therefore has a history of unethical conduct which ethically compells him to resign all positions of trust and authority in NSS along with you and Sandra Adamson. > > "I am running for the board of directors of the National Space Society so > that I can work to rid out organization of these corrupting influences, > restore the Society to its appropriate focus on apolitical educational > activities and begin to represent the MEMBERSHIP rather than the views of a > few NASA lackies." > > Who are you calling NASA lackies? Those members of the NSS who do not > agrees with you? No. I'm calling Scott Pace, Sandra Adamson and Mark Hopkins, NASA lackies. Your attempt to hide behind other members of the Society will not wash with me or those members. While I disagree with the opinions of some members of NSS, they have not nominated themselves for suspicion through unethical conduct. Your situation and actions ("The lady doth protest too much." -- WS) reinforce my suspicions about your motives. > In summary, your reckless allegations, lack of information about > the structure of the Society, insulting tone, and ignorance of the laws > regulating the Soceity and its sister organizations make you totally > unqualified to serve on the NSS Board of Directors. You need to clean up > your own act before you can get anyone else to take you seriously. > Thank you very much, Scott. Jim Bowery PHONE 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 (I welcome voice discussion of these issues.) La Jolla, CA 92038 The path to space is paved with independence and diversity. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Apr 88 10:17:31 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: Re: Superconductivity applications X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@angband.s1.gov" The April issue of NASA TECH BRIEFS obligingly printed the first in a series of articles on superconductivity: "NASA Rises To The Challenge:" Could high-temperature superconductors--ceramics that transmit electrical current without resistance--help power a manned mission to Mars? That's one possibility NASA is studying as part of an agency-wide effort to harness superconductivity for space use. "There's been a lot of talk about how high-temperature superconductors are going to revolutionize everything from automobiles to dishwashers," said Dr. Martin Sokoloski, head of a coordinating group on superconductivity activities at NASA's Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, "but what's been largely overlooked is the material's potential benefits for space. There are a variety of NASA-unique applications that could play an important role in future space missions." Areas NASA has targeted for high-temperature superconductivity research include: SENSORS. NASA plans to use the new ceramics to improve the detection range of space-borne sensors. At NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, research is focused on the development of ceramic thin-films for fabrication into a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID), a highly-sensitive magnetometer slated for use on future deep space gravity probes. A SQUID can measure weaker signals than traditional sensors because there is les background "noise" in its circuits, due to the free flow of electrons in the superconducting material. Researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory are developing superconducting-insulating-superconducting (SIS) junctions for atmospheric remote sensing satellites. SIS junctions formed from high-temperature superconducting thin-films would be sensitive at ten times higher a frequency than current low-temperature versions, and could be radiatively cooled in the col "room temperature" of outer space, eliminating the need for on-board cryogens. "That would mean lighter, more efficient satellites," said Dr. Carl Kukkonen, Director of the Center for Space Microelectronics Technology Directorate at Jet Propulsion Laboratories. POWER AND PROPULSION SYSTEMS. Both NASA's Lewis Research Center and the Department of Defense are studying the feasibility of using electrical power stored in superconducting coils to launch vehicles into orbit. Magnetic containment fields within the coils could store electricity by diverting it into endless loops, where it would circle forever, undiminished. If the amassed energy were discharged into a launching mechanism, it could conceivably propel a craft skyward. "High-temperature superconductors would reduce the energy requirements for an electromagnetic launcher because there would be no power loss during transmission," said Dr. Denis Connolly, Deputy Chief of Applied Research for the Lewis Center's Space Electronics Division. Magnetic energy storage might also help extend mission duration, according to Dr. Charles Byvik, a Senior Research Physicist at NASA's Langley Research Center. "A superconducting magnetic energy storage system could generate ten times more energy than currently available from spacecraft batteries," he said. "The batteries we're now using are expensive and wouldn't provide the energy density required for long-duration manned flights, such as a Mars mission. Superconductivity could offer a cost- effective alternative." MAGNETIC SUSPENSION. Langley scientists want to use the strong magnetic field surrounding superconducting current to suspend and balance models in wind tunnels. "The traditional physical methods of suspension interfere with the flow field surrounding the model, which hampers our getting accurate test results," explained Dr. Byvik. "With magnetic levitation, we could eliminate this interference completely." SPACE SHIELDS. A high magnetic field created by a superconducting magnet and coil could be used to protect a spaceship from the intense heat of reentry, according to Dr. Connolly. "If we could arrange to generate this magnetic field around the front of the craft, it would act as a shield, keeping the hot ionizing gases at a distance." A LONG ROAD AHEAD: Researchers must overcome a number of technical obstacles before any of these ideas reach fruition. High-temperature superconductors as they exist today can carry only small volumes of current, are too brittle to form into wires and other usable shapes, and lose their superconductive properties within a few months. In addition, there are problems unique to the space environment. "No one knows if these ceramics can handle the pressure in the high magnetic fields of space," said Dr. Eugene Urban, Cheif of the Cryogenics Physics Branch at Marshall, "or if they can withstand bombardment by ionizing radiation." "While we're excited about the potential for superconductors in space," said Dr. Urban, "we know there's a long, hard road ahead." ------------------------------ NOTE: As I understand it, there are now non-ceramic materials that become superconducting at even higher temperatures; also that IBM had succeeded in depositing the ceramics in thin film form; someone else reported being able to work the superconductors into LSI-size features. Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Apr 88 10:41:36 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: How hot is it in space? X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@angband.s1.gov" Posting my last article on high-temperature superconductors brought up a few questions: I wondered why ordinary superconductors hadn't already been used: isn't it cold enough there already? Well, a spacecraft can't receive appreciable heat via conduction or convection once it's far enough outside the atmosphere, so aside from quantum effects the only source should be radiation. Therefore the temperature of a spacecraft depends on its emissivity (I think; or whatever it is that governs how much radiation is reflected vs absorbed). If we have a perfectly shiny spacecraft then the only heat inside it will be what it generates itself. Of course, getting rid of this is a problem; but then, if we're not doing much, there won't be much heat, and none will come from superconducting circuits. So does someone know how cold you can get it inside a spacecraft without using cryocoolants (which have a finite and relatively short lifetime), assuming that the spacecraft is, say, a Landsat? How hot do communications satellites get, since they must be built to absorb certain wavelengths? Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov) ("These aren't the opinions of my employers... I'm sure they already know the answers, if I only knew who to ask.") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Apr 88 12:53:04 pdt From: Eugene N. Miya Subject: Preliminary Most asked questions Cc: eugene@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov Let's start off with one of my pet repeated questions: Most questions about space deal with current NASA related events. Obtaining information is the last question. 1) Can't they use those Shuttle tanks as an orbiting resource rather than let them crash into the sea? Yes, this question was thought about and answered in the mid-late 70s. The problem is there is not sense in keeping an unguided object in space until you need it. There actually is a company devoted to developing them as a resource. 2) Fermi's paradox: Too open ended. ;-) n-1) How do I get a job in space? There are two different concerns here. 1) If seasonal like summer, you must start looking between the months of January-March, this means preparation in December. Reminders are posted at that time with addresses, etc. 2) Permanent, a list of contracting aerospace companies was assembled by Ken Jenks (now successfully working at Rockwell, but without a net address [see! space uses modern technology]). Send mail request such to one of the network personalities (Dale, Henry, Phil, etc., myself) we will try to update the list yearly. P.S. It helps to learn Russian and Japanese. n) Where do I find information about space? Try you local public library first. The net is not a good place for this. It's a better place for open ended discussions. Next trying writing real letters to the Public Relations or Public Information Offices of NASA and its various contractors. They can inundate you. Also try the telephone (check a phone directory can all offices at various Centers [addresses posted occasionally]). We will also try to have designed net `experts' on where to get more information. --eugene ------------------------------ Date: 24 Apr 88 14:23:39 GMT From: ihnp4!aicchi!dbb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Burch) Subject: Re: Cometesimals (was: Millions of comets hit Earth) Say, folks... Could this explain (neatly) the occasional reports that lunar observers have made of clouds of water vapor? I recall that these have been from near the terminator, logical if a snowball hit during the night, and was being vaporized by the sun. If this is so, all a lunar colony need do for water is set up a network of sensors, and then collect the debris before they sublime... -- -David B. (Ben) Burch Analysts International Corp. Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb) "Argue for your limitations, and they are yours." - R. Bach ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #218 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 May 88 06:36:44 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07907; Fri, 13 May 88 03:33:41 PDT id AA07907; Fri, 13 May 88 03:33:41 PDT Date: Fri, 13 May 88 03:33:41 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805131033.AA07907@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #219 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 219 Today's Topics: Rumored changes in SS program? Re: Space Station Names Re: Space Station Names Re: Space Station Names Re: Space Station Names Re: Space Station Names Re: Space Station Names Re: Space Station Names Re: Space Station Names Excellent New Space Magazine SPACEWATCH '88 VOTERS' GUIDE Fletcher on US-USSR MOON Mission Re: using lunar resourcesn_ Future Soviet Guest Cosmonaut Missions to Mir Re: Cometesimals (was: Millions of comets hit Earth) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 May 88 16:51:29 GMT From: ndsuvax!ndsuvm1.bitnet!ud140469@uunet.uu.net Subject: Rumored changes in SS program? Just yesterday I heard some rumors of big changes coming in the Space Station program. About all I know of their source is that s/he was at a recent (last week) SEDS conference in Minneapolis. Because of that, and since I've not verified it with any other sources, I won't go into any detail (don't want flames if my rumor is just that)--I'll just ask if any one else has heard strange rumblings. If you'd like to know what I've heard on a private basis, I'd be glad to tell you (I'll be around at this address for another week before heading to Houston & Eagle Engineering). Scott Udell UD140469@NDSUVM1.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 88 15:07:01 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Space Station Names And now the question you've all been staying up late for: what the heck are they going to name the Space Station?? The Ames Astrogram just published a preliminary list of possible names which follows : Aurora Earth-star Freedom Hercules Independence Jupiter Landmark Liberty Minerva Olympia Pegasus Pilgrim Prospector Skybase Starlight Unity So gang, anyone got any better ideas??? Like something original for instance? cheers, mike ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 88 02:29:30 GMT From: imagine!pawl17.pawl.rpi.edu!sundance@itsgw.rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold) Subject: Re: Space Station Names In article <8552@ames.arc.nasa.gov> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes: >And now the question you've all been staying up late for: what the >heck are they going to name the Space Station?? ... >So gang, anyone got any better ideas??? Like something original for instance? How about Low Station. George M. Low was a NASA manager and administrator during the Apollo years. Low would also represent LEO. ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 88 08:16:00 GMT From: mcvax!jack@uunet.uu.net (Jack Jansen) Subject: Re: Space Station Names How about "Mir II"? ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 88 12:57:42 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: Space Station Names Mir ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 88 16:04:42 GMT From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Space Station Names I have some candidate names here: Space Station Zebra The Money Pit Bob's LEO (when the waitress comes out, DON'T roll down the window!) The Van Allen Hilton Mir (how to infuriate CCCP in one easy lesson!) Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 88 15:34:07 GMT From: mmm!viper!dave@umn-cs.arpa (David Messer) Subject: Re: Space Station Names How about "Peace"? :-) ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 88 18:36:47 GMT From: mnetor!spectrix!tmsoft!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Station Names "Gold-Plated Rabbit Hutch", maybe? Actually I'd be tempted to name it after Willy Ley, but that won't fly... ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 88 19:40:06 GMT From: eachus@mitre-bedford.arpa (Robert Eachus) Subject: Re: Space Station Names In article <876@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU> sundance@pawl.rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold) writes: >How about Low Station. George M. Low was a NASA manager and >administrator during the Apollo years. Low would also represent LEO. Excellent idea, I second the motion. I was a grad student at RPI while George was President, and like everyone who knew him, I respected him tremendously. Its a shame he wasn't around to get NASA back on track after the Challenger disaster like he did when he took over after the Apollo fire. Of course, if George, or any one who had worked with him had been in charge, I know that launch would not have happened. The "success oriented" planning at NASA was not invented by engineers, but by managers, and George never let his management responsibilities overrule his engineering judgement. Robert I. Eachus ------------------------------ Date: 24 Apr 88 20:20:53 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!EWTILENI@princeton.edu (Eric Tilenius) Subject: Excellent New Space Magazine I just received my second issue of FINAL FRONTIER: The Magazine of Space Exploration. FINAL FRONTIER is an excellent publication. It comes out bi-monthly, and is packed with interesting articles and photos on Space Exploration. I highly recommend this magazine... It can be found at some bookstores, or you can enter a charter subscription for $14.97 (1 yr/6 issues) To order, you can call 612-926-5962 (VISA/MC/Invoice), or send a check for $14.97 payable to FINAL FRONTIER to: Final Frontier Suite 115 6800 France Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55435 - ERIC - *----------------------===> SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------* * ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU // ewtileni@pucc.BITNET * * rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni // princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni * * ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"* *--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------* ------------------------------ Date: 24 Apr 88 20:26:04 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!EWTILENI@princeton.edu (Eric Tilenius) Subject: SPACEWATCH '88 VOTERS' GUIDE SPACECAUSE has released their guide to the 1988 Presidential Campaigns. It is available by writing to: SPACECAUSE International Space Center 922 Pennsylvania Avenue S.E. Washington DC 20003 or by calling Spacecause at 202-543-1900. Ask for a copy of "Spacewatch '88". (If you really want to know how the candidates feel, you're better off writing to each campaign that you're interested in, and asking their position on the civilian space program. This is a condensed guide taken from those policy statements near as I can tell.) - ERIC - *----------------------===> SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------* * ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU // ewtileni@pucc.BITNET * * rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni // princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni * * ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"* *--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------* ------------------------------ Date: 24 Apr 88 02:05:00 GMT From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Fletcher on US-USSR MOON Mission RELEASE: 88-52 April 14, 1988 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). --END-- 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 ------------------------------ Date: 24 Apr 88 08:13:19 GMT From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: using lunar resourcesn_ In article <4164@whuts.UUCP>, sw@whuts.UUCP (WARMINK) writes: > In article <760@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>, montague@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Michael Montague) writes: > > The raw materials exist, and could even be 'shot' into moon orbit cheaply, > but it is quite a step to go from moon rocks to finished product, e.g. > another processing plant or satellite, as mentioned above. There is nothing > to say it can't be done, the question is at what cost? > The least energy-to-extract material after raw regolith (which has it's own uses) is iron. There is free (unoxidized) iron in the lunar regolith (the rock & dust at the surface). This stuff comes from asteroid impacts (same place all the craters come from). The iron can be extracted with magnets at low energy cost and complexity. Uses for iron: structural material (same as on earth), electrical conductors (what,you say iron is a lousy conductor? But if you can get lots of it into lunar orbit cheaply, then who cares. Uses for undifferentiated regolith(i.e. dirt): Shielding (for humans and electronics) Ballast mass (for orbital tether (skyhook) systems. Dani Eder/Boeing/Space Station Program ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Apr 88 18:41:32 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Future Soviet Guest Cosmonaut Missions to Mir The USSR has announced more information about their guest cosmonaut program for the next few years. First the Bulgarian visitor mission, with Alexander Alexandrov as the guest, will be launched on June 7th. The current schedule for the French mission is for a flight in late September or October (Jean-Loup Chretien is still slated as the visitor). This is earlier other statements of a November mission. Also scheduled for this year is an Afghan cosmonaut, though no time is set - maybe they want to get him up there quickly before the Soviet military withdrawal in his country is finished. Finally, they have signed the Austrians up to send a visiting cosmonaut to Mir in 1992. By the way, the June 7th mission suggests that Mir observation schedules are not likely to be useful starting in the last week of May. A week or so before a mission flies to Mir they use the fuel in their current Progress tanker craft to boost the station orbit, and then discard the useless cargo ship. On board the station Vladimir Titov and Musahi Manarov have now been in orbit for 128 days. Most of the work being mentioned these days is their use of the Kvant astrophysics facility. Again there are conflicting reports about the when the next "Star" expansion module (20 tonne, 50 cubic meter sections) will fly to Mir, though all sources say that at least one will go up by the end of this year. Also the slated month for their shuttle/Energyia test is now June. The Russians are not expanding their manned space missions at a tremendous pace, this was rather a uneventfull month for them. Yet every year now they are breaking new ground in manned exploration, maybe slowly, but certainly surely. This program of theirs is the living example of how "slow but steady wins the race". Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 88 13:38:57 GMT From: mtunx!whuts!sw@rutgers.edu (WARMINK) Subject: Re: Cometesimals (was: Millions of comets hit Earth) In article <880422134517.2698@Iowa>, kistler%Iowa.Iowa@IAGO.CALTECH.EDU (Allen C. Kistler) writes: > It doesn't. It (re)freezes. Every few million years Mars warms up (since the > water that is in vapor form creates a greenhouse effect just like CO2); the > ice thaws; rivers flow on Mars. There are lots of images of dry river beds on > Mars, river beds millions of years younger than the craters 10 feet away. > THEN Mars loses the water, because it's so warm. Start all over again, etc. This is a new theory to me. It is generally accepted that water once flowed on Mars, but cycles of thawing and freezing? I would immagine that such cycles would have a drastic impact upon the Martian surface, which does not fit in with the large number of craters observed. I would be interested to find out where the evidence for multiply thawing/freezing cycles comes from. Does water vapour have the same greenhouse effect as CO2? Why water vapour anyway? The Martian atmosphere contains a significant percentage of CO2, one of the poles consists of CO2 as well as water ice I thought. It is a shame there is no liquid water on Mars now, it would make the planet very interesting - and shrouded in cloud cover no doubt. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Als it dit in deze taal schrijf, | Stuart Warmink, APT UK Ltd. kan haast niemand het verstaan! | !whuts!sw -----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of APT UK Ltd. <----------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #219 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 May 88 06:34:21 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09253; Sat, 14 May 88 03:31:33 PDT id AA09253; Sat, 14 May 88 03:31:33 PDT Date: Sat, 14 May 88 03:31:33 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805141031.AA09253@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #220 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 220 Today's Topics: Re: Antimatter propulsion questions Problems with the National Space Society Re: How hot is it in space? NOVA on Russian Technology Lunar observatory Space Articles in 'Soviet Life' Question about Richard Hoagland/Mars Project Re: How hot is it in space? Re: Excellent New Space Magazine Wanted: Info on radio astronomy satellites Re: Motivations For The Soviet Union To Go To Mars ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Apr 88 13:08:02 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (James W. Meritt) Subject: Re: Antimatter propulsion questions In article <1988Apr25.142806.188@mntgfx.mentor.com> mbutts@mntgfx.mentor.com (Mike Butts) writes: >2) How safe a fuel would antimatter be for earth-based launches? OK people. My earlier question rears it head: to what extent does the antimatter-matter reaction follow the exclusion prinicples, and to what extent does the wave-structure matter? To wit, does an anti-proton react only with free protons? Or does the anti-quark/quark reaction take place allowing partial anniliation of neutrons? How about protons bonded into nuclei? Will a free anti-proton react with protons in iron? Will anti-protons incorporated into anti-nuclei react with protons in normal nuclei, or is it an all-or-nothing deal based on the overall wave pattern? (i.e. anti-lithium will only react with lithium, not zirconium for instance). Would this exclusion, if it takes place, extend to the electron/anti-electron shells? This matters in the question as follows: If the antimatter/matter reaction is an entire-wave function the plants should produce anti-lithium. Since there is not that much sitting around if it gets loose if would just sit there and police could walk up and pick it up. You could store it in aluminum tanks. Perfect!!!! Reasonable!!!!! But true? Beats me. Comments, please. Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 88 21:09:49 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!EWTILENI@princeton.edu (Eric Tilenius) Subject: Problems with the National Space Society Jim's recent posting pointed out some very clear problems that I have with the National Space Society family of organizations. I've noticed evidence of these problems before, and I think Jim put his finger on it quite well. I have long felt a real sense of conflict of interest in the National Space Society, Spacecause, and SpacePAC. While I am a member of these groups, a large portion of their funding comes from big corporations with a stake in the space industry. The types of programs NSS advocates are indicative of this. They have NOT pushed for space exploratory moves, but rather for big projects which the contractors want - the Space Station and that jazz. I don't recall offhand, but I believe they were in favor of Space Industry's budget-sapping lab (ISF) as well. When board members serve as high ranking directors of major aerospace corporations, one is left to wonder about the validity of such an organization as a citizens' grass-routes pro-space group. The Planetary Society, for one, has made it a point NOT to accept corporate donations from those in the aerospace industry. This assures that The Planetary Society is not only kept free of corporate financial pressure, but can be respected as being a citizens' and scientists' group. I noticed the slights on Dukakis in Spacecause's "Spacewatch '88" as well. >From the limited blurbs they give, they make it sound as though George Bush is the demigod of space compared to Mike Dukakis, while this is far from the case! Mike Dukakis has formulated some excellent pro-space ideas - Bush merely wavers in his policy stances depending on where he is. But I digress. With so many of NSS' officers having personal ECONOMIC interests in their activities, how can we make the group one that we can be proud of? If NSS is seen as a big-industry group promoting space because that's where its profits lie, can we seriously expect lawmakers to view us as a citizens' group? Are our contributions merely making corporate lobbying cheaper for Sperry, Boeing, General Dynamics, and the rest of the gang? Where do SpacePAC contributions go? Does anyone have a list? While I'm an NSS member, and have given money to Spacecause as well, I have refrained from giving anything to SpacePAC, because I think I can predict all too well who is going to get the money, and most of them probably support defense spending hikes. It would make all too realistic corporate sense for companies to give PAC money to those who support increased spending in defense, SDI, and so forth, NOT those who GENUINELY support a strong, peaceful, civilian space program. I'd rather give personal contributions to Rep. George Brown (the Congressman introducing the space settlement bill), Rep. Bob Mrazek (NY), and Senator Spark Matsangua (sp? - from HI), and let them know in a personal letter why I'm sending money. The Planetary Society, with over 100,000 members, is a good educational, pro-space organization. My main gripe is that they aren't making themselves visible enough (need more publicity), and aren't doing enough to actively change policy. But they are an excellent group and deserve support. I'd like to say the same for NSS. I belong, and I believe in many of the things which they do, but I get a strange feeling NSS & Co. are perverting my goals for the whims of those wishing to make a profit. Jim's comments that they are trying to stifle discourse are equally disturbing, should they prove true. It's time NSS had true, democratic elections and put real SPACE ACTIVISTS back in the front line, not corporate lobbyists. - ERIC - *----------------------===> SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------* * ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU // ewtileni@pucc.BITNET * * rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni // princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni * * ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"* *--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------* ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 88 17:07:38 GMT From: mtunx!whuts!sw@rutgers.edu (WARMINK) Subject: Re: How hot is it in space? In article <880425104136.000006E80A2@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>, PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: > [Other stuff about spacecraft and superconductors] > So does someone know how cold you can get it inside a spacecraft without > using cryocoolants (which have a finite and relatively short lifetime), > assuming that the spacecraft is, say, a Landsat? How hot do communications > satellites get, since they must be built to absorb certain wavelengths? > The temperature of a spherical object with black-body characteristics can be found by knowing that the energy lost by radiation is proportional to (T1^4 - T2^4), where T1 is the absolute temperature of (say) the spacecraft and T2 that of open space (say 0 K). I can't remember the exact details, but the idea is to balance the energy received from the Sun (and Earth) with the energy lost due to radiation into space (and towards the Earth). Anyway, from what I remember is that this is independant of the size of the satellite (assuming spherical), and works out to somewhere around 270K. Interesting...just right for man & machine (=electronics) Of course, for non-black body and non-spherical objects this won't be quite true. For instance, an object with a shiny surface pointing towards the Sun and a black surface towards space will be at a colder equilibrium temperature. This is the way satellites work, as then the internal heat generated is balanced out by the nett energy loss due to radiation. Solar cells will absorb more radiation as heat than a gold reflector, but will radiate it just as efficiently as the satellite spins or on the back side of the array. Anyway, the long and short of all this is that the satellite designers do their best to keep the internal temperature as even as possible and somewhere around the operating temperatures of the electronic components. I suppose that the answer to your question is 'roughly -40 to +100 C'. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Als it dit in deze taal schrijf, | Stuart Warmink, APT UK Ltd. kan haast niemand het verstaan! | !whuts!sw -----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of APT UK Ltd. <----------- ------------------------------ From: graham@drcvax.arpa Date: 27 Apr 88 08:19:00 EST Subject: NOVA on Russian Technology To: "space" Reply-To: I watched the PBS program NOVA last evening. It was on the subject of Soviet technology. The general theme was that they were rather behind the West but catching up slowly. They may be behind technologically, but they're up there...and we ain't!!! -->Dan ------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Apr 88 09:55 EDT From: KEVIN@a.cfr.cmu.edu Subject: Lunar observatory If you wish to base a radio telescope so that it is shielded from the rather immense RF output of the earth, placing it on the lunar Farside seems like a good idea. Something I haven't seen mentioned in detail yet is how badly the moon would block 50% of the sky for two weeks every two weeks. On earth the planet screens out large portions of the sky, but there are enough radio telescopes to give fairly full coverage of such time-limited events as novae and such. To steal a scenario from somebody (I'd credit them if I could remember who it was), imagine the Congressional hearing... SENATOR BIGNOSE: "Let me see if I understand this, Dr.. You are saying that we are losing 50% of the irreplacable transmissions from the aliens from Sirius? Why is this? I thought that this telescope was one of the finest research instruments built." DR. EGO: "Yes, unfortunately, that's true. We decided it was easier to put the telescope on the Moon, but that does mean that Lunar rotation blocks 50% of the sky at a time for two week periods." SENATOR BIGNOSE: "And you knew this when you built this incredibly expensive and apparently insufficient instrument? Perhaps we should start reviewing your grants, Dr. Ego..." Perhaps we would be better off with an orbital telescope. I realize that it might be more expensive, but as a research instrument it may be more effective. Not to give the 'cast in stone' impression (:->), but consider as a possibilty the following: Orbit, perhaps at the leading Lagrangian point, a large radio telescope. Power from it's own solar array, shielding from a large thin metal shield orbiting near the scope or connected to it. A distant orbit is probably necessary to minimize the problem of keeping the shield oriented without banging it into the scope. Given a shield at a reasonable distance there would be very little of the sky eclipsed at any time - with the minimum being the arc subtended by the earth seen at that distance. Other questions, such as exact orbit, manned vs unmanned, etc., would have to answered by a detailed cost/benefit analysis. This idea is not original with me by any means, but since nobody else mentioned it... Kevin Ryan ................................................................................ | Reply to arpanet kr0u@andrew.cmu.edu | | "Never put off till tomorrow what you can delegate today." | |..............................................................................| ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Apr 88 10:52 EDT From: GODDEN%gmr.com@relay.cs.net Subject: Space Articles in 'Soviet Life' A friend has loaned me a copy of the April 88 issue of a magazine called 'Soviet Life' and it has several articles concerning space as well as a pull-out poster with pictures of various Soviet and U.S. boosters (on one side) and pictures of all cosmonauts (and astronauts? (I haven't seen the poster)) (on the other side). The space articles are (from TOC): "Mars -- Joint Expedition" by Vladimir Vozchikov "Halley's Comet in Profile and Full Face" by Tamara Breus "Soviet Rocketry -- Past and Present" "Energia -- New Generation Booster" by Alexander Dunayev "Up...Up...and Away!" "Yuri Gagarin's Last Flight" by Alexei Leonov & Sergei Belotserkovsky "Almost a Year in Space!" Interview with Oleg Gazenko If you can't find it in your local newsstand, the cover price is $2.25 and the address given inside is: Soviet Life 1706 Eighteenth Str, NW Washington, DC 20009 tel: 202-328-3237 -Kurt Godden (My regards to the NSA line-scanner. Happy snooping!) ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 88 20:30:56 GMT From: microsoft!ellene@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Ellen Eades) Subject: Question about Richard Hoagland/Mars Project I have just finished reading a book by one Richard Hoagland called _The Monuments of Mars_. It is essentially speculative nonfiction concerning some possible artificial objects on the surface of Mars. I'm curious about the author's bona fides within the scientific community. If anyone has concrete information (please, no flames, and no mudslinging) about Hoagland and/or his "Mars Project," please reply. Ellen Eades (fluke, sun, uw-beaver)!microsoft!ellene ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 88 23:27:11 GMT From: CAT.CMU.EDU!dep@pt.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) Subject: Re: How hot is it in space? In article <880425104136.000006E80A2@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: >Posting my last article on high-temperature superconductors brought up a >few questions: I wondered why ordinary superconductors hadn't already >been used: isn't it cold enough there already? The basic answer to all of this is it depends how you design your spacecraft. A black body in Earth orbit will have an average temperature of about 290 K (no surprise). Surprisingly (to me, anyway) a polished aluminium body will be much hotter (it absorbs less sunlight, but radiates far less). In general, if you can keep something shadowed, you can keep it very cold. Unfortunately, this isn't easy. Without some type of active control, a satellite will tumble with respect to the Sun. Also, the Earth is a source of a significant amount of reflected sunlight. A final difficult with cryonics is that, while it is very useful for somethings (superconductors, IR sensors, etc.). It makes life very difficult for just about everything else (batteries, for example). As a result, satellites have to have a "warm" section. The heat flow between the warm and cold sections then becomes significant. Still one possibility for superconductors. How about a lunar mass driver which can only be used at lunar night? (what, power? night => no solar cells. Easy enough to fix, use big open "air" flywheels to store energy collected during the "day" and dump it at night to power the mass driver). -- "A fanatic is one who can't change his David Pugh mind and won't change the subject." ...!seismo!cmucspt!cat!dep -- Sir Winston Churchill ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 88 18:12:12 GMT From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu (G. Zes Kriste) Subject: Re: Excellent New Space Magazine In article <5035@pucc.Princeton.EDU>, EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Eric Tilenius) writes: > I just received my second issue of FINAL FRONTIER: The Magazine of Space > Exploration. > > I highly recommend this magazine... It can be found at some bookstores, or > you can enter a charter subscription for $14.97 (1 yr/6 issues) > Rats, I suspect my Russian is not that good to rush and buy this new magazine about space*FLIGHT*... ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 88 01:57:49 GMT From: sunybcs!ugthomps@boulder.colorado.edu (Gregory Thompson) Subject: Wanted: Info on radio astronomy satellites Greetings, I am seeking info of any nature and kind on past and present space launches that had/have a mission of radio astronomy research. I do not need specific info, only the names of the missions, the year they they were launched, and a short summary of the mission if possible. Information of foreign (non US) missions is also welcome. A prompt reply would be greatly appreciated as I need this info fairly quickly. Thanks in advance, Greg ...{decvax,rocksvax,watmath,ames,rutgers,boulder}!sunybcs!ugthomps CSNET: ugthomps@Buffalo.CSNET BITNET: ugthomps@sunybcs.BITNET Internet: ugthomps@cs.buffalo.edu ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 88 14:23:31 GMT From: s.cc.purdue.edu!ain@h.cc.purdue.edu (Patrick White) Subject: Re: Motivations For The Soviet Union To Go To Mars In article <9071@reed.UUCP> douglas@reed.UUCP (P Douglas Reeder) writes: >NO FLAMES! Rational Discussion okay. >The Soviet Union has a public-relational reason for making their next big >goal a mission to Mars rather than the Moon. If they go to the Moon, they >are doing somthing the US did 20 years ago. I think they have a bit more common sense than that... after all, they didn't follow us to the moon, but rather concentrated on achiving what they have now -- a permanently manned space station and now a space shuttle... to our seemingly permantly grounded space shuttle. The old tortoise and hare story all over again. -- Pat White ARPA/UUCP: j.cc.purdue.edu!ain BITNET: PATWHITE@PURCCVM PHONE: (317) 743-8421 U.S. Mail: 320 Brown St. apt. 406, West Lafayette, IN 47906 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #220 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 May 88 06:33:39 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10407; Sun, 15 May 88 03:31:00 PDT id AA10407; Sun, 15 May 88 03:31:00 PDT Date: Sun, 15 May 88 03:31:00 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805151031.AA10407@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #221 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 221 Today's Topics: Re: Re-evolving spaceflight after collapse of civilization Antimatter propulsion questions Re: How hot is it in space? A Soviet strategy for domination in space Re: How hot is it in space? Re: Libertarians love NASA? STS Stacking Problem Yet another: RELEASE/Engineeering Centers Re: Cometesimals (was: Millions of comets hit Earth) re: Hawaiian launch sites ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Wed, 27 Apr 88 23:09:39 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Re-evolving spaceflight after collapse of civilization The responses to my assertion about the difficulty of reestablishing the capability for the creation of a spacefaring civilization after the collapse of civilization have focused on two ideas: 1) We can find substitute materials for everything that we run out of. and 2) We can recycle the metals we are now using so we won't run out of them. The problem with 1 is that it requires an almost blind faith in the ability of technology to overcome barriers that mother nature places in our path. There are only so many stable elements in the periodic chart and they have a finite number of characteristics. We can combine them in various ways to achieve a variety of effects, but we ARE limited by nature in both the range of things we can do and in the economy of doing those things. If we do start running out of various critical metals, we MIGHT find ways around them. Then again, we MIGHT NOT. The problem with 2 is that it fails to take into account the nature of metal recovery. It is never 100%, even in recycling of raw metal. In fact, there are thermodynamic limits on the efficiency of recovery of materials during recycling. Given the fact we are dealing with humans in the loop, the best we can expect is to get around 50% recovery of the critical materials each time they go through the cycle. Those metal atoms don't just dissapear, but they DO end up mixed with other things that make it uneconomic to recover them. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 88 21:28:03 GMT From: tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!mbutts@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Butts) Subject: Antimatter propulsion questions I read with great interest the news from AW&ST (thanks, Henry) that USAF is seriously considering antimatter as a fuel for propulsion in 20 years or so. The improvement in exhaust velocity, even with the "low tech" version, would have a tremendous effect on payload sizes and/or flight times, as fission atomics were once hoped to provide. (Arthur Clarke's 1950 classic "Interplanetary Flight" has been rereleased, and is an excellent lightweight engineering treatment of the fundamentals (he described the Space Shuttle system in good detail 31 years before it flew). I found it very counter-intuitive what huge leverage exhaust velocity can have.) I have 2 questions: 1) If particle accelerators are used to create the antimatter fuel in the first place, on a production basis, would there be any advantage to siting them in space, driven by solar power and taking advantage of the natural vacuum? Would solar wind, cosmic rays, etc. interfere with the process? If so, could reasonable shielding deal with that? 2) How safe a fuel would antimatter be for earth-based launches? Getting out of our gravity well is so large a part of the problem, earth-based launch technology is critical. Atomics didn't work out mainly because they would leave such foul messes, especially in an accident. Since antimatter fuels don't involve those nasty heavy elements, or even light radioactive ones, we might (naively?) hope for better. The obvious antimatter failure mode would be instant complete annihalation of the fuel, with massive energy release. Launching from remote locations might be appropriate, but since the amount of energy would be comparable to the amount released in a comparable chemical rocket explosion (even less, given the much better mass ratio), that alone might not be enough to cause significant damage to the biosphere. Could the form of the energy be a problem? Presumably hard EM radiation, X-rays, and/or gamma rays would be emitted. To what effect? Could any substantial radioactive byproducts result? How would it compare with an A-bomb or H-bomb test? What about a failure in near earth orbit? Or would the worst-case consequenses be confined to the rocket and pad? If so, 21st Century spaceflight might get pretty exciting. Perhaps someone who knows high-energy physics would venture an opinion? -- Mike Butts, Research Engineer KC7IT 503-626-1302 Mentor Graphics Corp., 8500 SW Creekside Place, Beaverton OR 97005 ...!{sequent,tessi,apollo}!mntgfx!mbutts OR mbutts@pdx.MENTOR.COM These are my opinions, & not necessarily those of Mentor Graphics. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 88 20:56:51 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (James W. Meritt) Subject: Re: How hot is it in space? In article <4225@whuts.UUCP> sw@whuts.UUCP (WARMINK) writes: >Anyway, from what I remember is that this is independant of the size of the >satellite (assuming spherical), and works out to somewhere around 270K. >Interesting...just right for man & machine (=electronics) Should be no wild suprise here. These things are receiving approximately the same solar flux as a well-known test case upon which a great deal of research and development for biological, electrical, and mechanical systems were developed. Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Thu, 28 Apr 88 00:18:01 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: A Soviet strategy for domination in space The Soviets appear to be onto a really clever strategy for becoming the dominant space civilizaton: Promote joint activities with the US in which NASA is encouraged to take as much credit for Soviet accomplishments as possible while doing as little real work as possible. This not only makes it appear that NASA is doing something for the vast sums of money it receives, but it hides the growing Soviet advantage over us in space! Oh, but this couldn't work because NASA bureaucrats would NEVER take credit for the accomplishments of others and, of course, the Soviets are too short sighted to let us have even a decade or two of feeling good about ourselves in exchange for the solar system. ;-) UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 88 05:16:18 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: How hot is it in space? Spacecraft thermal design is founded on well-understood physical principles, but that isn't quite the same thing as saying it's simple. One thing people have so far missed is that a body at "ordinary" temperatures emits thermal radiation at far longer infrared wavelengths than the much hotter sun, and a material's optical properties may be radically different at these two wavelengths. Any material's thermal properties must therefore be described by a PAIR of numbers, one representing its "absorbance" at optical and near-infrared wavelengths (denoted by lower-case alpha) and its "emissivity" at far-infrared wavelengths (denoted by lower-case epsilon). Both numbers range between 0 and 1, but it is their RATIO that is important. High a/e ratio materials run hot, low ratios run cold. A perfect black body would have a = e = 1. Ever wonder why a piece of bare metal gets so hot in the sun even though it's so shiny? Even though some materials reflect almost all of the visible light that hits them (i.e., are very inefficient at absorbing solar radiation), they are even LESS efficient at radiating much longer wavelengths. Most unfinished metals are in this category. The thermal design of a spacecraft must take into account the orbit (this determines the average solar input), the form of attitude control (which surfaces will face the sun, and for how long) and the internal dissipative loads of the payload. Surfaces facing dark sky for long periods (e.g., the north and south faces of geostationary communications satellites) are generally covered either with thermal blankets (which effectively decouple the underlying structure from the environment) or radiators, for getting rid of waste heat from transmitters, etc. Sun-facing surfaces are of course usually covered with solar cells, and this limits what you can do with their thermal characteristics. If the spacecraft does not spin, heat pipes are often used to transfer heat from the sunlit side to the shadowed side. Once a spacecraft's physical design is drafted, the thermal designer creates a computer model, incorporating verious points within the spacercraft as "nodes" and the conductive or radiative thermal connections between them. Even small, relatively simple spacecraft such as the AMSAT Phase 3 series are thermally modeled with several hundred nodes, and minor changes to the thermal coatings are often required as a result of the model. Phil ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Libertarians love NASA? Date: Thu, 28 Apr 88 12:01:54 -0400 From: Fred Baube mcvax!cernvax!hslrswi!ken@uunet.uu.net (Ken Ferschweiler) writes: > The party which advocates liberty, freedom, no-government-intervention, > etc., discourages its members from speaking their minds? I hope not. When you're in a party that prides itself on a modicum of intellectual consistency and reputability, factional- ism is bound to set in. It always seems to be the Statist "Left" that splinters itself, not the Statist "Right", so some ideolo- gies are more immune than others. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Apr 88 12:23:25 EST From: Lou Surface Subject: STS Stacking Problem I understand that the august launch has been delayed 10 days due to problems in stacking the vehicle. Is this related to any SRB engineering changes? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Apr 88 18:19:21 pdt From: Eugene N. Miya Subject: Yet another: RELEASE/Engineeering Centers Newsgroups: nasa.nasamail.l Cc: Les Reinertson Headquarters, Washington, D.C April 28, 1988 RELEASE: 88-58 NASA SELECTS UNIVERSITY SPACE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTERS NASA today announced the selection of nine universities to conduct long-term research into promising areas of space engineering and technology. This year's selection of University Space Engineering Research Centers includes new opportunities for university specialization such as Mars mission technologies, extraterrestrial materials, in-space construction and large space-based observatories. The university-based centers are eligible to receive up to $500,000 for the first year and may grow to over $1 million a year for a minimum of four years. The centers support NASA's goal to broaden the nation's engineering capability to meet the critical needs of the civilian space program. The Centers are: o The University of Arizona, Center for the Utilization of Local Planetary Resources; o The University of Cincinnati, Health Monitoring Technology Center for Space Propulsion Systems; o The University of Colorado, Boulder, Center for Space Construction; o The University of Idaho, Very Large Scale Integrated Hardware Acceleration Center for Space Research; o Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Space Engineering Research Focused on Controlled Structures Technology; o The University of Michigan, Center for Near-Millimeter Wave Communication and Sensing Technology; o North Carolina State University at Raleigh and North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, Mars Mission Research Center; o The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Space Propulsion Engineering; o Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Intelligent Robotic Systems for Space Exploration. The nine centers were selected from 115 proposals submitted last November to NASA in response to the agency's program announcement. The program's sponsor, the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, Washington, D.C., screened each proposal over a 6-month process that included a broadly-based national peer review followed by an internal NASA review. NASA plans another competitive round to expand the participation and grow the program over the next few years to about 20 universities. Timing and rate of growth will depend on budget availability. "This university-based center concept is an integral part of the strategy to rebuild the nation's space technology base. We are making a special effort to reach out to the university community and make a long-term commitment for space engineering research partnerships between NASA centers and universities. The program also will generate new talent and increase awareness in our program among college-bound space enthusiasts," said Dr. William F. Ballhaus, Jr., NASA's acting associate administrator for the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology. NASA grants for the University Space Engineering Research Program will support cross-disciplinary research of high potential payoff. The universities are expected to attract other support as their programs evolve. dbb@aicchi.UUCP (Burch) writes: >Say, folks... Could this explain (neatly) the occasional reports that >lunar observers have made of clouds of water vapor? I recall that these >have been from near the terminator, logical if a snowball hit during the >night, and was being vaporized by the sun. If this is so, all a lunar >colony need do for water is set up a network of sensors, and then collect >the debris before they sublime... If there are all these snowballs lying around on the Moon, waiting to be vaporised by a rising sun, then you are overlooking a MUCH more important point. The little green men who put them there. A comet or small comet or snowball is in orbit round the sun. If the moon gets in the way, the snowball would hit the lunar surface at a velocity measured in kilometers per second. (or miles per second if you are observing from the Space Station :->) Any snowball would be ionised by the impact, which would also make a large hole in the surface. Therefore, if there are any snowballs on the surface of the moon, someone put them there. Probably the same ones who put the face on Mars, and the B52 on the Moon. :-> :-> :-> :-> :-> :-> :-> :-> In case you haven't already guessed. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 28-APR-1988 22:34:34.12 From: LUCAS@sage.psy.cmu.edu Subject: re: Hawaiian launch sites To: unique-bb@a.psy.cmu.edu Attention: SPACE BBoard Reply-To: LUCAS@psy.cmu.edu Vaxnotes_Export: MESCAL Anyone who has ever visited the top of an Hawaiian volcano should think twice about the damage that would be done by installing a launch site in such a unique environment. A hike below the rim of Haleakala on Maui is a truely amazing trip--the closest thing to a walk on another planet that any of us are likely to experience. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #221 ******************* Return-Path: Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 May 88 06:36:13 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11806; Mon, 16 May 88 03:34:07 PDT id AA11806; Mon, 16 May 88 03:34:07 PDT Date: Mon, 16 May 88 03:34:07 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805161034.AA11806@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #222 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 222 Today's Topics: Re: KAL 007 Vocabulary lesson #1: "the space program" Re: Mars Space Photographs, Paintings and Prints Wanted Re: Hawaiian launch sites Re: Lunar observatory Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Shooting the Moon Shooting the Moon Re: Motivations For The Soviet Union To Go To Mars Re: Hawaiian launch sites Re: Lunar observatory ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 88 08:18 EDT From: RON PICARD Subject: Re: KAL 007 Stuart Lewis writes: > I do stand by my statement that the 707/-80 was strictly a commercial > venture by the companies board of directors - they banked nearly > everything on it's being a success. What company has that kind of guts now-adays? It's my understanding that the few companies that are trying to design and build a rocket are held up mainly due to acquiring launch facilities and mounds of red tape (Outer Space Treaty?). There are designs that would eliminate the need for a ground launch facility so what's holding them up? Ron Picard (PICARD@GMR.COM) ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Thu, 28 Apr 88 22:57:42 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Vocabulary lesson #1: "the space program" Vocabulary lesson #1: "the space program": The rotting carcas of Apollo which NASA bureaucrats keep around like a psycho with his long dead mother feeding pieces to gullible space enthusiasts, lacing it with opiates like "in 10 years $50/lbs to LEO!" and "permanent manned presence!" and "citizens in space!" to keep them stupified into not noticing the stench and believing that Mother might get up and walk any day now if only we would give NASA enough money. For example: "The space program is being given the charter of setting up settlements beyond Earth!" Which translated into straight-talk means: "Here, space enthusiast, we know you are unhappy that things didn't quite turn out the way O'Neill said back in the '70s what with Shuttle costing 200 times as much to fly as we said it would and blowing up teachers and stuff like that... but if you just swallow this Big Opiated Lie, you will forget all about NASA's rather, uh, revolting condition and think it will all be better any day now." UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Apr 88 08:30 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Re: Mars To: bidlack@usafa.arpa, donegan%stanton.tcc.com@relay.cs.net, space@angband.s1.gov > One aspect of a manned mission to Mars that I thing should be > discussed is the biological debate. In a past issue of Sky and > Telescope, ... thus Loudin argued, a manned landing on Mars should > be delayed until we are ABSOLUTELY sure there is no life on Mars. > Thoughts? > Hal Bidlack@usafa.arpa I think this worry about biological contamination stems fromm a grossly overoptimistic position some folks had on the chances for life existing on Mars. The conditions there are extremely bad. Viking landers detected no organic matter, even though carbonaceous chrondrites should bring it in in detectable amounts. This is apparently due to destruction by reactive oxygen bearing molecules produced by atmospheric photochemical reactions. Consider also that terrestrial life absolutely requires the existence of liquid water to reproduce. Liquid water cannot exist on Mars ... the partial pressure of water vapor in the atmosphere is far too low, even in the "moist" areas of the planet. Finally, Mars should not be viewed as a biologically isolated environment. Large impacts on Earth have likely lofted rocks into solar orbit. It has been argued ("The Rocky Road to Panspermia", Nature, 4/21/88) that some small fraction of these rocks suffer sufficiently little shock heating that viable microorganisms can exist. Some of the rocks would be perturbed into Mars-crossing orbits and could eventually hit that planet. In view of the conditions on Mars, any dormant microorganisms brought in would not revive, and would be quickly oxidized. Paul F. Dietz ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 88 18:16:02 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!yunexus!ists!waugh@uunet.uu.net (Don Waugh) Subject: Space Photographs, Paintings and Prints Wanted ISTS The Institute for Space and Terrestrial Sciences, located at York University, Toronto, Ontario is looking for pictures and prints of space related subject matter to decorate our soon to be offices and laboratories. We would appreciate receiving any information or suggestions on possible sources for such material. I might add that any donations will be gladly accepted. Many Thanks. Don Waugh ISTS ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 88 04:53:07 GMT From: vu-vlsi!swatsun!leif@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Leif Kirschenbaum) Subject: Re: Hawaiian launch sites In article <7897@ames.arpa> eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene N. Miya) writes: > Ach! You guys have such a lack of sensitivity! A great way to wreck one of > the best optical observing sites in the world. Okay, SPACE at all costs. > --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA > soon to be aurora.arc.nasa.gov > {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene But we will have our telescopes in space! :-) {Then we'll have to worry about where we park our shuttles, stations, and garbage. :-> } -- Leif Kirschenbaum '91 Swarthmore College UUCP: rutgers!bpa!swatsun!leif Internet: bpa!swatsun!leif@rutgers.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 88 17:15:00 GMT From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Lunar observatory In article <8804271354.AA21051@angband.s1.gov> KEVIN@A.CFR.CMU.EDU writes: > If you wish to base a radio telescope so that it is shielded from the >rather immense RF output of the earth, placing it on the lunar Farside >seems like a good idea. Something I haven't seen mentioned in detail >yet is how badly the moon would block 50% of the sky for two weeks every >two weeks. On earth the planet screens out large portions of the sky, >but there are enough radio telescopes to give fairly full coverage of >such time-limited events as novae and such. Kevin, it needn't be as bad as that if we think about it for a moment. In order to block the Earth's RF, you don't need to be at the exact antipode or center of the Lunar farside; anywhere over the limb as seen from Earth will do the trick. Taking libration into account, that leaves 4/5 of the farside to work in. If you placed one or more observatories around the East and West limbs, your total sky coverage at any given moment would be 85-90% by my rough calculation; probably even better since there are no Lunar horizon effects I'm aware of. So Congressman Iguanaface won't have any grist for his mill. If something big happens to occur in opposition to the Moon, we'd have to watch it via Earthside instruments (getting better all the time). Lunar observatories will be wonderful, but they will never constitute the whole observing mission - just a key component. PS you would want your observatories nearer the limb than the antipode anyway, because that way they can easily beam results Earthside via the geosync satellite network, which I don't think is visible from the nether reaches of the "lunar outback". -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: are you kidding? ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 88 22:19:56 GMT From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com (Jay Freeman) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon It sounds like a reasonable way to clear a landing strip, one merely worries about possible widespread effects of the blast that might mess up some of the very phenomena one wants to study (meteorology, suspended particles, surface dust and debries, who knows what). I think I would be less apprehensive about a planetary exploration program that assumed that the scientifically interesting things about the planet were in general extremely fragile, and that proceeded cautiously. "Shoot first and ask questions later" (... sorry, I couldn't resist ...) may not be the right way to perform such investigations. Of course, circulating your proposal widely increases the chances of somebody thinking of something that a nuclear explosion is likely to mess up, while there's still time to do it another way. -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 88 22:41:01 GMT From: polya!crew@labrea.stanford.edu (Roger Crew) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon Just what are the plans for this probe? You wouldn't happen to be planning any atmospheric studies, would you? ``Gee, there seems to be an awful lot of radioactive dust here; ...wouldn't have expected that...'' On the other hand, Mars being uninhabited, there won't be any environmentalists around to complain. :-) -- Roger (crew@polya.stanford.edu) ``Beam Wesley into the sun!'' ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 88 16:27:42 GMT From: paulf@shasta.stanford.edu (Paul A. Flaherty) Subject: Shooting the Moon I'm currently involved with the joint Stanford - JPL mission to Mars; for those of you who don't know about this, we're looking at placing an orbiter in sun - sync, two repeaters in "Molniya" orbits, and landing a pair of rovers. The biggest problem we're faced with at the moment is landing site selection, and crash landing aviodance, eg., not putting down on top of a large boulder. This is a rather difficult proposition, since the best hi-res photography we'll be able to get will have about 3m resolution (pessimistically), and we can, at best, tolerate 1m boulders. For this reason, my design partner and I have proposed a radical approach: build a landing site. The site would consist of a two kilometer wide flat landing strip, which will be easily visible to the lander. Construction benefits would include knowledge of regional atmospherics, seismic data generation, and lander simplification. Unfortunately, since Mars is currently uninhabited, we cannot simply hire a construction crew. Therefore, we are forced to consider a simple, engineered solution to landing field construction. The explosion of a 35 kiloton nuclear device, optomized for heat blast, at approximately 100m above the Martian surface, would create a glass-smooth landing pad, with the required dimensions, and the above stated benefits. No, this is not a joke. We're very serious about this. I'd appreciate comments / suggestions on this proposal. -- -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | "The architecture of the 80xxx series of Computer Systems Laboratory |microprocessors is clear evidence that INTEL Stanford University |isn't doing in-house drug testing." ->paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU | --Paul Flaherty ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 88 19:34:39 GMT From: rochester!ur-tut!kwa1_ltd@bbn.com (Karl Wagenfuehr Ltd.) Subject: Re: Motivations For The Soviet Union To Go To Mars In article <2885@s.cc.purdue.edu> ain@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Patrick White) writes: > > I think they have a bit more common sense than that... after all, they >didn't follow us to the moon, but rather concentrated on achiving what >they have now -- a permanently manned space station and now a space >shuttle... to our seemingly permantly grounded space shuttle. The old >tortoise and hare story all over again. I don't think the picture is as simple as that at all. The soviets *were* trying to get to the moon. Why should they have made their goal be permanent earth orbit way back then, when (literally) the moon wasn't the limit. Remember back to the sixties, those days of endless expansion. I don't think the soviets, especially in light of their approach of sensationalism in launches, didn't have the moon in mind. Remember, they were the first to orbit a man, first to orbit a woman, first to orbit two men, first to orbit *three* men, first to do an EVA, etc, etc. What makes you believe they didn't want first on the moon, too? When they saw that the United States was just about at the moon, and they realized it was pretty much hopeless to hope to get there first, they claimed they never wanted to go there to begin with. But how can we believe this? They never publicize their plans. We had no idea what they were planning. Because they never explicately stated they were going to the moon, it was easy for them to say they never intended to go there in the first place. But then, they never anounced *any* of their plans until they were successfully completed. And there is no reason not to believe that they wanted the moon. Permanently manned space stations were nothing back then. WHo cares that you can stay in earth orbit when others are going to the moon? I would also like to bring to your attention the fact that after getting bored with Apollo (blame Congress! Con is opposite pro as Congress is opposite progress), Skylab was sent up, and manned. It was no big deal, really. Yeah, a manned space station; big deal. I would like to remind you that Skylab was a lot bigger than Mir (how much I don't recall off hand). This slow turtle approach being better is just a load of bunk. We *had* a space station. A much better space station than that which we envy the soviets today. Permanent man presense in space is not such a big deal. It just requires persistence and money. I will concede on that point: the soviets are superior in that they stuck to their space program. Had the united states shown just half the persistance of the soviets, I don't think we'd be envying them anything right now. We were where they are now *15 years ago*! Just we got bored, and stopped supporting Space. Maybe it is true; maybe the soviets are better off in space right now. But I don't think this is due to any superiority on their part of them being so much more noble than we in persuing their goals. I think it is that we really screwed up back in the seventies, dropping down to almost nothing after the big days of Apollo. It is not how persistent the soviets are in space, but how *incredibly* unpersistent *we* are in space that is the crux of the matter, I feel. Karl ['(] kwa1_ltd@tut.cc.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 88 16:41:47 GMT From: paulf@shasta.stanford.edu (Paul A. Flaherty) Subject: Re: Hawaiian launch sites Wrongo. The US owns three VERY equatorial islands in the Pacific: Baker, Howard, and Jarvis, all of which are closer to the equator than French Guiana. -- -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | "The architecture of the 80xxx series of Computer Systems Laboratory |microprocessors is clear evidence that INTEL Stanford University |isn't doing in-house drug testing." ->paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU | --Paul Flaherty ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 88 22:01:08 GMT From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) Subject: Re: Lunar observatory > If you wish to base a radio telescope so that it is shielded from the >rather immense RF output of the earth, placing it on the lunar Farside >seems like a good idea. Something I haven't seen mentioned in detail >yet is how badly the moon would block 50% of the sky for two weeks every >two weeks. On earth the planet screens out large portions of the sky, >but there are enough radio telescopes to give fairly full coverage of >such time-limited events as novae and such. Kevin, it needn't be as bad as that if we think about it for a moment. In order to block the Earth's RF, you don't need to be at the exact antipode or center of the Lunar farside; anywhere over the limb as seen from Earth will do the trick. Taking libration into account, that leaves 4/5 of the farside to work in. If you placed one or more observatories around the East and West limbs, your total sky coverage at any given moment would be 85-90% by my rough calculation; probably even better since there are ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #222 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 May 88 12:39:28 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15102; Tue, 17 May 88 05:02:23 PDT id AA15102; Tue, 17 May 88 05:02:23 PDT Date: Tue, 17 May 88 05:02:23 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805171202.AA15102@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #223 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 223 Today's Topics: Ariane Launch V23 17-18 May Network session at 7th Space Develpment Conference Progress 36 to go up and Soviet Shuttle news Watch Cosmos 1900 Progress 36 docks with Mir Re: Re-evolving spaceflight after collapse of civilization Vocabulary lesson #2: "NASA contracting" Re: Mars Re: Cometesimals (was: Millions of comets hit Earth) Re: Shooting the Moon Vocabulary lesson #3: "NASA-bashing" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 May 88 14:08:36 GMT From: mcvax!esatst!neil@uunet.uu.net (Neil Dixon) Subject: Ariane Launch V23 17-18 May The launch of Ariane V23 will take place on the night of 17-18 May 1988. Launch window times are: 23:43 - 23:59 GMT 00:33 - 00:48 GMT 01:15 - 01:34 GMT The Ariane 2 launcher carries as single payload the communications satellite INTELSAT V, F13. This launch, V23, originally scheduled for a later launch-slot, has been brought forward and will thus be followed on 8th June by V22, the first start of ESA's new heavy launcher Ariane 4. Neil Dixon UUCP:...!mcvax!esatst!neil, BITNET: NDIXON@ESTEC Thermal Control & Life Support Division (YC) European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC), Noordwijk, The Netherlands. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 May 1988 17:43-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Network session at 7th Space Develpment Conference I will be chairing an ad-hoc get together entitled "Space Digest Discussion Group" at the 7th Space Development Conference in Denver. The session will be Sunday, May 29, 10am - 11am. The discussion is at current open, and I'd like to hear suggestions for the agenda. The emphasis should be on real, practical volunteer projects. I suggest some of the following: 1) Future of space-digest (ie after Ted moves) 2) Uses of Space-activists to advance the cause 3) Increasing the reach of our mail nets into FIDO, CBB's, commercial nets, etc. 4) Assignment or 'formalizing' areas of responsibility. Ie Henry Spencer is "Abstractor of AvLeak", Glenn Chapman is "Reporter of Soviet Space Runaway", Dale Amon is "Keeper of the Net Directory", Chris Welty is the "Keeper of the activists digest". We can discuss other ideas at the meeting. (I prefer that we do without a "Keeper of the Flame"!!) This session will probably overlap something that everyone wants to see, but that's the problem with conferences in general. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 May 88 21:26:10 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Progress 36 to go up and Soviet Shuttle news The USSR announced about a week ago (May 1) that Progress 36, the 12th cargo craft to Mir, would be launched about May 7th, yet as of May 11th it has not taken off. Indeed the Progress 35 craft, which brought 2.5 tonnes of supplies to Mir on Mar. 26, has been loaded with garbage, but appears to have been not yet separated from the Mir/Kvant complex. The exact reason for the delay has not been explained anywhere to date. One point is that just before that separation takes place they use the engines of the Progress to raise the space station's orbit (Mir watchers take note: data is going to be uncertain for the next week or so as the orbital elemeants will change substantially when the Progress is dropped). Recently it was confirmed to me by people at Pay Load Systems (the company with the contract to put material processing experimeants on Mir) that the docking of the Kvant module to the rear end of Mir meant that its main engines could not be used to make major orbital changes because of fears of damaging the experimeants on Kvant (astrophysical observation instruments). Also for what it is worth it appears now that the first Russian shuttle flight will be manned with two cosmonauts Igor Volk (Soyuz T12, July 17, 1984) and Anatoly Levchenko (Soyuz TM-4, Dec. 21, 1987). Pravda actually had a sketch of their shuttle about a week ago. They are still talking about a June flight. It has been known for some time that the cosmonaut corps were pushing for a manned first shuttle mission, and had trained for similar missions. One could speculate that the final factors pushing for this was two things. First it has been confirmed that the failure in the upper stage of Energiya was due to a software error which reversed the direction vectors of the stage during firing, not a failure of the engines or other guidance systems. Secondly the shuttle autolanding system development has been having some trouble. So when your robots fail you substitute humans for tasks humans have shown abilities to do. It looks like the next couple of months could be very exciting for the soviet program. Meanwhile we get shuttle fuel factories blowing up and more delays on the shuttle. Let us get a bit of move on here. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 88 20:25:50 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Watch Cosmos 1900 Keep an eye on COSMOS 1900. The AP wire is reporting that it appears to be another Soviet nuclear-powered ocean surveillance satellite that will re-enter the atmosphere instead of being boosted to a high orbit. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 88 09:46:05 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Progress 36 docks with Mir The USSR has today (May 15) docked Progress 36 with the Mir/Kvant space station. The cargo craft will deliver about 1 Tonne of fuel/air/water and 1.5 Tonnes of equipment, destined for use on the Bulgarian visiting mission scheduled for June 7th. This is the 12th Progress to visit Mir, the previous generation of Soviet stations (Salyut 6 and 7) received only 12 cargo craft each during their separate 5 years of operation. Mir has been in orbit 2.2 years so that this shows Mir to be twice as active in supply usage as the previous generation of stations. This is not surprising as Mir has been occupied for 547 days (continuously for 472 days). By comparison Salyut 6 had 669 days of occupancy, and Salyut 7 had 712 days. Thus the real difference with Mir is that it is being used more intensively than the previous Soviet space stations. Also the Progresses have now brought considerable equipment to Mir which has stayed on board (total mass brought by cargo craft now almost exceeds the mass of Mir and Kvant togeather and the operational station weight now appears to be over 50 Tonnes). Note that Vladimir Titov and Musahi Manarov have now been in orbit for 146 days on board the Mir complex. Just compare this operational capacity to the suggestion by the Cogressional Budget Office that we wait until 2005 AD for the NASA/International space station. That is just the type of leadership this country needs to be a third rate space power. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 88 00:57:30 GMT From: tektronix!orca!brucec@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Cohen) Subject: Re: Re-evolving spaceflight after collapse of civilization In article <8804280616.AA20191@crash.cts.com> pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil writes: >The responses to my assertion about the difficulty of reestablishing >the capability for the creation of a spacefaring civilization after >the collapse of civilization have focused on two ideas: > >1) We can find substitute materials for everything that we run out of. >and >2) We can recycle the metals we are now using so we won't run out of >them. > >The problem with 1 is ... some explication ... > If we do start running out of various critical >metals, we MIGHT find ways around them. Then again, we MIGHT NOT. > >The problem with 2 is ... more explication ... >the best we can expect is to get around 50% recovery of >the critical materials each time they go through the cycle. Those >metal atoms don't just dissapear, but they DO end up mixed with other >things that make it uneconomic to recover them. But ... how much of what materials do you need to bootstrap yourself as far as Luna or the asteroids, where you can find *very* large quantities of the meterials you need? If you make getting back into space a high priority for your entire society, then it shouldn't be a problem. I don't think that there is anything critical needed in more than kiloton lots, as long as you have lots of energy available; and there will always be sunshine. I simply can't believe that a culture which has developed spaceflight once already will have stripped its home planet so thoroughly that you can't find, say, a thousand tons of vanadium *somewhere*, even if you have to vaporize rock by the cubic kilometer and run it through a huge mass spectrograph. It may take time (perhaps centuries) and energy, but it should be *technically* possible. The real question is whether it would be *politically* possible. Hell, we (the US) can't even agree that we should commit the necessary resources when we *haven't* stripped ourselves bare. How much chance would the space program have if the resources necessary to make it self-sustaining amounted to half the GNP for several decades, rather than less than 1 percent? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The authorities are excellent at amassing facts, though they do not always use them to advantage." Sherlock Holmes, "The Naval Treaty" Bruce Cohen {the real world}...!tektronix!ruby!brucec brucec@ruby.TEK.COM Tektronix Inc., M/S 61-028, P.O. Box 1000, Wilsonville, OR 97070 ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Fri, 29 Apr 88 20:28:53 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Vocabulary lesson #2: "NASA contracting" Vocabulary lesson #2: "NASA contracting": The technique whereby NASA hires an unlimited number of employees and launders large amounts of money which is used by those employees to lobby for even more money without getting thrown in jail for violations of the Hatch Act. For example: "Several NASA contractors were given awards to study Space Station design." Which translated to straight-talk means: "Some NASA bureaucrats want a Big Project to be in charge of so they are giving their good ole boy buddies the incentive and resources to put propoganda for NASA on during network TV commercial breaks and torture their congressmen into engaging in pork-barrel politics not to mention placing ads in Spaceworld magazine for gullible space enthusiasts to get excited about." UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 88 06:54:52 GMT From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) Subject: Re: Mars In article <8804291350.AA24568@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@sdr.slb.COM ("Paul F. Dietz") writes: >I think this worry about biological contamination stems fromm a grossly >overoptimistic position some folks had on the chances for life existing on >Mars. The conditions there are extremely bad. Viking landers detected no >organic matter, even though carbonaceous chrondrites should bring it in in >detectable amounts. This is apparently due to destruction by reactive >oxygen bearing molecules produced by atmospheric photochemical reactions. Remember that the Viking landers only sampled 2 places on all of Mars, and those weren't even the places where atmospheric pressure and water vapor content are thought to be highest. They also did register some life-like reactions, which, while by no means being proof of life, deserve further investigation before being swept under the rug. Also, who is to say that life has to be organic? In _Genetic Takeover and the Origin of Life_ and also in a Scientific American article of a couple of years ago, A. G. Cairns-Smith makes a very respectable case for the hypothesis that the first life on Earth was in fact reproducing crystals capable of storing and transmitting genetic information and catalyzing metabolic reactions beneficial to themselves. According to the hypothesis, these organisms evolved nucleic acids and proteins as more flexible ways of dealing with their environment, but since nucleic acids can also store and transmit genetic information and be the basis of protein-synthesizing machinery, they took over from the crystalline genetic material and discarded it as superfluous. On Mars, mineral life would be more likely to hold its own due to the unfavorability of conditions there for organic matter. >Consider also that terrestrial life absolutely requires the existence of >liquid water to reproduce. Liquid water cannot exist on Mars ... the >partial pressure of water vapor in the atmosphere is far too low, even >in the "moist" areas of the planet. Liquid water is not stable on Mars, but since frost (or maybe even snow) can form there and accumulate during the night and then be heated by the Sun when morning comes around, liquid water could exist transiently. From working in biology labs and having to vacuum-dry samples I know that water just doesn't boil very well in vacuum if it has stuff (particularly salts) dissolved in it. I have left samples in the lyophilizer for an hour and come back and found large drops of liquid still sitting there, even though the vacuum gauge couldn't detect any pressure (and the pressure was almost certainly less than on Mars -- low enough to boil away nearly pure water at a reasonable speed). >Finally, Mars should not be viewed as a biologically isolated environment. >Large impacts on Earth have likely lofted rocks into solar orbit. It has >been argued ("The Rocky Road to Panspermia", Nature, 4/21/88) that some >small fraction of these rocks suffer sufficiently little shock heating that >viable microorganisms can exist. Some of the rocks would be perturbed into >Mars-crossing orbits and could eventually hit that planet. In view of the >conditions on Mars, any dormant microorganisms brought in would not revive, >and would be quickly oxidized. Terrestrial microorganisms that use oxygen have enzymes to deal with oxidizing radicals and other nasty stuff. Considering that some cyanobacteria and archaebacteria are capable of growing in boiling sulfuric acid (which is a pretty strong oxidizer), and that other organisms have been shown to be able to grow in conditions which simulate Martian conditions, I would not be surprised if something found Martian conditions to be similar enough to its terrestrial niche to be able to adapt. > Paul F. Dietz -- Lucius Chiaraviglio chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu lucius@tardis.harvard.edu (in case the first one doesn't work) Maybe your next spaceflight should be on a train. STARTRAK ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 88 17:20:15 GMT From: killer!netsys!nucleus!hacker@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Thomas Hacker) Subject: Re: Cometesimals (was: Millions of comets hit Earth) In article <880422134517.2698@Iowa> kistler%Iowa.Iowa@IAGO.CALTECH.EDU.UUCP writes: >It doesn't. It (re)freezes. Every few million years Mars warms up (since the >water that is in vapor form creates a greenhouse effect just like CO2); the >ice thaws; rivers flow on Mars. There are lots of images of dry river beds on >Mars, river beds millions of years younger than the craters 10 feet away. >THEN Mars loses the water, because it's so warm. Start all over again, etc. > Water on Mars?? Could you please point me to references that substantiate this? -- Thomas J. Hacker ...!uunet!umix!nucleus!hacker (hacker@nucleus.UUCP) Physics/CS Undergrad Oakland University "Physics is the poetry of nature." Rochester, MI 48063 ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 88 00:13:39 GMT From: tlh@purdue.edu (Thomas L Hausmann) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon Yes, but doesn't this violate a treaty? ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Sat, 30 Apr 88 18:06:12 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Vocabulary lesson #3: "NASA-bashing" Vocabulary lesson #3: "NASA-bashing": Any criticism of NASA that some NASA apologist wants to discredit as irrational, indiscriminate, ill conceived or ill founded when, in fact, their SUPPORT of NASA is irrational, indiscriminate, ill conceived or ill founded. For example: "Feynman's NASA-bashing was uncalled for and destructive to the tough job of rebuilding our space program." Which translated into straight-talk means: "Feynman dared question NASA when NASA is our only pathetic hope of developing a spacefaring civilization because people like me are too shallow to put ourselves on the line to help create viable alternatives." UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #223 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 May 88 06:39:34 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01466; Wed, 18 May 88 03:27:27 PDT id AA01466; Wed, 18 May 88 03:27:27 PDT Date: Wed, 18 May 88 03:27:27 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805181027.AA01466@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #224 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 224 Today's Topics: Soviet Space Shuttle Launch date Arianne launch Mir elements, epoch 12 May NASA News NASA Prediction Bulletins Space & General Relativity On Television - "PIONEERING THE FUTURE: America in Space" Motivations For The Soviet Union To Go To Mars Re: Lunar observatory ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 May 88 17:51:15 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: Soviet Space Shuttle Launch date Just heard that the Soviet Space Shuttle is set for launch on May 18. Dignitaries are assembling at the Baikonur Cosmodrome for the event. Cable News Network is supposed to televise live. If I knew the time of launch I could compute the orbit and determine if North America has a chance to see it. Please send mail. Thanks. Bruce. ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 88 20:36:32 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Arianne launch Just got the word that tomorrow's ESA launch is scheduled for 4:43 PDT/ 7:43 EDT (of course, your mileage may vary!). The window extends for 5 minutes. As with previous launches, this should be broadcast on the Spacenet 1 satillite, somewhere around transponder 21. About the Red-Shuttle launch, you may want to check the Telstar 301 satillite during the count. That is where CNN picked up their broadcast for that live Soyuz launch last year. ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 88 04:54:00 GMT From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements, epoch 12 May [Predictions made with this set may well be untrustworthy, as recent news releases lead analysts to expect a reboost within the next few days.] Mir 1 16609U 88132.77585481 0.00020557 13652-3 0 1955 2 16609 51.6199 254.4461 0021701 316.7364 43.0666 15.75131381128092 Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 195 Epoch: 88132.77585481 Inclination: 51.6199 degrees RA of node: 254.4461 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0021701 Argument of perigee: 316.7364 degrees Mean anomaly: 43.0666 degrees Mean motion: 15.75131381 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00020557 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 12809 Semimajor axis: 6722.35 km Apogee height*: 358.78 km Perigee height*: 329.60 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 88 01:21:28 GMT From: cu-den!udenva!isis!scicom!embudo!markf@boulder.colorado.edu (markf) Subject: NASA News NASA NEWS - April 19, 1988 SCOUT ROCKET TO LAUNCH NAVY NAVIGATION SATELLITE Two U.S. Navy navigation satellites are scheduled to be launched aboard a NASA Scout rocket April 25 from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. The 8-minute launch window for the Stacked Oscars on Scout (SOOS-3) mission opens at 6:57 p.m., PDT. The pair of Oscar satellites, each weighing 141 pounds, will be placed into a 600-nautical-mile circular polar orbit. The Oscars are part of the Navy's long-established, continuous all-weather global navigation system. The Scout-launched Navy navigation satellites have been used for all-weather global navigation since July 1964, originally to support Navy fleet ballistic missile submarines. Made available to non-Navy users in 1967, the spacecraft have since been adapted for diverse civilian uses such as commercial shipping, charting of offshore oil and mineral deposits and land survey projects. The system provides position information within one tenth of a nautical mile anywhere in the world. The upcoming launch marks Scout's 110th flight and follows closely on the heels of the Scout San Marco D/L launch which took place March 25 from the San Marco Range platform in the Indian Ocean. Two additional Scout launches, both for the Navy, are presently manifested in 1988: NOVA-II scheduled for June and SOOS-4 targeted for August. The Scout program is managed by NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va. The four stage, solid-propellant rockets are built by the Missiles Division of LTV Missiles and Electronics Group, Dallas, Texas. ------------------------------------------------------------ NASA News Release 88-55 April 19, 1988 By James Cast Headquarters, Washington, D.C and Jean Drummond Clough Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va. Reprinted with permission for Electronic Distribution ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 88 20:28:13 GMT From: ut-emx!tskelso@sally.utexas.edu (TS Kelso) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins For those of you who are interested in satellite tracking, the most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (512) 892-4180, and are updated several times weekly. As a service to the amateur satellite community, the most current of these elements are uploaded weekly to rec.ham-radio. The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. -- TS Kelso ARPA: tskelso@emx.cc.utexas.edu The Center for Space Research The University of Texas at Austin UUCP: {ihnp4,allegra}!ut-emx!tskelso ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 May 88 09:41:46 CDT From: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Abrams) Posted-Date: Sun, 1 May 88 09:41:46 CDT Subject: Space & General Relativity Does anyone have any information as to which NASA offices are overseeing the planned tests of General Relativity in the coming decade? I refer specifically to the ranging tests (both up- and down-links) of the Galileo and Ulysses probes as well as the tests for "frame-dragging" on the solar polar probe and the Earth-orbiting Gravity Probe B1. Are they each being supervised by the individual teams overseeing each probe or is there some person/office/dept. responsible for coordinating them and their results? I am also interested in obtaining any technical information on the hardware and design of these experiments. Thanks! Steve Abrams ARPANET: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu c/o Graduate Office CompuServe: [70376,1025] Dept. of Physics (512)480-0895 University of Texas at Austin OR Austin, TX 78705 c/o Students for the Exploration and Development of Space "The rate of increase of P.O. Box 7338 the entropy of the 358 Texas Union universe reaches its University of Texas at Austin maximum value in my Austin, TX 78713-7883 immediate vicinity." (512)471-7097 ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 88 03:05:40 GMT From: phoenix!pucc!EWTILENI@princeton.edu (Eric Tilenius) Subject: On Television - "PIONEERING THE FUTURE: America in Space" THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR REPORTS is a weekly syndicated news program which dedicates each 30 minute segment to exploring current issues in depth. This week: PIONEERING THE FUTURE America in Space I've found that Monitor Reports handles issues quite well, so this feature on space should be one you'll want to catch! You can see it on The Learning Channel, or on the TV stations listed below... Some markets have it on at odd hours, so set that VCR, but don't miss it! PIONEERING THE FUTURE: America in Space runs April 29 - May 5, on the days listed below. STATE CITY STATION/CHANNEL TIME DAY AL Biringham/Tuscaloosa WDBB 17 4:00am Sun AL Gadsen WNAL 44 4:00am Sun AL Huntsville/Florence WTRT 26 4:30pm Sun AR Little Rock KLRT 16 12:30am Mon AZ Kingman KMOH 6 5:30pm Sun AZ Phoenix/Kingman K36AZ 36 10:00pm Sun AZ Phoenix/Prescott KUSK 7 11:00am Sun CA Barstow KVVT 64 9:00am Sun CA Eureka KREQ 23 11:30am Sun CA Fresno KAIL 53 9:30am Sun CA Los Angeles KWHY 22 6:00am Sun CA Los Angeles/Anaheim KDOC 56 1:30am Tues CA Los Angeles/Oxnard KADY 63 11:30am Sun CA Monterey/Salinas KNTV 11 6:00am Sun CA Palm Springs KMIR 36 6:30am Sun CA Sacramento KTXL 40 5:30am Sat CA San Diego KUSI 51 6:30am Sat CA San Francisco KWBB 38 7:00am Sun CA San Francisco KWBB 38 7:00am Mon CA San Fran./Santa Rosa KFTY 50 8:30am Sun CA SantaBarbara/SantaMaria KCOY 12 7:00am Sun CA Victorville KVVT 64 9:00am Sun CO Durango KREZ 6 10:00am Sun CO Glenwood Spr./CarbondaleKREG 3 12:30am Sat CO Grand Junction KREX 5 12:30am Sat CO Montrose KREY 10 12:30am Sat CT Hartford W13BF 13 12:30am Tues DC Washington WDCA 20 5:30am Sun FL Fort Myers WINK 11 11:00am Sun FL Miami WBFS 33 6:00am Sat FL Orlando WOFL 35 6:00am Sat FL Tallahassee WTXL 27 7:30am Sun FL Tampa/Lakeland WTMV 32 5:30am Sun GA Albany/Valdosta WVGA 44 9:30am Sun GA Atlanta WGNX 46 6:30am Sat GA Augusta W67BE 67 8:00pm Tues GA Savannah/Hardeeville WTGS 28 7:00am Sun HI Honolulu KMGT 26 12:30pm Tues IA Davenport/Burlington KJMH 26 10:30pm Sat IA Des Moines KDSM 17 6:30am Sun IA Des Moines/Marshalltown KDAO 39 4:30pm Sun IA Ottumwa KOIA 15 10:30pm Sat ID Twin Falls K-49 49 7:00pm Sat * IL Chicago WGN 9 5:30am Sun IL Springfield WRSP 55 7:00am Sat KS Junction City K-06KZ 6 10:30pm Sat KS Wichita/Salina KHCT 34 10:30pm Sat KY Louisville/Jeffersonvil W05BA 5 12:30am Tues KY Louisville/Jeffersonvil W05BA 5 4:30am Tues LA New Orleans WGNO 26 12:30am Mon LA Shreveport KSLA 12 7:00am Sat MA Boston WQTV 68 10:00pm Sun MA Boston/Norwell WRYT 46 6:00pm Tues MA Hyannis WCVX 58 11:30am Sun MA Hyannis WCVX 58 8:30am Thurs ME Portland WPXT 51 11:30pm Sun MI Grand Rapids WXMI 17 6:30am Sun MI Lansing WSYM 47 10:30am Sat MI Traverse City/St.Ignace W13BH 13 6:30pm Sun MS Jackson/Natchez WNTZ 48 11:45pm Sat NC Greensboro/Winston-SalemWGGT 48 6:30am Sun NC Hickory WHKY 14 10:00am Sun NC Hickory WHKY 14 9:30pm Thurs NC Rocky Mount W47AG 47 7:30am Sun ND Fargo/Moorhead KVRR 15 7:00am Sat ND Grand Forks/Thief River KBRR 10 7:00am Sat ND Pembina/Winnipeg, MN KNRR 12 7:00am Sat NE Lincoln/Hastings KHAS 5 10:00am Sun NH Merrimak WGOT 60 7:00pm Sun NM Albuquerque/Santa Fe KNMZ 2 7:30am Sat NV Reno TV55 55 5:30pm Sun NY Elmira WETM 18 9:30am Sun * NY New York WPIX 11 6:00am Sat * NY New York WPIX 11 6:30am Sun NY Olean/Buffalo W20AB 20 12:30pm Tues NY Olean/Buffalo W20AB 20 8:00pm Tues NY Rochester WUHF 31 6:00am Sun NY Rochester WUHF 31 10:00am Sun NY Utica WTUV 33 7:00am Sun OH Clevland/Bucyrus W54AF 54 6:00pm Fri OH Clevland/Mansfield WCOM 68 6:30am Sun OH Columbus/Worthington WWAT 53 12:00pm Sun OH Toledo WUPW 36 8:00am Sat OK Oklahoma City KTVY 4 6:30am Sat OK Oklahoma City KTVY 4 11:30am Sun OR Bend/Powell Butte K48BL 48 9:30pm Mon OR Portland KPDX 49 6:30am Sat PA Harrisburg/Red Lion WGCB 49 12:00pm Sun PA Harrisburg/Red Lion WGCB 49 5:00pm Wed PA Johnstown/Altoona WFAT 19 9:30am Sat PA Pittsburgh WPTT 22 7:00am Sun PR San Juan WSJU 18 12:00pm Sun SC Beaufort/Hilton Head WTGS 28 9:30am Sun SC Greenville/Spartanburg WAXA 40 1:30pm Sun SD Sioux Falls K-42 42 10:30pm Sun SD Sioux Falls K-42 42 12:00pm Tues SD Sioux Falls K-42 42 9:30pm Tues TN Chattanooga WDSI 61 7:00am Sun TX Dallas KTXA 21 7:00am Sat TX El Paso KDBC 4 6:30am Sun TX Houston KHOU 11 11:00am Sun TX Houston/Livingston KETX 5 11:30pm Mon TX San Angelo KIDY 6 7:30am Sun TX San Antonio KENS 5 1:35am Mon TX San Antonio/Eagle Pass CBBL 7 6:30pm Sat TX Victoria K-55 55 9:30pm Sat UT Salt Lake City KDL 55 10:00pm Sat WA Seattle/Tacoma KCPQ 13 6:30am Sat WA Spokane/Wenatchee KCWT 27 8:00am Sat WI Madison WMSN 47 7:00am Sat WI Madison W5BD 5 11:30pm Mon WV Clarksburg/Bridgeport WDTV 5 12:30am Mon WV Parkersburg WTAP 15 10:30am Sun WY Casper KFNB 20 7:30am Sun WY Laramie UWTV var 1:00pm Sat WY Rawlins KFNR 11 7:30am Sun WY Riverton KFNE 10 7:30am Sun * This superstation broadcasts extensively throughout the country. Check your local cable-TV listings for broadcasts in your area. The Christian Science Monitor Reports can be viewed on "The Learning Channel," a cable network available in many cities. It airs at 10:30pm Saturday, 12:00 midnight Sunday, and 11:30am Thursday (Eastern time). For a written transcript, call 617-247-5707. Be sure not to miss PIONEERING THE FUTURE: America in Space, this week on The Christian Science Monitor Reports! - ERIC - *----------------------===> SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------* * ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU // ewtileni@pucc.BITNET * * rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni // princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni * * ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"* *--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------* ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 88 07:22:25 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Motivations For The Soviet Union To Go To Mars NO FLAMES! Rational Discussion okay. The Soviet Union has a public-relational reason for making their next big goal a mission to Mars rather than the Moon. If they go to the Moon, they are doing somthing the US did 20 years ago. Mars has not been visited by humans. Of course this is is not their only motivation, by far. I merely point out that it exists. -- Doug Reeder USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!douglas 10 Cyclopedia Square from BITNET: douglas@reed.UUCP Terminus City from ARPA: tektronix!reed!douglas@berkley Terminus,The Foundation Box 502 Reed College,Portland,OR 97202 ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 88 17:06:06 GMT From: mtunx!mtuxo!mtuxj!lmg1@rutgers.edu (xf3aa4-L.GEARY) Subject: Re: Lunar observatory It's true that an observatory positioned on the lunar farside exactly opposite the earth would see only 50% of the sky. But you could place other observatories near the poles and the east and west limbs - still on the farside and shielded from the earth. Each site would see a different 50%, and together they would cover most of the sky most of the time. They might even be linked together to form a long baseline interferometer. An earth orbiting observatory is not the only other alternative. Put it into solar orbit between earth and Mars, or even further out (how about a long trip beyond Pluto's orbit?). Larry Geary ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #224 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 May 88 06:41:12 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03227; Thu, 19 May 88 03:39:10 PDT id AA03227; Thu, 19 May 88 03:39:10 PDT Date: Thu, 19 May 88 03:39:10 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805191039.AA03227@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #225 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 225 Today's Topics: Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Shooting the Moon Article in "The Plain Truth" on why the US is behind in space. Vocabulary lesson #4: "Space Shuttle" How YOU can REALLY become an astronaut! Anthropic Principle Article in "The Plain Truth" on why the US is behind in space private industry and remote sensing of Mars Antimatter Propulsion ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 May 88 16:29:14 GMT From: paul.rutgers.edu!styx.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon In article <2739@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU> paulf@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU (Paul A. Flaherty) writes: [problems finding places for a Mars mission to land] > The explosion of a 35 kiloton nuclear device, optomized for heat blast, at ^^^^^^ > approximately 100m above the Martian surface, would create a glass-smooth > landing pad, with the required dimensions, and the above stated benefits. (Let's call a spade a spade and a bomb a bomb, shall we?) > No, this is not a joke. We're very serious about this. Glad you said that last. I'll give it a serious answer. Technically, I see no reason why it couldn't be made to work. But it's just a dumb idea. It should not be done. First, it's a violation of the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions treaty, which forbids use of nuclear weapons in space. Unlike ABM, I don't think this point is subject to interpretation. It's not a good idea, unless you want to start another cold war. Second, it puts us in the position of using the most violent force ever developed to accomplish part of what should be a peaceful mission of scientific exploration. From one standpoint, it looks like taking the supreme step of mindless agression against a place we've never even been. Third, because of the politics, it would never happen. You just wouldn't get funded. Fourth, it's not necessary. I can think of at least five possible alternatives: - Use steerable parachutes and a smart robot to beat the 4-minute speed-of-light delay. - Use a balloon, with same control methodology and purpose. - Land a constructor robot,in any reasonable manner, and use it to clear a landing field. - Use a nuclear-powered long-duration-flight aircraft or a steerable lighter-than-air craft to scout out a landing site. - Make some passes with a low-orbiting vehicle for the same purpose. By the way, with regard to the 3-meter resolution, I don't believe that current imaging technology is that limited. What about our spysats? Don't they resolve to less than one meter from LEO? Why do it the dumb way when you can do it the smart way? You'd learn much more. ----- "It's like using an H-bomb to kill a rabbit." - Robert A. Heinlein, _Tunnel in the Sky_ ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 03:41:36 GMT From: natinst!bigtex!james@cs.utexas.edu (James Van Artsdalen) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon IN article , masticol@styx.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) wrote: > In article <2739@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU> paulf@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU > (Paul A. Flaherty) writes: > [problems finding places for a Mars mission to land] > > The explosion of a 35 kiloton nuclear device, optimized for heat blast, at > > approximately 100m above the Martian surface, would create a glass-smooth > > landing pad, with the required dimensions, and the above stated benefits. > (Let's call a spade a spade and a bomb a bomb, shall we?) You can use explosives to build land mines to kill people in battle, gunpowder to shoot them, and bombs to obliterate them. That does not prevent their use as demolition charges, or to clear construction sites in rocky terrain (small rocks being easier to move than a big rock), or even in research (I recall an article in Scientific American a while back on various uses for chemical explosives in shock research and as welding technique). A similar argument applies here. > First, it's a violation of the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions treaty, > which forbids use of nuclear weapons in space. Unlike ABM, I don't > think this point is subject to interpretation. It's not a good idea, > unless you want to start another cold war. Mars is a planet, not open space. They are not proposing to use the device as a weapon but as a tool (read my paragraph above to understand importance of intent to this). Also, I gather Mr. Masticola doesn't intend to surprise anyone with the blast (except the Martians :-). We test detonate warheads to verify their stability anyway: why not get something useful for it? In any case, it would presume this *more* open to interpretation on the grounds that there are no military issues or advantages involved here: I assume this is a purely scientific endeavor. I agree it unlikely. Congress does tend to avoid the merits of issues quite consistently. > Fourth, it's not necessary. I can think of at least five possible > alternatives: > > - Use steerable parachutes and a smart robot to beat the > 4-minute speed-of-light delay. > - Use a balloon, with same control methodology and purpose. I think this very much harder than you suggest. I do not think it possible with any degree of assurance yet (ie, maybe some tests in the lab work, but not in the field where you risk a >$1b mission on it). > Why do it the dumb way when you can do it the smart way? You'd learn > much more. Why do it the expensive way when you can save money for other projects? I personally have reservations about using even a small tactical nuke to clear a landing site, due to disruptions of the very environment you want to study. Presumably the lander is then going to have to travel some distance to get away from the fallout. However, I have no inherent paranoia about the concept. -- James R. Van Artsdalen ...!ut-sally!utastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746 ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 07:47:44 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Article in "The Plain Truth" on why the US is behind in space. "America has become permissive, lacking in determination and self-discipline." "But unless there is a massive moral and spiritual turnaround and acknowledgement of national sins, the nation will head down the slippery slope that leads to ever grater troubles." Plain Truth, May-June 1988 Now why didn't we think of that? -- Doug Reeder USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!douglas 10 Cyclopedia Square from BITNET: douglas@reed.UUCP Terminus City from ARPA: tektronix!reed!douglas@berkley Terminus,The Foundation Box 502 Reed College,Portland,OR 97202 ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Sun, 1 May 88 12:44:08 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Vocabulary lesson #4: "Space Shuttle" Vocabulary lesson #4: "Space Shuttle" pron: An exploding myth. Once touted as a "space truck" hauling cargo to space at $50/lb, it proved to be most useful as a religious icon of NASA's space religion by using up so much money that everyone had to believe in it with religious fervor. This religious fervor is even more important to sustain since Space Shuttle has turned a teacher to astroburger before the expectant eyes of millions of aspiring school children who now have nightmares about going to space instead of dreams. For example: "Once Space Shuttle is flying safely again, our space program can move forward!" Which translated into straight-talk means: "Get that phallic sky god thrusting into heaven again before the stupid natives wake up and realize that we haven't had a real space program in 20 years!" UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Sun, 1 May 88 13:15:13 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: How YOU can REALLY become an astronaut! So you want to be an astronaut? Here's how you can REALLY do it: First, recognize that you have absolutely no hope of ever becoming an astronaut under NASA's space program or anything like it. Second, do everything you can to help lower the cost of launch to low earth orbit. Once again, remember that there is absolutely no hope of this happening within NASA's space program or anything like it so forget about programs like ALS or NASP. Instead, do everything you can to protect private companies like Boeing's commercial division which along with Hughes would develop and sell launch services based on the Jarvis design if NASA were prevented from ever engaging in development programs like ALS (this is virtually a quote from a person high up in Boeing). Another item critical to this goal is to make sure that part of the approximately $10B/year (like around $6B to $8B) is provided to scientists who want to launch things to orbit and require that they launch on private launch services. Also, require high volume military requirements (such as the navigation satellites) be launched via private services. In order to pursue these policy objectives, forget about trying to talk the leaders of SpacePac, SpaceCause and the NSS Legislative Committee into it. If they were acting in good faith toward these goals they would have placed protection of private launch services at the top of their priorities and beat the hell out of congress about letting Fletcher get away with ignoring the new Reagan space policy's push toward use of private services. Instead, they are supporting whatever NASA sees as a good idea this week. Replace the leadership of these bodies AND act on your OWN to support these policy objectives by getting involved with candidates for political office in the >1990< election NOW! Third, give yourself valuable skills in potential launch service companies, potential space facilities companies and, most importantly, in applications of space technology such as materials science. If that means you have to go back to school, start looking for a good materials school now and figure out how you are going to get your degree before the turn of the century. Good places to start looking for advice and direction are leading edge semiconductor companies, AMROC, Boeing commercial, Office of Commercial Space Transportation (Transportation Dept.), Hughes and your public library. Stay away from SDI related fields -- it is a house of cards that will collapse in the next few years. Fourth, start making PERSONAL connections with people who appear to have the integrity to try to get to do things in space based on their own merit rather than with Other People's Money (taxpayer's money). These are people who have their own ideas and ambitions regarding commercial space enterprises. There are a lot of crazies among these folks, but don't let that stop you from getting to know them and what their visions are. SOME of them are going to be the entrepreneurs of the coming space age. (No, we haven't yet entered the space age in the West... when we enter the space age for real, everyone will KNOW it.) Ad Astra! Jim Bowery PHONE: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 La Jolla, CA 92038 UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 15:05:03 EDT From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu Subject: Anthropic Principle To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu laura@vax.darpa.mil asks about the name of the idea that our universe is specially designed for us observers, because otherwise we wouldn't be around to observe it. It is called the Anthropic Principle, from the Greek word for man. A great (in size as well as quality) discussion of the history of the idea, its role in science (including several correct predictions made on the basis of it), and its implications for our future and the future of the universe can be found in: MEDIA book LANGUAGE english AUTHOR Barrow, John D., 1952- and Tipler, Frank J. TITLE The anthropic cosmological principle LC-CARD 85-004824 CITATION Oxford [Oxfordshire] ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1985. 8510 xx, 706 p. : ill. ; 25 cm. NOTES Includes index. Bibliography: p. 677-682 SUBJECT Cosmology. Man. Teleology. Intellect. Life on other planets. Science Philosophy. ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 09:03:22 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Article in "The Plain Truth" on why the US is behind in space "America has become permissive, lacking in determination and self-discipline." "But unless there is a massive moral and spirtual turnaround and an acknowledgement of national sins, the nation will contitue to head down the slippery slope that leads to ever greater troubles." "The Plain Truth" May-June 1988 Now why didn't we think of that? -- Doug Reeder USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!douglas 10 Cyclopedia Square from BITNET: douglas@reed.UUCP Terminus City from ARPA: tektronix!reed!douglas@berkley Terminus,The Foundation Box 502 Reed College,Portland,OR 97202 ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 14:43:00 CDT From: "ASUIPF::MC" Subject: private industry and remote sensing of Mars To: "space" Reply-To: "ASUIPF::MC" First off, yes, I do work on Mars Observer; I'm doing ground data systems for the Mars Observer Camera. I don't believe there is a commercial company in the world that could put a spacecraft in Martian orbit and operate it. The main lack is that no one except NASA has the Deep Space Network, which seems like an essential component to communicate with such a spacecraft. As far as the spacecraft goes -- MO is being designed by RCA (now GE) Astro-Space Division in Princeton, NJ. They're the same people who designed spacecraft like Tiros and DMSP (Defense Metsat Program). JPL is not designing this spacecraft per se, they just write the specs. (And some stories could be told about those specs.) So I still claim that MO is as close to being "contracted out" as one could come today. I doubt very much that there will ever be a commercial company that could do a "turnkey" interplanetary mission. Not until going to other planets becomes a commercially-viable thing to do. Mike Caplinger, mc@moc.jpl.nasa.gov ------ ------------------------------ To: andromeda@intermail.isi.edu Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Antimatter Propulsion Date: Mon, 02 May 88 13:39:25 PDT From: Scott Pace NEW BOOK ON ANTIMATTER BY BOB FORWARD Bob Forward and Joel Davis has just come out with a new book called "Mirror Matter - Pioneering Antimatter Physics" It covers how antimatter can be produced in large (gram) quantities, how antimatter can be captured and stored, and how it can be used efficiently for space power and propulsion. The work summarizes the results of work in the U.S. and overseas, from both government and university researchers. The sections on using antihydrogen -hydrogen engines for interplanetary and intersteller missions are particularly interesting. Published in hardback, John Wiley & Sons, 1988 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #225 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 May 88 06:36:19 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04992; Fri, 20 May 88 03:34:32 PDT id AA04992; Fri, 20 May 88 03:34:32 PDT Date: Fri, 20 May 88 03:34:32 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805201034.AA04992@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #226 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 226 Today's Topics: Titan SRBs Re: Unused Saturn V's Vocabulary lesson #5: "Planetary Science" A Heretical Suggestion Window of Opportunity? Re: Window of Opportunity? Re: Space Station Names Re: Space Station Names Re: Space Station Names Re: Space Station Names Space Station Names, etc... Re: Space Station Names Re: Space Station Names Station Heinlein Re: Space Station Names Naming the space station. Re: Space Station Names Re: Space Station Names Re: Space Station Names Re: Naming the space station. Going to Mars ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 May 88 08:12:18 PDT From: Allyn Lai Subject: Titan SRBs The Titan SRBs are produced by the Chemical Systems Division of United Technologies Corp. Allyn Lai ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 17:12:09 GMT From: al@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Al Globus) Subject: Re: Unused Saturn V's >From article <8804221939.AA13686@angband.s1.gov>, by GODDEN@gmr.COM: > Last month I saw an aging Saturn V on the ground at Cape Canaveral and > ... saying he thought it was criminal. > Who's to blame? Why aren't they in prison? Why do I smell > the stench of Congress? Richard Nixon cut the lunar flight program. He was pardoned for Watergate so I doubt you'll get him for this. Congress has been very supportive of NASA, at least until Challenger and the budget crises. Before that, Congress routinely increased NASAs money over Reagan's requests. I guess you'll have to dump you pre-conceptions about Congress and put the blame where it belongs, on the presidency. ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Tue, 3 May 88 00:35:23 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Vocabulary lesson #5: "Planetary Science" Planetary Science, n, an arcane ritual in which the life's work and creative essence of thousands of graduate students and research scientists are sacrificed through slow torture so that NASA may remain in the good graces of congress and continue to receive large amounts of money while it does no science and flies no missions. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 88 17:46:40 GMT From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) Subject: A Heretical Suggestion >NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry I seem to recall that commercial aviation got a boost when the Post Office starting sending airmail. Okay, maybe they lost a bag or two initially. But another hero like Lindbergh would help a whole lot right now. So maybe the Shuttle program should be removed from NASA's purview and given to the USPS! And the private sector can be represented by FedEx... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 May 88 13:19 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Window of Opportunity? The idea that we have a short window to get into space before resources are exhausted is at best dubious. First of all, if hydrothermal ore deposits are so important, going into space won't help much; such deposits are not likely to be found on the moon or the asteroids. We are certainly not running out of common materials like iron or aluminum. Bauxite deposits may be limited, but we can get aluminum from garden-variety rocks (as lunar mining fans point out) or from clay (kaolinite). So, discussion of entirely metal-free technologies is unnecessary. Availability of any mineral increases and demand decreases as the price rises. At the prices needed to justify E.T. sources, available terrestrial supplies of most materials are enormous. Substitutability is the rule rather than the exception in technology. This principle can only become more valid as our knowledge of materials increases, and as cheaper ores are mined out, increasing the incentive to find substitutes. (An aside: materials research is important, and has been claimed as a justification for the space station. It is therefore ironic that facilities with real importance for materials science, such as x-ray and neutron sources at Stanford and Brookhaven, are having their operation drastically curtailed to cope with budget cuts. Once again, glitz crowds out substance. Let's hope the next president is not a scientific illiterate.) Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 21:31:15 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Window of Opportunity? In article <8805041924.AA03392@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@sdr.slb.COM ("Paul F. Dietz") writes: >Let's hope the next president is not a scientific illiterate.) Well, I see all the major candidates, but I would hazard to say they are all scientifically illiterate. [Ref: Scientific Attitudes in US recent Science] --eugene ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 88 13:48:57 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Space Station Names Hmm, a name for the Space Station.. We have the John F. Kennedy Space Center; we have the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center; surely it is time for the RONALD W. REAGAN SPACE FORCE BASE (Only kidding - I hope! :-):-) Jonathan P.S. I rather like Minerva - it hasn't been used in a space program so far and it has a good ring to it. Earth Star sounds stupid. Never mind "Mir", how about Salyut? It was apparently a "salute" to Yuri Gagarin who had died a while before, so I read somewhere. We could have "Challenger Memorial Station"... a better monument to them than any earthbound one could be. ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 88 07:14:00 GMT From: agate!saturn!ucscb.UCSC.EDU!spcecdt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Space Cadet) Subject: Re: Space Station Names How about the Space Station Heinlein? I think it would be fitting. ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 88 16:24:28 GMT From: ncspm!jay@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Jay C. Smith) Subject: Re: Space Station Names Okay, first: no names full of political symbolism and no names of people, living or dead. My suggestion: Gateway. ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 88 20:49:33 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Space Station Names Oh I don't know? how about Portal? Liberator (Blake?) ;-) Anyway, it is the current understanding that the Station will be regarded as just another NASA Center except orbiting and smaller, but I'll believe when I see it orbiting. Floating bureaucrats in space. They had Uncle Carl Sagan on the Morning Show. K.S. brought to topic of Unmanned versus Manned space, and Carl politely noted the sexism in the term and moved on the role of the person-ed and un-person-ed space. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 May 88 13:42:10 EDT From: David HM Spector Subject: Space Station Names, etc... Regarding names for the space station, (with aploogies to Ridley Sott) how about "Gateway Station", which is what one would hope it is going to be... (This may seem a bit naive, but...) On another topic, with all the recent discussion of the where, whys and hows of the lost Saturn V's, I am suprised noone has come to the conclusion that there are enough "spare cycles", engineers, physicists, etc, etc floating around the net to redesign the Saturn V many times over. If Amateur Radio (AMSAT really) can design, build and get satellites flown, all with "volunteer" effort, what's to stop a dedicated bunch of space enthusiasts [some of whom just happen to be experts, like folk from NASA, JPL, et al] from designing (and perhaps building) state of the art space systems in their spare time? Surely outside the governmental restraints applied to NASA such a group could do some interesting things. DHMS ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 88 22:03:51 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Station Names > Actually I'd be tempted to name it after Willy Ley, but that won't fly... On reflection, I think I withdraw that proposal in favor of a better one: Chesley Bonestell. Incidentally, for those thinking about the matter, NASA's ground rules for the choice of name are no acronyms, no names of living persons, and no names that are ambiguous or offensive when translated into the languages of the international "partners". ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 88 10:10:12 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Space Station Names In article <876@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU> sundance@pawl.rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold) writes: >How about Low Station. George M. Low was a NASA manager and >administrator during the Apollo years. Low would also represent LEO. And also imply that a later space station, in a higher orbit, could be the high station. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 88 23:17:25 GMT From: sdcrdcf!csun!polyslo!jsalter@hplabs.hp.com (The Ag Major) Subject: Station Heinlein In <3279@saturn.ucsc.edu> spcecdt espouses: >How about the Space Station Heinlein? I think it would be fitting. I second the motion strongly. There is currently a movement in sf-lovers to get this as a legitimate station name. I hope it will be posted here, also. Station Heinlein Motto (unofficial): --- Have Space Station, WILL Travel --- James A. Salter jsalter@polyslo.calpoly.edu ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 88 13:25:42 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Space Station Names >From article <678@cernvax.UUCP>, by emanuel@cernvax.UUCP (emanuel): > > Well, Minerva was the goddess of War... Aren't you giving them some > > ideas? :-) (I hope) , Yeah, but I seem to remember primarily she was the goddess of wisdom and knowledge (science advisor to Jove?). Now this is assuming we're building a science station. If we're building Earth Spaceport, maybe Janus is better.. one face (and one docking port) back toward Earth, one outward toward the solar system. Jonathan ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 88 02:55:45 GMT From: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) Subject: Naming the space station. Space station S Y N T H E S I S (ahhhh .... just right) ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 88 15:42:40 GMT From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: Space Station Names > In article <868@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu> mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: >Hmm, a name for the Space Station.. > >P.S. I rather like Minerva - it hasn't been used in a space program so >far and it has a good ring to it. Maybe we should hold off on that a bit. I'd rather apply the name Minerva to the deep-space ship that explores the inner solar system and goes to Mars, as described by Willy Ley in his 1958 book Space Travel. He had Minerva rendezvous with the asteroid Eros, land on Phobos or Deimos, and drop off "landing boats" to carry explorers down to the planet's surface and back. His explanation for the name was that Minerva was the Roman goddess who sprang from the head of her father Jupiter, and the rockets that carry equipment and ships into orbit are called Jupiter rockets. And as for the objection that Minerva is inappropriate as a space station name because she was the goddess of war, well, that shouldn't be a problem for the Mars trip, should it? David Smith HP Labs ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 88 21:37:42 GMT From: nyser!weltyc@itsgw.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Re: Space Station Names I'd like to see a name that reflects the distant outpost kind of idea, and as an `Arthurian' (one who loves the legends of King Arthur) I think `Tintagil' would be a good name. In the legend this is the castle where King Arthur was conceived, and in reality it IS a castle on the very western shore of Cornwall in England. If anyone has ever been there you'd see why it would be a good name for the space station, because it is quite remote and only connected to the rest of the world by a very narrow strip of land. And don't forget this is the INTERNATIONAL space station, the British could count this as their contribution - it don't cost much. Christopher Welty --- Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!rutgers!nysernic!weltyc ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 88 09:19:17 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!hwcs!adrian@uunet.uu.net (Adrian Hurt) Subject: Re: Space Station Names I thought Minerva was the Roman name for the Greek goddess Athene, the goddess of wisdom. Maybe the Romans, being more militaristic, put her in charge of both, but I thought that war was the speciality of Mars (Ares in Greek). ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 88 15:37:56 GMT From: mcvax!diku!zaphod@uunet.uu.net (Ole D. M. Lennert) Subject: Re: Naming the space station. Naming the space station: How about Arthur C. Clarke ? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 May 88 08:27:56 PLT From: Bill Johns Subject: Going to Mars GREETINGS I have read many issues of the space digest with interest, although I have not responded. I now have a comment and a favor to ask. Questions have been raised over whether we should go to Mars before we are absolutely certain there are no life forms there. After the 1985 Aeronautics conference in Stockholm (talk in the halls) I thought we were almost positive there was life there. Ours. We have been dumping solid human waste out of space craft for sometime now and the simple fact of the matter is that this stuff seems to be moving away from the earth in an ever expanding sphere of ____, pushed onward by solar winds. Can anyone be absolutely sure that all living material, every last cell that was dumped was killed by the space environment? The question is not whether we can find life on Mars, but whether we can make some accurate determination of life forms directly related to E. coli in comparison with whatever may have been indigenous to the Martian landscape. Also, and here is the favor, rumor has it the Russians have their shuttle "on the pad," have gone through a couple of trial countdowns more or less successfully and will launch in early June. I would very much like to follow the response in Space Digest on that issue. Thanks, Bill Johns (JOHNSW@WSUVM1) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #226 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 May 88 19:59:14 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00934; Sat, 21 May 88 03:25:42 PDT id AA00934; Sat, 21 May 88 03:25:42 PDT Date: Sat, 21 May 88 03:25:42 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805211025.AA00934@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #227 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 227 Today's Topics: Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Cometesimals (really, water on Mars) Final Fontier VI#2 Re: Shooting the Moon Dust Eclipses... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 May 88 13:39:55 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon >From article <1662@bigtex.uucp>, by james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen): > Mars is a planet, not open space. They are not proposing to use the > device as a weapon but as a tool (read my paragraph above to > understand importance of intent to this). > James R. Van Artsdalen My understanding is that the relevant treaty language on weapons of mass destruction reads "in outer space or on celestial bodies" (Presumably the Earth is excluded, but they don't specify this.) "Peaceful Nuclear Explosions" have been conducted for (somewhat suspect ecologically) major engineering projects in the USSR, but I believe they had to be carried out underground to comply with the PTBT. I am sure that even a peaceful nuclear explosion 100 m above the Martian surface is illegal. It's also a real bad idea to carry out nuclear explosions on any planet with an atmosphere. On an airless world like the moon, however, where radioactive contamination will not be transported by wind or water, you might be able to make a case. In fact, I hope all dirty heavy industry will ultimately be done on the moon for exactly this reason - pollution on an airless world is localised and containable instead of being spread around the globe of a world with an atmosphere or drifting through space from the waste pipe of a space colony. (I'm not sure what the potential is for pollution from a major industrial facility in earth orbit is but the recent problems with space debris make me think we ought to have a good worry about it.) Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 19:32:25 GMT From: amdahl!nsc!ken@ames.arc.nasa.gov ({JOAT}) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon Why does it have to be a nuclear explosion?, why not a small chemical charge. What are you trying to set down that needs that much area to land in. I would think you could clear a small area, land a construction robot and let it start clearing more landing area while other work procedes. Thanks Ken Trant nsc!ken ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 88 17:21:59 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon In article <115@marque.mu.edu> paulf@marque.mu.edu (Paul A. Flaherty) writes: >The responses ranged from "Gee, that's a good idea" I suspect these people don't understand or know much about the effects of nuclear weapons (devices). They are probably good managerial material. No thanks, we have enough in NASA as it is. I don't know the immediate answer about the technical feasibility (I think for instance Paul is assuming lots of melting [see following keyword expose] and some shock [I look at the numbers 3-M->1-M is a lot], and we don't know much about the subsurface characteristics [you might just expose more 3-M rocks surrounded by loose uncompacted soil easily blown away]), but I've asked a weaponer what he thinks and will relay his response to Paul. [I've been corresponding directly to Paul on this one, but I `had' about "good idea" people.] No we probably should not use nukes, but it was an interesting thought problem. > to "You facist pig", so I consider the posting a success. Yes, I think you had a successful posting. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 12:37:34 GMT From: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!johng@uunet.uu.net (John Gregor) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon In article masticol@styx.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes: >In article <2739@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU> paulf@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU (Paul A. Flaherty) writes: >[problems finding places for a Mars mission to land] >> The explosion of a 35 kiloton nuclear device, optomized for heat blast, at > ^^^^^^ >(Let's call a spade a spade and a bomb a bomb, shall we?) How about a tool. It's about time serious consideration was given to using fission for something other than enforcing a particular set of politics. >But it's just a dumb idea. It should not be done. I'll let everybody use their own brand of flame generator to 'suggest' better words than dumb. Flames noting that people use dumb when they mean I am offended are the easiest to generate. >First, it's a violation of the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions treaty, >which forbids use of nuclear weapons in space. Unlike ABM, I don't >think this point is subject to interpretation. It's not a good idea, >unless you want to start another cold war. The legal aspects do seem to be the hardest engineering problems. The political climate just might be warming up enough that an exception could be gotten. At what price, I have no idea. >Second, it puts us in the position of using the most violent force >ever developed to accomplish part of what should be a peaceful mission >of scientific exploration. From one standpoint, it looks like taking >the supreme step of mindless agression against a place we've never >even been. A bulldozer is a pretty violent force when used on a bunch of people. Using it as a tool for scientific exploration seems to be about the best idea for a nuclear explosion (is that word ok?) that I've seen for a long time. >alternatives: > - Use steerable parachutes and a smart robot to beat the > 4-minute speed-of-light delay. > - Use a balloon, with same control methodology and purpose. Smart is hard to do. 4 minute delay is best case. Winds and chutes don't mix. > - Land a constructor robot,in any reasonable manner, and use > it to clear a landing field. If we could ship something to mars big enough to move 3 meter boulders around, we wouldn't be sitting earthside watching all the pretty things with CCCP on them going up up and away... Enough flamming. I don't think it is the best idea either. 1. It has a large impact on the surrounding area. Unless you have the ability to roam far away from the landing site, you have just contaminated your samples. 2. Weight. For that amount of mass, you could have more experiments, and an equally viable landing mechanism. 3. Politics, security, etc. It might be easier to walk on water than to get permission to use the bomb. Also, there are bound to be protests. I can see someone flying his cessna into the shuttle (or whatever) to save the martians 1/2 :-). How about surrounding the instrument package with inflatable segments that could take a rough landing. Imagine something looking like a large soccer ball. Also, the shadows from 1m boulders should be a lot bigger than 3m when the sun is on the horizon. Just some ideas... -- pqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpq bdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbd John Gregor johng%ecrcvax.UUCP@germany.CSNET ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 88 03:17:15 GMT From: marque!paulf@csd1.milw.wisc.edu (Paul A. Flaherty) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon My thanks to those of you who graciously responded to my inquiry; I've gained quite an amount of insight into the problem. The responses ranged from "Gee, that's a good idea", to "You facist pig", so I consider the posting a success. For the record, I realize that the political problems clearly doom such a proposal. My response to this is that we should rethink our attitudes about The Bomb, since there are many peaceful uses for nuclear explosions, particularly in space. To categorically rule out their use will hamstring the development of space resources. One final note: Shasta.Stanford.EDU has been unstable in recent days, and so I'm posting from another site. -- Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | Engineer (n) -- Computer Systems Laboratory | Stanford University | A machine for converting beer paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU | into blueprints. ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 18:30:33 GMT From: oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Michael McNeil) Subject: Re: Cometesimals (really, water on Mars) In article <868@nucleus.UUCP> hacker@nucleus.UUCP (Thomas Hacker, ACM) writes: > Water on Mars?? Could you please point me to references that >substantiate this? It's been well known since the Viking expeditions that there's a considerable amount of water ice, hundreds of meters thick in places, near the Martian north pole. (There's also a much larger amount of carbon dioxide ice.) Sorry, I don't have a reference for this handy, but the matter is not controversial. Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation Santa Clara, California {hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma} !oliveb!3comvax!michaelm It is absurd to ask why the future should turn out to chime with our knowledge of the past. This puts the question upside down and makes nonsense of it. What we have learnt from the past is knowledge only because the future proves it to be true. Jacob Bronowski, *The Common Sense of Science*, 1967 ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 88 03:36:42 GMT From: nisc.nyser.net!weltyc@nisc.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Final Fontier VI#2 I promised everyone, sometime in December, that I would subscribe to the newly created `Final Frontier' Magazine and give a review and possibly a monthly sumamry to this list. I think Eugene was right that some of us should discontinue distributing othr people's published material without permission, so I will speak to the folks at FF first before I post any summaries, however i am well within my own ethics to post a critique. First, an administrational note: I got the add for the premier of the magazine in December, and I just got MY first issue this month. However, those clever holmseans out there may have noticed in my subject line I stated this was about Volume I number 2...I never got VI#1, but I did get TWO copies of the scond issue....hmph. Well, they did send a number of letters saying how much trouble it was starting a new magazine... I would say the magazine is worthwhile, but it is definitely aimed at the space enthusiast and dreamer. It's not for hard line people looking for current events, or detailed techical descriptions, but for the kind of person who dreams about going into space and wants a magazine that plays on that dream. It is put together a little like Omni, very glossy, lots of ads, a couple (OK 1) fiction stories, and lots of articles that make you feel like maybe there's a chance. On one hand (when my cynical side is speaking) I would say it's aimed more at kids than adults, with articles about what the architectural style of buildings on the moon will be, and on what it's like floating out in space. But on the other hand (my other side speaks) many of us share dreams from childhood of going into space, and as long as that kid within us is not denied, the `dream' is still alive. So I think I'll say it's a nice magazine - but those really cynical ones out there will definitely think it's trash. Here's the table of contents and a brief description of each article: `Solo' by Alcestis Oberg - A description of spacewalking with interviews with Astronauts who've done it. `Growing Pains' by Michael Leccese - All about the NSS. `The Five Rocket Garage' by Robert Nichols - A really good (I must say) article about Bob Traux [who some may know of from his work on Atlas and Thor], who is starting his own private launch company. `Digging in on the Moon' by Maura Mackowski - Architecture for lunar homes. `The Stars Come Out For Space' by Tony Reichhardt - All about the commercials with big stars plugging the space program. `Japans Jem of an Idea' by Gary Stephenson and Greg Freiherr - A report on the Japanese Experimental Module for the "International" Space Station, and some stuff on the Japanese space program. `Is Anybody Listening' by Linda Billings - SETI. `RSVP' by Robert Nozick - Fiction about SETI. `Mission to Phobos' by Charles Pellegrino - The Soviets and the Mars mission (I though this one was quite good in that it stayed neutral. Most Americans either go nuts about how we're much better than the Russians or go nuts about how the Russians are better than us) Monthly "Departments" included an article by George Brown on his proposed Space Settlement Act (talk about preaching amongst the converted), which would be good for those who wonder how politicians get their jobs. Christopher Welty --- Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!rutgers!nysernic!weltyc ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 14:47:27 GMT From: cmx!retants@nisc.nyser.net (Becki Tants) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon Well, since you stated that you were SERIOUS about this situation, I'll mention the following. As other's have mentioned, it's probably against the treaty of Peaceful nuclear Explosions [that one is almost as bad as jumbo shrimp and military intellegence :-)], you'd NEVER get political support/funding for it, if the general populace found out there would be a general outrage ["can't be satisfied nukeing our own planet, have to nuke another one"], nd we have yet to prove that there is no life on mars. As with the Genisis experiment in Star Trek II, if there is even the tiniest bit of life on mars, be it a single cell barely alive organism, we have no right to nuke it, knowing full well what effects that has. Yes in a way it is a catch-22 (can't find out if there is life until we are up there, can't get up there without a landing pad) but this is too big a risk when we can't prove anything. sorry, but there's no chance of getting that one thru..... -=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=- -=*=- Becki Tants RETANTS@SUVM.BITNET or RETANTS@SUVM.ACS.SYR.EDU -=*=- -=*=- Disclaimer: Improbability Factor 1 to 1. We have Normalcy. -=*=- -=*=- Anything you still can't cope with is your own problem. -=*=- -=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 May 88 21:26:57 CDT From: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Abrams) Posted-Date: Wed, 4 May 88 21:26:57 CDT Subject: Dust Eclipses... Cc: enos@doc.cc.utexas.edu In V8, #210, James Merritt writes: >Not being much of an astrophysicist, could someone comment on putting >dust in an orbit between the earth and the sun? The position I have in >mind is an orbit closer to the sun at the point where the earth's >gravity balances the suns to the extent that it could orbit at the >(slower) speed that the earth does. It sounds to me like it would orbit >properly, but I have no idea how far from the earth this point is, nor i>does it seem overly stable. Could a, say, 5% reduction in incoming >solar flux be achieved in this way (balancing the "extra" bea5OJ95~}i>from those billions and billions of SPSs ;~))? This reminds me of an idea I've had about putting a large (1.52E14 m**2 circular), aluminum solar sail (or a system of sails) in heliocentric orbit at, say, 0.99 AUs (the sail could keep "pace" with the Earth by balancing gravitational, centrifugal, and radiation pressure forces). For example, if the sail is 10 nm thick and 6960 km in radius (I realize that that radius is larger than Earth's), it would weigh just over 4E3 kg (if I have the density of aluminum right). At this thickness, the reflectance is around 65% and the transmittance is about 20%. The large size would "eclipse" a circular area of 2760 km**2. I seem to remember (from a discussion i> 0A kVV.]Jthat solar insolation at sea level is around 1 kW/m**2 and, if true, this means a loss of around 500 giga-watts (GW) from the atmosphere. Not only that but, if we construct a phase-reversal zone plate (PRZP) on that sail (with a focal length of .01 AU ==> central circle about 750 m in radius) with around 140,000 zones (so that the width of the outer zone is about 1m - - we *could* go into millions of zones; thereby increasing the power density at the focal spot - don't tell anyone that's pro-SDI or we could have thousands of square kilometers of molten "enemies"). Even taking into account various sources of loss (transmissivity, PRZP-losses, white light losses, etc.), this PRZP could deliver 100-1000 GW to a relatively small area of the atmosphere. (Note: I've neglected the change in focal length/spot/energy density/phase due to interaction with the atmosphere; I assume that once it starts interacting, it will be absorbed by something) I am not sure what sort of effect this might have on the atmosphere, climate, ecology, etc, but it seems to me that, if we understood atmospheric processes better, we ought to be able to manipulate the weather in this way. We could ampilfy high pressure cells and ameliorate low pressure cells. Futher "fine" control could be had be thermally-modulating the transmittance of the sail (aluminum can vary 10-20% in transmittance over the temperature range 100K - 950K). Some of the recently reported electrically-conductive polymers should also exhibit a wider range of reflectances depending upon their doping). Either way, it seems to me that a maneuverable solar sail would be better for "eclipsing" the Sun than dust that would disperse under the influence of solar radiation and solar wind. We could control the amount of shading without having to continually replenish the supply. The aluminum for such a large sail could come from the same source as the proposed dust -- the Moon. It could also be easily placed via conventional rocketry. If assembled in Earth orbit, it could place itself in the necessary orbit within a year or two. Steve Abrams ARPANET: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu c/o Graduate Office CompuServe: [70376,1025] Dept. of Physics (512)480-0895 University of Texas at Austin OR Austin, TX 78705 c/o Students for the Exploration and Development of Space "The rate of increase of P.O. Box 7338 the entropy of the 358 Texas Union universe reaches its University of Texas at Austin maximum value in my Austin, TX 78713-7883 immediate vicinity." (512)471-7097 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #227 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 May 88 19:54:41 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02063; Sun, 22 May 88 03:23:55 PDT id AA02063; Sun, 22 May 88 03:23:55 PDT Date: Sun, 22 May 88 03:23:55 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805221023.AA02063@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #228 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 228 Today's Topics: Re: Shooting the Moon Faith and Patience Re: Cometesimals (really, water on Mars) Vocabulary lesson: "The Hatch Act" Re: Space Photographs, Paintings and Prints Wanted Bombs on Mars Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Shooting the Moon Space Shuttle Names ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 May 88 19:51:08 GMT From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu (Eric Tilenius) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon In article <115@marque.mu.edu>, paulf@marque.mu.edu (Paul A. Flaherty) writes: >The responses ranged from "Gee, that's a good idea", to "You facist >pig", so I consider the posting a success. For the record, I realize >that the political problems clearly doom such a proposal. My response >to this is that we should rethink our attitudes about The Bomb, since >there are many peaceful uses for nuclear explosions, particularly >in space. To categorically rule out their use will hamstring the >development of space resources. I think the Life-on-Mars opposition to this argument has been adequately stated, but I wanted to point out a couple of extra arguments against this which I sent Paul through EMAIL (did you get it, Paul?): 1. EXPLOSION ON THE PAD: Folks, the Challenger disaster was bad, really bad. But imagine if it had a nuclear warhead on board. Bye, bye South Florida! A spaceship is one of the least stable places to keep a warhead! 2. GEOLOGICAL LOSS OF DATA: You'd destroy a whole section of Mars without ever studying it! And who knows what you'd do to the planet... Earthqauakes? Who knows... 3. NOT PRODUCTIVE: Even with this nuked landing site, you wouldn't know where else on the planet one could land. An unmanned scout mission (ala Mars Observer) can find SEVERAL good landing sites. This mission would give you one, but you'd still want it in a good location, thus the need for a scout ship in any case. 4. COST: Me thinks baloons and such would be cheaper; the insurance alone, if nothing else. SUMMARY: Nukes & Outer Space don't mix for very practical reasons. - ERIC - *----------------------===> SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------* * ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU // ewtileni@pucc.BITNET * * rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni // princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni * * ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"* *--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------* ------------------------------ From: Shimon Edelman Date: Thu, 5 May 88 11:50:34 -0200 Subject: Faith and Patience In article <19@wisdom.BITNET> amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Michael MacLeod) writes: >During the Passover season I was reading soc.culture.jewish and I was >impressed all over again by the faith of the Jews in returning to the >Promised Land. It occurred to me that those who dream of living in space >would do well to cultivate the same faith and patience and belief in ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >the future, though we should not have to wait as long. So, inspired by >their example, let us say to each other, to refresh our spirits, > >Next Year in L5! Ever since the founding of the state of Israel 40 years ago, any Jew who chooses to do so may actually fulfill the "Next year in the Promised Land" pledge. It may be some time, however, till the L5 people (and the lunatics, and the Martians) are in a position to fulfill *their* dream. This can happen sooner if people realize (as some Diaspora Jews at the turn of the last century did) that faith, patience and belief are not enough: action is also needed. Shimon (edelman@wisdom.bitnet) ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 88 18:58:33 GMT From: wdc@astro.as.utexas.edu (William Cochran) Subject: Re: Cometesimals (really, water on Mars) In article <868@nucleus.UUCP> hacker@nucleus.UUCP (Thomas Hacker, ACM) writes: > Water on Mars?? Could you please point me to references that >substantiate this? In article <1204@3comvax.3Com.Com>, michaelm@vax.3Com.Com (Michael McNeil) replies: > It's been well known since the Viking expeditions that there's > a considerable amount of water ice, hundreds of meters thick > in places, near the Martian north pole. The presence of atmospheric water on Mars was known BEFORE Viking. It was discovered here at McDonald Observatory by Edwin Barker. For details, see the paper by Barker, Schorn, Woszczyk, Tull, and Little, entitled "Mars: Detection of Atmospheric Water Vapor During the Southern Hemisphere Spring and Summer Season" in Science, Vol 170, Page 1308, 1970. We are continuing the studies of Mars water from McDonald in order to fill in the gap in coverage between the Viking Orbiter and the launch of Mars Observer. This is an excellent example of the complementary roles of ground based astronomy and space missions. ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 88 05:26:27 GMT From: ganzer@nosc.mil (Mark T. Ganzer) Subject: Vocabulary lesson: "The Hatch Act" >From pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Fri Apr 29 20:28:53 1988 >Vocabulary lesson #2: >"NASA contracting": The technique whereby NASA hires an unlimited >number of employees and launders large amounts of money which is >used by those employees to lobby for even more money without getting >thrown in jail for violations of the Hatch Act. ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ Vocabulary lesson: "The Hatch Act": An unconstitutional restraint of free speech applied to federal employees to prevent PARTISAN political activity and sometimes used in the rhetoric of government-bashers to imply that anyone who gets a paycheck from Uncle Sam is a crook...(my definition). I've seen Mr. Bowery use this phrase before, but this time I couldn't sit still. It's quite apparent that he does not really know what the act covers. The Hatch Act was passed in 1939 to prevent federal employees from engaging an PARTISAN political campaigns, such as running for, or campaigning for a candidate in a PARTISAN election. It DOES NOT prevent federal employees from engaging in non-partisan issues. For example, I - as a federal employee - could run for a Mayor of San Diego (defined by California state law a non-partisan office), if it was determined not to interfere with my federal duties, or campaign for or against any candidate for this office. It DOES NOT prohibit federal employees from engaging in political activity in connection with an issue not identified with a political party. Nor does it prevent petitioning Congress or members of Congress, including recommending how they should vote on particular issues! In other words, I - as a federal employee - can petition and lobby Congress all I want on space-related issues (as long as I don't represent my views as those of the Department of the Navy), but I cannot campaign for congressional or presidential candidates who support my views. And THAT, my folks, is the Hatch Act.... Followups have been directed to talk.politics.misc where they belong (I don't want to clutter sci.space with this BS any more than I have to). Flames are directed to /dev/null Oh yes... my definition of the Hatch Act is mine alone and does not represent the views of the Naval Ocean Systems Center or the Department of the Navy. Although I greatly disagree with the Hatch Act, it's something I have to live with as part of my job. ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 11:10:53 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Space Photographs, Paintings and Prints Wanted In article <192@ists> waugh@ists (Don Waugh) writes: [a request for sources for photographs, etc.] There isn't much of a return mail address, but I think these addresses may be of interest to others. ------ ESA public relations, 8-10 Rue Mario Nikis, 75738 Paris Cedex 15, France. ------ CNES public relations, 18 Avenue Edouard Berlin, 31055 Toulouse Cedex, France. ------ Glavkosmos, International relations, 9 Krasnoproletarskaya st. 103030 Moscow, USSR. ------ I noted these addresses down a couple of months ago, but have not yet written to them. If someone does get some results from them, post and let the rest of us know. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 09:12:28 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!adam@uunet.uu.net (ERCF02 Adam Hamilton) Subject: Bombs on Mars In article <2739@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU> paulf@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU (Paul A. Flaherty) writes: > >The biggest problem we're faced with at the moment is landing site selection, >and crash landing aviodance, eg., not putting down on top of a large boulder. >This is a rather difficult proposition, since the best hi-res photography >we'll be able to get will have about 3m resolution (pessimistically), and >we can, at best, tolerate 1m boulders. > >For this reason, my design partner and I have proposed a radical approach: >build a landing site. The site would consist of a two kilometer wide >flat landing strip, which will be easily visible to the lander. Construction >benefits would include knowledge of regional atmospherics, seismic data >generation, and lander simplification. > >Unfortunately, since Mars is currently uninhabited, we cannot simply hire >a construction crew. Therefore, we are forced to consider a simple, >engineered solution to landing field construction. > >The explosion of a 35 kiloton nuclear device, optomized for heat blast, at >approximately 100m above the Martian surface, would create a glass-smooth >landing pad, with the required dimensions, and the above stated benefits. > >No, this is not a joke. We're very serious about this. > >I'd appreciate comments / suggestions on this proposal. > This is an attempt to create life on Mars, right? You want me to be serious? OK. NO BOMBS ANYWHERE - was that loud enough. Let's NOT get used to the idea that we (the human race) can go around the Solar system casually nuking whatever we like on the grounds that it won't hurt anything. We can't afford to be wrong. Since I wouldn't mind seeing one used on an asteroid, perhaps its time to draw up some sensible guidelines. How about nothing over 15 km long. I was going to say "nothing with an atmosphere", but this seems better. Please, no more fallout! Adam Hamilton ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 01:41:18 GMT From: cat.cmu.edu!dep@pt.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon In article <5121@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >... >SUMMARY: Nukes & Outer Space don't mix for very practical reasons. I'm not too sure about this. Nukes can be very useful in outer space. Has anyone ever figured the Isp for an Orion-type drive? -- "A fanatic is one who can't change his David Pugh mind and won't change the subject." ...!seismo!cmucspt!cat!dep -- Sir Winston Churchill ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 01:29:45 GMT From: cat.cmu.edu!dep@pt.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon In article <5121@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >... >1. EXPLOSION ON THE PAD: Folks, the Challenger disaster was bad, really >bad. But imagine if it had a nuclear warhead on board. Bye, bye South >Florida! A spaceship is one of the least stable places to keep a warhead! If a shuttle (or other launcher) explodes, I'd prefer a nuclear warhead to a RTG unit. The warhead will probably have a smaller amount of Plutonium, and neither will explode (getting a nuclear warhead to explode is a non-trivial operation). I don't really see why we need to consider using a nuke, though. After all, Viking didn't have any problems and the technology has improved somewhat. -- "A fanatic is one who can't change his David Pugh mind and won't change the subject." ...!seismo!cmucspt!cat!dep -- Sir Winston Churchill ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 88 23:44:24 GMT From: zodiac!deimos!booter@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Elaine Richards) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? The discussion is focusing on sexism at NASA, with comments about the shuttle program. At one point a woman (I forget her name) mused about becoming an astronaut and a man (in a friendly way) said, "Go for it." My brother in law is in Navy Air (Navigator) and his buddies liked to rumor around that he had "the right stuff". (He does). Bill has nixed the idea of being an astronaut because you basically sit on your butt waiting for the flight. It is not Mondo Career Development here. There are many career paths to take at NASA (or elsewhere). As far as I recall, Sally Ride left the space program to join a think tank at Stanford. If I had the credentials that Ride does, I would be a little bored sitting around with my thumb out, too. ER ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 22:28:53 GMT From: unisoft!hoptoad!dasys1!tneff@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon In article <2739@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU>, Paul Flaherty writes: > The explosion of a 35 kiloton nuclear device, optomized for heat blast, at > approximately 100m above the Martian surface, would create a glass-smooth > landing pad, with the required dimensions, and the above stated benefits. > > I'd appreciate comments / suggestions on this proposal. I don't think you would want to do this. I take it you are afraid of all those rocks in the Viking lander pictures. You might remember that the landers themselves had to negotiate these same rocks successfully in order to provide you with the fearsome-looking vistas! There is no particular reason to believe that the Martian surface is covered everywhere with a uniform distribution of Planitia-style debris. There are almost certainly zones with every conceivable density and size distribution of surface rocks, judging from the orbiter image data. It will be the job of the proposed Mars Orbiter mission(s) to select suitable landing sites, just as it was the (superb) Lunar Orbiter's mission to do it for Surveyor (also superb! remember when we could knock 'em off like that?) and Apollo. This time we can go back with synthetic-aperture radar and such, and characterize surface conditions very elaborately. I have no doubt we will find acceptable sites in the natural state, meanwhile expanding our (already voluminous) orbital observation database many times over. Your nuke is also counterproductive. There is very little scientific interest in what conditions would be like at ground zero if you bombed Mars. Nor is this hypothetical "smooth glass plain" any flight dynamics officer's dream of a landing site! Three or more degrees of local slope and you're lunchmeat. The local radiation headaches have already been mentioned; you would also be wafting a whole bucket of fallout into the thin, fast Martian winds, which circulate over the entire surface in a matter of days. I don't even want to pursue this any further, it gets worse the more I look at it. :-) -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: are you kidding? ------------------------------ Subject: Space Shuttle Names Date: Thu, 05 May 88 14:26:24 -0400 From: Fred Baube I've heard the story on how the Enterprise was named, but how did they come up with a New Age / UFOphilic name like Atlantis ? Just wondering. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #228 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 May 88 06:28:45 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03530; Mon, 23 May 88 03:27:06 PDT id AA03530; Mon, 23 May 88 03:27:06 PDT Date: Mon, 23 May 88 03:27:06 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805231027.AA03530@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #229 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 229 Today's Topics: Re: Quoting (without permission, to Hank Walker) Re: How hot is it in space? anthropic cosmological principle Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Mars Re: Antimatter propulsion questions Re: Henry's signature (was Shooting the Moon) Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Antimatter propulsion questions Re: Question about Richard Hoagland/Mars Project Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Shooting the Moon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 May 88 13:29:46 PDT From: Eugene miya Subject: Re: Quoting (without permission, to Hank Walker) Cc: neumann@kl.sri.com I have tried twice to send this note to Hank Walker unsuccessfully. As I stop to think, it is more important than I first considered, so I offer it to sci.space. To: Hank.Walker@taurus.ece.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Quotations Hi Hank, I should have stopped by your office when I was at CMU. I might be back thru in Sept. for Melinda's Supercomputer meeting. The reason why I want to try to encourage people to get to sources, to reiterate, is to provide them more exposure rather than just make information available. An example. In Jr. High, I made the acquantance of the political cartoonist Paul Conrad of the L.A. Times. He did a really neat cartoon on the Vietnam war which we wanted to "blow up" and use in class. The teacher suggested I contact him. I did first by writing, then over the phone. This is all about 1969-70 when we landed on the moon. Also during this time, we had a school debate on the space program (this is about the time I wrote and got pounds of mail from JPL. Letter writing and further communications of this sort is important, and I would hate to see it lost because Email is easier but less connected. Later on, Conrad invited me to lunch and a tour of the LA Times. In time, I made other acquaintences there and learned details of things which never make it to print. A good example was the raising of the Soviet sub in the Pacific. Things leak out, and this is how. I want to encourage people to follow up on references, especially non-electronic ones. Regarding copyright: As for lawyers, several read the net, and I can always call on some good computer literate lawyers down the street. Copyright is the least of my concerns, but blindly stating information from the wire-services disturbs me. You are welcome to post this message to SPACE, RISKS, etc. P.S. Oh, BTW, the letters I wrote to guys like NASA and Conrad, Don Hewitt at 60 Mins. all have the typos, jumps in thoughts, etc. my enotes have. I thank them for their patience. --eugene ====end note Added note: I did recently sought permission to reproduce a letter from John Pierce published in Science, and I re-established and acquaintance from JPL. It was quite pleasant and I'm current talking to a writer at Science about article she wrote. Sure it takes time, but it is worth it. You don't always want to talk to the writers of articles you can go to sources yourself: like asking S. J. Gould about concepts of evolution, or Edgerton to secure copyright for strobe photos for my research. As once noted before, I wrote Minsky "fan mail" in 1968 about lasers and got a "don't hurt yourself" letter. ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 21:34:05 GMT From: pyramid!fmsrl7!nucleus!hacker@decwrl.dec.com (Thomas Hacker) Subject: Re: How hot is it in space? >of about 290 K (no surprise). Surprisingly (to me, anyway) a polished >aluminium body will be much hotter (it absorbs less sunlight, but >radiates far less). Why would a polished surface be much hotter if it is not absorbing any energy (if it reflects 100% of the incoming radiation across the whole spectrum), and it is (I assume) radiating energy due to heat radiation (usually called "blackbody" radiation)? Planck's law doesn't have a term within it that makes the intensity of the radiation emitted a function of the reflectivity of the surface. -- Thomas J. Hacker ...!uunet!umix!nucleus!hacker (hacker@nucleus.UUCP) Physics/CS Undergrad Oakland University "Physics is the poetry of nature." Rochester, MI 48063 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 May 88 09:23:53 PDT From: hairston%utd750%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov Subject: anthropic cosmological principle X-St-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::JPLLSI::"space@angband.s1.gov" Laura Burchard asked about the name of the idea for her statement about why the Universe is the way it is. It's called the anthropic cosmo- logical principle. More specifically she is quoting the weak anthropic principle (WAP) which says the Universe's laws and constants are the way they are because if they were too much different, then the conditions that allow us to be here (enough carbon, right amount of energy for life, stars that last long enough for life to evolve, etc.) would not exist and so we wouldn't be around to ask "Why does the Universe look like it does?" There is also the strong anthropic principle (SAP) that says that the Universe "conspires" to produce conditions suitable for the emergence of intelligent, conscious life. And then there is the final anthropic prin- ciple (FAP) which says that the Universe "conspires" to produce intelligent, conscious life and that once such life has arisen it will last forever. Martin Gardner has written that the FAP should be renamed the completely ridiculous anthropic principle (CRAP). All the anthropic principles are interesting, but since none of them can be tested or used to make predictions, then they fall outside of science and into the realm of philosophy (which is nothing new to this group). If you're interested in learning more than what's in the above brief sketch then look for the following: articles: "The Anthropic Principle" by George Gale, Scientific American (Dec 1981) "A Cozy Cosmology" by Heinz Pagels, Whole Earth Review (Summer 1987) "What You See Is What You Beget" by Tony Rothman, Discover (May 1987) books: The Accidental Universe by Paul Davies The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John Barrow and Frank Tipler the above is the official guide in that B and T are leading proponents of the APs and their book is 700 pages of everything you never knew you wanted to know about the Universe PS Those of you still looking for the Ride Report check out the Jan 88 issue of Astronomy magazine. They ran a slightly condensed version and it's about a fifth the cost of what AWaSTe charges. (Yes, I got burned.) Marc Hairston--Center for Space Science--Univ Texas at Dallas "The opinions expressed are not those of my employer, I'm not even sure they are mine..." ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 14:26:44 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon >From article <416@aplcomm.UUCP>, by jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt): [deleted comments to the effect that putting nukes on a spaceship can't be the most dangeroous place for them as an ICBM is a spaceship too] > jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) Yeah, and you think an ICBM is a safe thing to have round the house? :-) Or even a safe place to keep a warhead? I point out that although they are kept on ICBMs in silos there are only a very few cases of missiles ever having been launched carrying nuclear warheads, just one test series in the Pacific in 1962. (Plus one Chinese test I think). Most people are very careful to take the warheads OUT before they test launch an ICBM. I agree that the danger of an accidental nuclear explosion as a result of an in-flight accident is very small, of course, but I'm still not keen on the idea. Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 09:26:32 GMT From: sdcrdcf!csun!polyslo!dgiles@hplabs.hp.com (Darren Giles) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon Great... One of our first visits to another planet and we're planning the ultimate pollution. So much for hoping when we get into space we could leave our mistakes on Earth. - Darren ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 88 11:43:41 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Mars In article <1678@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> chiaravi@silver.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes: >... other organisms have been shown to be able >to grow in conditions which simulate Martian conditions, I would not be >surprised if something found Martian conditions to be similar enough to its >terrestrial niche to be able to adapt. And may be doing so at this moment. If any of the probes sent there weren't properly sterilised before launch, colonies of bacteria could still be living in the remains of the (hard or soft) lander. How long they will survive, or if any of them will be able to find a new food source once whatever smear of grease they are living on is gone, is a different question. The surveyor camera brought back from the moon by Apollo 12 was found to contain a bacterial colony which had survived for years in the more hostile lunar environment. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 23:13:04 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Antimatter propulsion questions > ... to what extent does the > antimatter-matter reaction follow the exclusion prinicples, and to > what extent does the wave-structure matter? ... Antiproton reacts with proton; surroundings are pretty much irrelevant. Antiproton reaction with heavy nuclei has been talked about as a possible way of trapping more of the annihilation energy in charged particles. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 16:55:53 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Henry's signature (was Shooting the Moon) In article <1988May2.232835.5062@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >NASA is to spaceflight as the Post Office is to mail. Actually I got a kick of of this (NASA being the butt of Henry's jabs, I really liked the reinvention of Unix), but this one is actually too kind. At least the mail gets delivered. ;-) No, NASA is evolving to something closer to the DOE [See 60 Minutes/20/20 stories on the DOE]. 90% overseers 10% others. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA resident cynic soon to be aurora.arc.nasa.gov at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 23:17:31 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? NASA is a historically male-dominated organization, and it's mostly based in the southern US as well. Things are changing, slowly, particularly in the non-traditional subject areas (e.g. computers). Much sexism remains. As for sex in space, the views at lower levels are about what you'd expect given the preceding paragraph, and at higher levels extreme prudishness prevails for public-relations reasons. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 23:10:42 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Antimatter propulsion questions >1) If particle accelerators are used to create the antimatter fuel in the >first place, on a production basis, would there be any advantage to siting >them in space, driven by solar power and taking advantage of the natural >vacuum? ... In a word, yes. Space is the obvious place to do antimatter production, in the long run. In the short run it will have to be done on Earth because we can't put the necessary infrastructure into space yet. > 2) How safe a fuel would antimatter be for earth-based launches? Reasonably so. An antimatter-fueled Earth-to-orbit system would use really minute amounts of antimatter to heat large amounts of something else, perhaps liquid hydrogen or water. Explosion and radioactive contamination are not serious issues, I believe; the main safety problem is that the immediate vicinity gets sprayed with hard radiation if something goes wrong. >... Atomics didn't work out mainly because they would >leave such foul messes, especially in an accident. No, actually, the *reason* why atomic rockets didn't work out was that all the missions that could use them were cancelled, after which they were cancelled to save money. The radiation-safety issues were not trivial, but they were not the direct cause. > The obvious antimatter failure mode would be instant complete > annihalation of the fuel, with massive energy release... Depends on how the stuff is stored. If it's in lots of little pieces, then if all the suspension systems fail, your prediction is more or less right. If it's in one big piece, the process is much slower because it doesn't all come into intimate contact with normal matter at once. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 23:19:28 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Question about Richard Hoagland/Mars Project > I have just finished reading a book by one Richard Hoagland called > _The Monuments of Mars_. It is essentially speculative nonfiction > concerning some possible artificial objects on the surface of Mars. I have not read this particular book, but before taking Hoagland too seriously, look at a bunch of photos of rock formations on Earth, and count the artificial-looking shapes in what are definitely natural rock formations. Hoagland is generally regarded as a nut. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 23:29:32 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? >... I could have swore they interviewed Sally Ride with >a caption that read "former astronaut" or words to that effect. It's true, she's left NASA. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 23:28:35 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon > The explosion of a 35 kiloton nuclear device, optomized for heat blast, at > approximately 100m above the Martian surface, would create a glass-smooth > landing pad, with the required dimensions, and the above stated benefits. > > I'd appreciate comments / suggestions on this proposal. Um, well, nobody can criticize you for being too orthodox... One obvious problem is that it's illegal just now. Senate-ratified treaties have the force of law in the US, and off-Earth nuclear explosions are banned by one of the test-ban treaties. Those things generally have provision for negotiation of non-military uses, but I don't think the Soviets are going to be too enthusiastic about this idea, and making it legal probably isn't possible without their consent. Underground permafrost might do unexpected things. I assume you've thought about the effects on instruments; one example that comes to mind is that gamma-ray spectrometers aren't going to be very useful in the immediate vicinity. You'll never get it past Congress. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #229 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 May 88 06:27:13 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05379; Tue, 24 May 88 03:25:44 PDT id AA05379; Tue, 24 May 88 03:25:44 PDT Date: Tue, 24 May 88 03:25:44 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805241025.AA05379@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #230 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 230 Today's Topics: Hip Hip ... Ariane! Mir elements, epoch 17 May Re: Uncle Carl is on the rampage Re: Unused Saturn V's Re: I want to be an astronaut Re: Unused Saturn V's Re: Shooting the Moon I want to be an astronaut Dr. Sally Ride Re: Shooting the Moon Ion-like-drive Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Oops... (was: Nevada fuel plant explosion) Re: NASA News ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 May 88 12:17:29 GMT From: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!bruno@uunet.uu.net (Bruno Poterie) Subject: Hip Hip ... Ariane! Kourou, 18 May 1988, 01h58 (European Time) Ariane-2 fired from pad ELA-1 load put onto orbit 18 minutes afterwards everything went ok - just waiting 15 minutes for a big electricity-loaded cumulus to pass over the launch place. Intelsat-5 F13 onto work orbit next Intelsat-5 in december 1988 Intelsat-6 serie to start in 1989 Felicitations for all people involved, both in Guyane and in Europe. ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 88 00:32:00 GMT From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements, epoch 17 May These elements are from after Progress 36 was hard-docked to the Mir/Kvant complex, and are more likely to be reliable than the ones posted on Monday. You may be better off fudging the values for mean motion and B*; they tend to be estimated incorrectly in the days immediately following maneuvering of the vehicle. Kevin Mir 1 16609U 88137.78771951 0.00018335 12175-3 0 2030 2 16609 51.6192 228.6531 0021522 336.6954 23.3330 15.75232363128881 Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 203 Epoch: 88137.78771951 Inclination: 51.6192 degrees RA of node: 228.6531 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0021522 Argument of perigee: 336.6954 degrees Mean anomaly: 23.3330 degrees Mean motion: 15.75232363 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00018335 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 12888 Semimajor axis: 6722.06 km Apogee height*: 358.37 km Perigee height*: 329.44 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 16:03:45 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Uncle Carl is on the rampage [hey mister line eater. . .] I just heard an incredible piece of dreck emanating from the direction of Carl Sagan's mouth yesterday morning. How anyone can continue to take this character seriously is beyond me (flames go to /dev/null). He was on the CBS morning show yesterday with his pal from the Politburo, Roald Segedeeve (or whatever, didn't write down his name) hyping the proposed joint US/Soviet mars mission. Kathy Sullivan asked him, "Wouldn't something like this cause problems in the area of stealing secrets???" Carl : "Well, yes, the Soviets would have to worry about us, seeing that they are so far ahead in both manned and planetary space exploration" (not quite an exact quote, but you get the idea). To his credit however, he did say that the mission should not be a one shot love-fest, but would require a strong infrastructure (gawd, i hate that word), to insure that it doesn't end up like another Apollo. This is not to criticize the concept of the mission, so don't start another flame.war about that. Just Carl should learn to think before he speaks. -- *** mike (Cyberpunk in training) smithwick *** "Use an Atari, go to jail!" [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 88 11:35:50 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!ra.jhuapl.edu!mws@mimsy.umd.edu (Michael W. Stalnaker) Subject: Re: Unused Saturn V's In article <652@eos.UUCP> al@eos.UUCP (Al Globus) writes: > >............................................. Congress has been >very supportive of NASA, at least until Challenger and the budget >crises. Before that, Congress routinely increased NASAs money over >Reagan's requests. I guess you'll have to dump you pre-conceptions >about Congress and put the blame where it belongs, on the presidency. Congress supportive of NASA??? Since when??? Those dunderheads on the hill would love to see NASA abolished and the money used for their pet pork barrel projects. If there is any one group of people most responsible for the shambles that the U.S. Space program is in, it's Congress. NASA told them originally that the shuttle would cost about double what it does today. Congress replied. Fine here's half the money you asked for, not double the performace so the DoD can use it too. The result? A flying brickyard rather than a ship with a titanium-alloy hull, and boosters that blow up. NASA did not want to use solid boosters since you can't shut them down, and since they have a lower performance than liquids, but thanks to the infantile wisdom of Congress, they didn'nt have the budget to develop the needed equipment. --Mike Stalnaker mws@aplvax.jhuapl.edu '' Pro is to con as progress is to congress.'' ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 16:20:40 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: I want to be an astronaut >From article <4620@ihlpf.ATT.COM>, by colsmith@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Marcia Colsmith): > I always thought being an astronaut was out for me because of my bad > vision. However only the pilots need perfect vision now, the mission > specialists just need to have correctable vision, i.e. contacts are fine. > Marcia Colsmith ihnp4!ihlpf!colsmith My understanding is that having correctable to 20/20 vision is not good enough; there is also a limit on your uncorrected vision - at least 20/100 in each eye. This applies for mission and payload specialists. Unfortunately, I think I just miss because of this problem. What the hell, I'll apply anyway - the worst they can do is say no. Good luck, Marcia - see you on the space station some day. Jonathan McDowell PS I don't know about the height regs although there is a book called 'The Real Stuff' which lists all this in an appendix. I think I heard they had to make a new Extra Extra Small spacesuit size for Mary Cleave. ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 17:13:53 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Unused Saturn V's In article <652@eos.UUCP> al@eos.UUCP (Al Globus) writes: > >............................................. Congress has been >very supportive of NASA, at least until Challenger and the budget >crises. Before that, Congress routinely increased NASAs money over >Reagan's requests. I guess you'll have to dump you pre-conceptions >about Congress and put the blame where it belongs, on the presidency. Which congresscritter's reelection pamphlets have *you* been reading? The chronic underfunding for the shuttle started a *long* time before the current administration. You can say this for congress, though, they've been consistent. Doubt if they'll ever get blamed for being in large part responsible for the Challenger disaster, among other things. (*No* :-)! ) ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 20:57:37 GMT From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com (Jay Freeman) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon Maybe an interesting Mars mission would be an orbiting mapper with excellent imaging capability: Elementary physical optics indicates that from 200 Km, a 1-meter aperture telescope operating in the mid-green could resolve objects on the surface that were only 10 cm in extent. A meter is perhaps large and heavy for a planetary mission, but surely, not by too much: I expect 0.3 m would not be too big a deal. And one need not work in the mid-green, either. I don't recall how far into the UV the transparency of the Martian atmosphere extends, but resolution is inversely proportional to wavelength, so if you could work at (say) 3000 Angstroms instead of 5500, there would be nearly a factor of two improvement. That means that an 0.3-m telescope, from 200 Km, at 3000 Angstroms, could resolve objects less than a foot in diameter; and that ought to be sufficient for finding a smooth "landing field". Thus a high-resolution imaging orbiter could provide detailed images of a wide variety of sites, both for immediate scientific use and as part of the search for a "landing field"; the lander could wait in orbit (or be a later flight) until a field was identified. I suspect that the launch weight required to put such an imaging spacecraft into Martian orbit is less than the launch weight required to get a small nuclear device to the Martian surface. (The latter mission must launch not only the weight of the device, but also the weight of its re-entry vehicle.) -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 88 20:25:06 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpf!colsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Marcia Colsmith) Subject: I want to be an astronaut Laura Watson asked what qualifications an astronaut needs. I have an interest in that myself, and even asked a few questions of a genuine astronaut once. A bachelors degree is required, but of course the more degrees the better, in appropriate fields of course. This could be almost anything scientific. I believe most astronauts nowadays (aside from the actual pilots) have PhDs simply because they were "more qualified" and there is a surplus of applicants. A PhD is not required, however. I always thought being an astronaut was out for me because of my bad vision. However only the pilots need perfect vision now, the mission specialists just need to have correctable vision, i.e. contacts are fine. There is a max and min height (because of space suits I guess) but most people fit that. Anybody know the numbers? Sometimes I think about getting another techie degree just to be better qualified for the space program! Okay, it's a dream I have, but maybe someday I'll do something about it. The other thing I worry about is I get dizzy reading in a car and stuff like that and I think I'd be prone to space sickness. :-( Anyway I did briefly talk to Dr. Sally Ride twice and she is one of my heros. (Heroine sounds like a drug, or some lady tied to railroad tracks, so I say hero for either gender.) When I toured Kennedy Space Center last month 95% of the people in the promo films were male, but they were kind of old recordings and simulations. Marcia Colsmith ihnp4!ihlpf!colsmith ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 15:26:23 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpf!colsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Marcia Colsmith) Subject: Dr. Sally Ride I hope 12 other people don't post this as well, but Sally Ride left NASA because they weren't letting her do research work. She said that when she joined the astronaut corps NASA said the astronauts could do research between flights and training. Evidently they weren't doing this, so she left to do research at Stanford (?). And the height requirement is definitely NOT a max of 5'9" although I don't remember what it is. I think it was around 6'3" or 6'6". Marcia Colsmith ihnp4!ihlpf!colsmith ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 88 20:23:29 GMT From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon Ideas for overcoming the landing site problem: Since what is wanted is a clear landing site, scout it out ahead of time. There are objections to sending a large enough telescope on the orbiter to check the surface from LMO (low martian orbit), such as the size of the thing, but this might work anyway. Carefully view the terrain and select a spot before going down. This has been suggested by others. Now for my idea: If a telescope is too heavy/bulky/low in resolution, send down a Ranger type probe first. This is just a camera on a retrorocket, with position locational gear. Have it take pictures of the proposed area as it impacts. Resolution is limited by how fast the camera transmits (Geronimoooo....WHAP! :->). This should give pictures detailed enough. Load it with an impact-survivable transmitter, and you have a landing beacon as well. This would allow a rather stupid but accurate mechanism for terminal guidance. Send down several, and the latter ones could use the previous ones to accurately triangulate the clearest landing site with respect to the probes. (Of course, you'd want some extras, in case some hit rocks :->) Comments? I wanna call it Highdiver... Kevin Ryan kr0u@andrew.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 2 May 88 22:53:00 GMT From: ddsw1!igloo!bhv@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Bronis Vidugiris) Subject: Ion-like-drive I seem to recall hearing about a test of an ion drive that used the ions and/or electrons of free space rather than an onboard reaction mass source. Is this correct, and if so, does anybody remember the details of where and when this was done? Bronis Vidugiris !igloo!bhv@ddsw1 ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 18:58:37 GMT From: jenkins@purdue.edu (Colin Jenkins) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? In article <1492@csib.csi.UUCP> jwhitnel@csib.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) writes: >There was an article on the qualifications that NASA is looking for in their >astronauts in NASA Technical Briefs (I think the name is correct) about >2 years ago. All I can remember is that they wanted an advance degree >in the sciences or engineering and that you be under 5' 9". Actually, I think the true irony of this is that a 5'9" max height discriminates against a heck of a lot more men than women! I'm certainly out of the running. [Which isn't to say that NASA is easier for women, this just caught my eye] >Jerry Whitnell Been through Hell? Colin ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 07:31:33 GMT From: lim@csvax.caltech.edu (Tat Lim) Subject: Oops... (was: Nevada fuel plant explosion) Open foot, insert mouth... This is what happens when you post without getting all available facts straight first... The plant that exploded in Nevada apparently *was* making sodium perchlorate, but for *solid rocket booster* fuel. Thus there is a direct effect on the Shuttle program. Now, my question becomes whether this is the same fuel compound used in other solid rockets used by the U.S. space program. -- Kian-Tat Lim (ktl@wagvax.caltech.edu, GEnie: K.LIM1) ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 18:43:52 GMT From: paulf@shasta.stanford.edu (Paul A. Flaherty) Subject: Re: NASA News In article <1067@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: >"AMSAT" (Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation) is a registered trademark, >mostly to protect against misuse by American Satellite Corporation. >Unfortunately, "OSCAR" is not. >Phil Begging the Colonel's pardon, but "OSCAR" is a registered trademark, in the state of California, owned by California Project OSCAR, Inc. We're the folks that put up the first amateur satellites; nowadays, Project OSCAR spends most of its time raising money for AMSAT, and a few of its own projects. The relationship between the two groups is bizarre, indeed. -- -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | One Internet to rule them all, -- Tome Computer Systems Laboratory | One Internet to find them; of Stanford University | One Internet to bring them all, Internet ->paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU | And in the Ether bind them. Hacking ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #230 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 May 88 23:25:27 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06735; Tue, 24 May 88 20:22:44 PDT id AA06735; Tue, 24 May 88 20:22:44 PDT Date: Tue, 24 May 88 20:22:44 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805250322.AA06735@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #231 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 231 Today's Topics: Group for Space Camp Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Cometesimals (was: Millions of comets hit Earth) Nevada fuel plant explosion runway designations Re: Nevada fuel plant explosion Re: runway designations Re: runway designations Re: Nevada fuel plant explosion Re: Nevada fuel plant explosion Re: Nevada fuel plant explosion Re: Is it CBS or NASA? SRM Fuel Composition (was:Re: Nevada fuel plant explosion) Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 May 88 03:37:42 GMT From: ulysses!terminus!picard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Luc) Subject: Group for Space Camp I lead a group of folks down to adult Space Academy level II each fall. This is a three day program leading to flights in the Shuttle simulator. The dates we are attending this year are October 7-9. The cost is $405 (10% off). I need to have all the money in by June 1. If you're interested, send email or call me at: 703-361-1290 (h) 703-689-5915 (w) ++rich ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 20:10:14 GMT From: aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!lear@rutgers.edu (eliot lear) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon We can use Mars to solve the world's parking problem ;-) In article <1662@bigtex.uucp> james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen) writes: > Why do it the expensive way when you can save money for other projects? Ohyeahsure. It reminds me of times when the military considered ABombs as practical solutions to all of our problems. Remember the days of John Foster Dulles and the French? Does science entirely understand the intended effects AND the side effects that would be caused by such an explosion? After all, in the long run, which way is the expensive way? Eliot Lear [lear@rutgers.edu] ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 16:15:28 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon In article <5121@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >1. EXPLOSION ON THE PAD: Folks, the Challenger disaster was bad, really >bad. But imagine if it had a nuclear warhead on board. Bye, bye South >Florida! A spaceship is one of the least stable places to keep a >warhead! Boy, I bet you have a tough time sleeping at night! What is the difference between: Rocket propelled vehicle capable of lifting off of the surface of a planet and travelling at barely suborbital velocities above the bulk of the atmosphere and conducting a controlled re-entry and a spaceship? (the first is a description of an ICBM) What is the connection between "a nuclear warhead" on the Challenger and "Bye, bye South Florida"? jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 19:40:09 GMT From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu (Bill Wyatt) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon In article <5121@pucc.Princeton.EDU>, EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Eric Tilenius) writes: [...] > I think the Life-on-Mars opposition to this argument has been > adequately stated, but I wanted to point out a couple of extra > arguments against this which I sent Paul through EMAIL (did you get > it, Paul?): > > 1. EXPLOSION ON THE PAD: Folks, the Challenger disaster was bad, > really bad. But imagine if it had a nuclear warhead on board. Bye, > bye South Florida! A spaceship is one of the least stable places to > keep a warhead! I agree that the nuking Mars is a BAD IDEA, but the above is *very* unlikely to be a problem. Warheads just don't go off until armed, and they are not armed until well after launch. Remember the H-bomb dropped accidentally from a B52 over Spain in the 60's? Remember the Titan that blew up in its silo in Arkansas, tossing the warhead almost a mile? Bill UUCP: {husc6,ihnp4,cmcl2,mit-eddie}!harvard!cfa!wyatt Wyatt ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 May 88 18:22:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Joe Keane X-Andrew-Message-Size: 579+0 Subject: Re: Cometesimals (was: Millions of comets hit Earth) In some article spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com (Jay Freeman) writes: > Huh?? When you whack on something hard, you expect a louder noise, > not a different pitch, than when you whack on it more gently. The > analogy here is Moon <-> bell (or drumhead, or tabletop); LEM impact > <-> little hammer blow; impact of meteoroid or cometesimal <-> big > hammer blow. There are some natural resonant frequencies. A small impact tends to stimulate the higher ones, while a large impact tends to stimulate the lower ones. So you don't get different pitches, just a different distribution. --Joe ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 06:43:37 GMT From: lim@csvax.caltech.edu (Kian-Tat Lim) Subject: Nevada fuel plant explosion By now, you've all heard about the explosion at the hypergolic fuel plant in Nevada. This is supposed to cause further setbacks for the already-lame U.S. space program. Some early questions: 1) Shuttle uses monomethyl hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide for OMS/RCS. Does the reported sodium perchlorate have anything to do with this? If not, shouldn't it be unaffected? 2) What fuels do other launch systems use: Titan, Scout, Ariane? Kian-Tat Lim (ktl@wagvax.caltech.edu, GEnie: K.LIM1) ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 88 19:53:10 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: runway designations In the TV program SPACEFLIGHT there is a sequence of the shuttle landing on runway 23 at Edwards (There! That got it in sci.space). Runways are designated by the magnetic azimuth in 10 degree increments with the 0 omitted. Since the magnetic pole wanders have there been runways whose designations had to be changed? ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 17:23:49 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Nevada fuel plant explosion If sodium perchlorate was reported, correct the reporter: that should have been ammonium perchlorate. It's the oxidizer used in the SRBs. I think most of the rest of the active ingredients is taken up with aluminum powder. (I assume that the binder, sort of like synthetic rubber, is comparatively inactive.) As to how much effect on the space program, I suppose it depends on what percentage of the total supply of fuel comes out of that one facility. United Technologies, just a bit south and east of here, makes the solid booster for the Titan-4, and they sort of indicated that their supplier is not the one who had the accident. > 2) What fuels do other launch systems use: Titan, Scout, Ariane? a. Titan: Hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide for the liquid engines, and solid boosters using ammonium perchlorate and aluminum for the strap-ons. b. Scout: Solid fuel. Not sure what type, but guess amm.perch., etc. c. Ariane: LOX and (?) kerosene. Maybe LH2. The shuttle main engines, btw, use LOX + LH2. ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 14:11:45 GMT From: cat.cmu.edu!dep@pt.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) Subject: Re: runway designations Yes. Two airports I know of (AGC & ZZV, I think) had their runways relabeled. You could see the old numbers painted out beneath the new numbers. ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 22:16:10 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!edg@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: runway designations Yes, Runway designations change and variation lines move, and VORs get reset every few years. I don't know many of the details. One thing to remember is that runway designations are quite approximate. For example, San Jose has three parallel runways numbered 30L, 30R and 29. The actual runway heading is probably somewhere between them. OAKland's 33 is actually on a heading of 326 degrees. Consult your local instrument approach plate for the actual runway heading. -edg edg@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 88 23:20:37 GMT From: ubvax!unisv!vanpelt@lll-winken.llnl.gov (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: Nevada fuel plant explosion In article <52155@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >If sodium perchlorate was reported, correct the reporter: that should >have been ammonium perchlorate. It's the oxidizer used in the SRBs. I >think most of the rest of the active ingredients is taken up with >aluminum powder. (I assume that the binder, sort of like synthetic >rubber, is comparatively inactive.) The butyl rubber binder is also fuel; it burns quite nicely, though not as exothermic as aluminum dust. Starstruck's hybrid rocked used butyl rubber as a fuel and LO2 as oxidizer. I used to have the formula for the SRB propellant. It also contains some epoxy (about 5%?) and about 1% iron oxide as a 'combustion enhancer'. (Aluminum dust + iron oxide = thermite.) Mike Van Pelt ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 88 18:27:28 GMT From: ulysses!thumper!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Nevada fuel plant explosion > a. Titan: Hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide for the liquid engines, and > solid boosters using ammonium perchlorate and aluminum for the > strap-ons. Strictly speaking, the fuel for Titan is called Aerozine-50. This is a 50-50 mixture of straight hydrazine (N2H4) plus unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH -- take off the two hydrogens on one of the nitrogens in straight hydrazine and replace them with two methyl groups). Water is also present in small amounts, so it's really 49.5% N2H4 + 49.5% UDMH + 1% H2O. Straight hydrazine is denser than the organic variations (i.e., you can cram more of it into a tank), but it is less stable and it freezes at too high a temperature. The Aerozine-50 mixture is a good compromise. AMSAT Oscar-10 used UDMH in its kick motor; Phase 3-C (due to go up in a few weeks) will use Aerozine-50, mainly because its greater density will result in more kick per unit tank volume. The payload is heavier this time, but the same size tank and engine are being used. > c. Ariane: LOX and (?) kerosene. Maybe LH2. The Ariane first and second stages use UDMH + N2O4. The third stage is cryogenic; it uses LH2 + LO2. Kerosene is not used anywhere on the Ariane. It's easy to tell from a launch picture when hypergolic fuels like those used on Titan, Ariane and Proton are being used. The plume is almost transparent, unlike those of kerosene-fueled rockets that emit yellow-white plumes, or solid-fueled rockets that emit lots of dense white aluminum oxide smoke. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 88 21:37:33 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Nevada fuel plant explosion > c. Ariane: LOX and (?) kerosene. Maybe LH2. Tsk, tsk, two out of three wrong. Ariane first and second stages use nitrogen tetroxide and one of the hydrazine variants (UDMH I think). The third stage is LOX/LH2. Oh yeah, and solid strap-ons for the newer variants (also still-newer liquid strap-ons but I don't know what they burn, probably N2O4/UDMH). To add to the list... d. Atlas-Centaur: LOX/kerosene in Atlas, LOX/LH2 in Centaur. e. Delta: LOX/kerosene plus solid strap-ons. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 19:15:00 GMT From: silber@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? >By "victims of male technology" I understood a condemnation of the >macho attitude that led NASA not to include any sort of escape >mechanism in the shuttle. Which of course would imply some sort of >cowardice and fear of battle and might be misused if someone chickened >out and pushed the "let me out" button...right??? Can't have those >heros chickening out, can we? >Valerie Maslak Every U.S. spacecraft before the shuttle had an escape system. From what I understand, the difficulty with including one in the shuttle was that there was no way of including a system of more than marginal survivability that was usable in the boost phase. (For aerodynamic reasons an escape tower was impossible, likewise for an orbiter separation system. Ejection seats were used on the first flight, but would be to bulky to provide for all the crew, and if there is one thing NASA would not want it would be for the flight crew to punch out leaving the passengers.) The current system (the pole and parachutes) would only be of use either on the pad or in gliding (and subsonic) flight, and appears to be more of a PR scheme than anything useful, considering that those are the two safest portions of the launch. ami silberman ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 88 12:33:47 GMT From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrlnk!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Mark Johnson) Subject: SRM Fuel Composition (was:Re: Nevada fuel plant explosion) The approximate solid fuel mix used in most of the various solid rocket motors goes something like this: 80% ammonium perchlorate 10% powdered aluminum (which coincidentally gives the white exhaust) 10% HTPB (Hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene, a polymer which serves as both fuel and plastic binder, and which not coincidentally provides a good deal of energy into the bargain (15-20% more than earlier solid recipes of polyurethane base and similar ratios). My percentages may be a bit off, but this is basically what's used. Mark Johnson (mjohnson@ncrwic.UUCP) ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 88 02:01:26 GMT From: killer!bigtex!james@eddie.mit.edu (James Van Artsdalen) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? IN article <74700087@uiucdcsp>, silber@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > Every U.S. spacecraft before the shuttle had an escape system. In principle at least, I believe they could also extinguish the rockets, which the shuttle can't (SRBs). > The current system (the pole and parachutes) would only be of use > either on the pad or in gliding (and subsonic) flight, and appears to > be more of a PR scheme than anything useful, considering that those > are the two safest portions of the launch. Is the pole really useful on the pad? Isn't there a tower in the way? :-) Even the ejection seats originally in place were not useful in ascent phase. Out of curiosity, what were the windows for the previous escape systems? How long before the rockets were moving too fast or too high? Question: Does anyone know when SRB separation occurs, height & velocity? I've been having trouble finding out. James R. Van Artsdalen ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 88 10:25:25 GMT From: lim@csvax.caltech.edu (Kian-Tat Lim) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? In article <1870@bigtex.uucp> james@bigtex.UUCP (James Van Artsdalen) writes: >Question: Does anyone know when SRB separation occurs, height & >velocity? I've been having trouble finding out. According to the Space Shuttle Operator's Manual, "By the time the solid motors consume their propellants (T + 2 minutes and 12 seconds) you have reached Mach 4.5 and an altitude of 28 miles (45 kilometers)." Kian-Tat Lim (ktl@wagvax.caltech.edu, GEnie: K.LIM1) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #231 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 May 88 06:23:17 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07574; Wed, 25 May 88 03:21:44 PDT id AA07574; Wed, 25 May 88 03:21:44 PDT Date: Wed, 25 May 88 03:21:44 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805251021.AA07574@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #232 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 232 Today's Topics: Re: runway designations Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: ISF funding held up Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: How YOU can REALLY become an astronaut! Re: NASA News Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? No April CANOPUS Re: NASA News Re: NASA News NASA Technical Briefs Re: NASA News ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 May 88 19:04:47 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: runway designations Yep. Runways 06L/24R and 06R/24L at Pearson Int'l (formerly Toronto Int'l, aka YYZ) used to be 05L/23R and 05R/23L respectively, a few years back. ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 88 17:25:49 GMT From: attcan!lsuc!spectrix!tmsoft!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? > ... The current system (the pole and parachutes) would only be of use > either on the pad or in gliding (and subsonic) flight, and appears to > be more of a PR scheme than anything useful, considering that those > are the two safest portions of the launch. How safe gliding flight is depends on what you are gliding towards. If there isn't a runway down there, then the safety is illusory: ditching or belly-landing an orbiter is considered unsurvivable. The sections of the STS-1 flight plan [I have a copy] dealing with disastrous aborts that leave the orbiter unable to reach a runway all end with "EJECT". The pole and chutes are not just a PR move: they are the result of recognizing that safety could be considerably improved with a very small investment. They do not solve the escape-in-powered-flight problem, but they are not meant to -- it's a much harder problem. Given oxygen masks (which I think are also part of the new plans) and parachutes, the Challenger crew would have had a fighting chance to survive. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 88 04:30:17 GMT From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu (Eric William Tilenius) Subject: Re: ISF funding held up In article <9716@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, web@garnet.berkeley.edu writes: >The follwing four senators are reportedly holding up funding for the >Industrial Space Facility. The process is well under way, so call or >write to them *immediately*. Failure to force NASA to purchase the ISF >would be a serious blow to any movement toward commercial space >development. The ISF is one of the weakest and most insulting idea in movement toward commercial space development I've seen. Originally, Space Industries was supposed to run it and pay back the funds within X years. NASA was to use it when it needed it, and it would be available to other companies. Now they're trying to force NASA to guarantee $600 million or some number when it, quite plainly, has stated that it doesn't want to buy in to that large a chunk and has much better use for the money. I'm sorry, but I can't support a handout program for Space Industries, which is what this is. I'm all for commercialization, but not this way! Given its current budget constraints, NASA has MUCH BETTER THINGS IT CAN DO WITH THIS MONEY. If Space Industries had stuck with their original plan, it would have been good and well, but this is turning into a fiasco. - ERIC - ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 00:04:32 GMT From: zodiac!deimos!booter@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Elaine Richards) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? >>2 years ago. All I can remember is that they wanted an advance degree >>in the sciences or engineering and that you be under 5' 9". I think this has changed. The Apollo craft were larger than previous and the space shuttle has no such need for small stature. Admittedly, women are at an advantage as astronauts as they tend to be shorter and lighter and just as smart. More bang for the buck as it were :-) ER ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 17:32:34 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? > >It's true, she's left NASA. [Sally Ride] > > The scuttlebut is that she left NASA when NASA stopped flying after > the challenger tragedy. The reason I heard attributed was that she > joined NASA to fly... Don't forget, also, her involvement with the Ride Report. Of necessity it was critical of NASA in certain respects. That probably ended any hope of her flying again. Who flies, and when, is much more a matter of office politics than of technical competence or fitness. Offending the powers that be is a good way to spend the rest of your career on the ground. She must have been aware of this when she took on that project; I don't recall whether that was before or after Challenger. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 01:40:23 GMT From: mfci!root@uunet.uu.net (SuperUser) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? I'm sorry to intrude on this newsgroup again, but I thought it might be better to get this issue straight. I have the appropriate form from NASA in front of me as I type this: Height: pilot candidates min. 5'4", max 6'4". Mission specialist candidates min 5'0", max 6'4". Vision: pilot candidates uncorrected 20/50 or better, correctable to 20/20 each eye. Mission specialists 20/100 or better, correctable to 20/20 each eye. Blood pressure: preponderant systolic not to exceed 140, nor diastolic to exceed 90 mm Hg, measured in sitting position. There's also a maximum acceptable hearing loss that I don't feel like typing in. And also a list of disqualifying physical disorders that aren't explicitly spelled out. Bob Colwell mfci!colwell@uunet.uucp Multiflow Computer 175 N. Main St. Branford, CT 06405 203-488-6090 ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 17:22:39 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: How YOU can REALLY become an astronaut! I have minor reservations about one or two of the points Jim Bowery makes, but on the whole his comments are worth paying attention to. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 88 22:27:11 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: NASA News Note that the Navy "Oscar" navigation satellites are not to be confused with the amateur radio "OSCARs" (orbiting satellites carrying amateur radio). "AMSAT" (Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation) is a registered trademark, mostly to protect against misuse by American Satellite Corporation. Unfortunately, "OSCAR" is not. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 16:34:58 GMT From: trwrb!cadovax!gryphon!mhnadel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Miriam Nadel) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? In article <3701@zodiac.UUCP> booter@ads.com (Elaine Richards) writes: >At one point a woman (I forget her name) mused about becoming an >astronaut and a man (in a friendly way) said, "Go for it." > >My brother in law is in Navy Air (Navigator) and his buddies liked to >rumor around that he had "the right stuff". (He does). Bill has nixed >the idea of being an astronaut because you basically sit on your butt >waiting for the flight. It is not Mondo Career Development here. There >are many career paths to take at NASA (or elsewhere). > >As far as I recall, Sally Ride left the space program to join a think >tank at Stanford. If I had the credentials that Ride does, I would be a >little bored sitting around with my thumb out, too. While it is true that it is generally a long wait to get a flight, it is not a matter of sitting around bored. Astronauts have several other tasks they are responsible for in support of space missions - which is probably the primary reason Ph.D.'s are preferred. As for NASA career paths, NASA is notoriously prone to hiring freezes and generally underpays their employees. There are lots of other ways to work on the space program (and get paid what you're worth) - though if you have serious reservations about working on military space projects it may be harder to find jobs. Miriam Nadel ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 13:57:19 GMT From: ddsw1!dino@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Laura Watson) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Actually, I think I would be most interested in the job of space station construction engineer. Provided I'd get to go up and get my hands er, spacesuit gloves on the thing myself (I'm the hands-on type.) I'm not so sure I'd want to be sitting around in space watching spiders spin their webs or launching ozone canisters all that much. Are they taking applicants for space station construction yet? Where could I get an advanced degree in space station construction engineering? (Somehow I don't think planetary science would be of much help to me in that.) Laura Watson ...[ihnp4, moss, codas]!ddsw1!dino ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 88 04:05:06 GMT From: natinst!bigtex!james@cs.utexas.edu (James Van Artsdalen) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? IN article <22258@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA>, sworking@teknowledge-vaxc.UUCP (Scott Workinger) wrote: > The scuttlebut is that she left NASA when NASA stopped flying after > the challenger tragedy. The reason I heard attributed was that she > joined NASA to fly. Since they weren't flying she wanted to get on > with her life. When you consider how long an astronaut has to wait to > get even a single mission in the best of times, it's not surprising. The head of the Astronaut Office has always exerted pretty much absolute control over the astronauts because of his power to choose flight crews. When you work better than 60-70hrs a week for ten years, in order to get a five or six day flight, you do whatever the chief says, and you do nothing that gets you on his bad side. In this context, I have to wonder if Ride left out of concern of ever getting another flight. You can't so intimately associated with a high profile commission that investigated the accident - which ruined dozens of careers - and expect to get away untarnished. I was really surprised that *any* astronaut would agree to be appointed to that commission unless he or she didn't expect to fly again anyway. There have been other retirements. Owen Garriott retired a while back, leaving NASA without anyone with significant space time (ie, going back to the Skylab days) except John Young, who I assume will not fly again. If Young retires before the Space Station is launched, as seems likely, that would mean that the most space-experienced astronauts at the time would have maybe 20 days! Maybe the Russians could loan someone as a consultant... BTW: does anyone know who selects flight crews these days? Is that still concentrated in the Astronaut Office, or has it been moved? James R. Van Artsdalen ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 88 13:57:28 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: No April CANOPUS There will be no CANOPUS distribution for April, since there were no articles for the month. (Perhaps the editors had to rest after the unusually large March issue.) By the way, the best explanation for last month's mailer problems seems to be a failure of some Internet sites to update software on schedule. If this is correct, most paths should be repaired by now, or at least in time for next month's distribution. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 14:37:03 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: NASA News >From article <1067@thumper.bellcore.com>, by karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn): > Note that the Navy "Oscar" navigation satellites are not to be > confused with the amateur radio "OSCARs" (orbiting satellites carrying > amateur radio). The Navy 'Oscar' is just the radio call sign 'O', as in 'MIKE,NOVEMBER,OSCAR,PAPA, ROMEO..'. It stands for 'Operational' I believe, as Oscar 1 = Transit NNS O-1 = NNSS 30010 was the first Transit satellite to be declared operational. The first few failed quickly so they built lots, then they got the bugs out and were stuck with storing a dozen in boxes while the ones in space chirped happily away for a decade each. They've now decided storing them in space costs less warehouse rental so theyre putting them up two at a time. Oscar 24 and 30 went up last year, I don't know which ones the latest two are (they couldnt do anything as helpful as launch them in numerical order, of course.) Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 88 15:40:51 GMT From: hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!ncrlnk!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson@gatech.edu (Mark Johnson) Subject: Re: NASA News In article <110@embudo.UUCP> markf@embudo.UUCP (markf) writes: >NASA NEWS - April 19, 1988 >SCOUT ROCKET TO LAUNCH NAVY NAVIGATION SATELLITE > >The pair of Oscar satellites, each weighing 141 pounds, will be placed >into a 600-nautical-mile circular polar orbit. The Oscars are part of >the Navy's long-established, continuous all-weather global navigation >system. I thought that the "Oscar" name was already taken by the on-going Amateur Radio Satellite program, which has built a total of 12 "OSCAR" satellites (U.S., Japan, and European participation). OSCAR = "Orbiting Satellite Carrying Amateur Radio" ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ So why does the Navy need to steal somebody else's satellite name??? Mark Johnson (mjohnson@ncrwic.UUCP) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 May 88 07:00 EDT From: RON PICARD Subject: NASA Technical Briefs > There was an article on the qualifications that NASA is looking for in > their astronauts in NASA Technical Briefs. I've heard these briefs are an excellent source of information. From what I was told you need to show you are in a job related to NASA work which I might be able to do. What I need is the address to write to. Anybody out there know the correct installation? Thanks, Ron Picard (PICARD@GMR.COM) ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 88 07:45:33 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: Re: NASA News In article mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: (...) >Oscar 24 and 30 went up last year, I don't know which ones the latest >two are (they couldnt do anything as helpful as launch them in >numerical order, of course.) I forwarded the question to the higher authority: NASA/SPACELINK MENU SYSTEM Revision:1.15.00.00 You have received a message from NASA: The serial numbers of the new Oscars are 30230 and 30320. This is really not a NASA program--the Navy runs it. For more information you can contact Joe Padorsic at Point Mugu. 805/989-4233 Eric ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #232 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 May 88 23:23:23 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09042; Wed, 25 May 88 20:21:36 PDT id AA09042; Wed, 25 May 88 20:21:36 PDT Date: Wed, 25 May 88 20:21:36 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805260321.AA09042@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #233 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 233 Today's Topics: Re: Unused Saturn V's Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Obtaining NASA Tech Briefs [Fruit of the Loom ;-)] NASA's basic requirments for astronauts Re: Vocabulary lesson #1: "the space program" Re: Is it CBS or NASA? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 May 88 17:27:45 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Unused Saturn V's > > Last month I saw an aging Saturn V on the ground at Cape Canaveral and > > ... saying he thought it was criminal. > > Who's to blame? Why aren't they in prison? Why do I smell > > the stench of Congress? > Richard Nixon cut the lunar flight program... Congress has been very > supportive of NASA, at least until Challenger... Sorry, not so. Congressional penny-pinching has been a major part of the problem all along, even under supportive presidents like LBJ. The decision to can the last three lunar missions may have been Nixon's (I don't remember offhand), but the decision to terminate Saturn V production after the first 15 was made in Congress. (NASA had to argue hard just to get 15, in fact.) That ended any real hope of keeping either Apollo or the Saturn alive. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 88 03:35:26 GMT From: att!occrsh!uokmax!madean@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mark A Dean) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? In article <809@esunix.UUCP> loosemor@esunix.UUCP (Sandra Loosemore) writes: >What bothered me is how blatantly *sexist* this broadcast made NASA appear. >Is this an accurate picture of how NASA works? Or is CBS just living up >to its reputation for biased reporting again? >--Sandra Loosemore I hope we're not running this into the ground but there are a few points that I would like to make that I didn't see in any of the followups. I spent 4 semesters in the Engineering Co-Op program at NASA-JSC, and while it is true that overall there are far more men than women working in the Engineering area, most of this is due to the fact that there were far fewer women engineers in the work force when NASA was created. Of the "younger" crowd of Engineers, women comprise a much greater percentage of the work force than they do at the center as a whole. As an example, in the group I was with of the 5 Co-Ops who decided to accept full time positions at JSC, 2 were female and 3 were male. And of the 100-150 Co-Ops that JSC has, 40-50% are female (which is a greater percentage than in engineering as a whole I think). While most of the people in Mission Control were men, it is to be expected that on a mission as critical as STS-26 they would want their most experienced people (mostly men due to the much smaller number of women engineering graduates in the 50's/early 60's) at the consoles. It is also harder for NASA/the federal government in general to hire top notch women (and men) engineering graduates, due to fierce competition with the private sector, which can pay much more to recent grads. NASA isn't perfect, there is some sexism, but mostly by the good-*old* boys who are about to retire anyway.... Hopefully we'll be able to get rid of many of the problems when we dump some of that old excess baggage. -MAD ------------------------------ Sender: Wegeng.WBST207V@xerox.com Date: 9 May 88 09:50:14 PDT (Monday) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? From: Wegeng.WBST207V@xerox.com Cc: Wegeng.WBST207V@xerox.com L.Perkins writes: >At the risk of being flamed by the few in NASA who are not that way I >speak as a former NASA contractor employee who has observed that behind >the high tech futuristic image that the agency likes to project, is a >1940's era red neck engineering club. This agency is the good ol' boys >in action. I think that you'd find that much of the aerospace industry is like this. Some of the reasons are: 1) most of the engineers are older, conservative, white males. 2) most of their customers (both military and civilian) are conservative, white males (I'm not sure about age). 3) it's still very difficult to recruit women/minorities into this field of study. I base the above on many conversations that I've had with my father, who before he retired was a senior manager in the aerospace industry, and who's primary business was government/military contracts. Things are changing, but not very fast (and not without opposition). /Don ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 88 15:17:47 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? >From article <4319@dasys1.UUCP>, by lkw@dasys1.UUCP (Laura Watson): > Tasks such as??? > Laura Watson {uunet}!mstan\ Tasks such as mission planning, overseeing design and development of the software and hardware, etc.. each astro upon completing 1-yr basic training is allocated a speciality. For instance, Sally Ride's was the remote manipulator arm, and she became one of the first astronauts to test it out. Bruce McCandless spent many, many years involved in the development of the MMU backpack, he was the last of his group to get a flight but when he did it was to make the first free flight in the backpack he'd helped create. I just read some interesting statistics in NASA ACTIVITIES Mar/Apr 1988 issue some of which I list below: Women made up 10.8 % of NASA scientist/engineers in 1987, up from 2.6% in 1974. At higher grades (GS-14 and above) they make up 4.8%, up from 0.6% in 1974. Article also listed specific instances of women in senior positions. So although things aren't wonderful, they don't sound worse than in the rest of the techie world. Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 May 88 14:52:26 pdt From: Eugene N. Miya Subject: Obtaining NASA Tech Briefs [Fruit of the Loom ;-)] Send a request to: NASA STI Facility Manager, TU Division P.O. Box 8757 Baltimore, MD 21240-9985 --eugene ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 88 20:24:39 GMT From: trwrb!cadovax!gryphon!gbarbay@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Gordon Barbay) Subject: NASA's basic requirments for astronauts Since there seems to be some question over the requirements for astronaut candidates, what follows is excerpts from the NASA brochure "Announcement for Mission Specialist and Pilot Astronaut Candidates". This is from a few years ago but it shouldn't have changed much if at all. Text in []'s indicate my comments. #Begin excerpts Basic qualification requirements Applicants *must* meet the following minimum requirements prior to submitting an application. Mission Specialist Astronaut Candidates: 1. Bachelor's degree from an accredited institution in engineering, biological science, physical science or mathematics. Degree must be followed by at least three years of related progressivly responsible, professional experience. An advanced degree is desirable and may be substituted for part or all of the experience requirement (master's degree = 1 year, doctoral degree = 3 years). Quality of academic preperation is important. 2. Ability to pass a NASA class II space physical, which is similar to a civilian or military class II flight physical and includes the following specific standards: Distant visual acuity: 20/100 or better uncorrected, correctable to 20/20, each eye. Blood pressure: 140/90 measured in sitting postion. 3. Height between 60 and 76 inches. Pilot Astronaut Candidates: 1. [same as 1 above, minus the experience information] 2. At least 1000 hours pilot-in-command time in jet aircraft. Flight test experience highly desirable. 3. Ability to pass a NASA class I physical... [which] includes the following specific standards: Distant visual acuity: 20/50 or better uncorrected correctable to 20/20, each eye. Blood pressure: 140/90 measured in sitting postion. 4. Height between 64 and 76 inches. Applicants for the Astronaut Candidate Program must be citizens of the United States. Notes on Academic Requiremnets Applicants... must meet the basic education requirements for NASA engineering and scientific positions -- specifically: successful completion of standard professional curriculum in an accredited college or university leading to at least a bachelor's degree with major study in an appropriate field of engineering, biological science, physical science, or mathematics. The following degree fields, while related to engineering and the sciences, are not considered qualifying: -Degrees in technology (Engineering Technology, Aviation Technology, Medical Technology, etc.) -Degrees in Psychology (except for Clinical, Physiological or Experimental Psychology, which are qualifying). -Degrees in Nursing -Degrees in social sciences (Geography, Anthropology, Archeology, etc). -Degrees in Avaition, Aviation Management, or similar fields. Application Procedures [Civilians may obtain an application package] by writing to: NASA, Johnson Space Center Astronaut Selection Office ATTN: AHX Houston, TX 77058 Civilian applications will be accepted on a continous basis. Active duty military personnel must submit applications to their respective military service and not directly to NASA. Application procedures will be disseminated by each service. General Program Requirements Selected... astronaut candidates will undergo a 1 year training and evaluation period... Pilot astronaut candidates will maintain proficiency in NASA aircraft during thier candidate period. Applicants should be aware that selection as an astronaut candidate does not insure selection as an astronaut. Final selection as an astronaut will depend on satisfactory completion of the 1 year training and evaluation period. #End excerpts -Gordon gbarbay@gryphon.cts.com or gb74219@scgvaxd.scg.hac.com ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 88 06:46:40 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Vocabulary lesson #1: "the space program" I recently had reason to visit the libraries in the Marshall Space Flight Center. Something odd I noticed while in the 4200 Building (Center headquarters) building library: While the library has a good collection of recent reports (like case for mars, lunar bases & space settlements in the 21st century, report on the national comission on space, etc.), the reports were in 'mint' conidtion. You would think that in a building that has oversight of a fair chunk of NASA, these kind of future program reports would get heavy reading. Apparently not. From this I deduced that the space program (NASA version) has died. The main NASA/Army library (Marshall Space Flight Center is carved out of the Army Redstone Arsenal, they share library space.) is overcrowded in shelf space, and understaffed, which is about what you would expect for a government operation, but it is also not heavily used. In a center with thousands of government and contractor technical people, you would expect more activity than I saw. ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 88 03:31:20 GMT From: killer!bigtex!james@ames.arc.nasa.gov (James Van Artsdalen) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? In article <1263@uokmax.UUCP>, madean@uokmax.UUCP (Mark A Dean) wrote: > NASA isn't perfect, there is some sexism, but mostly by the good-*old* > boys who are about to retire anyway.... Hopefully we'll be able to get > rid of many of the problems when we dump some of that old excess > baggage. I actually worry more about the new generation of management than the old. This group has grown up for most of their NASA careers in the bureaucracy. They may never shake that mindset. Earlier management at least was around in the early sixties and knew how to get something done. In addition, I'll point out that the current management exodus isn't unprecedented. It may not even be as large as the group that left in the early '80s. NASA (JSC at least) went through a couple of early retirement incentives that were very successful - indeed too much so. A lot of mid-level Apollo-era management left then. Perhaps another indicator of the problems: A friend recently quit his job at a JSC contractor. The contractor in question is known for questionable practices. His answer to my query was "I could take the corruption, but not the incompetence" - this in reference to contractor management... James R. Van Artsdalen ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #233 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 May 88 06:26:32 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09836; Thu, 26 May 88 03:24:55 PDT id AA09836; Thu, 26 May 88 03:24:55 PDT Date: Thu, 26 May 88 03:24:55 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805261024.AA09836@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #234 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 234 Today's Topics: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: NASA's basic requirments for astronauts Re: Is it CBS or NASA? NASA news release (becoming an astronaut...) Astronaut selection Re: Astronaut selection Re: Uncle Carl is on the rampage Vocabulary lesson #5: "Space Booster" response to Bowery ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 May 88 03:55:52 GMT From: killer!bigtex!james@ames.arc.nasa.gov (James Van Artsdalen) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? IN article <4319@dasys1.UUCP>, lkw@dasys1.UUCP (Laura Watson) wrote: > Tasks such as??? Program Administrator. Astronauts have always been supposed to take part in the decision process at all levels at JSC. Even things like planning simulations get an invitation for the astronaut office. Certainly anything involving in-flight activities warrants their presence. In the past few years it became less of a practice to actually participate, but it was originally just the way things were done, and it is again becoming more common. Scientist. The scientist astronauts also participate in general science conferences to try to stay with their field(s) of expertise. This means reading all the journals and going to conferences, just like any other scientist. They are to be able to function as a scientist in orbit in fact, not just in name. Throw in with this the need to be a good engineer (as I suppose most experimental scientists must be away), as one of the main points of having manned presence is that you can fix something that goes wrong... The two paragraphs above each constitute a full-time job for most people. In addition: Medical training. There's no quick ambulance from orbit. All of the astronauts get medical training, including time in the emergency room at Herman Hospital in Houston, where they learn to handle some nasty injuries. Flight qualifications. I'm not sure how this is done any more, but the early scientist/astronauts maintained full qualifications to fly the orbiter if necessary: at least Owen Garriott could have landed it. This means not only pilot-training, but maintaining air-hours, and astronauts need lots of flight hours. Public Relations. Got to smile for the cameras, make speeches, do all sorts of gross stuff, and smile like a politician. Not the most time consuming part of the job, but not all of these people like being center stage, nor the notoriety: "May I have your autograph?" Have no fear, the government gets its money's worth out of these people... James R. Van Artsdalen ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 88 16:42:20 GMT From: mmm!viper!dave@umn-cs.arpa (David Messer) Subject: Re: NASA's basic requirments for astronauts In article <3912@gryphon.CTS.COM> gbarbay@gryphon.CTS.COM (Gordon Barbay) writes: >Since there seems to be some question over the requirements for >astronaut candidates, what follows is excerpts from the NASA >brochure "Announcement for Mission Specialist and Pilot Astronaut >Candidates". > . . . I wonder what their REAL requirements are. The requirements for a Mission Specialist are so vague that they are almost meaningless. So how do they select from the millions of "qualified" candidates? ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 88 23:13:59 GMT From: ulysses!terminus!picard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Luc) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Okay here we go. The qualifications for Mission Specialists are: A degree (BS) in a hard science or engineering w/ 3 years experience 20/100 vision in each eye correctable to 20/20 The ability to pass a Class II flight physical. They ask if you're a licensed pilot, but it's not required. The 5' 9" requirement dates back to Mercury, and I think it was 5'11", the height limit now is something like 6' 4" (I don't have the qualifications in front of me). ++rich ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 88 05:16:12 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: NASA news release (becoming an astronaut...) >From SpaceLink BBS [(205) 895 0028, Huntsville AL]: ================================================================== NASA ANNOUNCES 2-YEAR ASTRONAUT SELECTION CYCLE May 11, 1988 RELEASE: 88-63 NASA today announced plans to conduct astronaut candidate selections on a 2-year cycle and has scheduled the next class of candidates for 1990. Previously, NASA has selected astronaut candidates as needed, with selections the last 10 years occurring in 1978, 1980, 1984, 1985 and 1987. The 2-year process will moderate the demand on resources required for candidate selection and training while maintaining the manpower levels necessary to meet mission requirements. The next selection cycle will begin July 1, 1989, the cutoff date for applications. Applications received after that will be eligible for consideration in the next cycle. Nominees also will be submitted by the military services at the same time. After 6 months of screening, medical evaluation and interviews, selections will be announced in January 1990 and candidates will report to the Johnson Space Center in July. The selection process will begin again in July 1991 with the cutoff for applications to be considered in the 1992 selection. The number of selections made every 2 years will be based on projected requirements. NASA will continue to accept and review applications from the general public on an ongoing basis. Applicants for the Astronaut Candidate Program must be citizens of the United States. Applications can be obtained by writing to the NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Astronaut Selection Office, AHX, Houston, Texas 77058 ================================================================== Eric ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 88 07:56:11 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: Astronaut selection Some odds & ends about the NASA astronaut corps, from SpaceLink BBS (205 895 0028): ===================================================================== Background The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) selected the first group of astronauts in 1959. From 500 candidates having the required jet aircraft flight experience and engineering training as well as height below 5 feet 11 inches, 7 military men became the Nation's first astronauts. The second and third groups chosen included civilians who had extensive flying experience. By 1964, requirements had changed and emphasis was placed on academic qualifications; in 1965, six scientist astronauts were selected from a group of 400 applicants who had a doctorate or equivalent experience in the natural sciences, medicine, or engineering. The group named in 1978 was the first of Space Shuttle flight crews and was composed of 15 pilots and 20 mission specialists; 6 of the 35 were women and 4 were members of minorities. Since then, 4 additional groups have been selected with an even mix of pilots and mission specialists. In total, 172 astronauts have been selected in the 12 groups from 1959 through 1987; there are 96 astronauts currently in the program; 60 have retired, resigned or been reassigned; and 16 are deceased. Payload specialists are career scientists or engineers selected by their employer or country for their expertise in conducting a specific experi- ment or commercial venture on a Space Shuttle mission. Their names are not included in the Astronaut Fact Book. NASA accepts applications for the Astronaut Candidate Program on a continuing basis and selects candidates as needed. INSTITUTIONS WITH LARGEST NUMBER OF ASTRONAUT GRADUATES U.S. Naval Academy 31 U.S. Air Force Academy 18 Massachusetts Inst. Tech. 16 Purdue University 15 U.S. Naval Postgrad. Sch. 14 U.S. Military Academy 11 Colorado U. 9 Stanford 8 U.S. Air Force Inst. Tech. 8 California Inst. Tech. 7 U. of Michigan 7 Stanford U. 7 U. of Southern California 7 Auburn 6 ===================================================================== Eric ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 88 16:08:17 GMT From: paulf@shasta.stanford.edu (Paul A. Flaherty) Subject: Re: Astronaut selection Um, why does Stanford show up twice in that list? -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | One Internet to rule them all, -- Tome ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 19:11:59 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Uncle Carl is on the rampage In article <8270@ames.arpa>, mike@ames.arpa (Mike Smithwick) writes: > I just heard an incredible piece of dreck emanating from the direction > of Carl Sagan's mouth yesterday morning. > > Carl : "Well, yes, the Soviets would have to worry about us, seeing > that they are so far ahead in both manned and planetary space > exploration" > > This is not to criticize the concept of the mission, so don't start > another flame.war about that. Just Carl should learn to think before > he speaks. I get the impression that he *does* think before he speaks and means exactly what he says. Unfortunately. Sincerity != good sense (or correctness, for that matter). ( flames to dev/null, thanks ) ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Fri, 6 May 88 00:08:26 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Vocabulary lesson #5: "Space Booster" space booster, n, 1. A vehicle which carries payloads sky-high by expelling horrendous quantities of hot gases at enormous velocities, often carrying things all the way to orbit. 2. A person who tries to send the NASA budget sky high by expelling enormous quantities of hot gas instead of trying to give us a space program or create a spacefaring civilization. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 16:10:50 GMT From: mtunx!whuts!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@rutgers.edu (XMRP50000[jto]-d.l.skran) Subject: response to Bowery >> Second, do everything you can to help lower the cost of launch to low >> earth orbit. Once again, remember that there is absolutely no hope >> of this happening within NASA's space program or anything like it so >> forget about programs like ALS or NASP. Instead, do everything you >> can to protect private companies like Boeing's commercial division >> which along with Hughes would develop and sell launch services based >> on the Jarvis design if NASA were prevented from ever engaging in >> development programs like ALS (this is virtually a quote from a >> person high up in Boeing). If, as Mr. Bowery contends, NASA is so corrupt, rotten, lazy, stupid, etc., why does ALS concern Boeing at all? It should be a snap for the quick smart engineers at Boeing to build and launch a Jarvis, and get rich before NASA can even generate the ALS blueprints? Or is it possible that Mr. Bowery has presented only part of the story? Also, as usual, Mr. Bowery has presented an unsubstantiated "quote" to butruss his reasoning. I think any corporate officer would have to be pretty stupid to spend a single dollar on a launch vehicle when the main competition will consist of four government subsidized national launch operations, namely those of Soviet Union, China, ESA, and Japan Inc. >> Another item critical to this goal is to make sure that part of the >> approximately $10B/year (like around $6B to $8B) is provided to >> scientists who want to launch things to orbit and require that they >> launch on This is the core of Mr. Bowery's thinking. Instead of subsidizing the aerospace corporations, the NASA budget will be doled out to countless professors and grad students, who by some miracle of organization, will generate a coherent, efficient, well directed space program. Translation: stop spending money in such a way that it benefits engineers who work for large corporations. Instead, spend money in such a way that it benefits my friends who do research at universities and small companies. The net has repeatedly pointed out to Mr. Bowery the various problems with his ideas, to little effect. >> private launch services. Also, require high volume military >> requirements (such as the navigation satellites) be launched via >> private services. In order to pursue these policy objectives, forget >> about trying to talk the leaders of SpacePac, SpaceCause and the NSS >> Legislative Committee into it. If they were acting in good faith >> toward these goals they would have placed protection of private >> launch services at the top of their priorities Said organizations are working very hard to support private launch operations. A current target is making sure that the DOT gets enough dollars to process all their applications for private launch services. If Mr. Bowery was looking for constructive ways to help NSS/Spacecause/Spacepac achieve the goal of a strong private launch industry, he would find a lot to do, and a lot of people who agreed with him. Unfortunately, he has chosen to devote his energies to a series of wild and unsubstantiated attacks on various individuals in leadership positions. >> and beat the hell out of congress about letting Fletcher get away >> with ignoring the new Reagan space policy's push toward use of >> private services. Instead, they are supporting whatever NASA sees as >> a good idea this week. This statement merely indicates that Mr. Bowery is not very well informed about the activities of the organizations he likes to attack. >> Replace the leadership of these bodies AND act on your OWN to support Translation: elect Mr. Bowery to the NSS board >> these policy objectives by getting involved with candidates for >> political office in the >1990< election NOW! By all means, support the candidates of your choice, but ... Mr. Bowery's advice aside, you should consider contributing to Spacepac. An honest source of information on Spacpac is the Federal Elections Commission. Write to them -- I did before I became involved with Spacepac. I was impressed, and I think you'll be too. Mr. Bowery's allegations of cross-subsidization of NSS/Spacecause/Spacepac are simply more unsubstantiated allegations(mud-slinging). Spacepac 2801 B Ocean Park Boulevard Suite S Santa Monica, CA 90405 >> Third, give yourself valuable skills in potential launch service >> companies, potential space facilities companies and, most >> importantly, in applications of space technology such as materials >> science. If that means you have to go back to school, start looking >> for a good materials school now and figure out how you are going to >> get your degree before the turn of the century. Good places to start >> looking for advice and direction are leading edge semiconductor >> companies, AMROC, Boeing commercial, Office of Commercial Space >> Transportation (Transportation Dept.), Hughes and your public >> library. Stay away from SDI related fields -- it is a house of cards >> that will collapse in the next few years. >> >> Fourth, start making PERSONAL connections with people who appear to >> have the integrity to try to get to do things in space based on their >> own merit rather than with Other People's Money (taxpayer's money). >> These are people who have their own ideas and ambitions regarding >> commercial space enterprises. There are a lot of crazies among these >> folks, but don't let that stop you from getting to know them and what >> their visions are. SOME of them are going to be the entrepreneurs of >> the coming space age. (No, we haven't yet entered the space age in >> the West... when we enter the space age for real, everyone will KNOW >> it.) This is a wonderful dream which will founder on the reality that the United States is competing with four other corporate states in space, and AMROC has not one single chance(nor does anyone else) without massive subsidization. I support this kind of subsidy, but let's be honest about the real possibilities for commercial space activities. Over the years, I have seen a number of "Boweries" come and go in the space movement. They grab attention for a while, but eventually the word gets around, and people who are serious about moving into space start ignoring them after first listening carefully to their ideas to see if they do have some good ones. To the net: I ask you to independently confirm Mr. Bowery's allegations before judging the organizations and people he attacks. I applaud the collective decision to ignore Mr. Bowery's frequent attacks of rhetorical overload. To Mr. Bowery: I challenge you to substantiate your multiple allegations and I urge that you cease attacking and begin to engage in a constructive dialog. There is an old cliche: we shall hang together, or we shall hang separately. This sort of factional nonsense assures that the pro-space movement will never achieve its goals. Dale Skran Speaking for himself (not Amon!) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #234 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 May 88 06:26:37 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11317; Fri, 27 May 88 03:25:45 PDT id AA11317; Fri, 27 May 88 03:25:45 PDT Date: Fri, 27 May 88 03:25:45 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805271025.AA11317@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #235 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 235 Today's Topics: the old days vs today A New Holiday? Re: Uncle Carl is on the rampage Re: A New Holiday? Re: A New Holiday? Re: A New Holiday? Re: A New Holiday? Re: A New Holiday? Re: A New Holiday? Re: A New Holiday? Re: A New Holiday? Re: A New Holiday? Re: A New Holiday? Petition for redress of grievances Open reply to Jim Bowery ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 May 88 21:32:22 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: the old days vs today > ... it was the (superb) Lunar Orbiter's mission to do it > for Surveyor (also superb! remember when we could knock 'em off like that?) Ranger would be a better comparison to the current state of NASA... -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 88 15:15:37 GMT From: bbn.com!mfidelma@bbn.com (Miles Fidelman) Subject: A New Holiday? Does anybody else out there think that July 20 (the day of the first moon landing) should be a recognized holiday? ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 88 17:32:00 GMT From: necntc!encore!paradis@husc6.harvard.edu (Jim Paradis) Subject: Re: Uncle Carl is on the rampage In article <8270@ames.arpa> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes: >Carl : "Well, yes, the Soviets would have to worry about us, seeing >that they are so far ahead in both manned and planetary space >exploration" > >[...] Carl should learn to think before he speaks. Oh, I dunno about that... I think that this is a GREAT jab at all those State Department spooks and "America First" types who honestly believe that the Soviets wouldn't know the sky was blue if they hadn't stolen the information from the U.S. Jim Paradis, Encore Computer (.signature undergoing renovations. Please pardon our appearance.) ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 88 23:50:26 GMT From: ganelon.usc.edu!robiner@oberon.usc.edu (Steve) Subject: Re: A New Holiday? In article <24337@bbn.COM> mfidelma@BBN.COM () writes: >Does anybody else out there think that July 20 (the day of the first >moon landing) should be a recognized holiday? I think it's a marvelous idea. It could be called moon-day and it would remind everyone how important space exploration is. It would also be a yearly event during which media would undoubtedly seize on to demonstrate how far we've come in the last year. ( let's not start until 1989, OK? ) =Steve= ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 88 15:59:29 GMT From: tlh@purdue.edu (Thomas L Hausmann) Subject: Re: A New Holiday? In article <24337@bbn.COM>, mfidelma@bbn.com (Miles Fidelman) writes: > Does anybody else out there think that July 20 (the day of the first > moon landing) should be a recognized holiday? People are already ignoring the "holidays" we currently have! (Or are pushing them off onto Mondays.) For example, few universities (none I have attended) cancel classes for Labor Day. Perhaps something on the level of Flag Day to commemorate the event is possible, but I feel that most people would be relatively unenthusiastic. -Tom ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 88 15:46:34 GMT From: anaid@astro.as.utexas.edu (Diana Hadley) Subject: Re: A New Holiday? In 1971 a high school student in Utah, J. David Baxter, made that same suggestion -- that July 20 be considered a national celebration. Ken Randle of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) picked up the ball and has worked for over a decade and a half now. Thanks to his efforts, and the efforts of many others, in 1976, President Ford, at the request of AIAA, issued the first Space Exploration Day Proclamation for July 20th, to co-incide with Viking One's landing on Mars. Since the early 80's governors of all 50 states plus Puerto Rico have issued US Space Observance related proclamations. In 1980, Spaceweek Inc. was founded as a non-profit educational corporation to oversee a national program that conducts educational space-related activities at the local level to bring public attention of the many benefits and potentials of space with the goal of conducting an annual national celebration of space, expanding the celebration to include the whole eight day period (July 16 - July 24) of the Apollo 11 mission. Besides the landing of Viking One, the Apollo-Soyuz anniversary also falls within this period. Spaceweek activities are sponsored on the local level, and I suspect many of the people on this network have their own stories to tell of their efforts to organize Spaceweek events in their hometown. Addresses: Spaceweek National HQ P.O. Box 56172 Houston, TX 77258 (713) 470-0007 Mr. Randle is with the AIAA section in Utah. (Check with your congress rep to see if he/she are sponsoring this year's Space Exploration Day Resolutions.) ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 88 23:30:47 GMT From: oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Michael McNeil) Subject: Re: A New Holiday? In article <8998@oberon.USC.EDU> robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve) writes: >I think it's a marvelous idea. It could be called moon-day and it >would remind everyone how important space exploration is. It would >also be a yearly event during which media would undoubtedly seize on to >demonstrate how far we've come in the last year. ( let's not start >until 1989, OK? ) I also think that a holiday on July 20 is an excellent idea. However, as far as "Moon Day" is concerned, we've already got some 52 "Moon Days" every year (one each week) -- of course, the name has gotten shortened a bit over the years.... How about if we just incorporate all Mondays into the weekend! Michael McNeil ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 88 16:57:03 GMT From: tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!mbutts@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Butts) Subject: Re: A New Holiday? >From article <8998@oberon.USC.EDU>, by robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve): > I think it's a marvelous idea. It could be called moon-day and it would > remind everyone how important space exploration is. It would also be a > yearly event during which media would undoubtedly seize on to demonstrate > how far we've come in the last year. ( let's not start until 1989, OK? ) You bet! I suggest you take the idea up with the greeting card companies. I'm serious! They were behind the development many of our 'secondary' holidays. They'd have a fine opportunity to purvey space photography on cards, posters, etc. (How about 'Wish you were here' postcards?) Mike Butts ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 88 17:27:34 GMT From: pyramid!cbmvax!vu-vlsi!swatsun!leif@decwrl.dec.com (Leif Kirschenbaum) Subject: Re: A New Holiday? In article <24337@bbn.COM> mfidelma@BBN.COM () writes: > Does anybody else out there think that July 20 (the day of the first > moon landing) should be a recognized holiday? Yes, it would be a great opportunity for the media and other organizations to remind the public of how far we've come and how far we have *not* come. People (other than the minority already interested) might learn about our space program, or lack of one, and might see some of the significance in it. This hopefully would give it greater support and thus more impetus. The only drawback I see in June 20 is that some schools have let out by that time. Most schools seize upon holidays as an opportunity to teach important ideas to young people (elementary and junior high and some high schools). Martin Luther King Day teaches about prejudice. Washington's and Lincoln's birthdays- to teach about our government and the value of freedom. Memorial Day to teach about the negative value of war. And others. Lunar Landing Day (or whatever) would be a great opportunity to teach young people about our space program, its importance, and where it can go from here. I think the support of future citizens will do the most to garner support for our space program. ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 88 13:30:47 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: A New Holiday? I actually celebrate Dec 21st - the day humans first left the Earth's gravitational sphere of influence and opened the highway to the worlds. Frank Borman, Jim Lovell and Bill Anders left Earth orbit in Apollo VIII on their way to lunar orbit. It's a good excuse for those of us who have no other for carrying on celebrating the ancient pagan festival of the winter solstice. But I think Jul 20 would be a good date too. The USSR makes a big fuss on Cosmonautics Day, Apr 12 (anniversary of Gagarin's flight) - does anyone know if it's actually a national day-off holiday there or does the worker's paradise not go in for that sort of idea? Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 88 19:04:32 GMT From: eachus@mitre-bedford.arpa (Robert Eachus) Subject: Re: A New Holiday? I have always assumed that July 20 would someday be a planet wide holiday -- on the moon, and probably on Mars as well (the first unmanned Mars lander landed on July 20). Seriously, bang on your personnel departments, congressmen, etc. Space Day is a much more appropriate holiday than Labor Day, New Years Day, Martin Luther Kings Birthday, or Presidents Day. (And occurs at a much nicer time of year!) Robert I. Eachus ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 88 16:25:56 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: A New Holiday? In article <1988May11.095708.669@mntgfx.mentor.com> mbutts@mntgfx.mentor.com (Mike Butts) writes: >You bet! I suggest you take the idea up with the greeting card companies. >I'm serious! They were behind the development many of our 'secondary' >holidays. They'd have a fine opportunity to purvey space photography >on cards, posters, etc. (How about 'Wish you were here' postcards?) And until I can post it in person, How about some "Wish I was there" postcards. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 88 18:57:42 GMT From: killer!tness7!tness1!sugar!peter@eddie.mit.edu (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: A New Holiday? In article <24337@bbn.COM>, mfidelma@bbn.com.UUCP writes: > Does anybody else out there think that July 20 (the day of the first moon > landing) should be a recognized holiday? Yes. Apollo Day? -- Peter da Silva ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Sun, 8 May 88 21:26:33 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Petition for redress of grievances The Pikes Peak chapter of the National Space Society is circulating this petition. You should print it out, sign it and mail it to them at: Pike's Peak L5 919 N 19th #23 Colorado Springs, CO 80904 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ We the members of the chapters of the National Space Society, find the following: - That the policies, attitudes, and actions of the leadership of the Society are failing to promote the stated goals of the organization. - That the Society's current publication, in it's present form, fails to recognize the organization's purpose of existence. - That the actions of the current publication are in every way in opposition to the chapter structure. Space World therefore spends considerable effort undermining effors of the active NSS membership. - That the editorial policies of Space World Magazine serve to exclude the positions and beliefs of the majority of the active membership. Therefore it is imperative the following changes take place: - The National Space Society leadership must openly recognize the stated objectives of the organization being that of: The creation of a space-faring civilization which will establish communities beyond Earth; promotion of the earliest possible establishment of self-sustaining human settlements in space; promotion of large scale industrialization and private enterprise in space; (Bylaws of the National Space Society; Article II, Section 1(A). - Those leaders which openly renounce these objectives shall be considered to have renounced their positions as leaders of the organization. - The editorial staff of Space World Magazine must be changed to reflect the stated objectives of the Society. - NSS and Space World Magazine must be changed to reflect the stated objectives of the Society. - NSS and Space World Magazine must cease its blind support of government space endeavors. More discussions of pros and cons of NASA and military space projects must take place. - The editorial policy must be changed to an orientation toward the future of space development with a mixture of approximately 25% current topics (Space Shuttle, political action, etc.), 50% near future plans (Space Station, private launch companies, External Tanks Corp., etc.), and 25% distant future possibilities (O'Neill colonies, solar power sattelites, etc.). - A wider variety of new authors must be published in the magazine. The magazine will also provide greater access to members and their ideas and opinions. - The Space Advocate section is to be removed and all columns will be placed within the magazine at suitable locations. In addition, information concerning chapter and membership activities will be provided as an integral part of the publication. - Space World and the remainder of the National Space Society leadership will recognize international space efforts in addition to the American and Soviet programs. The overwhelming majority of the active membership is of similar sentiment. Membership of such individuals is drastically declining, except in areas with active chapters to support their interest. These changes must be made while an active membership is in place to achieve our stated objectives. Written for Pikes Peak L5 Chapter by Keith L. Hamburger UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Apr 88 15:42:14 PDT From: Bruce Bon Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: Open reply to Jim Bowery It is my hope that this will reach all NSS members who received Jim Bowery's blistering reply to Scott Pace's earlier response to Bowery's message regarding National Space Society Policy! Conflict of interest: it is absurd to expect those of us who have an active vocational interest in the space program to avoid participation in organizations such as NSS or SpacePAC or SpaceCause which try to affect national space policy! Would you expect unions not to try to influence right-to-work legislation? Or government employees not to vote? Legal conflict of interest generally involves direct and substantial financial gain, which Bowery has not shown. His allegations are reckless, insulting and full of misinformation. I believe that there is a broad consensus within NSS, which is faithfully represented by the Board of Directors, that the U.S. won't achieve substantial occupation of space in our lifetimes without government support, and that the space station, for all of its Cadillac faults, is the only game in town for the next decade or two. Of course there is disagreement, and that is perfectly healthy, but the allegation that the NSS board is dominated by an unethical, minority viewpoint shows either a very warped perception of NSS or intentional misrepresentation of reality. All organizations suffer from incomplete communication, and NSS is certainly no different. It would be truely amazing if all the Board members were aware of the opinions and complaints of every disgruntled member. My experience is that it is very difficult to strike a balance between having adequate communication and getting anything else done. I have known Scott Pace for several years and have a great deal of respect for both his competence and his sincerity. He is certainly not the unethical NASA lacky that Bowery accuses him of being. This, in fact, is what compelled me to reply. Bowery, or any other NSS member, is entitled to disagree with any position of the Board or anyone else, but such emotional, uninformed, irresponsible attacks as his most recent communication show his true colors -- he must be a fanatic, infantile person who disregards facts at his convenience in order to promote his unpopular position. In case you couldn't tell, I won't be voting for Jim Bowery for NSS Board of Directors! Bruce Bon bon@robotics.jpl.nasa.gov Caveat: I work for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, but my views on this or any other topics are not dictated by my employer, nor do they necessarily represent the policy or opinion of my employer. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #235 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 May 88 06:21:53 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12598; Sat, 28 May 88 03:21:06 PDT id AA12598; Sat, 28 May 88 03:21:06 PDT Date: Sat, 28 May 88 03:21:06 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805281021.AA12598@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #236 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 236 Today's Topics: Name change vote Re: Hawaiian launch sites Re: Hawaiian launch sites Re: How hot is it in space? Re: How hot is it in space? Re: How hot is it in space? Re: How hot is it in space? Re: How hot is it in space? Technology Transfer Worries? Mir watch predictions and orbital elements Re: Mir watch predictions and orbital e ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 9 May 1988 13:19-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu To: "/usr/amon/Email/Email.L5" Subject: Name change vote The results are official. Ballots were counted over the weekend by Gary Oleson and Terry Dawson: National Space Society: 3388 64% Space Frontier Society: 1830 34% Blank and write-in: 64 1% The numbers I'm giving might possibly be off by a few since I got them from Gary at his office and he quoted them from memory. Nonetheless, the results are rather overwhelmingly in favor of NSS. For all those who took voted, regardless of your choice, I thank you for participating in the democratic process. I personally may not agree with the choice, but the will of the majority has been spoken. Welcome to the National Space Society. Dale Amon NSS Board of Directors ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 88 22:16:15 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: Hawaiian launch sites [Apparently this article failed to go out earlier. If it did go out, I apologize for sending it twice.] >From article <7897@ames.arpa>, by eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene N. Miya): > Ach! You guys have such a lack of sensitivity! A great way to wreck > one of the best optical observing sites in the world. Okay, SPACE at > all costs. You refer no doubt to Mauna Kea, from which I have just returned. It is indeed one of the world's best observing sites. But how wreck? The work lights would be behind Mauna Loa and below the clouds. Launches would only briefly illuminate the south. And if ever there comes a time when there are many launches per night, some of them will be carrying telescopes. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 88 15:10:49 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Hawaiian launch sites In article <880426105252.00000211081@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: > ... Does anyone know where Ariane >is built and how it is shipped to Kourou? As I haven't seen any other replies... Arianne is built at the Aerospatiale works in France, The first and second stages are taken my sea to Kourou. The third stage and payload are taken by air. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 18:08:30 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Re: How hot is it in space? In article <873@nucleus.UUCP> hacker@nucleus.UUCP (Thomas Hacker, ACM) writes: >>of about 290 K (no surprise). Surprisingly (to me, anyway) a polished >>aluminium body will be much hotter (it absorbs less sunlight, but >>radiates far less). > >Why would a polished surface be much hotter if it is not absorbing any >energy (if it reflects 100% of the incoming radiation across the whole >spectrum), and it is (I assume) radiating energy due to heat radiation >(usually called "blackbody" radiation)? Planck's law doesn't have a >term within it that makes the intensity of the radiation emitted a >function of the reflectivity of the surface. >Thomas J. Hacker (hacker@nucleus.UUCP) Because aluminum and other metals, though they absorb little in the way of EM radiation, they can radiate it much more slowly than they can receive it. Most metals [that I've come in contact with.. OUCH! :-)] reflect visible light well and infrared less well. They can't reradiate at all quickly though! That is why metals are hot in sunlight on the earth, and after an hour's drive in the country you can't stand barefoot on the hood of your car without risking severe burns for about fifteen minutes. The reflectivity of the body is not involved in Planck's Law, true; the problem is that no material reflects evenly over the entire spectrum. Planck's Law describes only what goes out, not how it got in. And no material is actually a black body- I don't know what comes closest. So to design using a material knowing it will both radiate and absorb, the problem is to balance the input and output energy. If a hunk of radiator will be in sun 50% of the time and exposed to black space 50% of the time, I need to know the ratio of reradiation to absorbtion. If it absorbs faster, I get more energy than I can reradiate later in the radiator-- instead of cooling I get heating. Oops. Ratio of 1.0000.. is not a help either: the energy taken in matches the energy reradiated, and I can't use it to cool my craft. Only when the _net_ reradiation is greater than the _net_ absorbtion will my radiator be useful. Polishing normally ups the reflectivity, thus lowering the absorption rate; conventional wisdom states that polishing does nothing to the reradiation rate from Planck's Law. Joe Beckenbach CS BS ?? -- I'D RATHER BE ORBITING ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 88 22:22:44 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: How hot is it in space? [Apparently this failed to go out earlier. If it did go out, I apologize for sending it twice.] In article <873@nucleus.UUCP>, hacker@nucleus.UUCP (Thomas Hacker) writes: > Why would a polished surface be much hotter if it is not absorbing any > energy (if it reflects 100% of the incoming radiation across the whole > spectrum), Nothing, except possibly a superconductor, is a perfect reflector. Polished aluminum, for example, reflects only about 93% of visible light. > and it is (I assume) radiating energy due to heat radiation (usually > called "blackbody" radiation)? If it can't absorb, it can't radiate. Look up "Kirchhoff's Law." > Planck's law doesn't have a term within it that makes the intensity of > the radiation emitted a function of the reflectivity of the surface. Planck's law contains a _factor_ called "emissivity". Radiation emitted or absorbed is proportional to this factor. In general, emissivity is a function of wavelength. For aluminum, the visible emissivity is about 7% (as noted above), while the infrared emissivity is about 2%. Thus an aluminum sheet will be hotter than a blackbody when illuminated by sunlight. (I suppose one could adopt a definition of "Planck's Law" that omits the emissivity factor and thus applies only to perfect blackbodies, but that's a matter of semantics, not physics. One certainly has to include emissivity in calculating thermal emission from real objects.) Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 88 22:28:51 GMT From: ddsw1!igloo!bhv@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Bronis Vidugiris) Subject: Re: How hot is it in space? I don't know how to describe the actual charachteristics of polished aluminum exactly. I do know, however, that it does NOT reflect 100% of the incoming radiation across the spectrum. I believe the region where it starts to absorb significantly is in the infra-red, but don't quote me. I also know that blackbody radiation is a special case which DELIBERATELY excludes the properties of the surface from the radiation. A blackbody is can be made by making a very small pinhole in a hot cavity, as I recall... Bronis Vidugiris igloo!bhv@ddsw1 ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 88 22:24:41 GMT From: netsys!nucleus!hacker@lll-winken.llnl.gov (Thomas Hacker) Subject: Re: How hot is it in space? In article <638@igloo.UUCP> bhv@igloo.UUCP (Bronis Vidugiris) writes: >exactly. I do know, however, that it does NOT reflect 100% of the incoming >radiation across the spectrum. I believe the region where it starts to >absorb significantly is in the infra-red, but don't quote me. Thank you, I wasn't aware of this. >I also know that blackbody radiation is a special case which >DELIBERATELY excludes the properties of the surface from the radiation. >A blackbody is can be made by making a very small pinhole in a hot >cavity, as I recall... Quote from "Modern Physics" Paul Tipler Oakland University Worth Publishing 1977 page 102 "When radiation falls on an opaque body, part of it is reflected and the rest absorbed. Light-colored bodies reflect most of the radiation incident upon them, whereas dark bodies absorb most of it. If an opaque body is in thermal equillibrium with its surroundings, it must emit and absorb radiation at the same rate...." "...The radiation emitted under these circumstances is called thermal radiation....As a body is heated the quantity of thermal radiation emitted increases, and the energy radiated tends to shorter and shorter wavelengths..." "...A body that absorbs all radiation incident on it is called an _ideal blackbody_." An example a thermal radiator you see in everyday life is an incandescent light bulb. It gets very hot due to resistive heating and thus gives off thermal radiation. Thus, I should have said "thermal radiation" instead of "blackbody radiation", but the people around here call it blackbody radiation. Someone told me that the interior of the cargo bay doors of the space shuttle are covered with a polished metal to dissipate heat. Is this true? How does it work? Thomas J. Hacker ...!uunet!umix!nucleus!hacker (hacker@nucleus.UUCP) Physics/CS Undergrad Oakland University "Physics is the poetry of nature." Rochester, MI 48063 ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 88 15:39:24 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: How hot is it in space? > Someone told me that the interior of the cargo bay doors of the space > shuttle are covered with a polished metal to dissipate heat. Is this > true? How does it work? Someone's misunderstood. The shuttle's cooling radiators are indeed located on the inside of the cargo bay doors -- that's why the doors must be opened fairly promptly on reaching orbit, or else the shuttle has to come down immediately -- but they are active devices, with circulating fluid, pumps, electronic control, etc. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 20:11:29 GMT From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu (Eric William Tilenius) Subject: Technology Transfer Worries? In article <8270@ames.arpa>, mike@ames.arpa (Mike Smithwick) writes: >"Wouldn't something like this cause problems in the area of stealing >secrets???" > >Carl : "Well, yes, the Soviets would have to worry about us, seeing >that they are so far ahead in both manned and planetary space >exploration" (not quite an exact quote, but you get the idea). > >This is not to criticize the concept of the mission, so don't start >another flame.war about that. Just Carl should learn to think before he >speaks. I think his point was not what you quoted. He was trying to say that there wasn't any real danger in such a peaceful, cooerative space exploration mission, of technology transfer. Rather, the Russians might have to SLOW the pace of their Mars expeditions to make room for us, since they are ahead in scheduling such missions. (As an aside, I agree that technology transfer isn't a big issue... don't you think the Soviets can find out what NASA is up to? And this is peaceful technology as well, most of which they do themselves.) Carl meant to turn the question around, just to make people think... If the Soviets keep up the current pace, they may have to worry about us after all. He wasn't stating it as a set fact (the WILL have to worry about us), but rather to say that we are on comparible terms, except they have a more ambitious program at present. ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 21:22:37 GMT From: mtunx!lzaz!lznv!psc@rutgers.edu (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Subject: Mir watch predictions and orbital elements I just had an interesting chat with a friend about Mir watches and predictions. He gets orbital elements every five days, and is using Woodcock's prediction software to calculate the timing and position of good, observable passes. He had some interesting comments. First of all, his predictions have been late. That is, Mir has been showing up sooner than he would expect. Before everyone jumps on Woodcock's software, my friend did some thinking and is now suspicious of NASA's elements! The actual orbital decay is roughly twice the drag listed in the elements. (He quoted both; I dunno the numbers, but the units were orbits/day, I think. I just looked at T. S. Kelso's latest posting, and didn't see anything familiar. Then again, I haven't played with orbital mechanics in nearly a decade, and never managed to get my hands dirty with real objects and numbers.) Anyway, he's going to play with the numbers: make the predictions twice, once with NASA's elements, once again by adding a fudge factor of two to the drag. If he gets better predictions the second way, I'll let you know. Second, Mir was apparently boosted fifteen miles recently. He'd heard that Mir would adjust course "fairly often", and assumed this was relative to geosynchronous satellite station keeping (about every three weeks). Nope; every four months is closer to it for Mir. Third, he says there haven't been *any* observations in a while, not even marginal ones. This doesn't sound like a prediction problem; his elements are never more than five days old, and he *has* gotten fairly good predictions before. This may mean something, but I dunno what. -Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet psc@lznv.att.com Neither my friend nor I are speaking for our employers. ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 88 17:28:00 GMT From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Mir watch predictions and orbital e /* Written 4:22 pm May 5, 1988 by psc@lznv.ATT.COM in uiucdcsm:sci.space */ First of all, his predictions have been late. That is, Mir has been . . . /* End of text from uiucdcsm:sci.space */ The NASA figure is off by a factor of two; this is intentional. If you use the NASA third derivatives of the mean anomaly, you'll find they're off by a factor of 6. They're actually the coefficients of a Taylor series for the mean anomaly, and not the derivatives themselves. I suspect you're right about Gordon's program. I'll speak to him about it at the Denver conference. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #236 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 May 88 07:10:05 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00689; Sun, 29 May 88 04:09:05 PDT id AA00689; Sun, 29 May 88 04:09:05 PDT Date: Sun, 29 May 88 04:09:05 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805291109.AA00689@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #237 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 237 Today's Topics: Yet again the advantages of Mir over Skylab Re: Yet again the advantages of Mir over Skylab Re: Yet again the advantages of Mir over Skylab Re: Yet again the advantages of Mir over Skylab Re: Yet again the advantages of Mir over Skylab Mir predictions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 May 88 18:41:23 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Yet again the advantages of Mir over Skylab In Space v8, 222 Karl Wagenfehr repeats on of the often quoted myths of our space age, as have many others in recent days on the net: > ...... Skylab was sent up, and manned. It was no big deal, really. > Yeah, a manned space station; big deal. I would like to remind you > that Skylab was a lot bigger than Mir (how much I don't recall off > hand). This slow turtle approach being better is just a load of bunk. > We *had* a space station. A much better space station than that which > we envy the soviets today. Permanent man presense in space is not > such a big deal. It just requires persistence and money. I will > concede on that point: the soviets are superior in that they stuck to > their space program. Had the united states shown just half the > persistance of the soviets, I don't think we'd be envying them > anything right now. We were where they are now *15 years ago*! Just > we got bored, and stopped supporting Space. This persistant belief in the Skylab myth has gotten to be rather disturbing. I have started to have sympathy for Jerry Pournelle's comment that he wished Skylab had never flown, then we would not be trying to convince ourselves that we had done it all decades before. For those that want a true comparison I have substantial revised a breakdown of advantages and disadvantages of both I posted more than a year ago (adding several more points, all to Mir's benifit). In the past year the advantages of Mir have increased by its operation and the strong points for Skylab decreased. Read it and weep. Let us compare the advantages of the two stations. As a reminder Soviet stations have come in 3 generations: Their 1st containing Salyut 1 (Apr - Oct '71), Salyut 2/Cosmos 557 (1973 - failures that were never manned), Salyut 3 (Jun '74 - Jan '75), Salyut 4 ( Dec '74 - Feb '77), and Salyut 5 (Jun '76 - Aug '77); Second generation with Salyut 6 (Sept '77 - Jul '82) and Salyut 7 (Apr '82 - present); Third generation Mir (Feb '86 - present). Skylab was launched in May '73, the last crew left in Feb '74, and decayed in July '79. Where Skylab is currently ahead (1) Skylab had a final mass of 77 Tonnes (with 2200 lbs per metric Tonne), and the combined cluster Skylab + the Apollo Command Service Module is listed as 90 Tonnes. The current Soviet Mir/Kvant station has a 33 Tonne mass as launched, while the combined Mir + Soyuz + Progress cluster is 47 Tonnes. However there are some caveats here. The mass for Skylab includes some 8 Tonnes of food, water, air, and fuel for that were required for the entire mission. By comparison the Progress freighters bring that up to Mir. There have been 12 Progresses to Mir, each bring some 2.5 Tonnes of cargo/fuel/water for a total of 30 Tonnes added to Mir, plus about 1.3 Tonne more brought up by the Soyuz's with the Cosmonauts. Of course some of that has been discarded as waste. However the combined station mass is probably 60 Tonnes now (15 Tonnes in the Progess + Soyuz carriers). In Skylab all the garbage was kept in a tank at the "bottom" of the station, so it maintained that mass (plus the astronauts took up about 200 Kg per trip). Also there is one other problem with Skylab's mass - all the books I have found give the value as launched, with both solar wings, but one was lost before orbit. That probably reduces the mass by 2-3 tonnes. Note that the command/service modules added 13 tonnes to Skylab, but little in useful capacity. By comparison the Soyuz solar panels feed the station about 1 KW of power while the Progress's rocket engines are used to adjust the station's orbit. (2) Working volume for the Skylab complex was 357 cubic meters. The current Mir/Kvant combination is about 160 cubic meters. From a psychological point of view that was definitely better for Skylab crews (each crewman had about 48% more volume). However much of that volume had little useful value, and pictures of Skylab show that its walls are not completely covered with equipment, the way the Mir's is. Also it should be noted that the new NASA station has a volume per crew that is about the same as Mir's, or perhaps a bit smaller. Where Mir & other Soviet stations are ahead (1) All Russian stations, right from Salyut 1 in 1971, have had orbital manoeuvring rockets that use Hydrazine (UMHD) fuel and Nitrogen Tetroxide oxidzer. This allows the Soviets to do extensive orbital changes with their systems. For example this lets them lower the orbit to meet supply ships and Soyuz's (usually by letting the orbit decay a bit so this does not cost them fuel), thus allowing those systems to bring up more material. Then they raise the orbit to keep the space station up there. Thus with this the orbital working lifetime of the second generation Soviet Stations was about 5 years, and none of their working stations have decayed from orbit (Salyut 2 and Comos 557 were two early stations that were damaged on orbit, never manned, and allowed to decay - the others were brought down by command from the ground). Skylab had only a small Nitrogen gas system with 0.8 Tonnes of gas. As a result only small changes could be made to Skylab's orbit. As we all know it reentered in 1979 due to this. (2) All second generation Russian space stations had 2 docking ports, while Mir has 6. Skylab had two, one axial and one on the side (the side one was never used and was mostly ment for a rescue if needed). The Soviet stations have 2 axial ports (Mir has 4 additional side ports). Axial ports are easier to dock to. Having several ports has many implications. First one crew could be docked to the station while a second crew came up for a visit or to replace the first crew. Without multiple ports crew exchanges, where all or part of cosmonauts releaved those currently manning the station, would be extremely difficult. Secondly this allows cargo to be brought to the station while a crew is on board (see point 3 also). Thirdly the extra ports can be used to expand the current station. Salyut 6 & 7 had one extra module added to them at a time (Salyut 7 had this done twice to it). Mir currently has one expansion module added (Kvant) but is designed to take at least 5 modules, plus a Soyuz and one other vehicle. Skylab was a one shot deal - no plans for expansion. Indeed the TRS rocket system that was being designed to attached Skylab from the shuttle had two plans for it - one to boost it to a higher orbit, the other to send it to reentry in the ocean areas. (3) The Russians developed an automatic docking system back on Salyut 6 (1977) which allows unmanned cargo craft like Progress, or large "star" modules (20 Tonne expansion units) to attach to the system. Since the cargo craft are unmanned they do not need heat shields and can carry more material. This naturely cuts the effort and cost in supplying the station and makes their long duration missions possible. Indeed Skylab was launched with 140 days worth of supplies on board. The Apollo capsule could only bring a few weeks worth up with them. The plans for a fourth mission to Skylab called for only a 30 day stay, due to supply problems. Again the Soviet autodocking system means the expansion modules need no crew, making their design and testing simpler. Skylab had nothing like that developed for it. Sure we could supply a station from the shuttle and expand it that way, but not without developing equipment which we do not have. The Russians have had automatic systems doing this for 11 YEARS! (4) All Soviet stations since Salyut 6 (1977) have been refuelable via Progress tanker craft. To date (May 16, 1988) 36 Progress tankers have flown, 12 to each of the three last stations, all successfully as far can be told. In addition their to the fuel the station's water and air was resupplied from the same vehicles via similar lines and transfer systems from the Progress to the station. Fuel supplied to Salyut 6 or 7 was about 5.3 Tonnes each, to Mir I estimate the same so far. Since UMHD/Nitrogen Tetroxide has a much higher specific impulse than Nitrogen gas that gives them much more boost capability. Water and air totaled about 11 Tonnes each for the Salyuts. Mir, even this early in its cycle has been supplied with the same amount. The first generation Russian stations where like Skylab - throw away cans. You used them until they ran out of supplies and then tossed them. Second generation and the new Mir can be used as long as you need or want them. (5) Since Salyut 6 (1977) Russian stations have had a working partial water recovery system. The older versions recovered about 50% of the water (Mir may be better from some comments). Since water a human uses about 4.5 Kg of water a day, but only 0.8 Kg of oxygen and 0.7 Kg of food (dry) this is the most important thing to recover first. Sure better systems have been built on earth, but nothing else has flown in zero g. This is vital for a real station or long voyages to the planets. Nothing like this on Skylab. There also appears to be tests of newer Carbon Dioxide removal and oxygen recovery systems on Mir, though it is not certain they have replace the old absorption filter system as of yet. (6) Mir has a data/communications relay system through their TDRS system (the Eastern Data Relay Network). While the shuttle has this Skylab did not. They have had some some problems with this at the satellite end, but the station capability is still there. (7) Mir's solar power system puts out twice the power, 12-14 KW, of Skylab's. People think Skylab was better because some books talk about the total possible power there as 23 KW. However Skylab's max deliverable power was only 8.5 KW before they lost the solar wing, and about 6-7 after the repairs. The difference comes from looking at the area of the solar cells and their efficiency, while ignoring shadowing effects, losses in the power cables, and other power system losses which reduce the output to 33% of the max value. Mir's values are for the actual system output power. 2.5 KW of Mir's comes from solar panels added to the station in a space walk last year. (8) The Russians have put a lot of work into making the crew psychologically comfortable on their stations, from the experience they have gotten from their long voyages. They send up gifts from home and fresh fruits on the Progress tankers, have a TV studio set up to set up weekly video conversations with friends and families. Color schemes on the station are for maximum comfort etc. Again we can do this, but they have 11 years of experience of what people miss most in orbit (they get great pleasure in tending the small gardens in the space station for example). (9) Mir has currently 547 days of occupation (1136 man-days) in its 815 current existance and has been permanently manned since Feb. 9, 1987. Skylab had only 171 days occupation (513 man-days) of 235 operational days. Furthermore Mir is still behind Salyut 6 which had 669 days of occupancy, and Salyut 7 which had 712 days. Skylab was not in good shape at the end - one gyro had failed another of the 3 was showing signs of failing, which was part of the decision to bring the last crew home when they did. Salyut 7 by comparison is still in orbit after 6 years, still under control and held a crew for 50 days just last year. (10) Almost certainly the computers on Mir are far in advance of those on Skylab. Skylab's were of 1972 vintage, and the Soviets are probably 5 years behind us in computers, 10 years at the outside (there are several DOD reports on this). Hence that puts Mir's computers of the equivalent of 1976 to 1980 vintage here. Where Mir will probably exceed Skylab in the near future: (1) The Mir complex will exceed the combined Skylab complex mass when two more 20 Tonne "star" modules are added, probably by the end of this year. (2) The Skylab's working volume record will fall if the Soviets add the announced 4 "star" expansion modules that Mir was designed to take. This will take several years to occur. All of this was only hardware. It ignores the experience the Soviets have gained: 11 years of materials science experiments, zero g life science work, the knowledge of how space station system work in orbit, how joined structures behave in orbit over years of time. If you think that the Russians having more than twice the number of man hours of space experience means nothing then you must argue that space is different in that reguard than any activity on here earth - experience counts when things must be done well or quickly. Right now the US is not even on the top 10 list of space flight durations. Look it, Skylab was a wonderful house in space, but we have done nothing real in space stations since. Saying that Skylab is better than Mir is like arguing that the Titanic ocean liner is better than a flying 747 aircraft. Sure the ocean liner was more comfortable and larger, but it was older technology, goes less places, is generally less flexible than the 747, and no longer exists. We have no working space shuttle, and a space station which will not be operating for another decade. To say that there is no problem because we are still ahead of the Russians on the basis of Skylab is to deny the reality of the world. It makes people feel good in this country but it does not help solve our problems. As the saying goes "it is not the things that you do not know that hurt you, but rather those that you do "know" that are not true". Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 88 15:56:49 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Yet again the advantages of Mir over Skylab > Skylab was a one shot deal - no plans for expansion. Well, not quite true -- there were *plans* for expansion, back when Skylab had five docking ports. It's just that nothing was ever done about them. (And as a result, it didn't need five docking ports any more...) -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 88 16:43:46 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Yet again the advantages of Mir over Skylab Glenn Chapman's detailed comparison of Skylab and Mir is interesting, but especially so because it omitted any mention of what each accomplished in the way of practical applications (including meaningful, PUBLISHED scientific research). Just to keep things fair, we ought to compare each to the contributions of unmanned spacecraft while we're at it. I suppose as an engineer I really ought to care about "whose is bigger" and who is currently ahead in our hi-tech flagpole-sitting contest, but as a taxpayer I want to know how effectively my money is being spent on accomplishing the goals originally used to justify these expenditures in the first place. Don't forget that these programs are means to an end, not ends in themselves. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 88 17:09:11 GMT From: ulysses!terminus!rolls!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Evelyn C. Leeper) Subject: Re: Yet again the advantages of Mir over Skylab You missed the most basic and important one: Skylab is debris scattered over the Australian desert; Mir is still up there. Evelyn C. Leeper 201-957-2070 UUCP: mtune!mtgzy!ecl or ecl@mtgzy.att.com ARPA: ecl%mtgzy@att.arpa ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 88 21:47:25 GMT From: ulysses!terminus!rolls!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (XMRP50000[jto]-d.l.skran) Subject: Re: Yet again the advantages of Mir over Skylab Detailed comparisons of research output from MIR/Salyut and Skylab are probably impossible -- I strongly doubt the Soviets make public any significant number of their real breakthroughs. Dale ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 88 19:23:40 GMT From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard the Nerd) Subject: Mir predictions Hi there! Another evening visibility window for Mir is coming up, so I thought I'd post some predictions for SF as usual. Now, I am going home to Toronto tomorrow, and won't be back for a week. With all the manouevres that folks think are likely occur, the predictions might be WAY out by the 28th, but, alas, I can't help it now. Good luck anyways! BTW, ignore the magnitude predictions. I have the wrong size data stored for Mir and I did not bother to change them yet. Actually, if you want reasonable predictions just subtract about 4.5 from each predicted value. This is a message largely for folks on the mailing list. (People on this list get predictions for a few requested satellites, calculated for their own locations. If you'd like to be on this, drop off a note including your latitude, longitude, sea level elevation, time zone, name of town, and the satellites you would like to see, and I can put you on it.) Anyways, for those that asked to be on the list but did not receive anything, please drop off a note - I have no clue whether the predictions are reaching you, but I am making every effort to send them successfully. So, here are the predictions for SF: Prediction for: San Francisco CA Lat: 37.800000 Lonw: 122.400000 Ht: 0. Zone: 8.00000 DST: 1.0 Satellite: Mir 16609 Age: 17.5 days Unc: 171 sec Local Date: 1988 5 28 TIME MAG ILL AZ EL R.A. DEC RANGE VANG -------- ----- --- --- -- ----- ----- ----- ---- 22:27:40 5.3 37 260 29 09:44 10.7 626 0.47 22:28:00 5.0 36 269 37 09:52 21.6 526 0.65 22:28:10 4.8 35 277 41 09:57 28.5 485 0.76 22:28:20 4.7 34 286 45 10:03 36.5 452 0.87 22:28:30 4.6 34 299 49 10:12 45.5 428 0.96 22:28:40 4.5 34 314 51 10:25 55.3 416 1.02 22:28:50 4.5 34 331 51 10:46 65.2 416 1.02 22:29:00 4.5 35 346 49 11:29 74.4 428 0.96 22:29:10 4.6 36 358 45 13:26 81.6 452 0.87 22:29:20 4.7 37 8 41 17:28 82.4 485 0.76 22:29:30 4.9 38 15 37 19:34 77.7 526 0.65 22:29:40 5.1 39 20 33 20:19 72.5 574 0.55 22:29:50 5.2 40 25 29 20:41 67.8 626 0.47 Prediction for: San Francisco CA Lat: 37.800000 Lonw: 122.400000 Ht: 0. Zone: 8.00000 DST: 1.0 Satellite: Mir 16609 Age: 18.4 days Unc: 190 sec Local Date: 1988 5 29 TIME MAG ILL AZ EL R.A. DEC RANGE VANG -------- ----- --- --- -- ----- ----- ----- ---- 21:15:50 4.5 84 172 27 13:07 -24.3 657 0.56 21:16:00 4.4 86 166 29 13:29 -21.4 622 0.62 21:16:10 4.2 89 159 31 13:52 -18.0 594 0.68 21:16:20 4.1 92 151 33 14:17 -14.3 573 0.73 21:16:30 4.1 93 142 34 14:42 -10.2 561 0.76 21:16:40 4.0 95 133 34 15:08 -5.9 558 0.76 21:16:50 4.1 95 124 33 15:33 -1.6 565 0.75 21:17:00 4.1 95 115 32 15:57 2.4 580 0.71 21:17:10 4.2 94 107 31 16:20 6.1 604 0.66 21:17:20 4.4 92 100 29 16:42 9.4 636 0.59 21:17:30 4.5 90 95 26 17:02 12.3 673 0.53 Prediction for: San Francisco CA Lat: 37.800000 Lonw: 122.400000 Ht: 0. Zone: 8.00000 DST: 1.0 Satellite: Mir 16609 Age: 19.4 days Unc: 212 sec Local Date: 1988 5 30 TIME MAG ILL AZ EL R.A. DEC RANGE VANG -------- ----- --- --- -- ----- ----- ----- ---- 21:38:20 5.5 29 258 29 09:06 9.8 620 0.46 21:38:40 5.2 28 268 37 09:15 20.6 520 0.65 21:38:50 5.0 28 275 42 09:21 27.6 478 0.76 21:39:00 4.9 28 284 46 09:28 35.6 444 0.88 21:39:10 4.7 28 297 50 09:38 44.8 419 0.98 21:39:20 4.6 29 313 53 09:53 54.6 407 1.04 21:39:30 4.6 31 331 53 10:18 64.6 407 1.04 21:39:40 4.5 33 347 51 11:07 73.8 419 0.98 21:39:50 4.6 36 0 46 13:10 80.6 443 0.88 21:40:00 4.7 38 9 42 16:43 81.1 477 0.76 21:40:10 4.8 40 16 37 18:41 76.6 519 0.65 21:40:20 4.9 42 22 33 19:28 71.6 567 0.55 21:40:30 5.1 44 26 29 19:53 67.0 619 0.47 Good luck once again! Rich Brezina Snowdog@athena.mit.edu (most nets, thank whomever) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #237 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 May 88 06:40:05 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00985; Mon, 30 May 88 03:29:56 PDT id AA00985; Mon, 30 May 88 03:29:56 PDT Date: Mon, 30 May 88 03:29:56 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805301029.AA00985@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #238 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 238 Today's Topics: Soviet nuclear satellites Mir elements Space Services et al Vocabulary lesson #7: ALS A high volume Earth to high orbit launch system Re: A high volume Earth to high orbit launch system Re: A high volume Earth to high orbit launch system Re: A high volume Earth to high orbit launch system Re: A high volume Earth to high orbit launch system Re: A high volume Earth to high orbit launch system ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 May 88 18:51:10 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Soviet nuclear satellites As already mentioned briefly in this newsgroup, Soviet Fleet Intelligence's nuclear reactor satellite Kosmos-1900 lost stationkeeping ability around Apr 12, according to orbital data from NASA. As of May 22 it was in a 246x260 km orbit and continuing its slow decay. Furthermore, the nuclear fuel core has not been ejected (After K-954 fell on Canada, they redesigned the satellites to eject the most radioactive part so that it would not reach the ground intact due to the shielding of the rest of the satellite). However, its companion RORSAT Kosmos-1932 successfully boosted its reactor to a 923x1011 km orbit at about 0700 GMT on May 20 and ejected its nuclear fuel core shortly thereafter. So we don't have to worry about that one for a few centuries. Meanwhile a couple of their naval electronic intelligence sats have just been deorbited, and a very busy series of launches has occurred from Baykonur, including the successful launch of three GLONASS navigation satellites on a Proton on May 21. The previous attempted GLONASS launch ended in failure in February. Av Week suggests an August launch for their Shuttle, which I find plausible. Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 88 04:07:00 GMT From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements Mir 1 16609U 88139.81771683 0.00015382 99963-4 0 2050 2 16609 51.6180 218.2070 0021873 343.2888 16.7524 15.75351119129209 Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 205 Epoch: 88139.81771683 Inclination: 51.6180 degrees RA of node: 218.2070 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0021873 Argument of perigee: 343.2888 degrees Mean anomaly: 16.7524 degrees Mean motion: 15.75351119 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00015382 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 12920 Semimajor axis: 6721.73 km Apogee height*: 358.27 km Perigee height*: 328.86 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 88 15:42:52 GMT From: pasteur!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!web@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Space Services et al Space Serices Incorporated of America, the Houston based firm marketing the Conestoga rocket, announced Thursday that the DARPA had chosen them to compete in a phase I study contract for launch services. The studies are to be completed by July 25, after which one or two of the competitors will receive hardware contract offers. The other firms doing phase one studies are LTV, TRW and Lockheed. William Baxter ARPA: web@math.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {cbosgd,sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,ihnp4,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!math!web ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Sun, 8 May 88 14:46:36 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Vocabulary lesson #7: ALS ALS, noun abrv., a program optimally designed to create uncertainty and business risk among those who might develop commercial launch vehicles by keeping open the possibility of the government developing and subsidizing one as was done with Space Shuttle. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 88 14:42:38 GMT From: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!johng@uunet.uu.net (John Gregor) Subject: A high volume Earth to high orbit launch system How many people out there are familiar with the "Launch Loop" concept by Keith Lofstrom? Have any of the sci.space regulars (Eugene, Henry, Dani (are you still out there?), etc.) taken a look at the concept? I'd really like to hear some opinions on it. Here is a reference to the paper: AIAA-85-1368 The Launch Loop: A Low Cost Earth-To-High-Orbit Launch System K. H. Lofstrom, Launch Loop, Portland, OR AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 21st Joint Propulsion Conference July 8-10, 1985 Monterey, California I'll do my best to give a very brief summary: The launch loop employs a very long and very thin iron ribbon moving at high velocity. The speed is, in fact, great enough that an upwards force is generated by the ribbon. This force is used to support a control track to maintain stability and two large (5000 metric ton) deflection stations. The basic idea is that the West station dangles cables down to the surface (Yes, 80km is easily within the strength of todays materials). Payload is raised via these cables out of the way of most of the atmosphere. The payload is then set over the moving ribbon. It hovers over and is accelerated by eddie current repulsion between the ribbon and the cargo container. It accelerates at 3g for the 2000km length of the ribbon at which point it has achieved orbital velocity. Highly schematic diagram (Warp to conform to Earth's curvature): +----------------------- 2000km -----------------------------+ | | #________________________________________# -+ ___---| ---___ | 80km (---======================================================---) -+ = -> Surface of the Earth - -> Ribbon, control track, etc. (The stair steps should be gently sloping lines. I hate ascii graphics) ( -> West deflector magnet. ) -> East deflector magnet. # -> East and West station. | -> Cable from West station. The paper goes into quite a bit of detail and answers most questions people have come up with (so far). I would REALLY, REALLY, REALLY recommend getting your hands on a copy, before commenting on the idea. I'll even go so far as to mail (even though I am currently in Germany) people copies if they can't find copies any other way. I really think it is an incredibly ingenious solution to the problem of getting things into space. It has the posibility to launch 400 metric tons of cargo into high orbit PER HOUR!!!! If you don't believe me, don't flame, READ THE PAPER! I'd really like to get into some discussions with those more knowledgeable in engineering than I am. Again, please get a copy of the paper and read it. I want to know why we aren't doing reasearch on this device. John Gregor - johng%ecrcvax.UUCP@germany.CSNET ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 88 06:41:49 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: A high volume Earth to high orbit launch system In article <529@ecrcvax.UUCP>, johng@ecrcvax.UUCP (John Gregor) writes: > How many people out there are familiar with the "Launch Loop" concept > by Keith Lofstrom? Have any of the sci.space regulars (Eugene, Henry, > Dani (are you still out there?), etc.) taken a look at the concept? > I'd really like to hear some opinions on it. Here is a reference to > the paper: Not only have I read the paper, but I know Keith. In fact, he was on usenet at one time (you out there?). The advanced propulsion community is really a very small one. > I really think it is an incredibly ingenious solution to the problem > of getting things into space. It has the posibility to launch 400 > metric tons of cargo into high orbit PER HOUR!!!! If you don't 400 tons of cargo is a piddly-ass amount. One airport runway with a stream of 727s taking off represents 1200 tons of passengers and cargo. > Again, please get a copy of the paper and read it. I want to know why > we aren't doing reasearch on this device. Define 'we'. My personal opinion of the launch loop is that is is an overly complex solution to the problem with failure modes that could be used for special effects in a George Lucas film. The ribbon of metal in the launch loop is really a series of strips about one meter by ten centimeters by a millimeter each. They are constrained to follow the back and forth path by a string of control magnets that sense the position of the ribbon. The turnarounds at each end are done by big magnets. What I worry about is what happens if one of the turning magnets fails (keeping in mind that everything manmade fails eventually) then the ribbon continues straight into the ground behind the turning magnet, creating a pile of slag in a crater, as for several minutes a continuous stream of one pound slugs hits the ground at 11,000 rounds per second. On the return leg of the loop, a part of the ribbon is missing. The resulting unbalanaced forces may leave metal strips flying every which way in earth orbit. To my way of looking at design, I would like my support structure to be passive rather than active. The loop in the launch loop is what holds up the structure by moving at super-orbital speeds. The same result can be obtained with a tower made of modern structural materials (such as graphite epoxy for compressive columns and fiberglass/ kevlar/ polyethelyne for guy wires.) You can support an accelerator (linear motor, mass driver, whatever) from a series of towers of increasing height with suspension bridges strung between the towers. If the power goes down, your structure does not fall out of the sky. Using towers also allows for incremental construction. Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder (205)461-2606(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, AL 35824 34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +280 ft altitude, Earth ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 88 21:00:41 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: A high volume Earth to high orbit launch system > How many people out there are familiar with the "Launch Loop" concept > by Keith Lofstrom? Have any of the sci.space regulars (Eugene, Henry, > Dani (are you still out there?), etc.) taken a look at the concept? > ... I met Keith once upon a time and got a copy of what was probably an early draft of the paper. I could not see anything disastrously wrong with the idea, although I'm not an expert in the technologies involved. To my mind it has a couple of modest practical flaws shared by most of the (so to speak) mechanical Earth-to-orbit schemes: 1. It works much better on a large scale than on a small one, so it's impractical to start with a little one and use its revenues to bootstrap up. All the money has to be raised up front. 2. It's big enough and fragile enough to be very vulnerable to attack by clever terrorists. These are not insuperable obstacles, but they do present problems. He may have addressed them since. NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 88 17:27:15 GMT From: tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!mbutts@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Butts) Subject: Re: A high volume Earth to high orbit launch system >From article <1918@ssc-vax.UUCP>, by eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder): > In article <529@ecrcvax.UUCP>, johng@ecrcvax.UUCP (John Gregor) writes: >> How many people out there are familiar with the "Launch Loop" concept >> by Keith Lofstrom?......... > > To my way of looking at design, I would like my support > structure to be passive rather than active. The loop in the > . . . > > Using towers also allows for incremental construction. Incremental construction is an important, and often neglected, point. A look back at the history of technology shows the successful technologies are those which can be developed incrementally. Small scale, lower risk *useful* initial implementations are almost always needed to pave the way for full scale projects. They offer engineering experience, profits, and a track record, all of which are *required* to lower the risk enough to raise funding for something big and new. This has been true for centuries. (Take a look at James Burke's Connections and The Day the Universe Changed for abundant popularized examples.) Technologies which must be built on a large scale to work at all are what you might call "You can't get there from here" technologies. The "N plus one" ideas are the ones that get funded. Sad, but very true. A major weakness of Keith's elegant Launch Loop idea (in my opinion) is that you need a full scale system before you can get the first kilogram into orbit. Keith has been developing ideas for smaller-scale testbeds to develop the technology, but they don't actually launch anything. Of course the potential benefits of such technologies can be so great as to justify taking a big risk (again in my opinion), but finding any real entity with real cash willing to take that big a leap has nearly always proven to be impossible. Mike Butts, Research Engineer KC7IT 503-626-1302 Mentor Graphics Corp., 8500 SW Creekside Place, Beaverton OR 97005 ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 88 08:15:24 GMT From: lim@csvax.caltech.edu (Kian-Tat Lim) Subject: Re: A high volume Earth to high orbit launch system Incremental construction projects are easier to get funded than all-at-once type projects, but it seems to me that they also are much more readily stalled in mid-development before achieving the final goal. By selling bureaucrats on "just let us have this little bit" you simultaneously allow them to say back to you "you got your bit last year, why are you back now?". For examples, look at the attempted construction of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area: land was supposed to be bought incrementally, in what was called a great advance in federally-financed park construction. What happened? Appropriations were minimal after an initial surge, and developers quickly moved in to snap up and irrevocably damage prime property. A science-fiction version of this can be found in Robert Forward's Flight of the Dragonfly, in which an incrementally-constructed Fresnel lens has its funding put off for so long that it cannot be completed in time to slow down the interstellar spacecraft in the story. I'm not advocating the use of SF to bolster real-world arguments, but I believe that this type of action by Congresscritters and such has much precedent. Kian-Tat Lim (ktl@wagvax.caltech.edu, GEnie: K.LIM1) ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 88 11:44:18 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: A high volume Earth to high orbit launch system In article <1918@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: >What I worry about is what happens if one of the turning magnets fails >(keeping in mind that everything manmade fails eventually) then the >ribbon continues straight into the ground behind the turning magnet, >creating a pile of slag in a crater , as for several minutes a >continuous stream of one pound slugs hits the ground at 11,000 rounds >per second. On the return leg of the loop, a part of the ribbon is >missing. The resulting unbalanaced forces may leave metal strips >flying every which way in earth orbit. One proposed solution to this is to put the entire launch loop into orbit. (Don't laugh) Cables can then be dropped from the orbiting ring to the ground. The top of the cable is attached to a cradle floating on a magnetic field. The ring turns but the cradle can "hover" above any point above the Earth's equator. The worst case accident is if the orbital ring breaks. The remains of the ring then fall UP, away from the Earth. The design is described in a series of articles in the "Journal of the British Interplanetary Society" called "Orbital rings and Jacob's ladders" which appeared in 1983or 1984 (I think). The author clains that the ring is buildable using today's technology. The original design called for liquid helium cooled superconducting magnets. If high temperature superconductors would work, the cost of building would drop even more. Eventual cost was something of the order of $36 billion. Using lunar materials and a bootstrap technique, this would drop to about $17 billion. (I don't have the article here, so those are only remembered figures, but are of the right magnitude). Cost to orbit would be $0.04 per pound. The articles then go on to describe how to use orbital rings to provide a very fast and cheap Earth-Moon transit system. The author then starts to get a little more far-fetched and describes how to terraform Jupiter using them, but I will save that for another posting. :-> Bob. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #238 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 31 May 88 06:40:55 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03239; Tue, 31 May 88 03:39:48 PDT id AA03239; Tue, 31 May 88 03:39:48 PDT Date: Tue, 31 May 88 03:39:48 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8805311039.AA03239@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #239 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 239 Today's Topics: Re: A high volume Earth to high orbit launch system Re: Bombs on Mars Re: Small comets & The Moon Re: Bombs on Mars Re: Small comets & The Moon Space suits Re: Space suits Re: Space suits Re: Space suits Re: Space suits Re: Space suits ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 May 88 19:48:27 GMT From: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!johng@uunet.uu.net (John Gregor) Subject: Re: A high volume Earth to high orbit launch system In article <1988May10.210041.3940@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>[Re: Launch loop] >it has a couple of modest practical flaws shared by most of the (so to >speak) mechanical Earth-to-orbit schemes: > >1. It works much better on a large scale than on a small one, so it's > impractical to start with a little one and use its revenues to > bootstrap up. All the money has to be raised up front. True. But the US space program never was one for a slow, well established bootstraping process. There is another use for the same basic technology as the launch loop: storage of energy. Calculate the amount of energy stored in that ribbon. Increase the mass of the ribbon, decrease the speed a bit, remove the hardware needed for space launching, mount the whole thing horizontally, and you now have a very usefull means of staring LARGE amounts of energy. I think this could be used to 1. act as a proof of concept demonstration for many of the basic ideas, 2. raise research money, 3. act as a testbed for further development, 4. generate revenue, and 5. even be usefull. A giant Q-Tip (TM) brand cotton swab shaped loop is probably the best: 1) Linear sections are easier than curved ones. 2) It reduces the likelyhood that a failure would send roughly a billion MJ (amount of energy stored in a loop of the size in the paper, knock off 3 orders of magnitude for power storage) in an inhabited direction. >2. It's big enough and fragile enough to be very vulnerable to attack > by clever terrorists. Fortunately, the terrorists of the world haven't been very clever. Friends and I have thought of many truly destructive things that can be accomplished with very low technology. Maybe they are clever, but the NSA/CIA combo is more effective and useful than we realize. I don't know which is scarier. But I digress... Keith has been somewhat cavalier about the terrorist threat for several reasons: 1) The majority of the beast is 80km up, not easy for many people (including us right now) to get to. 2) The target is only 5 to 10 cm wide for 99.9% of it's length. How many SAMs have that kind of accuracy? 3) The loop would be a MAJOR resource to the planet. The governments using it's services would definitely have incentive to keep the surrounding waters well patrolled. Hopefully, one nation wouldn't try to monopolize it's use. 4) Once the industry has been set up to produce the ~500,000 identical pieces of track, producing more shouldn't be very difficult. A) The track sections are pretty low tech. B) Most of the original track would be recovered. Only the ribbon (2.6 million pieces of transformaer iron -- lot's cheaper than a shuttle) would be a write off. So yes, a terrorist attack would be painful, but not shattering. The loop would be out of commision for at most a month or three. After a once or twice, the novelty would wear off (hopefully). I guess the best analogy I can come up with would be the blowing up of high tension power lines: It's annoying, it stops the whole system for a while, but it really doesn't change things in the long run. >These are not insuperable obstacles, but they do present problems. He >may have addressed them since. The control theory and dynamics of the structure are some of the biggest headaches. Gurus comfortable with higher order differential equations, should make themselves known. Sensor technology was another problem Keith mentioned. Keith -- are you still out there? I saw your vote for the nanotechnology group, so I know you still read a few things. How about an update? If this discussion has piqued anybody's curiosity, I STRONGLY urge you to order the paper. It is also probably in many university libraries. If somebody else want to put a full description on the net, be my guest. But, I'd really like to see more people go out and get references for a change. AIAA-85-1368 The Launch Loop: A Low Cost Earth-To-High-Orbit Launch System K. H. Lofstrom, Launch Loop, Portland, OR AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 21st Joint Propulsion Conference July 8-10, 1985 Monterey, California American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1633 Broadway, New York, NY 10019 John Gregor - johng%ecrcvax.UUCP@germany.CSNET ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 10:07:30 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!jack@uunet.uu.net (Mr Jack Campin) Subject: Re: Bombs on Mars adam@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF02 Adam Hamilton) writes: >Since I wouldn't mind seeing [a nuke] used on an asteroid, perhaps its >time to draw up some sensible guidelines. How about nothing over 15 km >long. I assume you are thinking of fending off something like the Alvarez meteorite. I have occasionally wondered about that. Would the world's present sky surveying activity give us any warning at all of a continent-smasher on its way? Would our present interplanetary launcher and bomb technology be adequate to deal with it? I would assume the best that could be done would be an Energeia with an American warhead (I believe they're a lot more reliable) on top of it - which leaves an interesting political problem; what chance would there be of persuading Reagan to ship a state-of-the-art nuclear warhead to Baikonur in the few weeks, at most, we'd have? ARPA: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk USENET: jack@cs.glasgow.uucp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 May 88 10:04:23 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: Re: Small comets & The Moon X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@angband.s1.gov" kistler%Iowa.Iowa@iago.caltech.edu (Allen C. Kistler) writes: >> From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com (Jay Freeman) >> If that were so, then there should be at least hundreds of thousands >> of new craters on the MOON each year, each caused by the impact of a >> small comet. I think we have enough high-resolution lunar >> photography, over a sufficient time base, so that any such phenomenon >> would be pretty obvious.... >The thing you have to get out of your head is that these are rocks. >You admit they're snowballs, but you're still thinking of them as >rocks. The heat of impact vaporizes them before they make a crater. >The most they do is stir up the surface. There are photographs of >small vapor plumes on the moon. Well, hold on a moment. Using the authors' figures of 12m diameter and 0.1 g/cm**3 density, such a snowball travelling at 6 km/sec impacts with 1.5 *10**12 joules, a yield of about a quarter of a kiloton. It's not the mass of the object that causes a crater, it's kinetic energy. If someone can explain how such an impact could not leave a crater at least 10m in diameter, I'd like to hear from them. By my calculations, at most one-fifth of the energy would be used in vaporizing the snowball. Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov) ("Could we get this newsletter mailed out a little more rapidly so us guys in Internet land aren't two weeks behind on the articles?") [Yes, I'm trying... -Ed] ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 88 17:16:15 GMT From: attcan!lsuc!spectrix!tmsoft!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Bombs on Mars > ... Would the world's present sky surveying activity give us any > warning at all of a continent-smasher on its way? Only by chance. There is no systematic watch kept, and the smaller asteroids are not easy to see unless you know where to look. > Would our present interplanetary launcher and bomb technology be > adequate to deal with it? I would assume the best that could be done > would be an Energeia with an American warhead... This is plausible, although one would have to wonder about whether Energia could support a high launch rate. The MIT student study in the late 60s concluded that the odds were much better with multiple attacks; they postulated four Saturn Vs each carrying a 100-MT bomb. This required a third launch pad at KSC and massive industrial effort. Nothing much smaller than the Saturn V has the lift capability, so it would have to be Energia. A problem would be the lack of a suitable cruise-maneuvering stage; the MIT study used modified Apollo service modules, but we don't have those on hand any more. Another problem might be bomb design: the MIT folks (with some expert advice) concluded that 100 MT was the biggest that could be built on short notice with reasonable assurance that it would work, but that was twenty years ago, before the general trend toward smaller bombs really took hold. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 88 23:48:13 GMT From: oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Michael McNeil) Subject: Re: Small comets & The Moon In article <880510100423.00000DDE081@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: > . . . >can explain how such an impact could not leave a crater at least 10m in >diameter, I'd like to hear from them. By my calculations, at most >one-fifth of the energy would be used in vaporizing the snowball. I also believed that the lack of lunar craters constantly being created was a flaw in this idea, but then one newspaper report I read implied that what was happening was that tidal forces would break up the very fragile snowballs well before they got near the Earth or the Moon. If the matter were sufficiently dispersed by the time it arrived at the Moon, creation of a crater could be avoided. I don't know if the idea is sound theoretically, as I haven't heard any technical commentary on this suggestion. Anybody know more? Michael McNeil ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 88 04:57:03 GMT From: ubvax!weitek!sci!daver@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Dave Rickel) Subject: Space suits The local paper ran an article on a couple of contenders for designs for space suits a while back. These space suits were supposed to have a few features to make them useful for constructing a space station--easier to tailor for different builds, better armor for micro-meteoroid collisions, cheaper, higher internal pressure (oxy/nitrogen atmosphere rather than pure oxygen) etc. So far as i could tell, all the space suit designs under consideration were pretty much the standard designs--two arms, two legs, etc. Wernher von Braun (i think, the idea might have been Bonestell's) in his Man in Space series proposed a different space suit design--more like an ice cream cone. Transparent hemisphere on top (the ice cream), metal body with manipulator appendages and rockets (the cone). It seems to me that making a suit along these lines would have several advantages--feet are pretty well useless in space, you might as well get rid of them in the suit(although you might have some sort of articulated gripper down there, so you could either anchor the suit or grab hold of something and fly with it). You could stick in quite a bit better armor. Maintenence ought to be simpler. Attitude control could be simpler. The manipulator waldoes could have specialized fittings for various jobs. It ought to be simpler to eat and drink inside these than inside regular suits. As long as i'm here, i may as well mention some of the disadvantages. These suits are obviously special-purpose--some sort of emergency suit will be needed anyway. These suits are essentially miniature space ships--they would be much more massive and somewhat more complex than traditional space suits. I don't know what the current level of technology is with regard to manipulator arms--it may be that the manipulators would be too clumsy, wouldn't offer the necessary level of tactile feedback, or may be too subject to vacuum welding or other nastiness. People inside might want to wear something like a space suit anyway, so why bother? david rickel decwrl!sci!daver ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 88 16:23:22 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Space suits In article <21047@sci.UUCP> daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel) writes: >...... These suits are essentially miniature space ships--they would >be much more massive and somewhat more complex than traditional space >suits. The basic design doesn't need to use waldos. A tubular structure with a couple of spacesuit arms sticking out the front is all that is needed. Put an adjustable harness inside, and it will fit people of very different sizes. This would be a MUCH simpler design than the conventional suit where a lot of effort goes into designing flexible leg joints. It would also be easier to get into and out of and it would be much more comfortable to work in for extended periods. The only real disadvantage I can think of at the moment, would be for publicity purposes. People in spacesuits at least look human on the TV screens. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 88 06:38:43 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space suits > The basic design doesn't need to use waldos. A tubular structure with > a couple of spacesuit arms sticking out the front is all that is > needed... This would be a MUCH simpler design than the conventional > suit where a lot of effort goes into designing flexible leg joints. Unfortunately, you have the problem backwards. A lot of effort goes into designing flexible *ARM* joints; the legs are a trivial issue by comparison. Current spacesuit arms are poor and gloves are grossly unsatisfactory. Fix that and there won't be any problem making good legs to match. > It would also be easier to get into and out of... Compared to the NASA suits, perhaps. The Soviets have this one licked: the backpack hinges out away from the suit, you slide legs, arms, and head into the suit from behind, and the backpack closes and latches. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 88 06:09:15 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space suits > ...feet are pretty well useless in space... Not so, actually; staying in one place is a major hassle in free-fall, much more so than anybody really expected. Those pretty pictures of non-anthropomorphic suits floating next to the space station (or whatever) while the occupants work away look nice, but those suits would be expending fantastic amounts of fuel holding their positions. One can re-invent mechanical feet as anchors, and they would have some advantages, but it's not clear that it's worth it. > The manipulator waldoes could have specialized fittings for various > jobs... The state of waldo technology can be described, charitably, as "crude". They aren't up to being arm substitutes, not really. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 88 20:57:07 GMT From: dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!seldon@decvax.dec.com (Joe Walker and Hal Jr.) Subject: Re: Space suits >> It would also be easier to get into and out of... > >Compared to the NASA suits, perhaps. The Soviets have this one licked: >the backpack hinges out away from the suit, you slide legs, arms, and >head into the suit from behind, and the backpack closes and latches. I think the only advandage a "pod" type of suit is that it would not have to be depressurized...Soft suits have a limit on interior pressure..too high and the astronaut would not be able bend arms, legs, or even fingers.. as it is the astronaut has to pre-breathe pure oxygen for a while before suiting up to prevent the bends when he's in the low pressure environment of the suit. right now NASA is looking at designs for "Hard suits" to be used in the space station..this simplifies the process of going from coabin to suit... Hard suits...best of both worlds.. ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 88 21:57:50 GMT From: cos!smith@uunet.uu.net (Steve Smith) Subject: Re: Space suits In article <1988May18.063843.2851@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > ... Current spacesuit arms are poor and gloves are grossly > unsatisfactory. Many years ago, I saw an idea for a "spacesuit" that solved this problem elegantly. It uses the fact that human skin is a very good gastight membrane. It simply consists of a mechanical support layer that doesn't let the user swell up in vacuum. Think of a *very* stiff body stocking. A helmet finishes it off. There are some obvious problems -- getting in and out would not be trivial, and there are parts of the human anatomy that would be difficult to handle (armpits, for example). Suposedly, a large aerospace company (Avco-Everett?) built a model suit that was comfortable, inexpensive, and *far* more efficient than NASA's suits. NASA rejected the idea with an excuse that translated "not invented here". Does anybody have any further information? -- Steve (smith@cos.com) ({uunet sundc decuac hqda-ai hadron}!cos!smith) "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #239 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 1 Jun 88 06:26:50 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05162; Wed, 1 Jun 88 03:25:53 PDT id AA05162; Wed, 1 Jun 88 03:25:53 PDT Date: Wed, 1 Jun 88 03:25:53 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806011025.AA05162@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #240 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 240 Today's Topics: Re: Space suits Re: Space suits Re: Space suits Re: Space suits Re: Space suits What to do with the external shuttle tanks Re: What to do with the external shuttle tanks Re: What to do with the external shuttle tanks Re: Converting Ephemeris Time to GMT Re: Converting Ephemeris Time to GMT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 May 88 15:25:35 GMT From: nyser!cmx!anand@itsgw.rpi.edu (Rangachari Anand) Subject: Re: Space suits In article <1783@cos.com> smith@cos.UUCP (Steve Smith) writes: >Many years ago, I saw an idea for a "spacesuit" that solved this >problem elegantly. It uses the fact that human skin is a very good >gastight membrane. It simply consists of a mechanical support layer >that doesn't let the user swell up in vacuum. Think of a *very* stiff >body stocking. A helmet finishes it off. There are some obvious >problems -- getting in and out would not be trivial, and there are >parts of the human anatomy that would be difficult to handle (armpits, >for example). Protection from vaccuum is not the only function of a space suit Thermal insulation and radiation insulation are also important. I recently read in Spaceflight that even with the current space suits, EVA times have to be restricted to not more than a few hours so as to minimize exposure to radiation. R. Anand anand@amax.npac.syr.edu ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 88 16:08:18 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Space suits Legs are not needed except for hooking your feet into some convenient perch. Most of the actual moving about is done either by using your hands or using a maneuvering unit of some sort. In a suit for serious construction work in space, e.g. on a large space colony, there would have to be a maneuvering unit attached to the suit. On the basis of keeping the system as simple and as cheap as possible, do away with the legs and torso and replace then with a simple cylinder. Some sort of anchor would also be needed to hold the suit in place while the occupant is working. If the cylinder is wide enough, the occupant could withdraw their arms from the sleeves to adjust instruments, feed, or just to scratch. To improve the suit arms and gloves, make the occupant wear a long pair of skin support gloves, put an air seal at the top of the wearer's arm above the bicep, and pump most of the air out. The gloves can then be designed to hold much less pressure, and be correspondingly more flexible. Make sure that the gloves are well thermaly insulated, 'though, things might get very hot in sunlight and very cold in shadow. Suits of this basic design used to be used 150 years ago for underwater salvage operations, before the invention of the diving suit. Bob. ------------------------------ Path: ucbvax!pasteur!ames!lll-tis!lll-winken!uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry From: utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Space suits Keywords: non-anthropomorphic Date: 22 May 88 01:14:09 GMT Lines: 9 Apparently-To: space-incoming@angband.s1.gov > Hard suits...best of both worlds.. Well, better of both worlds. The clear winner for the hassle-free spacesuit is the "space activity suit" concept, in which the body of the suit is just extra-stretchy fabric to supply pressurization, with the skin in vacuum. The idea has been tested in vacuum chambers; it works. Unfortunately, NASA displays no interest in pursuing the scheme further, even though it funded the original work and nobody has found any real flaws. If one were being cynical, one might suspect an overly-cozy relationship between NASA and its current space-suit suppliers; it wouldn't be the first time. ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 88 02:58:39 GMT From: spar!snjsn1!trojan!chuckc@decwrl.dec.com (Charles Crapuchettes) Subject: Re: Space suits In article <1988May22.011409.16510@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Hard suits...best of both worlds.. > >Well, better of both worlds. The clear winner for the hassle-free spacesuit >is the "space activity suit" concept, in which the body of the suit is just >extra-stretchy fabric to supply pressurization, with the skin in vacuum. > . . . In article <580158832.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >Small particles released with the liquids will suffer the same fate as >Delta rocket paint flecks: fly around Earth for a few years and then >either reenter or make craters in spacecraft windshields. How long would an astronaut have to be EVA to have a 50% chance of being injured by a chunk of crud (either artificial or man-made)? Do harder suits provide protection, or is the energy too high? Anyone with hard facts? InterNet: chuckc%sentry@spar.slb.com or crapuchettes%mother@spar.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 88 04:33:44 GMT From: ubvax!unisv!vanpelt@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: Space suits In article <1783@cos.com> smith@cos.UUCP (Steve Smith) writes: >Many years ago, I saw an idea for a "spacesuit" that solved this >problem elegantly. It uses the fact that human skin is a very good >gastight membrane. It simply consists of a mechanical support layer >... Suposedly, a large aerospace company (Avco-Everett?) built a model >suit that was comfortable, inexpensive, and *far* more efficient than >NASA's suits. NASA rejected the idea with an excuse that translated >"not invented here". > >Does anybody have any further information? I heard a talk on space suit design a few years ago, and I asked about this suit. The speaker (don't remember his name, but he was involved in the Apollo suit design) said that for satellite work, you'll be doing a whole lot of outgassing, which is very bad for contaminating delicate parts. Sounds bogus to me. They don't put satellites in a vaccum canister for launch. Probably (1) NIH and (2) not expensive enough. That suit is supposedly very good for thermal control, too. Given the mechanical support, your skin does just as good a job of temperature control as on earth. Better, actually, as a little sweat provides a lot more cooling in vacuum. ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 88 22:47:59 GMT From: cadnetix.COM!beres@uunet.uu.net Subject: What to do with the external shuttle tanks * All details from Boulder Daily Camera, 5/6/88; information used and quoted without permission * FACTS: In todays Boulder Daily Camera (5/6) there is an article about a Boulder company that stands to benefit by a new amendment passed by the space sub-committee (Congress). The company is ETCO (External Tanks Corp.) of Boulder. ETCO was created by UCAR (Univ. Corp. for Atmospheric Research, also of Boulder) to study and design ways of using the ET in orbit. ETCO is/was founded as a co-op between gov't and the private sector; uses of the tanks are to be investor financed (yea!). Final bit of factual info: the bill to authorize NASA to make use of the ET was introduced by Rep. David Skaggs D-Colo. ME: Funny that a Boulder company could stand to benefit from this bill, huh? In any event, the bill is a good idea, no matter who is the *financial* winner. I know that uses of the ET has come up before in this group, but it might be a good time to discuss it again - since it just really might happen. To start the ball rolling, here are a few (well, 5) questions I have: 1. Does anyone in the know (Greg Woods at NCAR, others) know if the previous net discussion, amongst others I presume, influenced our Congress-critters/NASA to make use of the ET? Did it help? 2. The Camera article mentioned 20 to 30 experiments have been proposed to UCAR. Care to give us any details, anyone? 3. Timeframe, if Congress/NASA is timely about adoption of the plan? 4. Does anyone have a summary of previous net proposals? 5. What about integration with the space station/ISF plans? Speaking for myself only...if anyone else has a better summary of the amendment, speak up! -Tim ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 88 20:24:05 GMT From: attcan!lsuc!spectrix!tmsoft!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: What to do with the external shuttle tanks > 1. Does anyone in the know (Greg Woods at NCAR, others) know if the > previous net discussion, amongst others I presume, influenced > our Congress-critters/NASA to make use of the ET? Did it help? Unlikely. The most significant influence was probably that the Reagan space policy specifically called for NASA to provide ETs to private companies wanting them, and this is uncontroversial enough to pass Congress easily. > 3. Timeframe, if Congress/NASA is timely about adoption of the plan? NASA is supposed to release a detailed policy document on it soon. See my latest AW&ST summary for some related news. The main issue is that any company wanting an ET in orbit has got to demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that the tank will not make an uncontrolled reentry. This is a non-trivial problem since the tanks are big and light, would end up in quite a low orbit, and would naturally tend to orient themselves broadside- on to air drag. > 5. What about integration with the space station/ISF plans? If NASA were sensible, it would have provided for using an ET as expansion space for the station. It didn't. And I'd say Space Industries has enough problems with plain old ISF just now. NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 88 01:25:41 GMT From: al@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Al Globus) Subject: Re: What to do with the external shuttle tanks My favorite use for external tanks: sports arena. Note that the revenue from a major sporting event (Olympics, SuperBowl) can be in the $100 millions range. Put an aft cargo compartment on the tank so that modification work that cannot be done on the ground can be done in a shirt sleeve environment. First launch sets up the facility and presurizes the oxygen tank. Next launch a Shuttle and a Soyuz simulataneously to dock with the facility (this may be tricky). The shuttle carries a pilot and commander, a video technician, two American and two Soviet atheletes. The Soyuz carries a Soviet pilot, one American and one Soviet athelete. Take four days to train and aclimate. Then have three or four games, one per day with three on three teams, Americans vs Soviets. I guarantee VERY large audiences for at least the first game. With proper marketing you just might be able to make some money. In any case, the initial potential income vastly exceeds any other space venture. You should take in hundreds of millions in the first week of operation. The scientist and engineers have had the orbital sandbox to themselves for too long. It's time for others to get in the action. ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 88 18:26:55 GMT From: cfa!mink@husc6.harvard.edu (Doug Mink) Subject: Re: Converting Ephemeris Time to GMT In article <217@krafla.rhi.hi.is>, kjartan@rhi.hi.is (Kjartan R. Gudmundsson) writes: > I am working on a program which will give me on what days the moon is > full. I have a formula which gives the answer in Julian Ephemeris > Days, and now I need a formula to convert these in to GMT. A example > with the formula shows that New Moon in February 1977 was on JD = > 2443192.6525 or 1977 February 18 at 3 Hours 39.6 min (ET). > If someone could give me this formula I would be thankful. I run into this problem all the time doing occultation predictions. Until recently, I've been working over a period of time during which ET-UT could be closely approximated by a linear fit (it is an empirical number whcih can only be accurately computed for the past). I had occasion to look at data over a period from the late 1940's to the present, and no polynomial fit would work, so I built in a table of ET-UT over a the period from which observations are most likely to be used. The fit back past the 1940's is based on the real ET-UT which I didn't want to tabulate; ET-UT fluctuates strangely before 1930. The fit into the future fits the extrapolated data for the next two years and should work for longer. I use it through 1999 in my work. Here is a program I wrote: c*** March 24, 1988 c*** By Doug Mink c--- Calculate ET - UT given seconds after 1/1/1950 Subroutine JPDT (TSEC0, DT) Real*8 TSEC0 c Date in format (yyyy.mmdd) c or if >3000.d0, seconds after 1/1/1950 0:00 et Real*8 DT c ET - UT in seconds Real*8 TSEC,YEAR,YDIFF,DIFF Integer*4 IYR c Table containing ET - UT in seconds from the Astronomical Ephemeris Real*4 DTTAB(40) Save DTTAB Data DTTAB/28.71,29.15,29.57,29.97,30.36,30.72,31.07,31.35,31.68,32.18, 1 32.68,33.15,33.59,34.00,34.47,35.03,35.73,36.54,37.43,38.29, 2 39.20,40.18,41.17,42.23,43.37,44.49,45.48,49.46,47.52,48.53, 3 49.59,50.54,51.38,52.17,52.96,53.79,54.34,54.90,55.40,56.00/ TSEC = TSEC0 c Convert date to seconds after 1950.0101 If (TSEC .lt. 3.d3) Then Call VCON (TSEC0,0.d0,TSEC) Endif c Convert to years since 1950 (divide by 365.25d0*8.64d4) YEAR = TSEC / 31557600.d0 IYR = Idint (YEAR) + 2 c Extrapolate into past using fit based on data from 1930 to 1950 If (IYR .lt. 1) Then DT = 29.157184d0 + 0.589892348d0 * DYEAR + 7.701803d-3 * DYEAR*DYEAR 1 - 4.7890824d-4 * DYEAR*DYEAR*DYEAR c Interpolate from table from the Astronomical Ephemeris (1987) (1949-1988) Elseif (IYR .lt. 40) Then DIFF = Dble (DTTAB(IYR+1) - DTTAB(IYR)) YDIFF = YEAR - Dble (IYR-2) DT = Dble (DTTAB(IYR)) + (YDIFF * DIFF) c Extrapolate into future using fit based on data from 1975 to 1988 Else DT = 28.76304734d0 + 0.719777265d0 * (YEAR) Endif Return End ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 88 05:52:00 GMT From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Converting Ephemeris Time to GMT While Dr. Mink's posting is quite accurate, as far as it goes, let me just fill in some data for longer periods. Actual observed differences in the two clocks over the last three centuries are (all times in minutes): 1710 -0.2 1770 0.1 1870 0.0 1903 0.0 1940 0.4 1971 0.7 1730 -0.1 1800 0.1 1880 -0.1 1912 0.2 1950 0.5 1977 0.8 1750 0 1840 0.0 1895 -0.1 1927 0.4 1965 0.6 [Meeus] For longer periods (centuries), Meeus suggests the approximation: diff = 0.4992 * T**2 + 1.2053 * T + 0.41 where diff is the difference between the two clocks, in minutes, and T is the time since 1900.0, in centuries. Another useful and simple approximation is diff = 0.015 * Y + 0.91, where Y is the time since 1985, in years, and diff is again in minutes; this approximation appears in the programs distributed by Allan Paeth. This last one is within a few seconds for periods 1950-present. Kevin ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #240 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 2 Jun 88 06:37:31 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01309; Thu, 2 Jun 88 03:22:09 PDT id AA01309; Thu, 2 Jun 88 03:22:09 PDT Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 03:22:09 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806021022.AA01309@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #241 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 241 Today's Topics: Re: anthropic cosmological principle Re: anthropic cosmological principle P.C.W. Davies Books Re: anthropic cosmological principle Re: anthropic cosmological principle Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Cometesimals (was: Millions of comets hit Earth) Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Question about Richard Hoagland/Mars Project Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Question about Richard Hoagland/Mars Project Re: Shooting the Moon (really Martian ballooning) (LONG) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 May 88 19:24:18 GMT From: wall@decwrl.dec.com (David Wall) Subject: Re: anthropic cosmological principle Marc Hairston recommends _The_Accidental_Universe_, and I do so also. It should be noted, however, that it is by A. J. P. Davies, not Paul Davies. I used to think they were the same (and they might be) but their books are quite different. My impression from reading them is that the former is a real scientist and the latter is a mystic. ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 88 21:28:16 GMT From: livesey@sun.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: Re: anthropic cosmological principle In article <429@bacchus.DEC.COM>, wall@decwrl.dec.com (David Wall) writes: > Marc Hairston recommends _The_Accidental_Universe_, and I do so also. > It should be noted, however, that it is by A. J. P. Davies, not Paul > Davies. I used to think they were the same (and they might be) but > their books are quite different. My impression from reading them is > that the former is a real scientist and the latter is a mystic. I have the book in front of me: P. C. W. Davies. The Accidental Universe Cambridge University Press. 1982. The jacket blurb begins "In 'The Accidental Universe" renowned expositor Paul Davies grapples with the most fundamental questions of all." Paul Davies is Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne (which used to be called King's College, Durham, when I was a tyke). Could you be thinking of A. J. P. Taylor, the historian? jon. ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 88 23:39:34 GMT From: amdahl!apple!dan@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Dan Allen) Subject: P.C.W. Davies Books It seems that Paul Davies also goes by P.C.W. Davies. His latest book from Simon and Schuster is called _The_Cosmic_Blueprint_ and is on the Scientific American reading level, along with: The Runaway Universe Other Worlds The Edge of Infinity God and the New Physics Superforce Then there are his "student texts": Space and time in the modern universe The forces of nature The search for gravity waves The accidental universe Quantum mechanics The ghost in the atom And finally there are his "technical" works: The physics of time asymmetry Quantom fields in curved space All of the above information came from the "Also by Paul Davies" page of his latest book, _The_Cosmic_Blueprint_. Editorial: I have about five of his books and find them pretty good on the whole. I particulary like his _The_Accidental_Universe_ which is a condensed version of the big Barrow & Tipler _The_Anthropic_Cosmological_Principle_ book which is also very good. His latest book (Cosmic Blueprint) is so-so. _God_And_The_New_Physics_ is the best of his easy reading level for me, because it has a neat philosophical side to it that the average science retelling does not have. I have not yet dived into his "technical" works, only because I have not seen them for sale. Does anyone have anything to say about them? One final comment: on my shelf of favorite books (the ones that I would take if on a desert island) I have the Barrow & Tipler, as well as two of Davies student level texts. For the curious, I also have Misner Thorne and Wheeler's _Gravitation_, Allen's _Astrophysical_Quantities_, Harwit's _Astrophysical Concepts_, Rindler's _Essential_Relativity_, Feynman's _QED_, Einstein's _The_Meaning_Of_Relativity_, Tolman's _Relativity_Thermodynamics_and_Cosmology, Eddington's _Space_Time_and_ Gravitation, and two other authors. F.S.C. Northrop's _Science_And_First_Principles_, a classic wonderful book by a man that I have heard so little about, and almost everything that KARL POPPER ever wrote. Keep in mind that this is my favorite shelf of physics books. The rest number in the 100s, and then there is computers, philosophy, religion... It is so hard to make a SHORT list of favorites. Try it sometime! Dan Allen Software Explorer Apple Computer ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 88 23:33:09 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!yunexus!ists!mike@uunet.uu.net (Mike Clarkson) Subject: Re: anthropic cosmological principle In article <880502092353.edf@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV>, hairston%utd750%utadnx%utspan.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV writes: > Martin Gardner has written that the FAP should be renamed the > completely ridiculous anthropic principle (CRAP). I like that. > All the anthropic principles are interesting, but since none of them > can be tested or used to make predictions, then they fall outside of > science and into the realm of philosophy (which is nothing new to this > group). Not true: most of the anthropomoric principles centre around the assumption that carbon is a a requirement for life forms as we know them. It turns out that the relative abundance of carbon in the universe places some pretty severe restrictions on what must have transpired during the first second of the universe's existence after the big bang, so in fact the anthropomorphic principle does allow one to make predictions. One of the important early papers in this field was Dirac's paper in Nature (1961 I think, sorry I don't have the reference here). It began "It is well known that carbon is required to make physicists..." When you are working in quantum mechanics, the line between physics and philosophy is very thin; perhaps nowhere more so than in areas like the quantum theory of gravity. But it is most definitely science, and predictions can be made. Dirac was no philospher; he was an execellent and very practical scientist. Mike Clarkson mike@ists.UUCP Institute for Space and Terrestrial Science mike@ists.yorku.ca York University, North York, Ontario, uunet!mnetor!yunexus!ists!mike CANADA M3J 1P3 +1 (416) 736-5611 ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 88 23:18:17 GMT From: oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Michael McNeil) Subject: Re: anthropic cosmological principle In article <202@ists> mike@ists (Mike Clarkson) writes: >When you are working in quantum mechanics, the line between physics and >philosophy is very thin; perhaps nowhere more so than in areas like the >quantum theory of gravity. But it is most definitely science, and >predictions can be made. Dirac was no philospher; he was an execellent >and very practical scientist. I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actual philosophy. Max Born Michael McNeil ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 00:10:43 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon Does anyone know if the soviet mars probes that will travel around mars by balloon will deploy their balloons before or after first touching down? For those who haven't heard: The balloons are heated by the morning sun, adding to lift, drift with the winds during the day, and touch down every night at a different site. Doug Reeder ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 17:07:11 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Cometesimals (was: Millions of comets hit Earth) > >... Every few million years Mars warms up (since the water that is in > >vapor form creates a greenhouse effect just like CO2); the ice thaws; > >rivers flow on Mars... > > Water on Mars?? Could you please point me to references that > substantiate this? Well, nobody disputes the effects of water on the topography; the Viking Orbiter images settled once and for all that Mars once had flowing water on a large scale. The idea that Mars's climate changes cyclically, and that it is currently in a dry phase, is respectable speculation but not, I believe, unanimously accepted. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 17:36:11 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon > If a telescope is too heavy/bulky/low in resolution, send down a > Ranger type probe first. This isn't a bad idea. The major problem is that you may need more than one of them to find a suitable location. > Load it with an impact-survivable transmitter, and you have a landing > beacon as well. This would allow a rather stupid but accurate > mechanism for terminal guidance. This isn't actually necessary if you can survey the landing area well enough. (Doing that from orbit should suffice, the only tricky part is picking the exact landing point.) Cruise-missile guidance systems should suffice to find a selected point in well-mapped terrain. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 17:41:04 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon >1. EXPLOSION ON THE PAD: Folks, the Challenger disaster was bad, really >bad. But imagine if it had a nuclear warhead on board. Bye, bye South >Florida! A spaceship is one of the least stable places to keep a >warhead! Not an issue, actually. Nuclear warheads are routinely designed to crash at supersonic speeds or cook in a burning aircraft without doing much more than spraying a bit of radioactive gup around the immediate vicinity. Getting a nuclear explosion is not that easy; nuclear bombs are precision machinery. Smashing one with a sledgehammer won't detonate it. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 06:22:13 GMT From: well!pokey@lll-lcc.llnl.gov (Jef Poskanzer) Subject: Re: Question about Richard Hoagland/Mars Project In the referenced message, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) wrote: }Hoagland is generally regarded as a nut. Not by anyone who has even skimmed his book, and noted the extensive disclaimers that it's all wild speculation. This is very different from the Ancient Astronauts syndrome. I met Hoagland in 1980, and I did not find him nutty at all -- just intelligent, creative, open-minded, and slightly modest if you can believe that. Now, I don't actually believe this stuff about faces, and I don't think we should send *anything* to Mars until we have the infrastructure to stay there, but it is interesting. }I have not read this particular book Well then. ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 05:51:36 GMT From: paulf@shasta.stanford.edu (Paul A. Flaherty) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon In article kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) writes: > Since what is wanted is a clear landing site, scout it out ahead of time. We will have an orbiter in LMO, but as I said earlier, the resolution isn't good enough. And that's with a big CCD camera, and optimistically precise optics. Moreover, terrain assessments done in the past have tended to be just plain wrong. Apollo 11 had to contend with unexpectedly rough terrain; they almost bought the farm. We got just plain lucky with Viking. > Now for my idea: If a telescope is too heavy/bulky/low in resolution, > send down a Ranger type probe first. Yep, we have said probes, but you can't get a camera with the necessary resolution, nor can you get enough power in the package to send back information at the required rate (Shannon et al). > kr0u@andrew.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 16:42:30 GMT From: ddsw1!dino@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Laura Watson) Subject: Re: Question about Richard Hoagland/Mars Project In article <1988May2.231928.4924@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >> I have just finished reading a book by one Richard Hoagland called >> _The Monuments of Mars_. It is essentially speculative nonfiction >> concerning some possible artificial objects on the surface of Mars. I read in Charles Berlitz's _Atlantis_ that there are pictures of pyramids on Mars. This was in the part about pyramids found under the Atlantic ocean, supposedly where Atlantis was. If the book you're talking about is about that, I sure going to read it. Laura Watson ...[ihnp4, moss, codas]!ddsw1!dino ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 88 01:19:55 GMT From: jeric@tybalt.caltech.edu (J. Eric Grove) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon (really Martian ballooning) (LONG) In article <9179@reed.UUCP> douglas@reed.UUCP (P Douglas Reeder) writes: >Does anyone know if the soviet mars probes that will travel around mars >by balloon will deploy their balloons before or after first touching >down? > >For those who haven't heard: The balloons are heated by the morning >sun, adding to lift, drift with the winds during the day, and touch >down every night at a different site. As I understand it, the concept actually employs two balloons, a He (or H) balloon which, in answer to your question, is inflated on descent, and an open hot "air" balloon (maybe better called a "Montgolfier") made of some black material yet to be developed. Since the balloon fabrics are so fragile (presumably only a couple tenths of mils thick), they must not touch the Martian surface. Because the Martian atmosphere is so tenuous, Montgolfier ballooning is difficult, and every extra bit of weight must be eliminated. I recently heard a fellow from JPL talk here (sorry, his name has long since been filed) about the project. It is a French concept, and the JPLers were contributing to the design of the balloons and payload. Our government has, in its infinite wisdom, canceled their funding, so the French and Soviets will have to go it alone. The JPLers did make some significant advances in removing some of of the inherent problems in the concept, namely ... When the payload is on the ground at night, the Montgolfier is deflated and being held aloft by the He balloon. If there is any wind, the Montgolfier will act like a beautiful spinnaker, dragging the payload and pulling itself into the ground (bye-bye balloon). And if the payload drags, it may catch and be stuck forever. What we need is a balloon with a lifting shape (too complex to put in ascii) and a "smooth" payload. The JPLers came up with a lifting shape after much head-scratching, only to discover you can buy toy kite-balloons at K-Mart for a couple of bucks with just the right shape :-) (but much too heavy and small). They designed a snake-like payload of nested "dixie cups" to give rigidity on small scales, but flexibility on large scales. So with the wind blowing to the right, we might see this on Mars: He kite-balloon / / / deflated Montgolfier / / / / 0 0 0 000000 <- the payload Tests of the kite-balloon and the payload on the only Martian surface we Americans can reach (the CA desert) were quite successful. Now, designing instruments to fit in a series of squashed dixie cups might not be so simple. The French were impressed, but it's not yet clear whether or how much of the design will actually be used. disclaimer: I have no connection whatsoever with K-Mart. I don't even know where one is. J. Eric Grove jeric@tybalt.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!jeric ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #241 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 3 Jun 88 06:23:21 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03095; Fri, 3 Jun 88 03:21:32 PDT id AA03095; Fri, 3 Jun 88 03:21:32 PDT Date: Fri, 3 Jun 88 03:21:32 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806031021.AA03095@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #242 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 242 Today's Topics: Re: Mars Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Shooting the Moon Vocabulary lesson #6: Joint Mars Mission Re: Shooting the Moon Mars Landing Re: Radar (was Shooting the Moon) Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Question about Richard Hoagland/Mars Project Re: Radar (was Shooting the Moon) When in doubt, nuke it... Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Shooting the Moon Shooting the Moon Re: When in doubt, nuke it... Re: When in doubt, nuke it... Re: When in doubt, nuke it... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 May 88 16:45:20 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Mars > If any of the probes sent there weren't properly sterilised before > launch, colonies of bacteria could still be living in the remains of > the (hard or soft) lander. I believe that at least one of the early Soviet hard-landers is thought *not* to have been sterilized. Oh well. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 88 17:43:34 GMT From: paul.rutgers.edu!styx.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon In article <5045@nsc.nsc.com> ken@nsc.nsc.com ({JOAT}) writes: > Why does it have to be a nuclear explosion?, why not a small chemical > charge. Serious answers: Thermite might work better than explosives, because an explosion (as was pointed out earlier) might just uncover buried rock. On the other hand, the explosives or thermite required would be massive, maybe prohibitively so. Maybe the cheapest answer is radar imaging on the lander and fine enough steerability to avoid the boulders. If there's a way to use the radar after it landed, great! But then again, two Vikings got down without landing on a boulder, didn't they? So maybe imaging radars and fancy boulder-avoidance hardware isn't really needed. (Flame anticipation: Yeah, I know they could have come down on a rock. The point is that they didn't, twice. I think this conclusively proves that it's possible to land unmanned vehicles on Mars without nuclear pyrotechnics.) Flippant answer: The use of a technically elegant solution would prevent the Curtiss LeMays from using atom bombs on the Koreans _sorry_ Vietnamese _er_ the Iranians _whoops!_ Mars. Let the big kids have some fun once in awhile, why dontcha? Just a little one? Aw, come on, it's just a little city _I mean_ planet... ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 88 08:49:50 GMT From: sj1f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Kent Jensen) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon I personally would not support the detonation of an atomic weapon on Mars because of the amount of scientific data that we would lose. BUT as a concept I approve whole-heartedly. Part of the problem with the space program is that the imagination has bled from NASA, in fact it has bled from the whole country. If you ask someone why they do something a certain way they will most likely tell you that that was the way it had always been done. America needs to start THINKING, and not just along the same, old lines. Steven Jensen ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Fri, 6 May 88 19:31:34 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Vocabulary lesson #6: Joint Mars Mission Joint Mars Mission, n, a diabolically clever Soviet plot to destroy American leadership in space by allowing NASA to take credit for Soviet space accomplishments and thus lulling the American populace into believing that they have a space program. ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 88 20:57:15 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon Is 1m resolution the only way to tell if there are 1m rocks at your Martian landing site? Is there no computer processing method that could dectect surface roughness and tell you there are 1m rocks without being able to say exactly where they are? ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 88 18:37:31 GMT From: ganelon.usc.edu!robiner@oberon.usc.edu (Steve) Subject: Mars Landing All this talk about nuclear detonations on Mars sounds totally unnecessary. No accurate data on landing sites? How did we land the Viking which tolerates much less than 1m boulders? If Viking did its own maneuvering, which I don't think it did, at least we know that terrain very well now, why not land the rover right next to it, and go for a walk. =Steve= ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 88 20:18:29 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Radar (was Shooting the Moon) In article masticol@styx.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes: >massive, maybe prohibitively so. Maybe the cheapest answer is radar >imaging on the lander and fine enough steerability to avoid the >boulders. If there's a way to use the radar after it landed, great! I'm amazed that you guys are so infatuated with radar (imaging). Sure for the final decent, but 1 and 3 meter mapping? We have a ways to go to understand how it works. Mars is one of the last planets RSAG wants to image. Processing equipment is very heavy. Seasat images took 2 weeks to process adequately. The DC-8 up here is just about ready for JPL missions I occasionally see some of the guys up here. On Curtis LeMay: I just saw "Wild Blue Yonder" this morning before driving into work. Drop that phorphous! --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 88 15:58:39 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!Daniel_C_Anderson@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon Aside from the technological considerations of nuking Mars to provide a landing site, there is the matter of aesthetics. Nuking Mars would be a crudity akin to spray-painting directions to your party in 100-ft letters on the Grand Canyon. A cosmic act of inconsideration by a F-T-Universe species. It'd make us look bad. Even if it works. --Daniel ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 88 15:55:52 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Question about Richard Hoagland/Mars Project > Hoagland is generally regarded as a nut. Ahhhhh, but a very entertaining nut! I saw him at a local L-5 meeting a few years back, and found his talk utterly preposterous, but fun. >NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry Perhaps, but the PO is largely independent, whereas NASA is run by a bunch of lawyers (read : "congresscritters") who think they know about science. ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 88 17:33:22 GMT From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Radar (was Shooting the Moon) In article <8444@ames.arpa> eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene N. Miya) writes: >... Mars is one of the last planets RSAG wants to image. Processing >equipment is very heavy. Seasat images took 2 weeks to process >adequately... Good, another reason for a joint mission. Ivan eats heavy payloads for breakfast. And why does a 2 week processing turnaround matter in this context? If the imaging is being done in support of an unmanned lander mission, just park the orbiter/lander assembly in orbit until JPL can decipher the data and make a decision. If it's in support of a manned mission, you could ALMOST do the same thing (hell, it takes them a year to get there, there ought to be two weeks' worth of stuff to do before landing), but more appropriately you could use an unmanned orbiter launched to arrive months beforehand. Anyway if this were part of an actual Mars mission you have to believe that more supercomputer resources would be online for you guys, and more manpower too. Would it REALLY still take 2 weeks? Tom Neff ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 88 14:46:59 PDT From: Dana Myers To: paulf@shasta.stanford.edu Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Subject: When in doubt, nuke it... >Date: 29 Apr 88 16:27:42 GMT >From: paulf@shasta.stanford.edu (Paul A. Flaherty) >Subject: Shooting the Moon > >I'm currently involved with the joint Stanford - JPL mission to Mars; >for those of you who don't know about this, we're looking at placing an >orbiter in sun - sync, two repeaters in "Molniya" orbits, and landing a >pair of rovers. > >The biggest problem we're faced with at the moment is landing site >selection, and crash landing aviodance, eg., not putting down on top of >a large boulder. This is a rather difficult proposition, since the >best hi-res photography we'll be able to get will have about 3m >resolution (pessimistically), and we can, at best, tolerate 1m >boulders. How did Viking accomplish this? Luck? >For this reason, my design partner and I have proposed a radical >approach: build a landing site. The site would consist of a two >kilometer wide flat landing strip, which will be easily visible to the >lander. Construction benefits would include knowledge of regional >atmospherics, seismic data generation, and lander simplification. >Unfortunately, since Mars is currently uninhabited, we cannot simply >hire a construction crew. Therefore, we are forced to consider a >simple, engineered solution to landing field construction. Mars may not be currently uninhabited. We (Earthlings) currently view it as such. This is a very important difference. The bottom line is that it is not inhabited by know contractors. >The explosion of a 35 kiloton nuclear device, optomized for heat blast, >at approximately 100m above the Martian surface, would create a >glass-smooth landing pad, with the required dimensions, and the above >stated benefits. I am not convinced that you would get the "glass smooth" landing pad you expect. Also, the integrity of the pad may not be too wonderful. There could be "soft spots" in the middle of your landing pad waiting for your lander to fall in. In terms of science, detonating a nuclear device isn't exactly a low impact incident on ANY planet's ecology. You would get one benefit for sure. You would distinguish yourself as the one to make the first act of nuclear violence on another planet. >No, this is not a joke. We're very serious about this. Go ask someone who lived through Hiroshima or Nagasaki -- imagine if someone decided YOUR backyard was going to be a nuke-prepared landing pad and they couldn't see anything in the way 'coz their cameras couldn't see anything smaller than 10 feet big. How would you feel? You'd probably be upset enough if someone landed a big helicopter in your back yard, much less a spacecraft without nuking your yard first. Try to keep a "do unto others (other planets, lifeforms, etc.) as you wish them to do unto you" attitude. It would ruin your (not to mention my) day if the (currently undiscovered) Martians retaliated for the nuclear attack with attimatter weapons. At the very least, you may corrupt some otherwise interesting scientific data. >I'd appreciate comments / suggestions on this proposal. Dana H. Myers, WA6ZGB | "The proposal to nuke Mars for a landing Locus Computing Corp. | pad is clear evidence that STANFORD Santa Monica, CA | isn't doing any in-house drug testing." | -- Dana Myers ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 88 18:56:40 GMT From: killer!tness7!tness1!sugar!peter@eddie.mit.edu (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon In article <5181@cup.portal.com>, Daniel_C_Anderson@cup.portal.com.UUCP writes: > Nuking Mars would be a crudity akin to spray-painting directions to > your party in 100-ft letters on the Grand Canyon. A cosmic act of > inconsideration by a F-T-Universe species. It'd make us look bad. Why? What good is Mars? It doesn't even have an ecosystem. There's a lot to be said for just busting the thing wide open and making a bunch of useful asteroids. Venus, too... in fact you could make a better case for Venus. But there's really no hurry. There are plenty of asteroids out there yet. Let Mars lie fallow for a while. Hell, we haven't even gotten a decent start on the moon. -- Peter da Silva ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 88 20:23:24 GMT From: uflorida!novavax!midas!mkraiesk@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Kraieski) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon in article <2739@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU>, paulf@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU (Paul A. Flaherty) says: > No, this is not a joke. We're very serious about this. > > I'd appreciate comments / suggestions on this proposal. Great idea! But one warhead may not be enough. I know, since we are cozying up to the Ruskies so much on space stuff, lets combine all of our warheads and all of theirs and ship the whole load to Mars. We could even send high government officials along to make sure it works! Seriously, if the best our scientists can come up with for landing a craft on uneven terrain is thermo nuclear destruction then I fear the end is near! This is like using a rocket launcher for geese. Mark E. Kraieski Gould, CSD Ft. Lauderdale ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 88 14:53:57 EDT From: loeb@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU To: paul.rutgers.edu!styx.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Shooting the Moon Not only that but the resolution of a spysat going around Mars is bound to be better than the same resolution around Earth. The reason for this is that LMO (Low Mars Orbit) is much lower than LEO (Low Earth Orbit). Danny ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 88 19:58:57 GMT From: pacbell!cogent!uop!todd@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Dr. Nethack) Subject: Re: When in doubt, nuke it... Why not use a "Daisy cutter"? Worked well in Vietnam, and non nuclear! I would rather they use X-ray imaging to explore the landing zone first, maybe with some other specrtal things thrown in for good measure. I hardly think this is a supreme problem necessitating a nuclear device. ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 88 19:28:17 GMT From: devvax!jplpro!leem@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Lee Mellinger) Subject: Re: When in doubt, nuke it... In article <8805162352.AA17060@mordor.s1.gov> bilbo.dana@SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Dana Myers) writes: | How did Viking accomplish this? Luck? Mostly, yes. The Viking orbiters surveyed the surface for several weeks prior to choosing a landing site. I don't remember the resolution, but it certainly wasn't 3m. The most benign location was chosen from the pictures made during that survey. You've probably seen the pictures from these "benign" locations. Lander 1 came down about 10m from a boulder that would certainly destroyed it had it landed there. Lee |Lee F. Mellinger Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA| ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 88 16:37:43 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: When in doubt, nuke it... In article <1477@uop.edu>, todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) writes: > Why not use a "Daisy cutter"? Worked well in Vietnam, and non nuclear! Do you remember how much one weighs and how big it is? You'd do better to haul 1500 pounds of foam rubber for a self-carried landing mat. :} ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #242 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 5 Jun 88 02:58:28 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04548; Sat, 4 Jun 88 03:21:02 PDT id AA04548; Sat, 4 Jun 88 03:21:02 PDT Date: Sat, 4 Jun 88 03:21:02 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806041021.AA04548@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #243 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 243 Today's Topics: Re: Radar (was Shooting the Moon) Re: When in doubt, nuke it... Re: Space Shuttle Names Re: Space Shuttle Names cooling by radiation Re: cooling by radiation Re: cooling by radiation Re: cooling by radiation Bureaucracy vs. space Re: Bureaucracy vs. space Re: cooling by radiation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Path: ucbvax!pasteur!agate!ig!uwmcsd1!bbn!husc6!uwvax!rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!styx.rutgers.edu!masticol From: masticol@styx.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Radar (was Shooting the Moon) Date: 8 May 88 14:05:09 GMT So who said anything about using radar for surface mapping? I meant collision avoidance on descent, and possible use as an instrument for some kind of scientific data gathering to prevent it from being a one-use-only box. (I admit I don't know what kind of data the radar could be used to acquire; I'm a doctor, not a surgeon!) Those with legitimate ideas on this are encouraged to follow up. However... >>>>>> READ BEFORE FLAMING. <<<<<< ) Another gross generalization from ) --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA U-betcha. :-) -Steve (masticol@clash.rutgers.edu) - Help stamp out cute .sigs ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 88 14:49:32 GMT From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: When in doubt, nuke it... In article <2061@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> leem@jplpro.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) writes: >... You've probably seen the pictures from these "benign" locations. >Lander 1 came down about 10m from a boulder that would certainly >destroyed it had it landed there. This is sort of a classic fallacy. If the surface was evenly covered with 3m boulders at 40m average spacing in a honeycomb pattern, a lander of 4m average diameter would have about a 0.0275 chance of striking one of the boulders on landing. Yet about 60% of all landing sites would lie within 10m of one of the boulders! I think you guys should be asking yourselves what you could put on board Mars Observer to give you 1m resolution or better at selected sites, rather than fantasizing about nuking a landing pad. Tom Neff ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 88 21:39:18 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Names > I've heard the story on how the Enterprise was named, but how did they > come up with a New Age / UFOphilic name like Atlantis ? Enterprise aside, the orbiters are named after famous oceanographic vessels. NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 88 06:04:00 GMT From: snail!thompson@a.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Names I believe that the Atlantis was a US oceanographic research vessel of the 19th century. With the exception of Enterprise, all the shuttles are named for such ships. They had to have some sort of system, didn't they? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 88 18:18:04 EDT From: John Roberts Subject: cooling by radiation As I recall, the Space Shuttle is supposed to cool itself while in orbit by opening the cargo bay doors, and pointing the cooling array at the earth. Since this is much less efficient than pointing at open space, I presume there must be some good reason for this choice. Is it because faster cooling might damage something, because this position keeps the cooling surfaces out of the sun most of the time, or for some other reason? John Roberts roberts@icst-cmr.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 88 01:04:46 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: cooling by radiation > As I recall, the Space Shuttle is supposed to cool itself while in > orbit by opening the cargo bay doors, and pointing the cooling array > at the earth. Since this is much less efficient than pointing at open > space, I presume there must be some good reason for this choice. Is it > because faster cooling might damage something, because this position > keeps the cooling surfaces out of the sun most of the time, or for > some other reason? I believe the reason has to do with thermal control in the payload bay. Pointing the bay at the earth is much more benign than pointing it either at the sun or at deep space. Back when we thought we could launch an amateur PACSAT (packet radio satellite) from a GAS canister on the shuttle I took a look at the thermal environment. It can be summed up in one word: horrendous! If you design your payload to survive direct sunlight, it will freeze if the bay is oriented to deep space for any length of time. If you design it to work in shadow, it will fry in the sun. And, of course, GAS customers are peons -- you get no say over the orbiter's attitude, and they usually can't even tell you what they expect it to be at any given time during the mission. You don't get a single microwatt of the kilowatts being generated by the orbiter's fuel cells. You have to waste half the canister just carrying batteries -- no lithium batteries are allowed, this is a man-rated vehicle. You may well end up using most of your battery power just keeping warm. The best you can do is compromise on the thermal design and hope that they'll keep it pointed at earth most of the time. I'll take a free-flying payload (with an unmanned launcher to fly it on) any day. At least you know what the thermal environment will be so you can plan for it. The selling of the shuttle as a platform for easy, inexpensive, small scale space applications is one of the biggest con jobs in history. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 88 23:27:07 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: cooling by radiation > And of course it would all be so much better for a small experimenter > on a big shared unmanned platform, right? Partially yes. Have you ever seen the GAS Safety Manual? I have. Just read it sometime if you want to get depressed. And my copy was published BEFORE the Challenger disaster. I really want my platform to be FREE-FLYING, not just unmanned. But the GAS program was not originally set up to actually launch payloads. A couple of very persistent people finally persuaded NASA to allow it; remember GLOMR and NUSAT? They could launch their payloads from a GAS can, but only through the use of a NASA-developed deployment mechanism that took fully HALF the can's already-cramped interior. (I know -- I visited Goddard during the NUSAT preparation and and inspected the actual flight mechanism with spacecraft attached). Even worse, the NASA safety people insisted that the deployments occur on the LAST day of a week-long mission. Why? Because they were worried about the possibility of a collision between the spacecraft and the shuttle orbiter, and doing it on the last day would minimize this. (As it turned out, they were able to move up the NUSAT/GLOMR deployment because the dry cells in the can (remember -- no orbiter power) weren't expected to last the entire mission. And GLOMR didn't make it out at all, and had to be brought back and relaunched). AMSAT has had considerable experience flying small secondary payloads on unmanned launchers, primarily Delta and Ariane. Yes, there certainly are interface and safety requirements. We fly solid and hypergolic kick motors on Ariane, and share space with $100M Landsats on Delta. It's perfectly reasonable for them to require assurance that our payloads won't kill somebody or ruin a mission. And with 13 satellites launched we've built an absolutely perfect track record in this regard. (The Ariane launch failure that occurred in 1980 was caused by a first stage engine defect, and had nothing to do with our payload). Even if you're allowed to deploy something from a GAS can, however, you're in an entirely different league. The bureaucracy levels and safety requirements are orders of magnitude higher, and the service provided by the vehicle itself is much worse. Standard facilities, like battery charging and telemetry while on the pad, are not provided. Your payload may have to survive for months on the ground before launch without your being able to touch it. Instead of being deployed in a known, preselected attitude within minutes of reaching orbit, you get dumped out at an unpredictable time and attitude chosen by NASA, not you, and they couldn't care less about the thermal beating your payload might have to take in the meantime. The orbit is much lower than that typical of unmanned launchers, but conventional kick motors are completely out of the question because of the safety rules. So either you resign yourself to a <1 year lifetime, or you take a big detour and go off to build solar-powered thermal thrusters. And perhaps you'll even have time left to work on whatever payload you wanted to fly in the first place. These drawbacks are inherent from BOTH the man-rated and the shared-bus nature of the Shuttle, and would work against anyone trying to use it for low cost, small-scale space research or applications. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 88 17:03:21 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: cooling by radiation > Back when we thought we could launch an amateur PACSAT (packet radio > satellite) from a GAS canister on the shuttle I took a look at the > thermal environment. It can be summed up in one word: horrendous! ... > ... The selling of the shuttle as a platform for easy, inexpensive, > small scale space applications is one of the biggest con jobs in > history. And of course it would all be so much better for a small experimenter on a big shared unmanned platform, right? Let us give credit, and blame, where it is due: the problem here is not the launch vehicle, it is the big-shared-platform concept. Unfortunately it's hard to get away from that concept if you use the shuttle, or the space station, or the ISF, or Mir, or any other scheme for sharing support facilities to reduce costs and operational overhead. The fundamental, underlying difficulty here is simply that the shared facilities are trying to do too many different things. If shuttle flights really were dead cheap, once a week, commercially run, as some people once hoped, there's no obvious reason why "payload bay will face Earth at all times, barring major emergencies" wouldn't be written into the contracts for some large fraction of the multi-payload flights. Customers who wanted warm environments would choose Earth-facing flights; those who wanted cold would choose sky-facing flights. (In fact it is not obvious to me why NASA couldn't make this sort of promise now, for some flights at least, if they were making a serious effort to respond to customer needs... which they aren't, of course.) Things haven't worked out quite that way, unfortunately, and the salesmen have forgotten to tone down the hype to match. > ... no lithium batteries are allowed, this is a man-rated vehicle. As I've mentioned before, if I can fly lithium batteries on a man-rated Hercules transport aircraft, there is no fundamental reason why I should be forbidden to fly them on a man-rated shuttle. I would agree with the above if you changed the last part to "this is a NASA man-rated vehicle". NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 88 18:01:06 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Bureaucracy vs. space Henry Spencer writes: > As I've mentioned before, if I can fly lithium batteries on a > man-rated Hercules transport aircraft, there is no fundamental > reason why I should be forbidden to fly them on a man-rated shuttle. Except that the shuttle is NOT a Hercules transport. For starters, an airplane is MUCH gentler than the shuttle. In an airplane, the flight proper usually the smoothest part of the whole trip; if a palyoad can survive the truck ride to the airport, it can surely survive the flight. An airplane takes off, flies and lands in an horizontal position; it doesn't turn somersaults at takeoff the way a shuttle does. The maximum acceleration of a cargo plane is far less than that of the shuttle. The shuttle payload must whithstand going from 1 atm to vacuum during takeoff, and from frying to freezing many times over when in orbit. Furthermore, the design safety factors seem to be much smaller in the shuttle than in a cargo airplane. An airplane may be able to fly and land even with a ten-foot hole in the cargo bay. I doubt the shuttle would survive re-entry with a one-foot hole, a few missing tiles, or even a bent bay door. Safety factors are smaller also for the payloads themselves, and for the gadgets that are supposed to keep them in place during flight. Add to that that we have had eighty years of experience with airplanes and airplane cargo, with millions of flights and vehicles; whereas we had only 25 shuttle flights. Finally, a shuttle is substantially more expensive than a cargo plane, and a and a lot more precious --- lose one and you have lost 1/4 of the fleet. Yes, if NASA had a few dozen shuttles (and the money to operate them), things wouldn't be so critical; but they haven't, and wishing that the impossible were true doesn't help. NASA's payload regulations for the shuttle may be exaggerated, but comparing them with those for cargo airplanes is unfair and meaningless. Jorge Stolfi stolfi@src.dec.com, ..{..decvax,ucbvax,allegra}!decwrl!stolfi ------------------------------ Path: ucbvax!pasteur!ames!lll-tis!lll-winken!uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry From: utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Bureaucracy vs. space Keywords: shuttle, bureaucracy, man-rated, private enterprise, hype Date: 22 May 88 01:33:56 GMT Lines: 54 Apparently-To: space-incoming@angband.s1.gov > Except that the shuttle is NOT a Hercules transport. You will note that I said "fundamental reason". I'm not claiming that the current shuttle can be treated like a Hercules; I'm claiming that there is no deep reason why *a* manned shuttle can't be treated like a Hercules. > For starters, an airplane is MUCH gentler than the shuttle. Are you sure you aren't drawing your experience entirely from airliners? When you get aboard a Hercules, they hand you a pair of ear protectors. The noise and vibration probably aren't as bad as a shuttle at takeoff, but they last a whole lot longer. Remember also that the ride on a jet airliner at 35000 feet is a whole lot smoother than on a propellor-driven cargo plane bumping and bouncing along at low altitude. > ...An airplane takes off, flies and lands in an horizontal position; > it doesn't turn somersaults at takeoff the way a shuttle does... I wasn't aware of the shuttle turning any somersaults! The worst-case loading in the shuttle is the same as that of an aircraft: the possibility of a very hard landing. The shuttle does impose a higher fore-and-aft loading than that of an aircraft, but 3 G is hardly bone-breaking. >... The shuttle payload must whithstand going from 1 atm to vacuum >during takeoff, and from frying to freezing many times over when in >orbit. So must any payload flown on an unmanned launcher, and they have rather less stringent requirements imposed on them. (For that matter, conditions in a Hercules cabin aren't always as friendly as those on an airliner.) So change my comment slightly: for "payload" substitute "space-qualified payload". There is a *large* difference between being space-qualified and being shuttle-qualified. > An airplane may be able to fly and land even with a ten-foot hole in > the cargo bay. I doubt the shuttle would survive re-entry with a > one-foot hole, a few missing tiles, or even a bent bay door... Please remember that STS-1 landed successfully with a number of missing tiles. Not in critical areas, admittedly, but even a Hercules will have trouble surviving small failures if you pick the locations carefully. > Finally, a shuttle is substantially more expensive than a cargo plane, > and a lot more precious... Here we get to the real problem, and the real reason I said "fundamental reason". NASA has no interest in achieving a compromise between safety and utility -- the sort of compromise that is necessary for almost any aircraft. On the contrary, NASA has every reason to shoot for the highest possible level of safety even if it makes the shuttle nearly useless. "To be completely safe, you have to sit on the fence and watch the birds." -- Orville Wright. ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 88 02:38:06 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!CaptainDave@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: cooling by radiation So, just what are Lithium batteries, and why would they be prohibited on a space flight, when I am allowed to take one in my watch and mingle around thousands of people in public places? Are they radioactive? What about a leak? CaptainDave@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #243 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 5 Jun 88 06:38:02 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05590; Sun, 5 Jun 88 03:23:44 PDT id AA05590; Sun, 5 Jun 88 03:23:44 PDT Date: Sun, 5 Jun 88 03:23:44 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806051023.AA05590@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #244 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 244 Today's Topics: Re: Bureaucracy vs. space "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks Draft: Op-Ed on Cooperative Mars Mission Re: International Radio Alphabet. Vocabulary lesson #7: Expendable launch vehicles NASA funding ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 May 88 23:32:11 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Bureaucracy vs. space > > For starters, an airplane is MUCH gentler than the shuttle. Henry is right about the max G loads on the shuttle; they're about 3G. This *is* gentler than many expendables. From the figures I have, I compute a peak acceleration of about 4.5G for the Ariane 1, just before 2nd stage cutoff. However, typical launcher static accelerations are not a problem with most payloads. Solid fuel kick motors attached to the payloads themselves often generate even higher accelerations; for example, the kick motor on AMSAT Phase III-A would have produced about 7-8G just before burnout. Standard construction techniques, including prelaunch testing and potting of electronics modules, can easily handle this. A bigger problem lies with the vibration and accoustical noise produced by large solid rocket boosters. Consider that the Shuttle SRBs are not far away from the payload bay. The pad water deluge system cuts down the levels somewhat, but they are still very high in comparison with most expendables. I seem to recall figures in the 150 dbA range. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 May 88 10:51:35 CDT From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks The recent reference to another plan to use shuttle External Tanks for in-orbit construction leads me to wonder something. We have long discussed this topic on this list, and many people expressed their regret that NASA made the decision to dump those tanks on ascent so that they burned up on re-entry instead of carrying them to orbit and leaving them there for possible future use. Suppose NASA had actually done what we wished, and there HAD been a dozen or more tanks in orbit, and then the Challenger disaster and the subsequent multi-year hiatus in US manned spaceflight had happened as it did. Would those tanks still be up there, or would their orbits have decayed by now and they all would have burned up anyway? This ignores the possibility that the Soviets would have salvaged them and used them -- is there any salvage law applicable to space yet? If the US had some supplies in orbit, and could not use them or get to them to save them before their orbit decayed and they re-entered and were destroyed, would the Soviets have the "right" to collect and use such resources? Of course, they could offer to buy them, or trade something for them, which would be good propaganda and put a reasonable aspect on the whole thing, and there's nothing we could actually do to prevent them from taking things in orbit except by threatening them on Earth, but it seems likely that they would want to avoid the appearance of "stealing", even if it really was more of a case of picking up something abandoned. Nothing keeps them from scooping up our satellites now, but I never heard any rumors that such things had happened. (That possibility makes me think the technology-embargo aspects of the US refusing to let our satellites go up on Soviet boosters is pretty ridiculous. If the Soviets really wanted to look at the innards of any of our satellites, they could just grab the worn-out or inert ones while they are over Soviet territory and out of our scanning range and leave something in their orbital places to continue to show up on radar tracks! Maybe they've already done this -- how would we know?) Anyway, if we HAD left tanks in orbit, and we then discovered that we wouldn't have been able to use them or "freshen-up" their orbits before they were lost, I would hope that we would have had the sense to offer them to the Soviets as gifts. That would have been to OUR propaganda advantage and wouldn't have risked or hurt anything (since they aren't anything secret or sensitive). Would have been in the "joint mission" spirit, after all. Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 88 01:39:07 GMT From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu (Eric William Tilenius) Subject: Draft: Op-Ed on Cooperative Mars Mission I'm interested in feedback on this piece... it's aimed at an non-space audience who would be reading a newspaper Op-Ed page in The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, Wall Street Journal, etc. Even if you don't have time to send feedback, I think you'll enjoy reading it, but I would welcome any reactions via. EMAIL or to the net. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- A great adventure, perhaps unparalled in the course of human history, is taking shape over the next decades. Humanity will finally reach a world that has tugged at the imagination for centuries - a world much like our own, yet one with countless mysteries. A world that beckons to be explored, to be discovered, and to become part of the human legacy. The world is Mars, and for the first time in our history, we have the opportunity to visit - not just through robotic cameras, but with actual human eyes, hands, feet, and minds - the red planet which has intrigued man for as long as history can recall. The vision, the fulfilling of a dream, and the extension of mankind beyond the borders of earth, however, are just one small part of what a manned mission to Mars has to offer. The actual fruits of such a mission are real, tangible benefits to those of us living here on planet earth, for such a mission inevitably gives far reaching support to education, scientific understanding, world cooperation, peace, cultural activities, the economy, social understanding, technology, security, and the quality of life as a whole. A manned Mars mission will by no means be easy, nor will it take place in the near future. It is a long-term goal, one that will is not likely to be realized until the twenty first century. Going from robotic missions to manned exploration will require a concerted effort over time. It is a challenge that the nations of the world can best meet together, and one we can meet - if we start planning now. The technology is by no means out of reach. The key however, is to start now, as it is a long-term project. If we do nothing today, we won't have anything fifteen years down the road with which to work. First, though, why go to Mars? It's a valid question, especially for many of us without the flame for exploration. For many people, there is a feeling of natural destiny, of belonging on other worlds. Lev Mukhin of the Institute for Space Research in the USSR puts it simply: "Mankind would not be mankind if it would not have a study of other worlds." Mars is enticing precisely because it is so accessible. "Mars is the world next door, the nearest planet on which an astronaut or cosmonaut could safely land," writes Carl Sagan, president of The Planetary Society, a space education group with over 100,000 members worldwide. For others, the seemingly limitless amount of scientific information available on Mars holds the key. Mars is filled with wonders - a "grand canyon" that would cross most of the United States, an intricate network of canals, vast, extinct volcanoes that dwarf any on earth, frozen poles, pink skies, sand dunes, strange bright and dark markings on its surface, mountains shaped like pyramids, and many other enigmas. New light can be shed on the origins of the planets and the solar system, and their fates. Is there life on Mars? Or was there once? If Mars once had water, what happened to it, and what clues does this give us about earth's future? The amount of scientific information is staggering, and can only be explored fully with the ultimate tool - man himself. There are those, however, who wonder if a mission can be justified on these grounds. Science, exploration, and a widening of man's horizon are admirable goals, they say, but how can we think of devoting the resources to such a project when we have so many problems right here on earth. This "home front" argument, as I term it, counters that we should be using all our resources to battle problems here - global conflict and tension, the environment, sickness, and so on - rather than spending money on space. Such an argument is flawed in several significant ways and stems mainly from a lack of understanding of the many direct benefits which space missions provide. The home front argument falsely pitts space programs against domestic ones when, in fact, this is far from the case. Space missions are much more likely to use military than domestic problem-fighting resources, and rather than detract from problem-solving on earth, they provide excellent tools, both in the spirit they foster and in actual physical and intellectual resources they give us to use at home. In addition, the home front argument confuses what is an undeniably visible space program with an expensive program. The budget numbers given at the end of this article prove just how cost effective such a program can be. But first, let me turn to an issue on many people's minds - international security, cooperation, and peace. Mars provides a unique opportunity to achieve all of these, and more, while at the same time reducing the cost of a Mars mission. The Soviet Union has committed itself to long-term exploration of Mars, planning missions to Mars' moon Phobos this year and next, a robotic lander in 1994, and eventual manned exploration. More than that, it has openly and boldly invited the United States and other nations to join with it in the exploration of Mars - an offer that most scientists feel is genuine, if only a little embarrassing because of our lack of a comparable Mars commitment. Our only scheduled Mars craft, Mars Observer, has been pushed back four years, and will not launch until 1992. Such an invitation, though, is a chance for the nations of the earth to work together, as a planet, towards a long-term, major goal for all humanity. The French are planning to provide Mars-scouting balloons, and other countries can help in the effort as well. Politically, this can be a major strike for peace. No earthly goal can accomplish this, as such intense cooperation needs a goal more removed from the struggles of everyday politics. On the other hand, this joint cooperation can effectively spearhead cooperation on more projects here on earth - research, treaties, cooperative efforts to help end hunger, and much more. Sigmund Freud, in a letter to Albert Einstein in 1939, wrote, "Anything that creates emotional ties between human beings must inevitably counteract war... Everything that leads to important shared action creates such common feelings. On them the structure of human society in good measure rests." More than anything else, a cooperative mission to Mars is able to create these emotional ties. It is perhaps one of the most important shared actions humanity has ever undertaken, and a key tool in journeying beyond the cold war. While there are many details that need to be worked out, most scientists feel that technology transfer is not a significant deterrent. After all, the mission is based on peaceful technology, and NASA's current projects are not unknown by the Soviets. The more important issue is increasing the United States' program so we do have a comparable share in a joint mission. Secretary of State George Schultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Schevernadze made a significant step recently by renewing the US-USSR space cooperation treaty in which the two countries have agreed to cooperate in space exploration in 16 different areas. A joint Mars mission offers an even greater ability to reduce the arms race, though, for a very important economic reason - the space program creates jobs. Not just any jobs, but productive jobs in fields that were formerly taken by military projects. The same corporations that build missiles can easily shift their resources to build productive, useful spacecraft, and the latter have an infinitely higher societal value. Thus, possible economic resistance to arms reductions would be greatly reduced if we shifted our resources into a positive direction with the space program. Space technology gives very direct benefits to society as well. Any Mars mission would undoubtedly advance technology well beyond present capability. Unlike secretive defense technology, however, space technology directly benefits people in need and consumers as a whole. Out of the past Apollo program we now have such "miracles" as laser heart surgery, scratch resistant glasses, devices for the blind, a method for turning sewage into drinking water, and much more. A common goal-oriented program such as space brings much back into every facet of society. Satellites that help track global forest conditions, predict famines, manage agriculture, and study our earth are further examples of how space technology provides advantages worth many times the cost of the program. New fields such as materials processing and precision manufacturing are on the horizon. And, unlike projects such as SDI, the civilian space program is a clear, united, peaceful, open project that we know can work. In education as well, a broad cooperative space effort can help inspire a younger generation. For years now, there has been little for youth to set its sights on. Students today at all levels often question the usefulness of science and math. Compare this with the excitement and sense of purpose in the 1960's when John F. Kennedy inspired an entire generation with his call to put a man on the moon. Nowadays, we have the opportunity to create an even bigger adventure - one in which the entire world can take part. And the information which will result from a Mars mission will engage a new generation of scientists with productive work, keeping our nation's technology at the forefront and America's economy strong. As far as cost, a joint mission would cost about the same as a new weapons system - perhaps $25 billion for each country over a many year period - and would require only minor increases in NASA's budget. To put this in perspective, in 1986, our budget for space flight was $3.8 billion, only 0.39% of the national budget. By comparison, defense for 1986 was $265.8 billion, or 27.13% of the budget, interest payments were $142.7 billion (14.56%), and Social Security payments amounted to $268.8 billion (2.71%) in one year (Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1987, 107th Edition, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1986 estimates). All the civilian science, space, and technology programs together added up to less than 1% of the budget. It seems that any complaints about the cost come from having our priorities confused rather than from actual cost to the taxpayer. A joint, cooperative mission to Mars does anything but undermine efforts to make life better on earth. In fact, it presents a dramatic opportunity to extend not only our horizons outward from earth, but on the earth as well. Unfortunately, after the Challenger disaster, the United States' space program has faltered, and is now threatening to make us miss a cooperative opportunity and make us a second rate player in space. To show that there is popular support for a mission to Mars, The Planetary Society is circulating The Mars Declaration in favor of manned Mars exploration. The Declaration has been endorsed by dozens of influential leaders - high ranking members of the military and leaders of peace groups, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, entertainers and nobel laureates (in peace, medicine, physics, chemistry), every former director of NASA and the presidents of some of the country's top universities, authors and astronomers, environmentalists and heads of corporations. The Declaration is a long-range goal supported by leaders in every imaginable field. With all we have resting on this opportunity, it's time to ask not if we can afford a mission to Mars, but if we can afford NOT to start planning for such a mission. Don't turn your back to the future now, America! Your future! If you have an interest in this area, I ask you to join with me and the thousands of Americans who have already signed the Mars Declaration and at the very least keep that door open. It takes your support. After all, you have to like the idea of the Roman god of war working for peace, cooperation, understanding, science, and a better quality of life for all humanity. *----------------------===> SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------* * ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU // ewtileni@pucc.BITNET * * rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni // princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni * * ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"* *--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------* ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 88 07:06:07 GMT From: iscuva!carlp@uunet.uu.net (Carl Paukstis) Subject: Re: International Radio Alphabet. In article <1994@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> timg@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Tim Graham) writes: ... >Charlie ... I believe that the "official" C-word is "Cocoa", although everybody I've heard (US only) uses "Charlie". You hear "Sugar" occasionally; "Foxtrot" is generally shortened to "Fox". -- Carl Paukstis +1 509 927 5600 x5321 |"I met a girl who sang the blues | and asked her for some happy news UUCP: carlp@iscuvc.ISCS.COM | but she just smiled and turned away" ...uunet!iscuvc!carlp | - Don MacLean ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Tue, 10 May 88 21:39:22 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Vocabulary lesson #7: Expendable launch vehicles Expendable launch vehicles, n, a class of rockets designed to carry payloads to Earth orbit which can be given up when it is necessary to generate additional income and political support for "Space Shuttle." Hence the name "expendable", since they can be gotten rid of when they become politically inconvenient - or heaven forbit! Inexpensive. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 88 12:32:51 GMT From: terminus!rolls!mtuxo!homxb!genesis!hotlr!anumb!adh@lll-winken.llnl.gov (a.d.hay) Subject: NASA funding The United States Senate Appropriations Committee will allocate to the Subcommittees their Fiscal '89 Funds. Current information indicates the HUD and Independent Agencies may be given only a 1% increase over the Fiscal '88 Budget. This would result in a substantial cut in NASA funding. According to NASA Director Dr. Fletcher in a recent speech, "This could spell extinction for the Space Program" (See last week's Washington Post). Sources indicate the decision will be made this week. To prevent the loss of funds, call NOW! Express your concern by asking the Senate to support NASA Funding at 11.5 billion, the President's Fiscal '89 request. The key U.S. Senators are: Senator Robert Byrd (202) 224-3954 (Senate MAjority Leader) Senator J. Bennett Johnston (202) 224-5824 (Member of the Appropriations Committee) If you are interested in more information, send e-mail to: {ihnp4|mtune{.att.arpa|.att.com|.uucp}}!mvuxd!dou Don Doughty ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #244 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 6 Jun 88 06:21:51 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06832; Mon, 6 Jun 88 03:21:27 PDT id AA06832; Mon, 6 Jun 88 03:21:27 PDT Date: Mon, 6 Jun 88 03:21:27 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806061021.AA06832@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #245 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 245 Today's Topics: Titan-4 SRBs Re: Management (was Is it CBS or NASA?) solar power sats Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST Re: "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks Re: FINAL FRONTIER Magazine On using half the brain(s) Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 May 88 15:59:14 GMT From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Titan-4 SRBs Titan 4 SRBs will be manufactured by CSD and Hercules Aeorspace. Hercules will provide high perfomance composite case boosters used for large payloads an polar orbit launches Bob P. Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet Alternate: {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet I am solely responsible for what I say. -- Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet Alternate: {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet I am solely responsible for what I say. ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 88 17:47:09 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Management (was Is it CBS or NASA?) In article <1878@bigtex.uucp> james@bigtex.UUCP (James Van Artsdalen) writes: >I actually worry more about the new generation of management than the old. >This group has grown up for most of their NASA careers in the bureaucracy. >They may never shake that mindset. Actually, I do too. This is one reason why I have decided not to climb up management ladders. Let me give you a good example of this. In computing (this is not an ax to grind, I suspect this is also a problem in American industry as well, it is merely an observation): boxes were dropped onto the scene, say 20-30 years ago. Most of the engineering managers of that time had no idea how to program, plus they had a mission oriented, get the job done by any means attitude. It was then young engineers who "became computer literate." At best they had Fortran with card decks. Now the youngin's are older. They fought computer 'battles.' And they know how to manage their computer resources. Right? But we the computer industry have pulled the rug out from under them. We changed the nature of computing more with personal computers, operating systems, etc. Computing isn't the only field. I suspect good parallel could be found in chemistry, biology, etc. And again, I stress that NASA probably isn't alone. After all, who will be the next set of dead wood in 30 years? ;-) Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA resident cynic soon to be aurora.arc.nasa.gov at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 May 88 15:10:12 EDT From: Kenneth Ng Subject: solar power sats >Date: 20 Apr 88 07:56:49 GMT >From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) >Subject: Re: Solar Sat Power Stations & greenhouses >Not necessarily. The obvious place to put large-scale terrestrial solar >power facilities is in deserts, normally high-albedo places that reflect >or re-radiate most incoming energy right back out into space. Remember >too that conversion of light to electricity is quite inefficient. As I >recall, solar power satellites actually add less energy to the biosphere >than desert-based terrestrial solar power, because they put the very >inefficient conversion to electricity outside the atmosphere. >-- >"Noalias must go. This is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >non-negotiable." --DMR | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry > If we put solar power stations in the desert you'll hear from environmentalists saying that your destroying the delicate rich environment of the desert. And if you put then in space they'll say that you are adding an unnatural burden onto the earth's delicate biosphere. And if you point out that the added change is insignificant, they'll say "The facts are irrelevant, your tampering with mother nature." -- Kenneth Ng: ken@orion.cccc.njit.edu, ken@orion.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 88 13:47:23 GMT From: marsh@mitre-bedford.arpa (Ralph J. Marshall) Subject: Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST I'm willing to look really stupid... Why don't they install explosive-powered ejection seats on the shuttle. I don't know enough about the technology, but there has to be some way for the pilot to get out of a SR-71 that should be close to useful, and require little effort on the part of the human. What's the story ? ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 88 14:45:41 GMT From: ncspm!jay@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Jay C. Smith) Subject: Re: "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks In article <8805111633.AA05118@angband.s1.gov> wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes: [stuff about what if NASA had left the tanks in orbit -- where would they be after our long hiatus?] >This ignores the possibility that the Soviets would have salvaged them >and used them -- is there any salvage law applicable to space yet? I've forgotten... why didn't the Soviets salvage Skylab? I would think that concern over discovering technological "secrets" from an old space station would have been overridden by safety concerns for those under the falling debris. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jay C. Smith uucp: ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 May 88 09:02:49 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: Re: FINAL FRONTIER Magazine X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@angband.s1.gov" I second the compliments for FINAL FRONTIER. Most of all, it is *readable* -- unlike other space mags, where my eyes get tired after wading through unbroken pages of uniformly dense print. Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl:mil.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 88 11:47:56 GMT From: polak@brl-adm.arpa (Helen R. Polak ) Subject: On using half the brain(s) In article <1833@mtuxo.UUCP> tee@mtuxo.UUCP (54317-T.EBERSOLE) writes: >In article <830@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu>, mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: >> In fact, the next few missions have all male crews. They have just named a couple of >> women to later crews, starting about the fifth mission. So it looks very much like >> an attitude of 'oh dear, we can't risk our dear delicate women on risky missions..' >Those of you who must read these at 40 characters/line will have to >write your own flames, as this one is not all-inclusive. Is he kidding? 40wpl? > few well-known industry advisers (W. Edwards Deming, Peter Drucker) > claim that Japan will start to experience a decline because they > don't use at least half of their creative, hard-working potential by > excluding women from having a voice in work decisions. The same >Tim conclusion undoubtedly will apply to NASA if those attitudes persist. On the other hand, look where we got to today, suppressing most of the creative potential of women world wide (Hypatia's Heritage, notwithstanding), Perhaps this is why nations rise, and fall, with such regularity.. I'd hate to see space missions have the same pattern; women whould be included.n The only way to stay on top is to have the yin and yang working for you, not just the yin, not just the yang, I speculate. Helen /\ Mann spricht Deutsch. Wo Mann Deutsch spricht is a different question. ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 88 16:38:00 GMT From: silber@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST >I'm willing to look really stupid... Why don't they install explosive-powered >ejection seats on the shuttle. I don't know enough about the technology, >but there has to be some way for the pilot to get out of a SR-71 that >should be close to useful, and require little effort on the part of the >human. What's the story ? I think that in the SR-71, that the entire cockpit ejects (I could be wrong however). The problem with ejection seats on the Shuttle is that one would need at least 7 or so, since it would be bad form to allow just the flight crew to eject. (Not to mention that no military pilot would be likely to punch out if it meant sentencing the rest of the crew to death.) That many ejection seats would greatly hamper the amount of crew space available, especially since there is no real way to move them out of the way. It would also necessitate the wearing of suits during the entire launch and landing phases, since one is unlikely to survive an ejection much above 50,000 feet without oxygen, and somewhat higher without a pressure suit. Another problem is that survivability of a supersonic ejection is very low. ami silberman ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 May 1988 13:45-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221 > Anyone who has ever visited the top of an Hawaiian volcano should > think twice about the damage that would be done by installing a launch > site in such a unique environment. A hike below the rim of Haleakala > on Maui is a truely amazing trip--the closest thing to a walk on > another planet that any of us are likely to experience. Particularly if no one lets us build a spaceport: A) near a city because it's to dangerous in a highly developed area. B) away from a city because it damages the undeveloped environment. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #245 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 7 Jun 88 06:25:00 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08529; Tue, 7 Jun 88 03:24:21 PDT id AA08529; Tue, 7 Jun 88 03:24:21 PDT Date: Tue, 7 Jun 88 03:24:21 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806071024.AA08529@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #246 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 246 Today's Topics: Ad hominum attacks, summary of NSS board Re: Night launch Re: Non-sexist language (was:Space Station Names) Re: Space Station Names :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 15 May 1988 13:47-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Ad hominum attacks, summary of NSS board I will respond once and only once on the personal attacks that I have seen recently in this magazine. Scott Pace and I are both available to defend ourselves, some of the others named are not. Several individuals have been slandered who are not present to defend themselves. I cannot hope to handle a defense for them, but just so that these good people do not have their reputations impugned simply because the thousands of readers out there do not know anything about them, I will give a brief summary bio: Sandy Adamson was instrumental in the founding of the Portland L5 chapter. Her background was in anthropology, but her first love was space colonies. She moved to Tucson and was a major activist with the Tucson chapter for many years. She became an officer within L5 and traveled to conferences, both national and regional on her own resources for many years. And her own resources were based on freelancing work around Tucson. A major part of her income went into society activities. She was a major force in political activities in the society. In 1984 she did a great deal of work and got society volunteers behind the short lived Glenn campaign. A few years ago, she went to Washington to help lobby for the space station funding for L5. She was paid only part time because that was all that could be afforded, and what was available to pay her came mostly from individual donations in special fund raisers. She had to share space in someone else's apartment because she wasn't paid enough to afford her own place. To survive she started picking up some small jobs, and was finally pointed to a consulting position by an old friend. She has for the last year and half held a real paying job in space policy. She has thus advanced one more step towards her life dream of living and working in space after spending 10 years donating her life, her income and just about her soul to the society. She also finds time to be a very caring individual. Mark Hopkins is more controversial in society circles but no one, even his most avowed 'enemy' (sic) will claim that he is anything less than one of the initiators of the space movement and one of it's hardest workers. Mark was involved with the initial summer study group run by Dr. O'Neill and along with Eric Drexler (also present at that session) and some others, was one of the founders of L5. He was working on a Phd in Economics at Harvard(?) at the time. He took a job at Rand doing non-space type work. The think-tank type atmosphere gave him the time to dedicate to the society. Many of us have wondered if he ever actually did ANY Rand work, or if so whether he'd invented the 30 hour day. He had not finished his Phd thesis due to society work, and in fact is only now finishing it, over TEN YEARS late. We once gave his wife an "ignored spouse" award. It actually wasn't so funny. Mark has totally dedicated his life to the space movement, and as far as I can tell has gotten nothing out of it except getting burned out, burned and maybe a bit paranoid. But he keeps at it, no matter what the personal cost. Since our organizational watch word is "I WANT TO GO!!!!!" I would suggest that most of our more energetic members will eventually work professionally in some facit of space. We are processing grass roots activists into professionals committed to the dream. Those professionals will dominate the government, military and private space efforts because they CARE. Hardworking activists are going to drive out the 9-5 put-in-40 schleps. If we aren't in it to go ourselves, then why would any of us be such utter fools as to endanger our careers, relationships, finances and sanity for the movement? (Last year cost me nearly a third of my GROSS) I want to go, and I work with other people who also want to go. Anyone who doesn't had better get out of my way. I will also note that "aerospace" money does not dominate the organization. Such monies are received through the AIAC (Aerospace Industries Association Council), but are used only for special projects, NOT for operating expenses. This is intentionally done to keep them at a safe arms length. At least one incident occured in which they did try to throw some weight. And they got quite a few people very angry (myself included). I doubt they will try it again soon. It is easy to attack particular goals of the society. And the larger the organization grows, the more likely it is that some group will be dissatisfied. I suggest that the vote on the name change tells us something about the stand of the average member. I will also state (having been one of the people who voluntarily worked for severals days to encode last fall's survey) that a vast majority of the membership places strong support of the space station in the context of going for a lunar base and then to Mars. The policy stands of the organization follow this. I'm personally in favor of Space Industries/WESPACE, External Tank Company, etc INSTEAD of the station. But so long as I am a representative of a membership that feels otherwise, I will bow to their wishes while occasionally pointing out the alternatives and working to insure they are noticed. I will also note the copy of the Space Cause voters guide in front of me has Dukakis as the first entry and gives him nearly a full page. My candidate, Ron Paul was left out entirely. I expressed my disappointment to Mr. Pace. Within a week he responded to me with a hardcopy draft on Ron Paul. Ron will be fairly treated in the next edition. I can hardly call this non-responsiveness to minority views. I will not respond furthur on this topic. I will work with anyone who wants to make the society bigger and better. I will also attempt to educate people about non-statist viewpoints while not ramming it down their throats. And I will ignore the existance of any of the tiny minority who want to do nothing but bicker over internalities. It is a waste of my time. SUBJECT CLOSED, Dale Amon National Space Society, Board of Directors Current Board of Directors: Dale Amon founder PghL5, chair NE84 regional conference and 6th national conference. Michael Collins Apollo 11 astronaut Tom Doherty New York chapter K Eric Drexler author Engines of Creation, founding member of L5, chapter activist in Massachusetts area a few years back. Worked on the very first mass driver. He's the long haired one in the picture you always see of MD-I with Gerard O'Neill in front. Founder of Foresite Institute Art Dula Chairman of 2nd national conference. Active in Space Foundation (Space Business Roundtables). Well known space lawyer, involved with marketing the Proton to US customers. Frederick Durant III (I don't know him well) Nancy Feldman (Don't know her. Regional board member from Kansas) Edward Finch space lawyer, author of Astrobusiness. Helped carry our fight against the Moon Treaty to the UN. Georgia Franklin Housewife, does lectures with hundereds of schools in Washington state every year. A tireless activist. Peter Glaser inventor of the Solar Power Satellite William Gunn long time activist in South Carolina chapters. Joe Hopkins spark plug behind most of the Seattle chapters. Worked on "glass cockpit' of 767 for Boeing. Chairman of 5th national conference. Another tireless worker. Maxwell Hunter Long time aerospace engineer. Currently retired and designing single stage to orbit craft for Society Expeditions. Margaret Jordon Ran the Astronaut Memorial Foundation for L5 until the bill died in congress. Worked with TRW for awhile, currently a student again. Long time activist in the OASIS chapter. Irving Kahn (Don't know him) George Koopman Activist who is doing something about it. Was involved with Starstruck water launch of solid-fuel/liquid oxidizer test vehicle. President of AMROC, a compnay he founded to furthur develop private launch vehicles. John Logsdon VERY well known space policy and history expert at George Washington University. An insider. Jim Muncy Worked for Newt Gingritch, parleyed into a job as space policy advisor to George Keyworth. Left when Keyworth did. Did some work for Geostar, some staff work for NSS and SSI. An absolutely dedicated activist. Not yet 30. Florence Nelson I know little about her except she started a town in Arizona and seems to be a very good person. Frederick Ordway III Know very little except that he is an insider. Warren Overton Was the phone tree chairman until a few months ago. I believe he founded the Birmingham Alabama chapter. Chris Peterson Was a chapter activist when she and Eric Drexler were in school. Later became chapters coordinator for L5, the editor of L5 News, an officer in the society for a few years. Ken Poe Kansas chapter activist. Became L5 chapters coordinator after Chris Peterson. Gene Roddenberry Star Trek. Neil Ruzic (Don't know him) Charles Sheffield SF author. VP of company involved in remote sensing. Co-chairman of 4th national conference. Jill Steele Denver area chapter activist. Chair of the next national conference (7th) EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Ben Bova (president) Well known SF author Gordon Woodcock Long time Boeing employee. Along with (Chairman of the Joe Hopkins, one of the founders of Executive Committee) Seattle L5 chapters. Co-chair of 5th national conference. Was President of L5 at time of merger. Gives papers on leading edge space missions, propulsion ideas, economic justifications,etc. Arthur Kantrowitz member of National Academy of Science (Chairman, Board of Directors) Hugh Downs Well known broadcaster at ABC netowrk (Chairman, Board of Governors) Gary Oleson Founder of Washington DC chapter. (Executive Vice Chairman of 4th national conference. President) Dedicated activist. Mark Chartrand Former exec director of NSI (Senior Vice President) Mark Hopkins A founder of L5, Spacepac, Spacecause (Vice President) Has been a key figure in L5 society operations and now NSS operations for over a decade. Robert F Allnutt (don't know him) (Vice President) Elisa Wynn Dominant force behind Niagara L5 for (Vice President) many years. Current chapters coordinator. Working on lots of committees and traveling to DC at regular intervals. A housewife with 2 kids. Leonard David Founder of one of the earliest (and (Vice President) short lived space organizations) about 15 years back, along with Alan Ladwig. Past and new editor of Space World. A 'professional' activist for 15 years. Also a damn fine auto-harp player and songwriter. Sandy Adamson Activist with Portland L5, Tucson L5 (Secretary) One of the founders of L5 political efforts going back to the Moon Treaty fight. Was society 'paid' lobbyist in DC during early space stations fights. Has been officer and board member off and on for nearly a decade. Currently working for a beltway bandit. Harry S Dawson (Don't know him) (treasurer) David Brandt Erichsen Was with Sandy Adamson as a Portland L5 (Assistant Secretary) and a Tucson L5 activist. Was a long time officer of L5. Ed Gray (don't know him) (Assistant Treasurer) S Neil HosenBall (don't know him) (General Council) Glen Wilson was involved with NASA educational (Executive Director) outreach for many years. Has been exec director of NSI and now NSS. Has put in loads of his own cash and taken no salary. David Webb This guy has done so much for so long (Chairman of the that I'm almost embarrased to Legislative Comm.) summarize. He was heavily involved with UNISPACE 82, was one of our activist reps on the National Commission on Space. Has helped on virtually every national conference. Founded a space studies program at University of North Dakota. And on, and on. He's also one of the nicest people you will ever deal with. Of course he is Irish... ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 88 16:47:58 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: Re: Night launch In article <12260@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> khayo@MATH.ucla.edu I wrote: >I just saw a fabulous sight - most likely a launch from >VAB. (...) ^^^ sorry for the typo; I'm sure VAFB is a little better suited for launching things than VAB is 8-) >I hope to read something about it in tomorrow's paper. Nothing in the papers, but a one-liner on NPR: it was a Trident test, launched from a sub off the coast... Eric ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 88 14:43:59 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Non-sexist language (was:Space Station Names) >From article <8738@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, by eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene N. Miya): > They had Uncle Carl Sagan on the Morning Show. K.S. brought to topic > of Unmanned versus Manned space, and Carl politely noted the sexism in > the term and moved on the role of the person-ed and un-person-ed space. > --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov The NCOS report used 'piloted' and 'unpiloted' spaceflight which is pretty well what I'd settled on as the best term. One can also talk about 'automatic spacecraft' vs 'spaceships' (the latter being vessels with humans aboard'. The 'unpiloted' term runs into trouble when we have robot spaceships with human passengers. Maybe 'Astronautics' should include everything and 'Spaceflight' should be restricted to flight involving humans. But I just can't come up with a good gender-free word to replace exactly the sense of 'manned'! 'Person' is ugly, and potentially includes non-human intelligences (Martians or human-made AI) - we need a term which means specifically 'humanned' but sounds more natural. 'Crewed' is no good (see comment about passenger-only above), likewise 'staffed' (yuck) which doesnt have the right sense. Any constructive suggestions? Jonathan McDowell Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 88 20:35:53 GMT From: elsie!ado@cvl.umd.edu (Arthur David Olson) Subject: Re: Space Station Names :-) > They had Uncle Carl Sagan on the Morning Show. K.S. brought to topic > of Unmanned versus Manned space, and Carl politely noted the sexism in > the term and moved on the role of the person-ed and un-person-ed space. Does this mean advocates of automated exploration will become unpersons? -- Canada is to spaceflight as the U.S.S.R. is to baseball. ado@ncifcrf.gov ADO is a trademark of Ampex. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #246 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 8 Jun 88 06:23:51 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10029; Wed, 8 Jun 88 03:23:20 PDT id AA10029; Wed, 8 Jun 88 03:23:20 PDT Date: Wed, 8 Jun 88 03:23:20 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806081023.AA10029@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #247 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 247 Today's Topics: Re: Antimatter propulsion questions Night launch Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST (ejection seats) Re: Vocabulary lesson #7: Expendable launch vehicles Space Technology Aids Vision Re: Night launch Re: A Soviet strategy for domination in space Re: Night launch Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 15 May 88 20:14:15 CDT From: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Abrams) Posted-Date: Sun, 15 May 88 20:14:15 CDT Subject: Re: Antimatter propulsion questions In V8, #221 of Space Digest, tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!mbutts@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Butts) writes: "1) If particle accelerators are used to create the antimatter fuel in the first place, on a production basis, would there be any advantage to siting them in space, driven by solar power and taking advantage of the natural vacuum? Would solar wind, cosmic rays, etc. interfere with the process? If so, could reasonable shielding deal with that?" If you are considering a toroidal accelerator, I should think that the solar wind would be deflected perpendicularly to the plane of the accelerator via the Lorentz force. Does anyone know the average velocity of particles in the solar wind at 1AU? I shouldn't think it would be great enough to overcome the high magnetic fields of the accelerator, but I could be wrong. Cosmic rays, on the other hand, are very energetic and (I believe) isotropic. they might be a greater hazard. Perhaps a much larger shield can be used to stop the primary rays down to the less energetic secondary radiation that could then be handled by the magnetic fields of the accelerator. I would worry more about interplanetary dust -- much more massive and not as easily deflected -- interfering with that "natural vacuum." Steve Abrams ARPANET: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu c/o Graduate Office CompuServe: [70376,1025] Dept. of Physics (512)480-0895 University of Texas at Austin OR Austin, TX 78705 c/o Students for the Exploration and Development of Space "The rate of increase of P.O. Box 7338 the entropy of the 358 Texas Union universe reaches its University of Texas at Austin maximum value in my Austin, TX 78713-7883 immediate vicinity." (512)471-7097 ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 88 05:08:11 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: Night launch (May 14, 9:00 pm PST) I just saw a fabulous sight - most likely a launch from VAB. My windows are facing +/- North, facing the canyons of Santa Monica Mountains. A luminescent white cloud was trailing behind a very bright object which moved due West about 4 times as fast as a commercial jet (there were a few in the area, on approach to LAX - those people must have had a view...); of course the geometry of the whole thing makes velocity comparisons meaningless. The shining "ghost", which took up about 25 degrees of the horizon when it was largest, was caused by thin clouds/fog hanging over the coastal area (I saw another Vandenberg launch on a cloudless night and it wasn't as spectacular as this one). What puzzled me was that it continued to shine brightly for about a minute after the vehicle left the cloud layer, and only a faint glow of the exhaust was visible through a spotting scope. It looked as if a very strong reflector was pointed from the ground towards the rocket (at first I thought that it was just that, maybe some rocket modellers, but judging from the distance/apparent size it was something on a much grander scale). Could it be ionized air? or what? I hope to read something about it in tomorrow's paper. Eric ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 88 22:16:03 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST (ejection seats) >... Why don't they install explosive-powered >ejection seats on the shuttle... It's been thought about; in fact that's what the pilots had for the first few flights. The trouble is that ejection seats are heavy and bulky. There isn't room to provide a full crew with ejection seats. A secondary problem is that ejection seats introduce their own safety hazards, since they are dangerous explosive devices. (People who have to work around them treat them with great respect.) -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 88 22:12:13 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Vocabulary lesson #7: Expendable launch vehicles > ... can be gotten rid of when they become politically > inconvenient - or heaven forbit! Inexpensive. Since there is no chance of the latter while the US government is running the show, it need not be mentioned. Despite some of the nonsense one hears from the more rabid anti-shuttle factions, current US expendables are just as expensive as the shuttle. Actually, my definition would be something like: "a class of space launchers which clearly are not considered expendable, based on the vast manpower and expense devoted to every single launch". (Case in point. Delta is derived from the Thor IRBM. Thor specs said launch in 15 minutes with crew of 9. NASA Delta launches required three months with a crew of 2000. Yes, the Delta is more complicated, and the payloads need more attention... but three orders of magnitude?!?) We will not have cheap space transportation until we can treat space-launch failures like airliner crashes: lamentable, to be avoided, worthy of careful investigation... but not usually cause for grounding the vehicle. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 88 01:26:11 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!embudo!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (markf) Subject: Space Technology Aids Vision NASA NEWS - Space Technology Aids In Improving Low-Vision Eyesight NASA and the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Balitimore, Md., will use space technology to develop a device designed to improve the sight of millions of people with low vision. Scientists at NASA's National Space Technology Laboratories (NSTL), Miss., and Wilmer scientists plan to adapt technology used for computer processing of images from satellites and head-mounted imaging systems originally developed for NASA Space Station projects to enhance vision. According to officials in NASA's Technology Utilization Program, the new collaborative project is expected to run at least 5 years and cost a minimum of $5 million in its first phases. The project will be carried out for NASA by NSTL's Earth Resource Laboratory, the installation's research and development organization. The planned device, the Low-Vision Enhancement System, will resemble "wraparound" sunglasses and will custom-tailor images of the outside world for low vision patients. A version of the enhancement system is expected to be available to patients through clinical tests in a few years. Approximately 11 million Americans have visual defects that cannot be corrected medically, surgically or with glasses. Severe impairment that causes disability, called low vision, affects 2.5 million Americans, according to Eye Institute officials. The transfer of NASA's technology will make it possible to improve the visual capability of low-vision patients by appropriately enhancing and altering images to compensate for the individual patient's impaired eyesight. When the device is worn, the patient will see the world on two miniature color television screens where the lenses of eyeglasses usually are located. Lenses and imaging glass fibers will be embedded on each side of the "wraparound" section where the front and ear pieces join. The lenses will form images of the scene in front of the patient on the surface of the fibers. The fibers, similar to those used to carry long- distance telephone signals, carry pictures back to miniature solid- state television cameras carried in a belt or shoulder pack. The images are processed by a small, battery-powered system in the pack and, finally, displayed on the television screens. As planned, the device will be lightweight and confortable. The outside of the television screens will be similar to mirrored lenses in sunglasses. The system is expected to benefit patients who have lost their peripheral or side field of vision, such as those suffering from glaucoma, an increase of fluid pressure inside the eye that damages the optic nerve, and from retinitis pigmentosa, a progressive degeneration of the retina, the delicate light sensitive nerve layer lining the eye. The system also is expected to benefit patients with central vision loss, the part of vision normally used for reading. These patients may have macular degeneration associated with aging, or diabetic retinopathy, in which diabetes causes swelling and leakage of fluid in the center of the retina. Ongoing Wilmer research supported by the National Eye Institute will provide information on how images must be altered and enhanced for the low-vision patient. --------------------------------------------------------------------- NASA News Release 88-57 April 27, 1988 By James Ball Headquarters, Washington, D.C. and Myron Well National Space Technologies Lab., Miss. Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 88 13:17:15 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Night launch >From article <12267@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, by khayo@sonia.math.ucla.edu (Eric Behr): > (About Trident launch..) Boston Globe reports Trident launch from submarine along Western Test Range at 2050 PDT May 14. This is the first submarine launched ballistic missile test from the West Coast that I've heard of (for about twenty years - there were a couple in the sixties..) Have there been others? I presume it was a Trident I since I think Trident II is still in flat pad testing at Canaveral.. If its the first to be done from WTR that explains why it looked unusual to people.. Usually SLBM launches are done on the ETR from subs about 100 mi E of Cape Canaveral; every SSBN ballistic missile sub launches a couple for crew training in initial checkout and after each refit. Maybe they decided there would be fewer Soviet fishing trawlers off Point Mugu? Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Subject: Re: A Soviet strategy for domination in space Date: Tue, 17 May 88 18:57:02 -0400 From: Fred Baube Jim Bowery writes: > The Soviets appear to be onto a really clever strategy for becoming > the dominant space civilizaton: > [Work with NASA, letting it take the credit while they do the > yeoman's share of the work.] > Oh, but this couldn't work because NASA bureaucrats would NEVER > take credit for the accomplishments of others and, of course, the > Soviets are too short sighted to let us have even a decade or two of > feeling good about ourselves in exchange for the solar system. ;-) Silly me, I *honestly* thought the Soviets would be *idiots* to work with NASA and let it take much more credit than is its rightful due. But when you put it *that* way .. talk about an unholy alliance ! If the moon is made of cheese, Mars will turn out to be borscht. #include ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 88 18:55:22 GMT From: mtxinu!rtech!llama!wong@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (J. Wong) Subject: Re: Night launch In article <12260@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> khayo@MATH.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) writes: >(May 14, 9:00 pm PST) >I just saw a fabulous sight - most likely a launch from >VAB. [description deleted] >I hope to read something about it in tomorrow's paper. > Eric I believe the papers said it was a Trident missle launch from a submarine just off the coast. J. Wong sun!rtech!wong ucbvax!mtxinu!/ **************************************************************** S-s-s-ay! ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 88 18:51:32 GMT From: mtxinu!rtech!llama!wong@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (J. Wong) Subject: Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST From: sun!rtech!llama!wong (J. Wong) Message-Id: <8805132107.AA17267@llama.rtech.UUCP> To: mbunix!marsh Subject: Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle In-Reply-To: <31710@linus.UUCP> References: <1988May9.004935.49@utzoo.uucp> Organization: Relational Technology, Inc. Alameda, CA In article <31710@linus.UUCP> you write: >I'm willing to look really stupid... Why don't they install explosive-powered >ejection seats on the shuttle. I don't know enough about the technology, >but there has to be some way for the pilot to get out of a SR-71 that >should be close to useful, and require little effort on the part of the >human. What's the story ? Ejection seats have a numerous problems, the worst being that they are just dangerous (as is any high-explosive.) Ejection seats have exploded on the ground, killing any technicians or pilots who are nearby. They have also exploded improperly in the air. Also, canopies have failed to come off resulting in the occupant being crushed when the seat ejected. Passengers have been known to lose various pieces of their bodies when ejected (like fingers, hands, arms, legs.) Tom Wolfe relates some incidents in his book, "The Right Stuff." Apparently, if you were in a bad situation it was 50/50 whether to eject or to try and ride the plane down. -- J. Wong sun!rtech!wong ucbvax!mtxinu!/ **************************************************************** S-s-s-ay! J. Wong sun!rtech!wong ucbvax!mtxinu!/ **************************************************************** S-s-s-ay! ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #247 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 9 Jun 88 06:25:29 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11574; Thu, 9 Jun 88 03:25:01 PDT id AA11574; Thu, 9 Jun 88 03:25:01 PDT Date: Thu, 9 Jun 88 03:25:01 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806091025.AA11574@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #248 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 248 Today's Topics: Mars Underground News Vol II, No 1 Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 May 88 03:12:10 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!rwb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Robert Brumley) Subject: Mars Underground News Vol II, No 1 This is the latest issue of the Mars Underground News, which contains information relevant to the exploration of the planet Mars. Any replies can be sent directly to Tom Meyer, the editor, at boulder!cubldr!meyer_t or to me and I will forward. Enjoy. Robert Brumley Post: 4661 S. Vivian St. Morrison, CO 80465 Tel: (303) 978-1838 UUCP: (isis,hao)!scicom!rwb -------------------------------------------------------------------- MARS Underground News Vol. II No. 1 FLETCHER SAYS MOON BEST FIRST STEP NASA Administrator, Dr. James C. Fletcher, speaking before the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Colo. said 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 April symposium. In the last several months, a number of parties have advocated a U.S./USSR manned mission to Mars. Dr. Fletcher cited three crucial factors favoring the moon for an initial cooperative manned mission: * 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 United States and Soviet Union have yet to demonstrate that degree of stability. * 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. * Technical readiness - Both nations realize 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. Complete copies of Dr. Fletcher's speech are available from the NASA Newsroom, (202) 453-8400. ROMANENKO RESULTS Can humans sustain a zero-G trip to Mars? According to preliminary reports from the Soviet Union, cosmonaut Romanenko's physiological adaptation to microgravity required less time, and resulted in smaller losses in bone strength and mineral content than has been observed in previous flights. On December 27, 1987, Soviet cosmonaut Col. Yuri Romanenko established an Earth orbit endurance record of 327 days (11 months) aboard the Mir space station. According to Anders Hansson from the Institute for Space Biomedicine in Sheffield, England, Romanenko reported a 5% loss in bone calcium which levelled off after 80-110 days of flight. Muscle atrophy was more extensive at 10% loss of volume, but only 1% loss of muscle fiber. Romanenko's success, as reported in the December 29, 1987 issue of the New York Times, may be attributed to a rigorous work schedule, two hours of exercise on a stationary bicycle and treadmill, and the "penguin" suits which were designed with elastic bands to provide resistance to movement for additional muscular conditioning. According to a report by Keller and Strauss presented at the 1988 Lunar Base Conference, Houston, Texas, there is a close correlation between skeletal adaption and activity. While Romanenko's regimen was adequate, they concluded that more rigorous activity such as weight training or sprinting may be a more effective countermeasure than more sedentary and less intense activities such as bicycling or running. -- Kelly McMillen ADVANCE ON ROBBINS REPORT In September 1986, the NASA Advisory Council convened a committee of 17 prominent scientists and physicians to make a comprehensive review of NASA's life sciences program, recommend goals, and developed scientific and technical strategies for achieving those goals. Under the chairmanship of Nobel laureate Dr. Frederick C. Robbins, the NASA Life Sciences Strategic Planning Study Committee met periodically for more than a year, visiting field centers, meeting with international representatives, surveying professional organizations and groups active in medicine and biology, and reviewing the issues relevant to the future of basic science, space exploration and, particularly, extended human space flight. Their findings and recommendations will be available in a report, "Exploring the Living Universe: A Strategy for Space Life Sciences," scheduled for release in mid-June. This report takes a bold approach to near-term requirements for biomedical research, gravitational biology, biospherics and exobiology. It also studies the factors that potentially limit human space flight, including physiological deconditioning, radiation exposure, psychological difficulties and environmental requirements. A logical followup to the Paine Report and the Ride Report, the Robbins Report will be available from NASA by calling (202) 453-1530. -- Paula Korn TOO EARLY FOR JOINT MANNED MISSIONS In a November 18, 1987 letter to the President from Congressmen Manuel Lujan, Jr. and Robert Roe, the Congressional twosome asked that the White House explore with the Soviet Union "the possibility of a joint American-Soviet manned mission to Mars." The politicians, both top members of the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology called the mission a "venture that could have more lasting beneficial results in terms of international good-will and technological progress." The response from the White House was handled by J. Edward Fox, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. "At the present time," explained the Fox, "the Department believes it would be premature to commit the United States to join with the Soviet Union in such a major space project. The United States has not yet committed itself to Mars missions beyond the Mars Observer, much less to its own manned mission to Mars, and the current budget situation makes such a commitment difficult at best." The State Department reply also noted that, as space cooperation with the Soviets improves, so too will a confidence level in attempting more ambitious cooperative projects. -- Leonard David REAGAN BOOSTS HUMAN EXPLORATION Speaking before the annual meeting of the Electronic Industries Association in Washington, D.C., President Ronald Reagan underscored his interest in the health of the U.S. civilian space program, including human exploration beyond the confines of Earth. "...I look to the time, before the end of the first decade of the next century, when we may have manned visits to other planets," stated the President. In his dinner address before the electronic trade group, Reagan supported the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) as "an important investment in our future," noting the plane will be capable of taking off from Dulles Airport, leaping into space, docking with the Space Station -- similar to taking off from Washington, D.C. and heading for London. "Not only the Moon, but the entire Solar System beckons, which is why I have issued a new national space policy that reaffirms the goal of U.S. leadership in space and sets a new goal of expanding human exploration into the solar system," Reagan said. The President also remarked that he has asked for $100 million for the initiation of Project Pathfinder, noting the program will "lay the foundation for potential manned and unmaned missions beyond the Earth's orbit." "Tonight I ask Congress and all the American people to join me in making the long-term investment required to advance U.S. leadership in space. We must begin that investment by funding the increases I've proposed for our civil space program. Can we afford to stop our exploration and wait for others to pass us?," the President questioned. -- Leonard David MARS' WATER CYCLES UNDER STUDY Scientist Bruce Jakosky, a research associate with the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder, is studying Mars' water cycle in an attempt to learn more about climatic trends on Earth. Jakosky was recently selected to assist in coordinating the scientific study of the Red Planet by the 1992 Mars Observer mission. According to Jakosky, the cyclical system on Mars is remarkably similar to ours, providing an excellent model for hypothesizing about Earth's ice ages and future climatic changes. The Colorado scientist said the vast valleys and channels cutting the surface of Mars may be erosional features caused by the red planet's periodic tilting to and away from from the Sun. As Mars tilts toward the Sun every few hundred thousand years, its polar ice caps warm and cause water vapor to be disributed over much of the planet, he theorizes. "The snow and ice build-up, which may be as deep as 10 to 15 meters during high tilt, melts from underneath, quite similar to a greenhouse effect in which the Sun's rays are absorbed but heat is not emitted," Jakosky explains. "It's this run-off from underneath that may cause erosion and form the channels we now see on the surface." - Leonard David MEETING REPORTS CASE FOR MARS RESULTS: LIFE SUPPORT The critical issue of life support for human Mars missions is advancing on several important fronts. Within NASA and associated contractors, the development of the CELSS Breadboard project (closed ecological support system) continues at Kennedy Space Center with supporting research from Johnson and Ames Research Centers. The Biospheres II Venture, a privately funded, and University supported research facitlity in Arizona has recently put 8 people into the closed-system environment for a 2 year trial period. Further research is continuing aboard the Soviet Mir Space Station, though comprehensive reports are not yet available. Among participants at the Case for Mars III held in Boulder, Colorado last July, new ideas presented in the Life Support session included Alice Eichold's proposal that rather than build the space station from the "outside in," the design should be directed toward integrating the need for recreation into the context of routine duty. As an architect from the University of California, Eichold's innovative ideas serve a dual purpose in the CELSS program: utilization of space for the psychological and physical well being of crew members and conservation of space from an engineering point of view. Additionally, Tyler Volk (New York Univ.) examines the consequences of not requiring that all wastes from life support be recycled back to the food plants and concludes that cellulose production on Mars could be an important input for many non-metabolic material requirements on Mars. The fluxes of carbon in cellulose production would probably exceed those in food production and therefore settlements on Mars could utilize "cellulose farms" in making materials for structural components and perhaps furnishings for a Mars base or colony. George Swanson's (Univ. of Colo.) approach to fitness management, discussed in the Biomedical session, was to redefine the parameters of cardio-respiratory fitness by characterizing blood lactate response. His model suggests that the index of fitness should be O2 consumption when the rate of change of lactate just exceeds the rate of O2 consumption rather than defining fitness from the "threshold" model done previously. Additional topics provided insight into the problems of bone loss (M. Cohen), space suit design (J. Billingham), and radiation biology (B. Clark). John Billingham suggested that the space suit be inflated to cover extremities and to constrict muscular blood flow, an idea similar to the "penguin suit" designed by Soviets for use aboard the Mir station. -- Penelope Boston & Kelly McMillen FUTURE MEETINGS Exobiology in Solar System Exploration A Symposium on Exobiology in Solar System Exploration will be held August 24-26, 1988. Symposium topics will include solar system bodies, such as planets, comets, asteroids and other celestial bodies, current knowledge regarding Mars and the question of exobiology, and planned and future NASA activities. In addition, speakers will address the current status of the Mars Observer mission and the U.S. Mars rover sample return project. The program will be held at or near Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California. For further information, contact: Judith Huntington or Deborah Schwartz; NASA Ames Research Center; Mail Stop: 239-12; Moffett Field, California 94035; (415) 694-4204. Dust on Mars III A call for abstracts has been issued for the MECA_LPI Workshop entitled "Dust on Mars III" to be held September 21-23, 1988, at Estes Park, Colorado. The goal of the workshop is to stimulate cooperative research on, and discussion of, dust-related processes on Mars; this should provide valuable background information and help in preparation and scientific planning for the Mars Observer mission. The workshop will address the following general questions: 1. How is dust ejected from the martian surface into the atmosphere? 2. How does the global atmospheric circulation affect the redistribution of dust on Mars? 3. Are there sources and sinks of dust on Mars? If so where are they and how do they vary with time? 4. How many components of dust are there on Mars, and what are their properties? The deadline for abstracts is July 15, 1988. Any questions please contact LPI Projects office: (713) 486-2158 or Steve Lee, Organizer (303) 492-5348. 4th International Conference on Mars Although the last mission to Mars ended nearly a decade ago, continuing and new studies have addressed several major areas. In addition, a new generation of spacecraft explorations is planned, beginning with the Soviet mission to Phobos to be launched this year; the Mars Observer mission is scheduled for launch in 1992, and a series of additional Soviet and American missions are under consideration. This seems like a good time to review what is known about Mars and to study the many intriguing questions. To the end, a Fourth International Conference on Mars is planned for January 10-13, 1989; the location will be in Tucson. Major objectives of the conference will be to summarize what is thought to be fairly well known at the beginning of the new era of spacecraft exploration, and to focus discussion on areas of uncertainty. The intended theme of the conference is to summarize those aspects that are known with reasonable confidence; identify the key points at which interpretations diverge; discuss the implications of alternate interpretations; and identify key future measurements. An important goal or outcome of the conference will be the production of a source and text book on Mars, planned to be published by the university of arizona press as part of the space science series. For more information contact Hugh Kieffer, USGS 2255 No. Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, AZ 86001. ****************** Editor: Tom Meyer Technical Advisor: Christopher McKay Contributors: Penelope J. Boston, Leonard David, Paula Korn, Kelly McMillen Mail news correspondence to: Mars Underground News, P.O. Box 4877, Boulder, CO 80306 The electronic version of The Mars Underground News is distributed by The Space Network BBS (303) 494-8446. The printed version of The Mars Underground News is published by The Planetary Society Publisher: Charlene Anderson In order to receive The Mars Underground News by mail send $10 (for 1 yr, 4 issues) to: The Planetary Society, 65 N. Catalina Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91106 ------------- End of Mars Underground News Vol II, No 1. ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 88 19:46:02 GMT From: necntc!ima!haddock!eli@husc6.harvard.edu (Elias Israel) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221 In article <579721510.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >> Anyone who has ever visited the top of an Hawaiian volcano should >> think twice about the damage that would be done by installing a launch >> site in such a unique environment. A hike below the rim of Haleakala >> on Maui is a truely amazing trip--the closest thing to a walk on >> another planet that any of us are likely to experience. > >Particularly if no one lets us build a spaceport: > > A) near a city because it's to dangerous in a highly developed > area. > B) away from a city because it damages the undeveloped > environment. Amen! First, the location for the proposed spaceport in Hawaii is in Palima Point on the big island (Hawaii) not anywhere near Maui. Yes, I have been to Haleakala and it's one of the most beautiful sights anywhere. Palima Point is not on or near Mauna Kea or Mauna Loa, the two ACTIVE volcanoes of the big island. From the sketches that I have seen, the proposed site is (guess what) on the beach, on the south of the island, I think. Also, the benefits of a site in Hawaii are hefty! For the state of Hawaii, the flow the technology to the state can only mean more money for the state coffers. Naturally, Governor Waihee is a supporter of the Palima Point proposal. For the possible users of the launch facility, it sure is hard to beat a launch site with water in every direction that's only 12 degress off the equator and in a friendly country to boot! I say do it. The age of commercial space development is coming. If you thought the GOVERNMENT did some nifty things in space, just wait until the businessmen who *know what they're doing* take a crack at it. Elias Israel | "Justice, n. A commodity which in more or Interactive Systems Corp. | less adulterated condition the State sells Boston, MA | to the citizen as a reward for his allegiance, ..!ima!haddock!eli | taxes, and personal service." | -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #248 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Jun 88 06:25:15 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13132; Fri, 10 Jun 88 03:24:35 PDT id AA13132; Fri, 10 Jun 88 03:24:35 PDT Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 03:24:35 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806101024.AA13132@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #249 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 249 Today's Topics: Re: Non-sexist language (was:Space Station Names) Re: "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks Re: Vocabulary lesson #7: Expendable launch vehicles Re Soviet Shuttle launch soon (May 18th) - not likely More on anti-matter Re: Antimatter propulsion questions Re: Mars Re: Naming the space station. Re: "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks Re: Naming the space station. Vocabulary lesson #9: Spinoffs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 May 88 15:26:03 GMT From: nuchat!steve@uunet.uu.net (Steve Nuchia) Subject: Re: Non-sexist language (was:Space Station Names) >From article <870@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu>, by mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell): > sounds more natural. 'Crewed' is no good (see comment about > passenger-only above), likewise 'staffed' (yuck) which doesnt have the > right sense. Any constructive suggestions? "manned" is the English word with the desired meaning. Can we worry about something important now? -- Steve Nuchia | [...] but the machine would probably be allowed no mercy. uunet!nuchat!steve | In other words then, if a machine is expected to be (713) 334 6720 | infallible, it cannot be intelligent. - Alan Turing, 1947 ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 88 10:59:45 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks In article <907@ncspm.ncsu.edu> jay@ncspm.ncsu.EDU (Jay C. Smith) writes: >I've forgotten... why didn't the Soviets salvage Skylab? I would think >that concern over discovering technological "secrets" from an old >space station would have been overridden by safety concerns for those >under the falling debris. Because the propaganda of having a US spacestation fall out of the sky was worth more than the large effort to salvage it. And they had spacestations of their own at advanced stages of development. Bob. than a stowed space suit. Any type of "miniatre space ships" would also be much more clumsy. They would have to have some kind of thruster system like the MMU..This means one more thing that can go wrong. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Walker | The dream is still alive!! U.S. Mail: |----------------------------------------- Dartmouth College | "Why don't you fix your little H.B. 219, Hanover N.H. 03755 | problems and light this candle!!" E-Mail: | BITNET:seldon@D1.dartcms1.bitnet | - Alan Shepard UNIX:seldon@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- !{harvard,linus,inhp4}!dartvax!eleazar!seldon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 88 00:30:50 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Vocabulary lesson #7: Expendable launch vehicles > ... can be gotten rid of when they become politically > inconvenient - or heaven forbit! Inexpensive. Since there is no chance of the latter while the US government is running the show, it need not be mentioned. Despite some of the nonsense one hears from the more rabid anti-shuttle factions, current US expendables are just as expensive as the shuttle. Actually, my definition would be something like: "a class of space launchers which clearly are not considered expendable, based on the vast manpower and expense devoted to every single launch". (Case in point. Delta is derived from the Thor IRBM. Thor specs said launch in 15 minutes with crew of 9. NASA Delta launches required three months with a crew of 2000. Yes, the Delta is more complicated, and the payloads need more attention... but three orders of magnitude?!?) We will not have cheap space transportation until we can treat space-launch failures like airliner crashes: lamentable, to be avoided, worthy of careful investigation... but not usually cause for grounding the vehicle or grossly compromising its economics. And "grossly compromised" is certainly the word for the economics today... -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 88 10:44:32 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Re Soviet Shuttle launch soon (May 18th) - not likely In Space Digest v8, 224 Bruce Watson posts: > Just heard that the Soviet Space Shuttle is set for launch on May 18. > Dignitaries are assembling at the Baikonur Cosmodrome for the event. I am rather doubtful of any Soviet Shuttle launch in the next few days (from today's May 17th). The Soviets have just started to take the foreign correspondents on the tour of the launch sites at Baikonur and the astronaut training areas of Star city. Also for the past week there has been only a small piece about their space program on the Radio Moscow news. For those who listen to shortwave the Russians follow a standard pattern with space news. If some big event is coming up they move relatively small articles ("the cosmonauts have now been in orbit for X days ... ") from their normal position, as the last item or two of their ten minute long hourly news, to one of the top four. Also the number of such stories increase, which is just starting to be true. Finally since the news tours indicate that they are keeping to their word about publicizing the launch, they would have announced the take off well before now if it was going to occur soon. Heck they gave the date of the first Energiya launch about two days before it happened. Thus I would be rather surprised by a Soviet Shuttle launch tomorrow or in the next few days. It is probable, however, that they may try to launch it before the party congress this June (to show their country's technological advances). Also note that there has been strong statements from the head of the cosmonaut corps that the first few shuttle launches will not be manned. There have been over 50 atmospheric test flights to date (all manned). This contradicts other statements that I have seen from Non-Soviet sources about the launch version being manned. That shows again that in this business take all rumors with a grain of salt. Never the less it appears their shuttle may begin flying before this country's one lifts off once more unless we really get a move on. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 May 88 14:32 EST From: Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov Subject: More on anti-matter Paul Dietz writes the following on anti-matter: >Antimatter might be effective in a beam weapon. In a word, HAH! Such a beam weapon would not work in the atmosphere, as an interaction with matter will cause a minimum 1900 MeV explosion per anti-proton annihilated (about 1 MeV if positrons are used instead). Such a huge amount of isotropic energy added to the beam will disperse it real quick, setting off more explosions. This will all occur in or just outside the nozzle! If one attempts to vacate a small volume of space for an anti-matter pulse to travel through, say with a high power laser, the same problem arises, though with many orders of magnitude (like about 25) lower integrated cross-section. The same is true for space based weapons, as the gas density is at least 1/cc and likelier to be over 1000/cc. Current matter particle beam research is arguably feasible in that one has only collisions rather than the very high energy annihilations leading to beam dispersion. >An antimatter explosion would produce radiations not found in a >conventional nuclear device. Decay of neutral pions would produce very >energetic photons, and decay of charged pions produces muons. >Annihilation of antimatter in nuclei might produce neutrons more >energetic than those produced by fusion. All that will be produced is a different energy spectrum of photons, electrons, and neutrinos, as all of the other particles will decay or annihilate on the order of a millionth of a second. One MAY be able to produce neutrons, but that would require anti-proton - proton collisions of very high energy (and luck). Such a branching is of very low probability. >Unlike conventional nuclear bombs, antimatter bombs can in principle be >made as small as one likes, and are essentially fallout-free. A bomb >containing a few tens of nanograms of antimatter might make an >effective tactical radiation weapon (less if fusion reactions can be >initiated), assuming handling problems can be solved. That might >require the synthesis of higher antielements, but that's not obviously >impossible. This bomb will be as fallout-free as any nuclear device is. The fallout of any nuclear explosion is due to the irradiated matter around the bomb being blown up into the atmosphere (this includes the containment mechanism of the bomb itself). It may be small, who knows the state of current vaccum magnetic bottle experiments (extrapolated to room temperature particle entrapment rather than solar core temperatures)? J Storrs Hall writes: >Hmmm. It just occurs to me: how much antimatter would it take to >ignite a lithium deuteride pellet? or indeed something harder to fuse? >One might get a signigicant power multiplier that way (assuming that >antimatter is the critical-cost component). If all one needs is 10 KeV, a single positron annihilation event is enough energy (1 MeV), provided that it was placed properly. This last restriction would make things a bit more difficult. The big problem with anti-matter is in the production. As someone stated earlier (and as was written up in a recent Science review), anti-matter costs of order $10 million per milligram. The problem is getting it in a usable form. SLAC, for example, has a 2 mile accelerator to produce anti-particles. Then one needs another 2 mile accelerator to slow them down again so that they can be handled and contained, provided they were travelling in the correct direction to begin with!. This all has to be done in a perfect vaccuum, otherwise more 1900 MeV annihilations occur. Fun stuff, this anti-matter! Arnold Gill Queen's University at Kingston gill @ qucdnast.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17-MAY-1988 12:03:31.00 PDT From: (Steve Bougerolle) Subject: Re: Antimatter propulsion questions To: In issue #220, James W. Meritt asks several questions about matter/anti-matter annihilation: 1) What about Pauli exclusion? Does an anti-proton only react with free protons? Pauli exclusion only applies to identical particles. A proton and anti-proton are NOT identical, so exclusion is entirely irrelevant. A proton and anti-proton (electron/positron, etc) can annihilate regardless of the presence of a potential. 2) Will anti-protons only react with free protons? Or does quark-quark annihilation take place? The reaction actually taking place IS quark-antiquark annihilation. But because of confinement rules, some reactions are more likely than others. Nevertheless, it is possible for antiprotons and neutrons to react. Similarly, anti-lithium will react with normal matter quite nicely. (Not just lithium; ALL matter). So, NO, you can not store antimatter fuel in an aluminum container. It has to be handled with more care than that. However, you have to MAKE antimatter before you worry about any of this; and this hasn't been done. What is actually proposed as a fuel? Anti-hydrogen? -New in town ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 88 09:58 EDT From: "Paul F. Dietz" Subject: Re: Mars To: chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu, space@angband.s1.gov > Remember that the Viking landers only sampled 2 places on all of Mars, > and those weren't even the places where atmospheric pressure and water vapor > content are thought to be highest. It is not the case that the Viking sites were particularly dry compared to other parts of the planet. Moreover, the measured partial pressure of water was something like 14 precipitable microns, orders of magnitude too low for liquid water to exist, even if saturated with salts. > They also did register some life-like > reactions, which, while by no means being proof of life, deserve further > investigation before being swept under the rug. The results were hardly "life-like". They were much more consistent with the presence of peroxides, superoxides, and ozonides in the soil. The process that generates these compounds (photochemical dissociation of water vapor) would operate globally, and dust storms would carry the chemicals everywhere. It would be nice to confirm this model by further tests, but claims that Viking did not present strong evidence against the existence of life are misleading. > Also, who is to say that life has to be organic? In _Genetic Takeover and > the Origin of Life_ and also in a Scientific American article of a couple > of years ago, A. G. Cairns-Smith makes a very respectable case for the > hypothesis that the first life on Earth was in fact reproducing crystals > capable of storing and transmitting genetic information and catalyzing > metabolic reactions beneficial to themselves. Cairns-Smith's very imaginative proposal is not supported by any evidence. Moreover, his model requires the existence of liquid water. > Liquid water is not stable on Mars, but since frost (or maybe even > snow) can form there and accumulate during the night and then be heated by > the Sun when morning comes around, liquid water could exist transiently. I believe this has been looked into. Frost does not form at night at the Viking sites (although *seasonal* frosts do occur, probably by precipitation of suspended ice grains), and any frost that did form would sublime and not moisten the soil. > Terrestrial microorganisms that use oxygen have enzymes to deal with > oxidizing radicals and other nasty stuff. Considering that some > cyanobacteria and archaebacteria are capable of growing in boiling sulfuric > acid (which is a pretty strong oxidizer), and that other organisms have > been shown to be able to grow in conditions which simulate Martian > conditions, I would not be surprised if something found Martian conditions > to be similar enough to its terrestrial niche to be able to adapt. Those enzymes cannot operate if the organism has been lyophilized. I view with incredulity your claim that organisms have been found to grow in conditions that simulate Martian conditions. Perhaps you are refering to very old experiments that were performed before it was realized how cold and dry Mars really is? Please give a reference. Paul F. Dietz dietz@sdr.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 88 02:15:12 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!Daniel_C_Anderson@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Naming the space station. I second motion to name a Space Station after the late and sincerely lamented Robert A. Heinlein. Anyone who cares at all about space probably cut their (<--non-sexist 'third person indefinite' pronoun) teeth on Heinlein's stories. (-:"My opinions should be those of my employers":-) ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 88 06:06:49 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!Paul_L_Schauble@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks Soviets salvaging Skylab... I recall hearing the story at the time that the Soviets offered to boost Skylab. And afterward, it was theirs. NASA was ready to agree, but the idea got forcefully shot down by either the Pentagon or State Department. Can anyone substantiate?? ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 88 21:52:37 GMT From: portal!atari!daisy!wooding@uunet.uu.net (Mike Wooding) Subject: Re: Naming the space station. Perhaps ASIMOV: Astronauts Space Inhabitable Module for Orbiting Vacations. m wooding ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Mon, 16 May 88 21:38:12 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Vocabulary lesson #9: Spinoffs Spinoffs, n, 1. $500 worth of research results proclaimed to justify the $200,000,000,000 expenditure on NASA to date. 2. The central dogma in rationalizing NASA worship and The Space Program to the uninitiated. 3. Teflon, computers, electronics, automobiles, houses, caves, the wheel, sliced bread and anything else of a generally useful nature that NASA had nothing to do with inventing. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #249 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Jun 88 06:24:47 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14571; Sat, 11 Jun 88 03:24:22 PDT id AA14571; Sat, 11 Jun 88 03:24:22 PDT Date: Sat, 11 Jun 88 03:24:22 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806111024.AA14571@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #250 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 250 Today's Topics: Re: Non-sexist language (was:Space Station Names) Re: Mars Re: "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks Astronaut Requirements Robertson clearing martian landing sites with nuclear devices Re: Shuttle External Tanks Re: Naming the space station. Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221 Ariane V23/Intelsat V launch success Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST Re: "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 May 88 06:33:08 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Non-sexist language (was:Space Station Names) > ... But I just can't come up with a good > gender-free word to replace exactly the sense of 'manned'! ... > Any constructive suggestions? Name three female astronauts who prefer sitting on the ground in a "crewed" spacecraft to flying in a "manned" one. My constructive suggestion is to spend time and energy on problems which have a higher priority, like the lack of spaceflight opportunities for both sexes, and worry about the terminology once the important issues are solved. Until then, I really think we can make do with "manned" plus an occasional apology for the limitations of the language. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 88 23:10:45 GMT From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) Subject: Re: Mars | > Remember that the Viking landers only sampled 2 places on all of Mars, | > and those weren't even the places where atmospheric pressure and water vapor | > content are thought to be highest. | | It is not the case that the Viking sites were particularly dry compared to | other parts of the planet. Moreover, the measured partial pressure of water | was something like 14 precipitable microns, orders of magnitude too low for | liquid water to exist, even if saturated with salts. I didn't say they were particularly dry; however, they are not the wettest either. (I don't remember the wettest spots, but I do remember that at least one of them was considered for a Viking landing site and rejected for some reason.) And remember that the liquid water does NOT have to be stable; transient existence is sufficient for some terrestrial forms of life, and can be obtained under conditions in which liquid is not the most stable phase of water. | > They also did register some life-like | > reactions, which, while by no means being proof of life, deserve further | > investigation before being swept under the rug. | | The results were hardly "life-like". They were much more consistent with | the presence of peroxides, superoxides, and ozonides in the soil. The | process that generates these compounds (photochemical dissociation of water | vapor) would operate globally, and dust storms would carry the chemicals | everywhere. It would be nice to confirm this model by further tests, but | claims that Viking did not present strong evidence against the existence of | life are misleading. People gave those explanations, but not STRONG evidence. If I remember properly, the Vikings' onboard laboratories were not equipped to make the distinction between life and reactions with oxidizing compounds, radicals, etc. | > Also, who is to say that life has to be organic? In _Genetic Takeover and | > the Origin of Life_ and also in a Scientific American article of a couple | > of years ago, A. G. Cairns-Smith makes a very respectable case for the | > hypothesis that the first life on Earth was in fact reproducing crystals | > capable of storing and transmitting genetic information and catalyzing | > metabolic reactions beneficial to themselves. | | Cairns-Smith's very imaginative proposal is not supported by any evidence. NONE of the models of the origin of life are supported by ANY evidence whatsoever. ALL of the attempts to reproduce pre-biotic evolution by simulating "primordial soups" have failed miserably -- while they make a few percent amino acids and such (total, not any one type), they make >90% tar and other unuseable garbage. With the low concentrations of these molecules that can be obtained under any reasonable conditions (that is, not involving enormous pressures and extreme concentrations of one compound to the exclusion of other required compounds), assembly of polymers is highly energetically unfavorable. Of course, these facts are not usually emphasized in reports supporting standard models. . . At any rate, when you take into account all the evidence (at least all that obtained up to 1985), A. G. Cairns-Smith's model is as good as any of the others. | Moreover, his model requires the existence of liquid water. | | > Liquid water is not stable on Mars, but since frost (or maybe even | > snow) can form there and accumulate during the night and then be heated by | > the Sun when morning comes around, liquid water could exist transiently. | | I believe this has been looked into. Frost does not form at night at the | Viking sites (although *seasonal* frosts do occur, probably by | precipitation of suspended ice grains), and any frost that did form would | sublime and not moisten the soil. Like I said, the Viking sites are not the wettest on Mars. And it will probably be impossible to say that no liquid water forms on the surface of Mars until some roving probe with the proper instruments samples a large number of sites. | > Terrestrial microorganisms that use oxygen have enzymes to deal with | > oxidizing radicals and other nasty stuff. Considering that some | > cyanobacteria and archaebacteria are capable of growing in boiling sulfuric | > acid (which is a pretty strong oxidizer), and that other organisms have | > been shown to be able to grow in conditions which simulate Martian | > conditions, I would not be surprised if something found Martian conditions | > to be similar enough to its terrestrial niche to be able to adapt. | | Those enzymes cannot operate if the organism has been lyophilized. I view | with incredulity your claim that organisms have been found to grow in | conditions that simulate Martian conditions. Perhaps you are refering | to very old experiments that were performed before it was realized how | cold and dry Mars really is? Please give a reference. I don't remember a specific reference, but these might have used outdated conditions. They were performed no later than the early 1970's (before either Viking). -- Lucius Chiaraviglio chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu lucius@tardis.harvard.edu (in case the first one doesn't work) Better to open your mouth and prove yourself a fool than to leave people hanging in suspense. ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 88 01:41:39 GMT From: al@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Al Globus) Subject: Re: "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks >>I've forgotten... why didn't the Soviets salvage Skylab? Salvaging SkyLab would have been extremely difficult, if possible, for the Soviet's to do. The would have had to dock with it - meaning they would need a compatible docking adapter - and have enough fuel left over for a reboost. Without detailed documentation on the SkyLab docking port, building a docking adapter for Soyuz would be impossible. Even with all the documentation, the US had problems docking with the much smaller Solar Max satellite. Once docking was complete the Soyuz would need substantial fuel for a reboost, and then more for the decent burn. I don't have the numbers but somehow I doubt that Soyuz could do this. I could be wrong though. ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 88 22:04:31 GMT From: ncspm!jay@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Jay C. Smith) Subject: Astronaut Requirements Regarding the recent postings of the requirements for becoming an astronaut, I don't remember normal color vision being one. Did I just miss it? Or did others leave it out? Or is it really not a requirement? Please, go ahead and depress me (reds and greens give me problems on those circles-in-a-circle tests they give, but never with stoplights or other everyday situations). I could take it, if only I just once saw a list of job requirements that said "Must be able to hear frequencies up to 20 kHz." -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jay C. Smith uucp: ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 88 15:05:01 EDT From: loeb@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU Subject: Robertson Pat Robertson finally answered my question about his views on Space. It's a little too late but I'll post them here anyway: "Americans for Robertson "Dear "Thank you for your correspondence. We are pleased to have the opportunity of becoming further acquainted with the goals and issues of greatest significance to you and the community. "Pat Robertson shares your concern for America's space policy, and believes it is in desperate need of revitalization. He considers President Reagan's space program a step in the right direction toward restoring U. S. leadership in space, and would like to see even greater emphasis placed on privatization of ventures. "At the same time, a thorough reorganization of NASA must continue---from top management on down---so that its operations are made cost effective, while maintaining the highest standards of quality and safety. "Your interest in our candidate, M. G. "Pat" Robertson is appreciated. "Sincerely, Barbara Gattullo, Director of Communications, Americans for Robertson, BG:glp" --- Danny ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 88 11:18:00 CDT From: "ASUIPF::MC" Subject: clearing martian landing sites with nuclear devices To: "space" Reply-To: "ASUIPF::MC" Get your facts straight about resolution from orbit first. The Mars Observer Camera narrow-angle has a resolution of between 1 and 1.4 meters. We have proposed things like 30-cm resolution optics that wouldn't be much more expensive. If you think you're ever going to be able to launch a tactical nuke to Mars you're completely nuts. It's hard enough to get a tank of hydrazine launched these days, especially on the shuttle. On the shuttle, it's hard to get a nine-volt battery launched (I speak only of safety issues, not the flight status of the shuttle.) The person who proposed "steerable parachutes and smart robots" hasn't been following the development of SCI autonomous vehicles and their utter lack of success. Now balloons are another story... Mike Caplinger, ASU/Caltech Mars Observer Camera Project mc@moc.jpl.nasa.gov ------ ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 88 20:54:09 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Shuttle External Tanks No not again! Actually Will Martin brought up a few points and when our noted space attorney gets back from vacation next week, I will drop this on his desk. Al Globius made a few technical points. He also left out a few orbital characteristics. The principal thing which no one has mentioned is the Skylab and these tanks are regarded as US Territory. Salvage law with standing (we had an interesting lesson on this topic while sailing the other day). Anyway. I'll bring with up with the lawyer over lunch, sure he will get a kick, "There are these guys out there and they want to know...." Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: The Rock of Ages Home has moved buildings and phone extension...... "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 88 00:01:34 GMT From: beta!jlg@hc.dspo.gov (Jim Giles) Subject: Re: Naming the space station. How about 'Ricercar' (pronounced reach-er-car). It is the English word for the musical form now called a fugue (a Latin word- through Italian). The roots of the word are the same as for 'research', in fact one of the meanings of the word used to be 'to seek'. This seems to capture the flavor that the space program should work for - both artistic and scientific. ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 88 15:47:55 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221 > it sure is hard to beat a launch site with water in every direction > that's only 12 degress off the equator and in a friendly country to ^^^^^^^^ > boot! Has Hawaii declared independence? Last I heard it was still part of the US... :-) Being attacked by government bureaucrats waving regulations and lawyers waving liability suits may be a bit less nerve-wracking than being attacked by guerillas waving guns, but it's every bit as destructive to privately-funded spaceflight. Cape York is a better bet. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 88 00:26:23 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Ariane V23/Intelsat V launch success The Ariane V23 launcher (the Ariane 2 version) carrying an Intelsat V spacecraft was launched successfully this evening, shortly before 0000 UTC. The launch was a complete success. This clears the way for the next launch, Ariane V22 carrying, among other things, the AMSAT Phase 3C amateur radio satellite. That launch is scheduled for June 8 and will be the first flight of the new Ariane 4 version. The V23 launch was carried live on Spacenet 1 (120 deg W) on transponder 23 (horizontal polarization). Phil ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 88 17:56:36 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!me!ecf!mugc@uunet.uu.net (ModemUserGroupChairman) Subject: Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST In article <2091@rtech.UUCP> wong@llama.UUCP (J. Wong) writes: > > (A bunch of comments re. safety of ejection seats) > >Tom Wolfe relates some incidents in his book, "The Right Stuff." >Apparently, if you were in a bad situation it was 50/50 whether >to eject or to try and ride the plane down. >-- Admittedly, ejection seats can not be considered to be perfectly safe. In a space shuttle, however, you do not have the option of 'riding the plane down'. Even if an ejection seat is only 10% effective, this is preferable to the 0% chance of surviving without one. If a more better escape system is developed, it should be used, but an ejection seat system is better than nothing. -A. Craig West ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 88 18:12:55 GMT From: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!johng@uunet.uu.net (John Gregor) Subject: Re: "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks In article <8805111633.AA05118@angband.s1.gov> wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes: >Suppose NASA had actually done what we wished, and there HAD been a dozen >or more tanks in orbit, and then the Challenger disaster and the >subsequent multi-year hiatus in US manned spaceflight had happened as it >did. Probably, if it were important enough, the program wouldn't have had the multi-year hiatus it did. But that would have implied a plan, a multi mission project, and some sort of organization to it all. And we know that isn't there. >If the Soviets really wanted to look at the innards of any >of our satellites, they could just grab the worn-out or inert ones >while they are over Soviet territory and out of our scanning range >and leave something in their orbital places to continue to show up on >radar tracks! Maybe they've already done this -- how would we know?) Reason 1: Booby traps (chemical, biological, radioactive, explosive, etc) I wouldn't go near a US military (or Soviet) satellite without the FULL documentation of what they were armed with. Oh, they have the documentation... never mind. Reason 2: Probably the last operation many of these satellites do is self-destruct (at least the 'sensitive' parts). Reason 3: Any launch that planned to rendezvous with a satellite would be obvious from the orbit it entered. Reason 4: The Soviets don't own the whole hemisphere, we have stations everywhere. >Anyway, if we HAD left tanks in orbit, and we then discovered that we >wouldn't have been able to use them or "freshen-up" their orbits before >they were lost, I would hope that we would have had the sense to offer >them to the Soviets as gifts. Too bad they couldn't have salvaged skylab. I would have like to have it get some real use. -- pqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpq bdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbd John Gregor johng%ecrcvax.UUCP@germany.CSNET ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #250 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Jun 88 11:57:11 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17006; Mon, 13 Jun 88 08:43:14 PDT id AA17006; Mon, 13 Jun 88 08:43:14 PDT Date: Mon, 13 Jun 88 08:43:14 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806131543.AA17006@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #251 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 251 Today's Topics: Re: Space Station Names Re: Expanding cicrle of ______ Re: "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks Re: Robertson Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221 Roman-Greek Mythology (Was:Re: Space Station Names) Re: Re Soviet Shuttle launch soon (May 18th) - not likely Re: Space Station Names Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST Soviet's shuttle Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST Re: Sun-Earth Orbit Antimatter weaponry reference Re: Naming the space station. Sun-Earth Orbit Re: Antimatter propulsion questions Re: Naming the space station. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 20 May 88 10:27:49 EDT From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" Subject: Re: Space Station Names How about "Space Station I" or the "John Ludd Station" :-) . Dennis -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARPA: drears@ardec-ac4.arpa UUCP: ...!uunet!ardec-ac4.arpa!drears AT&T: 201-724-6639 Snailmail: Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885 Flames: /dev/null Reincarnation: newton!babbage!patton!drears Work: SMCAR-FSS-E, Dennis Rears, Bldg 94, Picatinny Ars, NJ 07806 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 May 1988 15:13-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Expanding cicrle of ______ Keep in mind that the US craft do not dump solid wastes overboard, only liquid ones. The soviets do not return their garbage to the surface, but they don't just dump it either. They fill a Progress with garbage after unloading the cargo and let it burn up on re-entry. Water this close sunwards is rapidly ionized (no difference from cometary ices particles), as should be any bacteria thus contained. If they were released on particulate matter, some would undoubtedly survive in an encysted form, as was found on Surveyor lander. I'm also fairly sure that the water and ice would not escape the Earth's gravity. I won't go in to a long explanation, but I would compare it to shuttle exhaust gases, and you can read: "Spacelab-2 Plasma Depletion Experiments for Ionospheric and Radio Astronomical Studies", Mendillo, Baumgardner, et al, Science, p1260 27-Nov-87. Remember that at the altitude an speed of the shuttle, there are still ionospheric plasmas, and any subliming gases will interact with them. Small particles released with the liquids will suffer the same fate as Delta rocket paint flecks: fly around Earth for a few years and then either reenter or make craters in spacecraft windshields. And as soon as the water ionizes, it will then interact with the earth's magnetic field. The dissociated H+ may well escape. I don't know. ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 88 23:30:07 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks This perennial discussion on storing Shuttle external tanks in orbit keeps missing one thing -- the typical shuttle orbit is very low in altitude (296 km) and an empty external tank has an enormous coefficient of drag (i.e., it's very big and very light). It wouldn't stay up very long without being kicked into a much higher orbit than the shuttle itself would be willing to spend the fuel to go. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 21 May 88 15:35:01 GMT From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu (Eric William Tilenius) Subject: Re: Robertson >Pat Robertson finally answered my question about his views >on Space. It's a little too late but I'll post them here >anyway: [Stuff about Robertson supporting Reagan's space "inititive" deleted...] Funny, but I recall Robertson being firmly against the Space Station, and against human exploration of Mars. Did G~ tell him otherwise, now? Last I heard he still wanted to stay here and bash commies. - ERIC - *----------------------===> SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------* * ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU // ewtileni@pucc.BITNET * * rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni // princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni * * ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"* *--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------* ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 88 16:53:50 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221 > NASA is to spaceflight as the Post Office is to mail. I only wish this were so. For $0.25 I can send an ordinary letter across the country, and from recent experience it'll get there in about 3 days, weekends included. And they go everywhere, too. Now if NASA could put something into an orbit of my choosing with a 3-day lead time and the same price per ounce, I'd agree with your comparison. I know it's an American pastime to bash the postal service, but I think that in recent years they've done an awfully good job given that their service involves physical transportation. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 88 11:46:53 GMT From: mcvax!enea!kth!draken!d85-kai@uunet.uu.net (Kai-Mikael J{{-Aro) Subject: Roman-Greek Mythology (Was:Re: Space Station Names) In article <1833@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk> adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) writes: >I thought Minerva was the Roman name for the Greek goddess Athene, the goddess >of wisdom. >Maybe the Romans, being more militaristic, put her in charge of both, but I >thought that war was the speciality of Mars (Ares in Greek). Well, coupled with her wisdom gig, Athena was the goddess of thought-out war (strategy and tactics) as opposed to Ares, who was the god of bravery and head-long rushes. -- d85-kai@nada.kth.se OR {mcvax,uunet}!nada.kth.se!d85-kai ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 88 11:26:19 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Re Soviet Shuttle launch soon (May 18th) - not likely In article <8805181444.AA26555@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes: >Also note that there has been strong statements from the head of the >cosmonaut corps that the first few shuttle launches will not be manned. >There have been over 50 atmospheric test flights to date (all manned). >This contradicts other statements that I have seen from Non-Soviet >sources about the launch version being manned. The original talk of the soviet shuttle was that it was to be launched unmanned. In a documentery on the soviet space programme shown here recently, it was mentioned that the first flight would carry two cosmanauts. The speculation is that the Soviets are having problems with the software controlling the approach and landing, and that to launch their shuttle before the US shuttle (or before the Moscow summit, pick your rumor) the first flight would now be manned. The cosmanauts were also said to have been exerting great pressure to have the first flight manned. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 88 16:26:20 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Space Station Names In article <667@nyser> weltyc@nisc.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) writes: > I'd like to see a name that reflects the distant outpost kind >of idea, and as an `Arthurian' (one who loves the legends of King >Arthur) I think `Tintagil' would be a good name. While I wouldn't count a space station in low earth orbit as "distant", the rest of the name seems quite accurate judging by the comments about NASA on the net recently. A mythical residence(1) resembling a place which exists today(2), and which is part of a very elaborate publicity stunt(3) based on reality which bears very little resemblance to the legend(4). i.e. 1. The castle in the legend. 2. The real castle, which hadn't been built at the time of the legend. 3. The Legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round table. 4. The actual chieftan from the 4th(?) century the legend is based on. What did you think I was referring to? :-> >this is the INTERNATIONAL space station, the British could count this >as their contribution - it don't cost much. That is more than the present government is willing to spend if it doesn't show a quick profit on the investment. Bob. ------------------------------ Path: ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!texsun!texsun.central.sun.com!convex!authorplaceholder From: convex!matulka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST Date: 15 May 88 00:35:00 GMT Lines: 22 Nf-Id: #R:<1988May9:4935:convex:62300005:000:992 Nf-From: convex.UUCP!matulka May 14 19:35:00 1988 Apparently-To: space-incoming@angband.s1.gov > I think that in the SR-71, that the entire cockpit ejects (I could be > wrong however). The problem with ejection seats on the Shuttle is that > one would need at least 7 or so, since it would be bad form to allow just the > flight crew to eject. Not to mention that there is no way to fit 7 ejection seats on the flight deck of the shuttle. Maximum occupancy of the flight deck during launch is four with standard seats. Then there's the issue of the weight of seven ejection seats, even if you could fit them in. There are always design tradeoffs. At this point in the shuttle program you have to make the rest of the systems as reliable as possible and accept the risk. A major redesign of the shuttle to make all forms of catastrophe during launch survivable is not an option. Considering an ejectable crew cockpit is something to consider for the next generation of space vehicle, not the shuttle. jerry matulka Convex Computer Corporation {ihnp4,sun,uiucdcs}!convex!matulka ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 88 22:48:15 GMT From: mcvax!cernvax!emanuel@uunet.uu.net (emanuel) Subject: Soviet's shuttle Hi! I didn't see television today, and there's nothing on the radio. Did the Russian's Space Shuttle actully fly? thanks Emanuel ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 88 08:55:20 GMT From: mcvax!enea!kth!sics!pd@uunet.uu.net (Per Danielsson) Subject: Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST In article <74700088@uiucdcsp> silber@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > ... ... The problem with ejection seats on the Shuttle is that >one would need at least 7 or so, since it would be bad form to allow just the >flight crew to eject. (Not to mention that no military pilot would be likely >to punch out if it meant sentencing the rest of the crew to death.) One of the British V-bombers (possibly the Vulcan) did have ejection seats for the pilot and copilot, but none for the rest of the three crew. I believe the ejection seats were even used once. Does anyone remember this better than me? Per Danielsson UUCP: pd@sics.se (or {mcvax,decvax}!enea!sics!pd) Swedish Institute of Computer Science PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN "No wife, no horse, no moustache." ------------------------------ Date: 21 May 88 04:43:32 GMT From: n3dmc!johnl@uunet.uu.net (John Limpert) Subject: Re: Sun-Earth Orbit In article <7897@drutx.ATT.COM> markf@drutx.ATT.COM (mark felton) writes: >In response to the recent querry on placing objects in an orbit >balanced between the sun and earth. There was a program called >ISIS that was done by NOAA for measuring flares from the sun >in which an orbit similar to the one described was used. I believe you are referring to the ISEE program. There were three ISEE satellites, ISEE-A, ISEE-B and ISEE-C. ISEE-C was placed in a halo orbit between the sun and the earth. ISEE-C, if I remember correctly, was renamed to ICE (International Comet Explorer?) and put into a new location to study Halley's comet. This was after some other programs had been cancelled due to lack of funding. The ISEE program studied bow shock, solar wind/magnetosphere and other obscure (to me) subjects. I used to work at a NASA tracking station that supported ISEE. We collected huge amounts of ISEE data. I never heard about the results of the program, just shipped bits back to the experimenters. It was a NASA (not NOAA) project. -- John A. Limpert UUCP: johnl@n3dmc.UUCP uunet!n3dmc!johnl PACKET: n3dmc@n3dmc.ampr.org n3dmc@wa3pxx ------------------------------ Date: 21 May 88 02:24:17 GMT From: agate!garnet!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: Antimatter weaponry reference About two months ago I mentioned the possibility of antimatter weaponry, but was vague on my reference. I've gotten some re- quests to find it. Here it is--a brief letter--with pointers to more detailed questions/answers: NATURE, v325, p754. (1987). See also the "rebuttal" in v329, p758 (1987). It was pathetic. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ------------------------------ Date: 21 May 88 00:10:10 GMT From: cc1@cs.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Naming the space station. How about "Fred"? Yeah. Fred the Space Station. I like that. --Net.Rabbit ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 88 20:43:29 GMT From: mtunx!mtuxo!mtgzz!drutx!markf@rutgers.edu (mark felton) Subject: Sun-Earth Orbit In response to the recent querry on placing objects in an orbit balanced between the sun and earth. There was a program called ISIS that was done by NOAA for measuring flares from the sun in which an orbit similar to the one described was used. The orbit was called a HALO orbit. The main ISIS satellite was placed in this balanced orbit - balancing the gravitation of the earth and sun. The satellite was made to move back and forth across the suns face, since radio transmission is useless directly into the sun. Measurements were made of the sun then transmitted when outside the radio interference edge of the sun. The satellite was later moved into another orbit and given a new name. I believe it was used to measure a comet. drutx!markf ------------------------------ Path: ucbvax!pasteur!ames!lll-tis!lll-winken!uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry From: utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Antimatter propulsion questions Date: 22 May 88 01:08:23 GMT Lines: 8 Apparently-To: space-incoming@angband.s1.gov > What is actually proposed as a fuel? Anti-hydrogen? Right. Antiprotons we can and do make, positrons are not that hard, and combining the two is easy. Making complex nuclei is orders of magnitude harder; it has been done (anti-deuterons have been observed), but barring some fundamental breakthrough in production technology, anti-hydrogen is so expensive to make that anything more complex is out of the question. Pity. It would be nice not to need cryogenic temperatures, especially since the latent heat of freezing is a real problem. ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 88 15:45:44 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Naming the space station. In article <5568@cup.portal.com> Daniel_C_Anderson@cup.portal.com writes: >I second motion to name a Space Station after the late and >sincerely lamented Robert A. Heinlein. If the space-station was named the "Robert A. Heinlein", would it be called "Bob" for short?? By the way, the list of names I posted is the working list by the naming committee. They are not accepting any new names as of last week. "Roger Houston, Space Station Bob 1, copies. . . ." -- *** mike (Cyberpunk in training) smithwick *** "Use an Atari, go to jail!" [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #251 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Jun 88 07:07:53 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA18242; Tue, 14 Jun 88 03:26:45 PDT id AA18242; Tue, 14 Jun 88 03:26:45 PDT Date: Tue, 14 Jun 88 03:26:45 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806141026.AA18242@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #252 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 252 Today's Topics: Space station names US-USSR space cooperation Re: When in doubt, nuke it... Space Station Work Packages (longish) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 May 88 11:59:54 EDT From: "Jerry Davis Rsch. Statistician" Subject: Space station names How about "Station Silmarill", the shining jewel in the sky! -Jerry BITNET JDAVIS@GRIFFIN Acknowledge-To: ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 88 07:50:04 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: US-USSR space cooperation Here is a NASA summary of cooperative efforts & plans involving the SU. ===================================================================== U.S./SOVIET SPACE COOPERATION U.S./USSR Space Science Agreement The U.S./USSR agreement on cooperation in space science was signed in Moscow by Secretary Shultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze on April l5, l987. The agreement establishes joint working groups (JWG) in five areas: o Space biology and medicine o Solar system exploration o Space astronomy and astrophysics o Solar-terrestrial physics o Earth sciences A total of l6 cooperative project areas are listed in the annex to the space agreement covering the five disciplines listed above. Additional projects may be added to the annex by mutual agreement through an exchange of diplomatic notes. Status of Joint Working Group Activities Space Biology and Medicine JWG NASA and its Soviet counterparts have agreed that meetings of all five JWGs will take place over the next year. The U.S./USSR Space Biology and Medicine JWG met in early August l987 in Moscow and Nal'chik, USSR. Agreement was reached at this meeting on NASA participation in three upcoming Soviet biosatellite missions (in October l987, l989 and l991); exchange of biomedical data from the U.S. Shuttle and Soviet Salyut 7 and Mir space station missions; establishment of implementation teams on biomedical data standardization, exobiology and Shuttle/Spacelab flight experiments; and production of a joint publication surveying progress in space biology and medicine. NASA-sponsored scientists participated in the Soviet Cosmos l887 Biosatellite mission which took place from September 29 to October 12, l987. A total of 27 U.S. experiments were conducted in connection with this mission, which flew 2 primates, l0 rats and a variety of biological and plant speciments for a l3-day mission. Despite problems with one of the monkeys which managed to free one arm in flight, and landing 3000 km northeast of the planned nominal landing site, mission science objectives were not seriously affected. This is the sixth USSR biosatellite mission inwhich NASA has participated. Previous missions took place in l975, l977, l979, l983 and l985. Solar System Exploration JWG At the U.S./USSR Solar System Exploration JWG meeting, December 7-13, a range of implementing activities to carry out the six solar system exploration projects enumerated in the U.S./USSR space agreement were discussed. Teams are to be organized to implement cooperation in coordination of Mars missions, reciprocal scientific participation in the USSR Phobos and U.S. Mars Observer missions, Mars landing site selection, Venus data exchanges and lunar, cosmic dust and meteorite exchanges. NASA is cooperating with its Soviet counterparts in connection with the l988 USSR Phobos mission which will investigate the planet Mars and its moon Phobos, utilizing NASA's Deep Space Network for position tracking of the Phobos landers. Prior to the recent Solar System Exploration JWG meeting, two technical meetings to discuss tracking requirements took place, the most recent on November 16-20. Equipment and compatibility testing will occur in the Soviet Union and the United States (Goldstone, Calif.) early next year. Other JWG Group Meetings The Space Astronomy and Astrophysics and the Solar- Terrestrial Physics Joint Working Groups will schedule meetings in l988 to discuss the following topics: Space Astronomy and Astrophysics JWG o Exchange of scientific data in the field of radio astronomy o Exchange of scientific data in the fields of cosmic gamma-ray, x-ray and sub-millimeter astronomy. o Exchange of scientific data and coordination of program and investigations relative to studies of gamma-ray burst data. Solar-Terrestrial Physics JWG o Coordination of observations from solar terrestrial physics missions and the subsequent exchange of appropriate scientific data. Joint Summit Statement on U.S./USSR Cooperation in Global Change Research The December l0 joint statement by President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev endorsed "a bilateral initiative to pursue joint studies in global climate and environmental change through cooperation in areas of mutual concern, such as protection and conservation of stratospheric ozone, and through increased data exchanges...". The April l5 space science agreement called for coordination of activities in the study of global changes in the natural environment as one of 16 initial agreed projects. A U.S./USSR Earth Sciences Joint Working Group meeting is planned for the first half of l988 to agree on concrete steps to implement cooperation in this area in support of the two leaders initiative. Proposals for U.S./USSR Manned or Unmanned Mars Mission Recently there have been numerous press articles speculating on the possibility of a joint U.S./USSR manned or unmanned mission to Mars. To date, there have been no official discussions between the U.S. and Soviet Union on either a joint manned or unmanned mission to Mars. Mars is one of the most attractive and potentially rewarding subjects for exploration in our solar system. NASA believes there is great potential for mutual scientific benefit through coordination between the two countries' Mars missions and programs. The April space agreement outlines four specific areas of cooperation pertaining to Mars exploration, as mentioned above: o Coordination of the Phobos, Vesta and Mars Observer missions and exchange of scientific data o Utilization of the U.S. Deep Space Network for position tracking of the Phobos and Vesta landers and subsequent exchange of scientific data. o Joint studies to identify the most promising landing sites on Mars. o Invitation, by mutual agreement, of co-investigators' and/or interdisciplinary scientists' participation in the Mars Observer and the Phobos and Vesta missions. At the present time, neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union is committed to join in a new major manned or unmanned Mars mission. The U.S. has not yet committed to unmanned missions beyond the Mars Observer, much less to its own manned mission to Mars. The space science agreement signed in Moscow last spring provides a logical starting point and potential foundation for success in coordinated current and future space activities between the U.S. and the USSR. ===================================================================== Eric ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 88 17:05:17 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Re: When in doubt, nuke it... In article <4578@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >I think you guys should be asking yourselves what you could put on board >Mars Observer to give you 1m resolution or better at selected sites, >rather than fantasizing about nuking a landing pad. Well, I guess I'd best talk early to the guys at my summer job; they should be able to throw plenty of light on the subject. (No pun intended) I think the numbers that were being tossed around were in the range of 1m, but I'll check before committing anything to the network. -- Joe Beckenbach beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu Caltech 1-58, Pasadena CA 91125 Mars Observer Camera, GSE (Ground Support Engineering?) Programmer Caltech Planetary Sciences E&AS (CS) BS 1988 ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 88 07:44:41 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: Space Station Work Packages (longish) >From NASA SpaceLink BBS (205) 895 0028 (Huntsville, AL) ===================================================================== SPACE STATION WORK PACKAGE FACT SHEET WORK PACKAGE 1 Marshall Space Flight Center is responsible for Space Station Program Work Package 1, including responsibility for the laboratory module, habitation module, logistics elements and fabrication of the primary structure for the resource nodes. Marshall also is responsible for development of the environmental control and life support system, internal components of the audio/visual and thermal control systems, as well as for operational capability development for users in the laboratory module. The Johnson Space Center, through special provisions within the Work Package 1 contact, will exercise technical direction for the manned space subsystems. LABORATORY MODULE The U.S. laboratory module will be cylindrical, measuring approximately 44 feet long and 14 feet in diameter and will provide a shirt-sleeve environment for performing laboratory functions. The laboratory module will be capable of supporting multi-discipline payloads including materials research and development activities, materials processing demonstrations, life sciences research and other space science investigations requiring a pressurized area. User-provided equipment that can be housed in the laboratory module include furnaces for growing semiconductor crystals, electrokinetic devices for separating pharmaceuticals, support equipment needed to carry out a wide spectrum of low-gravity experiments and applications, and a centrifuge for variable gravity experiments in life sciences. HABITATION MODULE Facilities for eating, sleeping, personal hygiene, waste management, recreation, health maintenance and other functions requiring pressurized space will be provided in the habitation module. The module will be the same size as the laboratory module and will accommodate up to 8 astronauts. Using the health maintenance facility, astronauts will be able to monitor their health through vital signs, X-rays and blood samples. There also will be exercise equipment for daily physical conditioning. LOGISTICS ELEMENTS These include elements required for transporting cargo to or from the Space Station for the resupply of items required for the crew, station, and payloads; and for on-orbit storage of these cargos. A key element will be the pressurized logistics carrier, which will carry items used inside the Space Station modules. The other elements include unpressurized logistics carriers used for transporting spares used external to the Space Station modules, fluids and propellants. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM (ECLSS) The ECLSS will provide a shirt-sleeve environment for the astronauts in all pressurized modules on the Space Station. A key feature is the regenerative design employed in the air revitalization and water reclamation systems. RESOURCE NODE STRUCTURE The resource nodes are required to interconnect the primary pressurized elements of the manned portion of the Space Station and also will house certain key control functions. The equipment provided by Work Package 1 consists of the resource node structures, berthing mechanisms, racks, ECLSS, internal thermal control, and internal audio and video communication systems. WORK PACKAGE 2 NASA's Johnson Space Center is responsible for the design, development, verification, assembly and delivery of the Work Package 2 Space Station flight elements and systems, which include the integrated truss assembly, propulsion assembly, mobile servicing system transporter, resource node design and outfitting, external thermal control, data management, operations management, communication and tracking, extravehicular systems and guidance, navigation and control systems, and the airlocks. JSC also is responsible for the attachment systems to the STS for its periodic visits. Additionally, JSC is responsible for flight crews, crew training and crew emergency return definition, and for operational capability development associated with operations planning. JSC will provide technical direction to the contractor for the design and development of all manned space subsystems. INTEGRATED TRUSS ASSEMBLY The integrated truss assembly is the Space Station structural framework to which the modules, solar power arrays, external experiments, Earth- and astronomical-viewing instruments, and mobile transporter will be attached. PROPULSION ASSEMBLY The propulsion assembly will be used to adjust or maintain the orbit of the Space Station to keep it at the required altitude. Work package 2 has responsibility for the overall propulsion system. Technical direction for the thruster assembly elements of the propulsion system will be provided by MSFC. MOBILE TRANSPORTER SYSTEM The mobile servicing system will be a multi-purpose mechanism equipped with robotic arms to help assemble and maintain the Space Station. The contractor will build the mobile base; Canada will provide the mobile servicing system which includes robotic arms and special purpose dextrous manipulators. RESOURCE NODES The resource nodes house most of the command and control systems for the Space Station as well as being the connecting passageways for the habitation and laboratory modules. Work Package 2 will outfit the node structures provided by Work Package 1 to accomplish the objectives of each node. EVA SYSTEMS Extravehicular activity (EVA) systems includes equipment such as the extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) or spacesuit, provisions for communication, physiological monitoring, and data transmission, EVA crew rescue and equipment retrieval provision, and EVA procedures. Airlocks for crewmember extravehicular activity also will be designed as part of Work Package 2. EXTERNAL THERMAL CONTROL The external thermal system provides cooling and heat rejection to control temperatures of electronics and other Space Station hardware located outside the modules and nodes. ATTACHMENT SYSTEMS In addition to devices permitting Space Station docking by the Space Shuttle and logistics resupply modules, this includes systems for attaching experiment packages and other external hardware to the truss structure. GUIDANCE, NAVIGATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM (GN&C) The guidance, navigation and control system is composed of a core system and traffic management functions. The core system function provides attitude and orbital state maintenance, supports the pointing of the power system and thermal radiators, accomplishes periodic reboost maneuvers, and provides Space Station attitude information to other systems and users. The traffic management function provides for controlling all traffic in the area around the Space Station, including docking and berthing operations and trajectories determination of vehicles and objects which may intersect the orbit of the Space Station. COMMUNICATIONS AND TRACKING SYSTEM (C&T) The communications and tracking system is composed of six subsystems: space-to-space communications with crew members during extravehicular activity, aboard the Space Shuttle, and with the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle; space-to-ground communications through the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System to ground data networks; internal and external voice communication through the audio subsystem; internal and external video requirements through the video subsystem; management of C&T resources and data distribution through the control and monitor subsystem; and navigation data through the tracking subsystem. DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (DMS) The data management system provides the hardware and software resources that interconnect onboard systems, payloads, and operations to perform data and information management. Functional services provided by DMS include data processing, data acquistion and distribution, data storage, and the user interface to permit control and monitoring of systems and experiments. Crew safety is an essential consideration in the development of the Space Station. A major system failure aboard the Space Station, injuries or illness may require the return of crew members to Earth during a period when the Space Shuttle is unavailable. NASA's Johnson Space Center has responsibility for conducting definition-phase studies of a Crew Emergency Return Vehicle which could be used to supplement the Shuttle in such circumstances. WORK PACKAGE 3 NASA'S Goddard Space Flight Center is responsible for development of several of the Station's elements including the free-flying platforms and attached payload accommodations, and for planning NASA's role in satellite servicing. Goddard also has responsibility for developing the Flight Telerobotic Servicer which is being procured through a separate competition. FREE-FLYING PLATFORMS Goddard will manage the detailed design, development, test and evaluation of the automated free-flying polar platform. This unmanned platform will feature modular construction to permit on- orbit ease of serviceability and flexibility for accommodating a variety of scientific observations. ATTACHED PAYLOAD ACCOMMODATIONS The Space Station attached payloads are the instruments and experiments designed to gather scientific data while attached directly to the truss framework of the Space Station. Goddard is responsible for providing utilities such as power, thermal control, data handling, pointing stability and other equipment needed to operate the payloads and for insuring that the instruments are pointed at the intended targets. Two attachment points are provided, one of the attach points is fixed and the other has an articulated pointing system. FLIGHT TELEROBOTIC SERVICER Goddard is responsible for building the Flight Telerobotic Servicer. This system will be capable of in-space assembly of Station elements and payload servicing. As the system is evolved, it will perform telerobotic servicing and repair of spacecraft visiting the Space Station. In the future, a telerobotic servicer-equipped Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle could retrieve, as well as service, spacecraft beyond the Space Station's orbit. WORK PACKAGE 4 Lewis Research Center is responsible for the end-to-end electric power system architecture for the Space Station and for providing the solar arrays, batteries, and common power distribution components to the platforms. The power system includes power generation and storage, and the management and distribution of power to the final user interface. The electric power system is required to have the capability to deliver 75 kW of electric power with a growth potential to 300 kW. POWER GENERATION Initially, Space Station power will be provided by eight flexible, deployable solar array wings. This configuration minimizes the complexity of the assembly process by taking advantage of the technology demonstrated on Space Shuttle flights. Each 32- by 96-foot wing consists of two blanket assemblies covered with solar cells. These are stowed in blanket boxes which are attached to a deployment canister. Each pair of blankets is to be deployed and supported on a coilable, continuous longeron mast. A tension mechanism will supply tension to the blanket as it reaches complete extension. The entire wing will be tied structurally to the transverse boom by means of the beta gimbal assembly. To provide the power needed during the period of Space Station assembly, two solar wings and other elements of the power system are scheduled to be carried up on each of the first two Space Station assembly flights. These four wings will provide 37.5 kw of power. The remaining four panels will be delivered on orbit after the permanently-manned configuration is reached. Lewis also is responsible for developing and testing proof of concept hardware for the solar dynamic power module to prepare for the growth phase of the Station. In addition, sufficient preliminary design efforts will be performed to insure that the Space Station can accommodate the solar dynamic modules. POWER STORAGE Ni-H2 batteries will store the energy produced by the solar arrays. A battery pack is made up of 23 Ni-H2 cells, wiring harness and mechanical/thermal support components. On discharge, this operates near 28 v which allows the flexibility to connect several packs in series to obtain a high voltage system for the Space Station and platforms or use of single packs as a candidate for other low voltage applications. Ni-H2 batteries offer minimum weight and high reliability with minimum redundancy required for the polar platform. During the eclipse periods, power is supplied by the energy storage systems. POWER MANAGEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION (PMAD) The 20 kHz PMAD system is designed specifically to meet aerospace requirements. It is based upon rapid semiconductor switching, low stored reactive energy, and cycle-by-cycle control of energy flow, allowing tailoring of voltage levels. It is user friendly and can easily accommodate all types of user loads. The PMAD system will deliver controlled power to many scattered loads. The high frequency ac power system was selected to provide higher efficiency, lower cost and improved safety. ===================================================================== Eric ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #252 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Jun 88 06:22:42 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19836; Wed, 15 Jun 88 03:22:18 PDT id AA19836; Wed, 15 Jun 88 03:22:18 PDT Date: Wed, 15 Jun 88 03:22:18 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806151022.AA19836@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #253 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 253 Today's Topics: Soviet Space Shuttle space news from April 18 AW&ST Re: Astronaut selection More Soviet Shuttle news Re: NASA Technical Briefs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 May 88 19:54:05 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: Soviet Space Shuttle See rec.ham-radio message #4313 Amsat News #135 posted by Phil Karn for the latest information on the Soviet Space Shuttle. ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 88 05:14:18 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from April 18 AW&ST [If you're wondering why there's been somewhat of a hiatus in my AW&ST postings, it's because I got rather more caught up than usual and took it easy for a bit. I normally run about a month behind, partly because it often takes that long for me to get and read AW&ST, and partly as a deliberate policy to avoid direct competition with AW&ST.] Arianespace says it would have to match China's $30M launch price if Long March started really attracting customers, although it would be difficult to keep it that low. SDI's Boost Surveillance Tracking System satellite will use solar power rather than an isotope power pack, due to a combination of launch- safety clearance worries and the high cost and scarcity of Pu-238, the isotope normally used. USAF report urges efforts in small space nuclear reactors, in the 5-40kW range. Report recommends against a second full-scale development project at this time, as the existing SP-100 project is very expensive and is eating up all available resources in the area; this is unfortunate since some other concepts could be demonstrated at rather lower cost. ESA is replacing possibly-faulty US-supplied memory chips in Ulysses while waiting for its 1990 (maybe) launch. The project is also installing a new ground-based mission operations computer because the existing one is now seriously obsolete! Ulysses was originally meant to fly in 1983. One other effect of the delay is that power-management procedures are being revised, since the output of Ulysses's isotope power pack will be down substantially by launch time. It was deemed too difficult and far too expensive to refuel the power pack, despite the long delay. The loss of power is awkward but is not expected to jeopardize the primary mission. ESA's Hipparcos astrometry satellite undergoes final tests, after which it will go into storage until launch next year on Ariane 4. Ariane's problems have delayed the launch from this July to next June. Picture of TDRS-C being readied for delivery to KSC as payload for STS-26. NASA doubles official limits for insulation debonds on shuttle SRBs and begins to stack SRBs for STS-26. Tests on the SSME LOX pumps have given them a clean bill of health, and they have been reinstalled. Ed Aldridge, Sec USAF, says that ALS is no longer a project to develop a specific heavy launcher: it has been revised to a much vaguer technology effort, partly as a result of budget-induced delays in SDI and the space station. Retired USAF general Sam Phillips [if that name does not ring a bell, dig into your reference books and find out who was the overall top boss of Project Apollo] says the US space program has been "trying to do the impossible" by trying to maintain space leadership "on the cheap". He urges attention to the lessons from Apollo: the need for firm support from the White House on down, realistic budget planning, better relations between government and industry, and much simpler organizations and review processes. Space station price tag on the rise, yet again... NASA says that inflation and the one-year stretchout from FY88 budget cuts have turned $14.6G into $16G. [Does anyone seriously still think this gold-plated turkey has any real chance of survival?] British decision imminent on whether to re-enter the polar-platform part of ESA's Columbus; this would probably mean abandoning its proposed role in Canada's Radarsat project. [They did and it did. Boo hiss. I think it's good that Britain is being a bit less negative toward ESA, but dumping Radarsat was dumb.] Fletcher tells symposium that a joint US/USSR lunar base makes more sense as an initial objective than a joint Mars mission, saying this would allow building a "stable foundation" for further exploration. Pictures of the March 25 Scout launch from the San Marco platform. Aerospatiale picked as lead contractor for the Infrared Space Observatory, to be launched in 1993 carrying a 9m-focal-length infrared telescope and enough liquid helium to keep it running 18 months. Selenia Spazio picked as lead contractor for ESA's Data Relay Satellite system (ESA's answer to TDRS). Italy is financing quite a bit of the program, hence its prominent role. Final production goahead would be late next year, for first launch (out of two) in 1995. Starfind, the dark-horse private-navsat company, signs major contract with Starfind South America to provide navsat services there, and claims similar contracts near completion in other areas. Starfind is hoping for a December launch on a Conestoga booster, but there may be some delay. Starfind says it will not apply for an FCC license, as it expects to operate under DoD authorization. [Now, for a less positive report, from the 23 April issue of Flight International...] Starfind still has no funding or FCC approval, despite committing to five launches and the 17-year South American contract. It is also running behind, with Geostar conspicuously out in front. Geostar's piggyback payloads on existing comsats are already getting results: Countrywide Truck Service of California located a $50k stolen truck using the truck's Geostar transponder. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 88 04:56:19 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: Re: Astronaut selection >Um, why does Stanford show up twice in that list? >-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX Good question - I'll ask when I have a chance. Eric ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 May 88 16:16:58 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: More Soviet Shuttle news The latest information on the Soviet Shuttle seems to be raising the confusion level as to whether it is going to be manned or not. Alexander Dunayev, chairman of Glavcosmos, stated that first flight would be unmanned, consisting of 2 orbits and an automated landing during a interview in Spaceflight magazine. Also it would be several years before it few manned. In an interview with CBS Col. Vladimir Dzhanibekov, the most senior Russian cosmonaut (5 missions) stated that the first few shuttle flights will be ' unmanned. The next night on Radio Moscow the statement was made by first mission would "probably" have a two person crew. Aviation Week of May 23 then reported that Lt. Gen. Vladimir Shatalov, head of the Star City cosmonaut training facility, stated "When the Americans tested their shuttle, two men took off. I believe that this experience is reasonable and can be used in our country". Mission time is uncertain, with statements from Radio Moscow saying a few weeks ago that flights will be done in June, while AWST is stating that August will be the flight time. It appears now from several sources that the actual flight vehicle does not have jet engines for landing. These are only on the atmosphere test vehicle, which has had between 20 and 50 test landings (depending on which source you hear - respectively AWST and Dzhanibekov). The rumour that their Shuttle was going to fly on May 18th probably came from someone seeing that there was going to be a major tour of the Baikonur Cosmodrome for the western press on that date, and assuming that it was the promised news coverage of the shuttle mission. Actually it may a dry run of by their publicity people to see what problems would occur on the shuttle launch date handling the western media people. Also it was good publicity just before the summit meeting. In one shuttle and space station related mission it was pointed out in the May Spaceflight issue that the Luch communication satellite launch of Cosmos 1897 in Nov. '87 placed the comsat at 85 degrees West, just over South America where it cannot be directly seen by the USSR. The Luch' are the Russian equivalents of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellites, and are designed certainly for Mir communications (which they have been tested with) and probably for their Shuttle. This position is ideal for communications just prior to the reentry path for a Baikonur Cosmodrome landing (where their big runway is). Data from the Luch can be sent via Cuba to another comsat, or to the Luch over the USSR, and down to the control center. All of this confirms the reports that there is a battle between the robot orientated Institute for Automated Studies (which works on the control systems and built the successful Progress robot cargo craft) and the cosmonaut corps which argues humans handle tasks like landing etc. better. It is the manned verse unmanned debates, but it is both public and proceeding just months before the missions. The cosmonauts feel they are ready (they have trained for a flight for years), while the robot scientists do not want to risk them. Who knows which side will win. I just hope this country's shuttle will begin flying again soon so that the West has some manned missions this year. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab. ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 88 14:15 PDT From: William Daul / McAir / McDonnell-Douglas Corp Subject: Re: NASA Technical Briefs message Write to: NASA Tech Briefs 41 E. 42nd Street Suite 921 New York, NY 10017-5391 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #253 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Jun 88 06:28:23 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA21403; Thu, 16 Jun 88 03:27:40 PDT id AA21403; Thu, 16 Jun 88 03:27:40 PDT Date: Thu, 16 Jun 88 03:27:40 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806161027.AA21403@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #254 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 254 Today's Topics: SPACE Digest V8 #231 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sender: "Jeffrey_D._Kane.ESXC15"@xerox.com Date: 25 May 88 10:53:09 PDT (Wednesday) Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #231 From: ota@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov GVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGV From: Ted Anderson To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #231 Return-Path: Redistributed: XeroxSpace^.x Received: from angband.s1.gov by Xerox.COM ; 24 MAY 88 21:20:19 PDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06585; Tue, 24 May 88 20:05:09 PDT id AA06585; Tue, 24 May 88 20:05:09 PDT Original-Date: Tue, 24 May 88 20:05:09 PDT Message-Id: <8805250305.AA06585@angband.s1.gov> GVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGVGV SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 231 Today's Topics: Group for Space Camp Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Shooting the Moon Re: Cometesimals (was: Millions of comets hit Earth) Nevada fuel plant explosion runway designations Re: Nevada fuel plant explosion Re: runway designations Re: runway designations Re: Nevada fuel plant explosion Re: Nevada fuel plant explosion Re: Nevada fuel plant explosion Re: Is it CBS or NASA? SRM Fuel Composition (was:Re: Nevada fuel plant explosion) Re: Is it CBS or NASA? Re: Is it CBS or NASA? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 May 88 03:37:42 GMT From: ulysses!terminus!picard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Luc) Subject: Group for Space Camp I lead a group of folks down to adult Space Academy level II each fall. This is a three day program leading to flights in the Shuttle simulator. The dates we are attending this year are October 7-9. The cost is $405 (10% off). I need to have all the money in by June 1. If you're interested, send email or call me at: 703-361-1290 (h) 703-689-5915 (w) ++rich ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 20:10:14 GMT From: aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!lear@rutgers.edu (eliot lear) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon We can use Mars to solve the world's parking problem ;-) In article <1662@bigtex.uucp> james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen) writes: > Why do it the expensive way when you can save money for other projects? Ohyeahsure. It reminds me of times when the military considered ABombs as practical solutions to all of our problems. Remember the days of John Foster Dulles and the French? Does science entirely understand the intended effects AND the side effects that would be caused by such an explosion? After all, in the long run, which way is the expensive way? Eliot Lear [lear@rutgers.edu] ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 16:15:28 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon In article <5121@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >1. EXPLOSION ON THE PAD: Folks, the Challenger disaster was bad, really >bad. But imagine if it had a nuclear warhead on board. Bye, bye South >Florida! A spaceship is one of the least stable places to keep a >warhead! Boy, I bet you have a tough time sleeping at night! What is the difference between: Rocket propelled vehicle capable of lifting off of the surface of a planet and travelling at barely suborbital velocities above the bulk of the atmosphere and conducting a controlled re-entry and a spaceship? (the first is a description of an ICBM) What is the connection between "a nuclear warhead" on the Challenger and "Bye, bye South Florida"? jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 88 19:40:09 GMT From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu (Bill Wyatt) Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon In article <5121@pucc.Princeton.EDU>, EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Eric Tilenius) writes: [...] > I think the Life-on-Mars opposition to this argument has been > adequately stated, but I wanted to point out a couple of extra > arguments against this which I sent Paul through EMAIL (did you get > it, Paul?): > > 1. EXPLOSION ON THE PAD: Folks, the Challenger disaster was bad, > really bad. But imagine if it had a nuclear warhead on board. Bye, > bye South Florida! A spaceship is one of the least stable places to > keep a warhead! I agree that the nuking Mars is a BAD IDEA, but the above is *very* unlikely to be a problem. Warheads just don't go off until armed, and they are not armed until well after launch. Remember the H-bomb dropped accidentally from a B52 over Spain in the 60's? Remember the Titan that blew up in its silo in Arkansas, tossing the warhead almost a mile? Bill UUCP: {husc6,ihnp4,cmcl2,mit-eddie}!harvard!cfa!wyatt Wyatt ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 May 88 18:22:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Joe Keane X-Andrew-Message-Size: 579+0 Subject: Re: Cometesimals (was: Millions of comets hit Earth) In some article spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com (Jay Freeman) writes: > Huh?? When you whack on something hard, you expect a louder noise, > not a different pitch, than when you whack on it more gently. The > analogy here is Moon <-> bell (or drumhead, or tabletop); LEM impact > <-> little hammer blow; impact of meteoroid or cometesimal <-> big > hammer blow. There are some natural resonant frequencies. A small impact tends to stimulate the higher ones, while a large impact tends to stimulate the lower ones. So you don't get different pitches, just a different distribution. --Joe ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 06:43:37 GMT From: lim@csvax.caltech.edu (Kian-Tat Lim) Subject: Nevada fuel plant explosion By now, you've all heard about the explosion at the hypergolic fuel plant in Nevada. This is supposed to cause further setbacks for the already-lame U.S. space program. Some early questions: 1) Shuttle uses monomethyl hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide for OMS/RCS. Does the reported sodium perchlorate have anything to do with this? If not, shouldn't it be unaffected? 2) What fuels do other launch systems use: Titan, Scout, Ariane? Kian-Tat Lim (ktl@wagvax.caltech.edu, GEnie: K.LIM1) ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 88 19:53:10 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: runway designations In the TV program SPACEFLIGHT there is a sequence of the shuttle landing on runway 23 at Edwards (There! That got it in sci.space). Runways are designated by the magnetic azimuth in 10 degree increments with the 0 omitted. Since the magnetic pole wanders have there been runways whose designations had to be changed? ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 17:23:49 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Nevada fuel plant explosion If sodium perchlorate was reported, correct the reporter: that should have been ammonium perchlorate. It's the oxidizer used in the SRBs. I think most of the rest of the active ingredients is taken up with aluminum powder. (I assume that the binder, sort of like synthetic rubber, is comparatively inactive.) As to how much effect on the space program, I suppose it depends on what percentage of the total supply of fuel comes out of that one facility. United Technologies, just a bit south and east of here, makes the solid booster for the Titan-4, and they sort of indicated that their supplier is not the one who had the accident. > 2) What fuels do other launch systems use: Titan, Scout, Ariane? a. Titan: Hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide for the liquid engines, and solid boosters using ammonium perchlorate and aluminum for the strap-ons. b. Scout: Solid fuel. Not sure what type, but guess amm.perch., etc. c. Ariane: LOX and (?) kerosene. Maybe LH2. The shuttle main engines, btw, use LOX + LH2. ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 14:11:45 GMT From: cat.cmu.edu!dep@pt.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) Subject: Re: runway designations Yes. Two airports I know of (AGC & ZZV, I think) had their runways relabeled. You could see the old numbers painted out beneath the new numbers. ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 22:16:10 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!edg@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: runway designations Yes, Runway designations change and variation lines move, and VORs get reset every few years. I don't know many of the details. One thing to remember is that runway designations are quite approximate. For example, San Jose has three parallel runways numbered 30L, 30R and 29. The actual runway heading is probably somewhere between them. OAKland's 33 is actually on a heading of 326 degrees. Consult your local instrument approach plate for the actual runway heading. -edg edg@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 88 23:20:37 GMT From: ubvax!unisv!vanpelt@lll-winken.llnl.gov (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: Nevada fuel plant explosion In article <52155@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >If sodium perchlorate was reported, correct the reporter: that should >have been ammonium perchlorate. It's the oxidizer used in the SRBs. I >think most of the rest of the active ingredients is taken up with >aluminum powder. (I assume that the binder, sort of like synthetic >rubber, is comparatively inactive.) The butyl rubber binder is also fuel; it burns quite nicely, though not as exothermic as aluminum dust. Starstruck's hybrid rocked used butyl rubber as a fuel and LO2 as oxidizer. I used to have the formula for the SRB propellant. It also contains some epoxy (about 5%?) and about 1% iron oxide as a 'combustion enhancer'. (Aluminum dust + iron oxide = thermite.) Mike Van Pelt ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 88 18:27:28 GMT From: ulysses!thumper!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Nevada fuel plant explosion > a. Titan: Hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide for the liquid engines, and > solid boosters using ammonium perchlorate and aluminum for the > strap-ons. Strictly speaking, the fuel for Titan is called Aerozine-50. This is a 50-50 mixture of straight hydrazine (N2H4) plus unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH -- take off the two hydrogens on one of the nitrogens in straight hydrazine and replace them with two methyl groups). Water is also present in small amounts, so it's really 49.5% N2H4 + 49.5% UDMH + 1% H2O. Straight hydrazine is denser than the organic variations (i.e., you can cram more of it into a tank), but it is less stable and it freezes at too high a temperature. The Aerozine-50 mixture is a good compromise. AMSAT Oscar-10 used UDMH in its kick motor; Phase 3-C (due to go up in a few weeks) will use Aerozine-50, mainly because its greater density will result in more kick per unit tank volume. The payload is heavier this time, but the same size tank and engine are being used. > c. Ariane: LOX and (?) kerosene. Maybe LH2. The Ariane first and second stages use UDMH + N2O4. The third stage is cryogenic; it uses LH2 + LO2. Kerosene is not used anywhere on the Ariane. It's easy to tell from a launch picture when hypergolic fuels like those used on Titan, Ariane and Proton are being used. The plume is almost transparent, unlike those of kerosene-fueled rockets that emit yellow-white plumes, or solid-fueled rockets that emit lots of dense white aluminum oxide smoke. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 88 21:37:33 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Nevada fuel plant explosion > c. Ariane: LOX and (?) kerosene. Maybe LH2. Tsk, tsk, two out of three wrong. Ariane first and second stages use nitrogen tetroxide and one of the hydrazine variants (UDMH I think). The third stage is LOX/LH2. Oh yeah, and solid strap-ons for the newer variants (also still-newer liquid strap-ons but I don't know what they burn, probably N2O4/UDMH). To add to the list... d. Atlas-Centaur: LOX/kerosene in Atlas, LOX/LH2 in Centaur. e. Delta: LOX/kerosene plus solid strap-ons. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 88 19:15:00 GMT From: silber@p.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? >By "victims of male technology" I understood a condemnation of the >macho attitude that led NASA not to include any sort of escape >mechanism in the shuttle. Which of course would imply some sort of >cowardice and fear of battle and might be misused if someone chickened >out and pushed the "let me out" button...right??? Can't have those >heros chickening out, can we? >Valerie Maslak Every U.S. spacecraft before the shuttle had an escape system. From what I understand, the difficulty with including one in the shuttle was that there was no way of including a system of more than marginal survivability that was usable in the boost phase. (For aerodynamic reasons an escape tower was impossible, likewise for an orbiter separation system. Ejection seats were used on the first flight, but would be to bulky to provide for all the crew, and if there is one thing NASA would not want it would be for the flight crew to punch out leaving the passengers.) The current system (the pole and parachutes) would only be of use either on the pad or in gliding (and subsonic) flight, and appears to be more of a PR scheme than anything useful, considering that those are the two safest portions of the launch. ami silberman ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 88 12:33:47 GMT From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrlnk!ncrwic!encad!mjohnson@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Mark Johnson) Subject: SRM Fuel Composition (was:Re: Nevada fuel plant explosion) The approximate solid fuel mix used in most of the various solid rocket motors goes something like this: 80% ammonium perchlorate 10% powdered aluminum (which coincidentally gives the white exhaust) 10% HTPB (Hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene, a polymer which serves as both fuel and plastic binder, and which not coincidentally provides a good deal of energy into the bargain (15-20% more than earlier solid recipes of polyurethane base and similar ratios). My percentages may be a bit off, but this is basically what's used. Mark Johnson (mjohnson@ncrwic.UUCP) ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 88 02:01:26 GMT From: killer!bigtex!james@eddie.mit.edu (James Van Artsdalen) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? IN article <74700087@uiucdcsp>, silber@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > Every U.S. spacecraft before the shuttle had an escape system. In principle at least, I believe they could also extinguish the rockets, which the shuttle can't (SRBs). > The current system (the pole and parachutes) would only be of use > either on the pad or in gliding (and subsonic) flight, and appears to > be more of a PR scheme than anything useful, considering that those > are the two safest portions of the launch. Is the pole really useful on the pad? Isn't there a tower in the way? :-) Even the ejection seats originally in place were not useful in ascent phase. Out of curiosity, what were the windows for the previous escape systems? How long before the rockets were moving too fast or too high? Question: Does anyone know when SRB separation occurs, height & velocity? I've been having trouble finding out. James R. Van Artsdalen ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 88 10:25:25 GMT From: lim@csvax.caltech.edu (Kian-Tat Lim) Subject: Re: Is it CBS or NASA? In article <1870@bigtex.uucp> james@bigtex.UUCP (James Van Artsdalen) writes: >Question: Does anyone know when SRB separation occurs, height & >velocity? I've been having trouble finding out. According to the Space Shuttle Operator's Manual, "By the time the solid motors consume their propellants (T + 2 minutes and 12 seconds) you have reached Mach 4.5 and an altitude of 28 miles (45 kilometers)." Kian-Tat Lim (ktl@wagvax.caltech.edu, GEnie: K.LIM1) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #231 ******************* ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #254 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Jun 88 12:19:57 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA22924; Fri, 17 Jun 88 03:25:55 PDT id AA22924; Fri, 17 Jun 88 03:25:55 PDT Date: Fri, 17 Jun 88 03:25:55 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806171025.AA22924@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #255 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 255 Today's Topics: Space Agencies Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST Re: Space suits women in space Placing shades at L1 Soviet manned space plans for the rest of 1988 Re: space news from April 18 AW&ST skintight space suits Re: one more bit about crew escape systems Summit Ad Re: Space suits Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST Yet another (Fletcher's) speech ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 May 88 23:46:38 GMT From: unmvax!charon!ariel.unm.edu!seds@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (SPACE EXPLORATION) Subject: Space Agencies Hello everyone. We need the addresses for ESA and the Soviet space program. Trying to get some info. Could someone either e-mail or post them? Thanks, Ollie Eisman - N6LTJ ====================== seds@ariel.unm.edu ========================== SEDS-UNM : Students for the Exploration and Development of Space Box 92 Student Union, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87106 (505) 898-1974 ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 88 21:44:59 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST > One of the British V-bombers (possibly the Vulcan) did have ejection > seats for the pilot and copilot, but none for the rest of the three > crew. I believe the ejection seats were even used once. Does anyone > remember this better than me? Well, a bit better anyway... My recollection is that several of the V-bomber-era large British aircraft had this setup, and that there were several fatal crashes in which the pilots got out but nobody else did. Note the B-1 birdstrike crash some months ago in which extra crew, aboard for training, suffered the same fate. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 88 00:38:22 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space suits > >...the "space activity suit" concept, in which the body of the suit is just > >extra-stretchy fabric to supply pressurization... > > How long would an astronaut have to be EVA to have a 50% chance of being > injured by a chunk of crud (either artificial or man-made)? > Do harder suits provide protection, or is the energy too high? Debris protection is definitely one of the strong points of the hard suits. However, you would want some sort of overgarment for a space activity suit anyway, to supply thermal insulation and micrometeorite protection. Said garment is a lot easier to build if it doesn't have to be pressure-tight. Note that we're not talking about the equivalent of bullets. Things like paint flakes will vaporize the instant they hit -- the effect is more that of a tiny explosion. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Return-Path: clopez@orion.cf.uci.edu Date: Wed, 25 May 88 17:03:40 -0700 From: "Carlos A. lopez" Subject: women in space Sender: clopez@orion.cf.uci.edu Favorite Drink: RC Cola > Admittedly, women are at an advantage as astronauts as they tend to be > shorter and lighter and just as smart. More bang for the buck as it were. I remember hearing on one of those half hour "Gee, isn't science neat" shows that women have lower metabolisms (overall) than men. Some comments were also made that the first interplanetary crews might be mostly women to reduce the demands on the life support system. That doesn't mean that all women have lower metabolisms than all men. But the idea of having a "biologically efficient" crew (for lack of a better term) does make sense. Have any experiments been done or are planned to test the effects of 0-g on metabolism? It seems to me that individuals with slow-twitch muscle fibers might be better suited to extended voyages than those with a fast-twitch physiology, regardless of sex. They use oxygen better, and tend to have less muscle mass. (Quick biology lesson: slow-twitch muscle fibers contract slower, but can do so longer because they use oxygen better. Fast-twitch fibers contract faster, and more powerfully, but tire quickly. Runners, bikers, and such have a higher proportion of slow to fast fibers. Weight lifters, sprinters, and such have a higher proportion of fast to slow fibers.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos A. Lopez (clopez@ucivmsa) | Q: Why won't there be a full moon again? University of California at Irvine | A: The astronauts brought part of it back. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 May 88 20:13:47 EDT From: dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Placing shades at L1 Instead of placing a large subshade at the L1 point, how about putting dust into the upper atmosphere? This has actually been discussed as a way to get around an increased greenhouse effect from CO2 pollution. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 May 88 12:14:30 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soviet manned space plans for the rest of 1988 The Soviets have a rather aggressive mission schedule in man related activities for the rest of this year. First is the June 7th Bulgarian mission, for which they held the "traditional" preflight press conference on May 22 (well they have done it for the last 4 missions). The crew consists of Victor Savinyhk (commander with 75 days on Soyuz T4/Salyut 6 and 168 days on Soyuz T13/Salyut 7 in June '85 - the Salyut rescue mission), Anatoly Stoyanov (rookie cosmonaut: Flight engineer) and Alexander Alexandrov (Bulgarian - backup on Soyuz 33 - Apr. '79). Then in August there will be the Afghan guest mission (crew not yet named), and in October/November the French month long mission with Jean-Loup Chretien. In addition the next Mir expansion module will lift off about September (according to Alexander Dunayev of Glavcosmos - their commercial marketing agency). It is described as an energetics module, with more living area, and possible a larger air lock (weight about 10-20 Tonnes and living area addition 50 - 100 cubic meters: my estimates). It probably will contain more solar panels just by its name (and the drawings of some of the modules). For the future additional "star" modules (also called heavy Cosmos) will be launched every 5 months, with 1989 containing first a technology module, followed by the Priroda remote sensing addition. The French should be upset about that - Priroda was planed to be up for their mission as of last year. 1990 will see either the Medilab life science addition or a scientific research module. Mir will be completely assembled by mid 1990 under current plans. Mir 2 is in advance design, planed for 1994-95, and will use Energyia for launching the core section. On board Mir/Kvant Vladimir Titov and Musa Manarov have now been up for 5 months. They are preparing to do a space walk to repair the failed British /Dutch X-ray telescope on board Kvant. For the record it appears that the Progress 35 tanker was undocked on May 5, and the Progress 36 launched on May 13th (to clear up the uncertainty generated by my May 11th posting). In the unmanned area the major mission is the two Mars/Phobos flights which will lift off this July 7th and 12th. Also on May 15th their new medium (SL-16) booster was used to orbit Cosmos 1943, an intelligence satellite the size of a school bus. The SL-16 is similar to the strap on booster of the big Energyia launcher. The strength of the Soviet's manned program is shown by the percentage of their launches that are devoted to that activity. If things go according to plans there will be 3 Soyuz flights in 1988. This should give them about 825 man days of orbital experience, (with an additional 47 man days for guest cosmonauts). Progress tankers are now arriving every 45 days on average, so that you would expect 8 this year, delivering 18.4 Tonnes of cargo/fuel/air and boosting the station each time they leave. With the Mir module addition that will give them at least 12 man related mission, or about 12% of their flights (without counting the shuttle mission). They also would have 767 manned days for Mir, against Salyut 7's 712 days total, and 23 months of permanent occupancy. Success goes not to the swiftest, but to the most persistent in the space business. Consistency of policy has not happened in this country in Space exploration for nearly two decades now. It shows. Let us change that. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 88 17:42:11 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: space news from April 18 AW&ST In article <1988May24.051418.14152@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >[If you're wondering why there's been somewhat of a hiatus in my AW&ST . . . >and partly as a deliberate policy to avoid direct competition with AW&ST.] >NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >the Post Office is to mail. Somehow, Henry, I don't think AW&ST has to worry about competition from the Usenet. (At least until you start releasing color pictures and images.) Nor do the postal services for that matter ;-). A small observation from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 88 17:17:50 GMT From: pacbell!att!alberta!ubc-cs!fornax!zeke@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Zeke Hoskin) Subject: skintight space suits I'm willing to accept that human skin makes a good enough space suit, with a little mechanical support. What about human guts, human bladders, and human wombs? I have the gut :-) feeling that with my head in a pressure bowl and the other end exposed, I wouldn't need external propulsion. How is that problem handled? Matching pressure shorts? ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 88 21:01:59 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: one more bit about crew escape systems In article <1988May24.214459.1696@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Note the B-1 birdstrike crash some months ago in which extra crew, aboard I was wandering the Mtn. View Public libray the other day when I found a book on the B-1. Note the Crew Capsule was unstable after 350 MPH and was abandoned. Any shuttle escape system has some pretty stiff working envelopes. --eugene ------------------------------ Subject: Summit Ad Date: Thu, 26 May 88 09:10:01 -0400 From: Fred Baube In today's Washington Post, the daily paper of Federal big-whigs, are articles about summit preparations and about a summit T-shirt authorized by Tass's popular music branch on sale here in DC, There is also a full-page ad in the first section by the Planetary Society. THE WAY TO MARS We have before us a historic opportunity to fulfill an ancient dream, to help preserve this world and to venture forth to another. The Planetary Society is the largest space-interest group in the world. For the last four years it has advocated Mars as the principal long-term goal for the US and Soviet space programs - robotic exploratory missions and long-duration space flight, leading to the epochal first landing of humans on another planet. Since then the moribund US-Soviet Space Co-operation Agreement has been renewed; US scientists will work on the forthcoming Soviet _Phosos_ mission, and Soviet scientists will work on the US _Mars_Observer_ mission, and three bills are now before the US Congress setting the goal of human exploration of Mars and encouraging US-USSR cooperation towards that goal. General Secretary Gorbachev has just explicitly called for a joint US-Soviet unmanned mission of discovery to Mars - important for its scientific harvest; for its potential to bring the two nations together in a great common enterprise; and, along with other robotic missions as a necessary precursor for joint human voyages to Mars early in the 21st century. Mars has now entered the realm of discourse between heads of government. [ There follows a Mars Declaration, concluding notes, and a long list in small type of Planetary Society luminaries ] /f ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 88 23:38:13 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Space suits > ... for satellite work, you'll be doing > a whole lot of outgassing, which is very bad for contaminating delicate > parts. > > Sounds bogus to me. They don't put satellites in a vaccum canister > for launch. Probably (1) NIH and (2) not expensive enough. Contamination is something you do have to worry about. Thermal coatings and solar arrays are especially susceptible. Satellites are invariably tested in a thermal vacuum chamber before launching, and one of the purposes of this test is to discover any volatile contaminants. When we tested AMSAT Phase 3-C, we first scrubbed down the surfaces with MEK solvent to remove fingerprints and such. During the test, a "cold plate" (a piece of metal cooled to liquid nitrogen temperature) inside the chamber captured any contaminants for later inspection. This is one of the things the laucher agency and primary payload owner want you to do, to show that your payload won't gum up the works. Satellites aren't sitting in a vacuum chamber at launch, but they *are* kept in a well controlled environment. This generally involves continuous purging with clean, dry nitrogen or air, temperature controlled to 20C. During assembly and final preparations for a launch, spacecraft technicians usually work in a clean room and wear gloves and special clothing. Take a look at the statistics on how much nitrogen gas is used for each shuttle flight. Virtually all if it is used for purging, just to keep out the dirt and moisture. Two technicians died before STS-1 because they entered an area being purged, and suffocated. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 88 14:52:53 GMT From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST In article <1988May24.214459.1696@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > > One of the British V-bombers (possibly the Vulcan) did have ejection > > seats for the pilot and copilot, but none for the rest of the three > > crew. I believe the ejection seats were even used once. Does anyone > > remember this better than me? > > Well, a bit better anyway... My recollection is that several of the > V-bomber-era large British aircraft had this setup, and that there were > several fatal crashes in which the pilots got out but nobody else did. > Note the B-1 birdstrike crash some months ago in which extra crew, aboard > for training, suffered the same fate. As well as one of the pilots, whose ejection seat failed. David Smith HP Labs ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 88 07:39:04 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: Yet another (Fletcher's) speech =========================================================================== NOTE TO EDITORS: FUTURE OF CIVIL SPACE PROGRAM HANGS IN BALANCE May 20, 1988 Without adequate funding in this crossroads year, "America's civil space program stands on the brink of collapse and may not have a future at all," NASA Administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher warned today. "Three decades of progress in space could come to a grinding halt if Congress fails to act responsibly in funding the NASA budget for fiscal year 1989," he said. Although the future of the program is "hanging by a few votes," the consequences are not as well understood as they should be, Dr. Fletcher said in a speech to the Los Angeles Rotary Club. "Many in Congress have not reflected adequately on what's at stake," he said. "Americans must face the fact that the epitaph of their countries greatness in space could be written this year because of lack of Congressional support. And if Congress doesn't rise to the challenge, it would be a tale of lack of vision, of hopes betrayed and of opportunities lost. It wouldn't make pleasant reading." NASA's fiscal year 1989 budget is currently being debated in Congress. The House Appropriations Subcommittee has reported a budget for NASA which, while falling below the Administration's request, could permit NASA to proceed with the Space Station. Much deeper cuts are threatened by the budget allocation now under consideration on the Senate side. The NASA Administrator, who has spoken out repeatedly on the NASA budget crisis in recent months, noted that a new study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also sees this as a crucial year for the civil space program. The study says Congress has a fundamental choice: either greatly increase the real resources devoted to the space program, or redirect NASA's program to accomplish much more limited goals. If Congress does not increase NASA's budget, there would be two alternatives, according to the CBO study. The first would require stretching NASA's current programs out well into the next century, "accepting higher risk and less achievement in space," the study says. The second would restructure NASA's current program toward unmanned activities in favor of "a less ambitious, but more concentrated effort." "In my view, both clearly would mean loss of United States leadership in space," Dr. Fletcher told the group. He said the consequences would bring a halt to work on the manned Space Station -- "the key to our future in space" -- and a drastic slowdown in Space Shuttle missions, which would mean further delays in launching important science and national security payloads. =========================================================================== Eric ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #255 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Jun 88 06:24:43 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00843; Sat, 18 Jun 88 03:23:51 PDT id AA00843; Sat, 18 Jun 88 03:23:51 PDT Date: Sat, 18 Jun 88 03:23:51 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806181023.AA00843@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #256 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 256 Today's Topics: Re: women in space Re: Naming the space station. The launch loop author replies: NTSL := John Stennis Tony England resigns from NASA Re: Space Agencies Re: Space Station Names ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 May 88 14:11:24 GMT From: mmm!allen@UMN-CS.ARPA (Kurt Allen) Subject: Re: women in space In article <8805260102.AA08795@angband.s1.gov>, clopez@ORION.CF.UCI.EDU ("Carlos A. lopez") writes: > I remember hearing on one of those half hour "Gee, isn't science neat" > shows that women have lower metabolisms (overall) than men. Some comments > were also made that the first interplanetary crews might be mostly women > to reduce the demands on the life support system. Just a note. Women scuba divers typically use approx. 2/3'rds of the air that male scuba divers, of the same abilities, use. My women diver friends will last almost as long on a 40 cu foot air tank as myself on a 72. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- rutgers!umn-cs!mmm!allen | Kurt W. Allen ihnp4!mmm!allen | 3M/Digital Imaging Acquisition Center ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 88 15:26:53 GMT From: eachus@mitre-bedford.arpa (Robert Eachus) Subject: Re: Naming the space station. I like the idea of naming something after Robert Heinlein, but it shouldn't be a space station in low earth orbit. A lunar colony would be much more appropriate. Willy Ley is already on the moon, but his name would be very appropriate for a station on or around Mars. I hope George Low's name can get on to the list considered for the Space Station, to me it seems the most appropriate, and it would be used! "I'm going to Low Station next week...", does not sound pretentious and delivers the message, where "I'm going to Minerva next week..." just doesn't hack it. Robert I. Eachus with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER; use STANDARD_DISCLAIMER; function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is... ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 88 03:13:28 GMT From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: The launch loop author replies: As John Gregor (a former student of mine and an unabashed partisan for the launch loop) observes, it is hard to make a valid criticism of the launch loop without reading the technical paper. The December 1983 "Analog" article wasn't the proper forum for technical details; it also was written 5 years ago and many problems have been solved since then. However, John has done an able job of answering most of the questions (BRAVO, John), saving me some effort. I will touch again on a few points and add a few of my own: Important ideas since the Analog article: 1) The loop should be built over mid-ocean, far away from land. This actually eases construction (the biggest ocean wave is flatter than most hills, for example, and things are surprisingly quiet 20 meters down) but the most important aspects are safety and security. If the loop fails and throws pieces, they are unlikely to come down on people. 2) Loop technology is useful for other things, and this provides a growth path for the technology. Underground power storage and transmission may be possible (this depends on real world small-bore rock tunneling costs, an unknown). "Simple" towers built around 2Km/sec ribbons can poke above the atmosphere, and are useful for scientific observations and the modification of intercontinental ballistic "gift packages". Why that instead of passive structures? Well, without active control of guy wires and such, the passive towers must be quite massive to survive atmospheric perturbations (The atmosphere scales the launch loop cross section, too; a lunar launch loop can be millimeters across and launch kilogram payloads). So, with your active guy wires you might as well buy the whole package, and get the better strength-to-weight of the loop, and get energy storage for your "gift" modification apparatus. 3) "But what if it fails? Isn't there a lot of electronics to keep running?" --- the control sections are about 1 meter long in the middle of the loop. If they are designed properly, they will fail or not fail independently of each other. It takes about a 20 percent global failure rate, or 50 control sections in a row, to cause the loop to go unstable. (Why so many small segments? Resolution. What percentage good pixels are required for a readable terminal screen, assuming a slow hollywood scroll?) The controllers and magnets, and even ribbon sections, may be repaired and replaced during operation. The launch loop has lots of small, identical pieces; don't think of it as intricate, think of it as highly redundant. What is most likely to bring the machine down is incorrect programming. With proper instrumentation, and post-mortem analysis, such problems will eventually go away. In the interim, you just pick up the pieces, make some new ones, and start the system up again. This is part of the designed-in system cost. Down time with a "hot spare" would be about 2 weeks. Down time from on-shore warehouses a few months. No two year waits while your engineers try to fix boosters designed like fragmentation grenades (to please pork-barrel senators from Utah). You should eventually have a whole bunch of launch loops, anyway; there's room near the equator for thousands of them. Unlike Paul Birch's orbital rings, many loops can coexist without tangling if one fails. 4) The cost can be controlled if you use the following rules: (a) Don't make any pieces you can't buy (b) Make the pieces small (c) Make the pieces identical (d) Don't stop making the pieces. The launch loop has a few big pieces (the stations, the end magnet platforms, and the motor platform), but those can be build by any big steel construction company. The rest of the stuff is small and distributed, or off-the-shelf (like barges with gas-turbine power plants on them, cable ships, or the factory where you make new pieces). I still expect the loop to be damned expensive; perhaps as much as a replacement Shuttle, meaning it will be a while before it's worthwhile to do. 5) Stabilization: A big problem has been the stabilization of the infamous equation 33: .EQ (33) { { a sub rs ~ + ~ a sub 0 } over { a sub s ~ + ~ mu omega sup 2 } } ~ = ~ { ( omega - omega sub k ) sup 2 } over { mu omega sup 2 ~ + ~ ( omega - omega sub k ) sup 2 } .EN The $$ a sub 0 $$ term is the natural instability of a magnetic levitation system, while the $$ a sub rs $$ term is the controller output as a result of measuring the ribbon-track spacing. The $$ a sub s $$ term is based on the absolute position of the track, and must be determined (much more expensively) with laser interferometers and other such arcana. The trick is to come up with control equations that yield a finite number of damped poles over a wide range of $$ omega sub k $$ (which is the wavenumber times the velocity for a perturbation, == $$ 2 pi V sub r over lambda $$). I spent over a year stupidly banging away on $$ a sub rs $$ only, until I realized it was impossible to stabilize without ground measurements of some sort. After that, another year banging away on user-fiendish symbolic math packages trying various likely permutations of both control equations. Finally it dawned on me that you should add a term to the left side proportional to the right, and to the right side proportional to the left, throw in a few appropriately scaled damping factors, and everything stays hunky-dory and fourth order. This is where things are at right now; I am still figuring out what the physical implications of all this are. I've got a new version of the paper with the equations in it; I'll be bringing copies to the Denver conference. 6) "Okay, smarty pants, if it's so simple, why aren't you building one?" Well, first, I'm lazy. I wrote the "Analog" article to drum up interest. I mailed out around 200 copies of the paper, and wrote hundreds of personal letters. I was hoping someone would steal the ball and run with it. Nuh-uh. 7) "Where's my copy of the paper?" Well, see the part about lazy. Keep bugging me, third try should do. If you live in Tierra Del Fuego, find out what the U.S. postage for 5 ounces is to you, so I won't have to call the always-busy line at the post office (would someone send me a list of current international mail rates? Thank You!). Postage is cheap, time is precious. 8) "Why do this?" Well, I want to live and work in space. I don't want to make somebody else pay for it, so it must be affordable. Since nobody else is working on $10/lb low-gee launch systems, I guess it's my job. Sure the thing is too damn big. So are the alternatives, and they yield a much smaller payback for the same investment. If somebody out there has a system that will accomplish the same ends with a smaller investment, PLEASE LET ME KNOW! I'll send them money. I'll build their electronics. I'll clean their toilets if they need it! I may not get into space by working on the launch loop, or even helping on some yet-to-be-defined better system. But I sure as hell WON'T get there by telling somebody else how hard it is. If there were easy solutions, we'd already be there! Forty years from now, when you're in the back of the ambulance racing to the hospital, while the EMT is trying to restart your heart, you may have other regrets, but mine will probably be "I didn't make it into space". Most of the current crop of space "activists" will be dead before it's affordable to go there. Whose fault is that? -- Keith Lofstrom ...!tektronix!vice!keithl keithl@vice.TEK.COM MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 88 07:38:09 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: NTSL := John Stennis =========================================================================== PRESIDENT RENAMES NASA CENTER FOR SEN. JOHN C. STENNIS May 20, 1988 RELEASE 88-36 NASA's National Space Technology Laboratories (NSTL) was officially renamed the John C. Stennis Space Center by Executive Order of the President today. President Reagan signed the executive order to rename the NASA center for the distinguished Mississippi senator who is retiring after 41 years of service to the nation and the state. The president's executive order said, "Sen. John C. Stennis has served his country as a United States senator for over 40 years and has steadfastly supported the nation's space program since its inception. He has demonstrated visionary leadership and has consistently worked to assure United States world leadership and preeminence in space. NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher said "John C. Stennis has served as the father of NSTL since he led the efforts for its creation. His leadership of the nation's space program stands as a monument to his career of significant accomplishments." At NSTL, director Jerry Hlass said, "Senator Stennis made major contributions to our country and our state throughout his long and distinguished career. His support to the national space program has been consistently strong since NASA's inception. His close association with our center has contributed significantly to the growth and progress we have experienced over the past 27 years. He has been a leader and strong advocate for a preeminent role in space for the United States. The senator's interest in the advancement of science and technology continues today with his support of the Space Station, our nation's next logical step into space." The space center is one of eight NASA field centers in the country. NASA selected its Hancock County location in 1961 to test the Saturn V first and second stages for the Apollo program. The site was designated the Mississippi Test Facility when Saturn rocket testing began. In 1974 the installation was named the National Space Technology Laboratories because of its achievements and unique capabilities in space applications and Earth resources technologies. During the period between the Apollo and Space Shuttle programs, Stennis was instrumental in helping NASA achieve full utilization of the installation's facilities. Today, the NASA center employs more than 5,400 people and is the home of 18 federal and state agencies engaged in environmental, oceanographic and defense-related activities. Stennis, a frequent visitor to the space center that now bears his name, continues to support the space agency's current and future efforts. In his December 1987 "Report to Mississippians" newspaper column, the senator wrote, "While it is essential that we prioritize our spending and bring our federal deficit under control, we must look ahead to the future of our country." "The next logical step in space exploration is the establishment of a permanent Space Station that will assure world leadership in space for our country in the 1990s and beyond. We must be committed to this important program that will enhance our capabilities for scientific learning while stimulating our nation's economic development and defense programs." =========================================================================== Eric ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 88 08:17:59 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Tony England resigns from NASA Another astronaut has resigned from NASA because of delays in the Shuttle and Space Station programs: Dr. Tony England. He flew once, on a 1985 Challenger Spacelab mission during which he ran an amateur radio operation in his spare time. Tony's recent project in NASA had been the Space Station. See the AMSAT bulletin on rec.ham-radio for further details. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 88 18:14:07 GMT From: trwrb!ucla-an!ondine!steve@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Steve Jenkins) Subject: Re: Space Agencies In article <3121@charon.unm.edu> seds@ariel.unm.edu.UUCP (SPACE EXPLORATION) writes: > > > Hello everyone. We need the addresses for ESA and the Soviet > space program. European Space Agency 8-10, rue Mario-Nikis 75738 Paris Cedex 15 FRANCE (33.1) 42.73.76.54 -- Steve Jenkins ucla-an!steve@EE.UCLA.EDU Research Engineer {decvax,ihnp4}!hermix!ucla-an!steve UCLA Crump Inst for Med Engr (213)-825-4364 Steve Jenkins ucla-an!steve@EE.UCLA.EDU Research Engineer {decvax,ihnp4}!hermix!ucla-an!steve UCLA Crump Inst for Med Engr (213)-825-4364 ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 88 20:30:35 GMT From: uflorida!novavax!proxftl!rafael@umd5.umd.edu (Rafael Mayer) Subject: Re: Space Station Names In article <1833@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk>, adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) writes: > I thought Minerva was the Roman name for the Greek goddess Athene, the goddess > of wisdom. > > Maybe the Romans, being more militaristic, put her in charge of both, but I > thought that war was the speciality of Mars (Ares in Greek). Your right. She was also a warrior though. Her shield, the Aegis, is famous in the Greek Mythos. According to Homer, in the Iliad, she was one of the gods egging on the Greeks and Trojans against each other. (Oh, embarrasment, I forget on what side whe was on.) How about calling it Aegis? I like the concept of the shield, and the wise warrior and all that. JMHO. Rafael allegra!novavax!proxftl!rafael ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #256 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Jun 88 23:41:34 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02063; Sun, 19 Jun 88 03:26:39 PDT id AA02063; Sun, 19 Jun 88 03:26:39 PDT Date: Sun, 19 Jun 88 03:26:39 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806191026.AA02063@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #257 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 257 Today's Topics: Ruskies find Heaven to the left of Pluto dialing for dollars Re: Astronaut selection Re: Ruskies find Heaven to the left of Pluto NASA news - SN 1987A nova briefing NASA news - USA-Japan talks re. Station ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 May 88 14:55:58 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!jack@uunet.uu.net (Mr Jack Campin) Subject: Ruskies find Heaven to the left of Pluto First Hitler on the moon, and now this ... Front page story from the Sunday Sport, 22 May 1988. [For US readers: the Sunday Sport is basically a tits and bums paper, with more pages taken up with classified ads for soft porn phone services than anything else. This issue also claimed that mermaids exist, on the alleged say-so of a recently deceased satanist who is graphically described as having had sex with one (covered in batter). The last issue I saw gave space to a press release from Lyndon Larouche's Fusion Energy Foundation about the USSR having microwave lasers that could cook NATO soldiers' brains like hardboiled eggs from thousands of miles away - it looks like they will print ANYTHING. If you want to think something up and send it to them, their address is 50 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED. Unlike the people who posted the Hitler-on-the-moon story, I don't entirely disapprove of the Sunday Sport. Compared with their closest competition - Murdoch's viciously racist and union-bashing "Sun" and "News of the World" - their innocuous sexual buffoonery is a model of responsible journalism. Does anyone know who Andreas Resch and Kurt Rauer are, or where the Sport is likely to have got this rather, er, unusual scoop from?] After travelling through tunnel of light ... SPACECRAFT TAKES PICTURES OF HEAVEN SCENES MATCH DESCRIPTION OF LIFE-AFTER-DEATH * EXCLUSIVE * INCREDIBLE space pictures of HEAVEN were last night backed by the Vatican as GENUINE. As Church of England boss Robert Runcie pledged to look into the sensational snaps of Paradise, allegedly taken by a space probe, the Pope's advisors agreed they had to be possible proof of an after life. "There must be something in them," confessed Pope John Paul's personal spokesman on supernatural matters, Father Andreas Resch. "We promise to analyse the pictures and give a proper explanation - we must consider the camera never lies." The pictures show a spectacular gateway into Heaven taken by a Soviet satel- lite then smuggled out of the country and into the West. They later appeared in America, backed by the sensational claims. * Sensational * Sunday Sport investigators were handed copies of the first ever views of the Pearly Gates and then passed them on to Lambeth Palace. Now Britain's spiritual leader Dr Robert Runcie has pledged a top level probe into the amazing scenes which have sent church leaders into an almighty flap. The amazing pictures have been dubbed "the most fantastic Christian find since the Turin shroud." While churchmen from London and Rome study the astonishing evidence that Heaven is left of the planet Pluto, shocked Russian defence chiefs, who snapped them, are deparately ducking questions. The Ruskies would only admit it was their galactic spy in the sky which beamed back fantastic pictures of the Hereafter. TURN TO PAGE 7 [where you find a picture of a satellite beside what looks like the mouth of a sea squirt, and the rest of the story ...] Their incredible scenes should have been burned by top KGB agents - but in- stead the artist's impressions were smuggled out of the USSR for the whole world to see. Lambeth Palace, astounded by the fantastic frames that prove Heaven is for real, is treating them with utmost respect. "We are examining them - can you send us any more?" said a spokesman. Embarrassed Ruskies who don't believe in God stumbled on the tremendous tunnel of light, billions of miles from Earth, when they were probing life on Pluto. Last night they admitted instead of sending back scenes of the planet's surface, the satellite went berserk and beamed back dozens of different pictures of dazzling multi-coloured rings. * Evidence * "The pictures are remarkable in their similarity to what people have seen during near death experiences," revealed Dr Kurt Rauer, Germany's best astrophysicist. "They are pictures of what many people who have been in that state would describe as Heaven. I can say without doubt these are the most amazing pieces of evidence seen by the Christian world since the Turin shroud." Russian space experts could not believe their eyes when their computer screens were suddenly invaded by an eerie green and yellow light. They were expecting views of craters and clouds of gases - instead their haywire metal spy sent back a live transmission of Heaven. Those who glimsed [sic] the the extraordinary sight were left temporarily blinded by the light. And several others have had to seek top medical help because they have been unable to cope with their earth shattering experience. A spokesman from Moscow revealed that witnesses who saw the live pictures burst into tears because the stunning sight overwhelmed them. * Tunnel * Yesterday Joan Phillips, who nearly met her maker when she drowned, said of the remarkable photos: "They're just what I saw when I thought I was going to die. When I felt myself going under the water, all I remember is a fant- astic tunnel of light. I knew instinctively it was Heaven. These pictures reminded me of that," added the 45-year-old of Southampton. And Dr Sauer confirmed her beliefs. * NEXT WEEK Granny vice den exposed * -- ARPA: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk USENET: jack@cs.glasgow.uucp JANET:jack@uk.ac.glasgow.cs useBANGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack Mail: Jack Campin, Computing Science Dept., Glasgow Univ., 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND work 041 339 8855 x 6045; home 041 556 1878 ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 88 18:53:24 GMT From: voder!apple!grady@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Grady Ward) Subject: dialing for dollars Recently on the net I've seen a few messages asking for money. The senders supply such worthy reasons as education, feeding a starving sister, and so on. Taking advantage of this trend, I would like to ask you all for money, too. Of course, I do not need it. Apple Computer is a wonderful employer; I have a very good salary, two-digit profit sharing, and an excellent stock option. I am happily married to a wonderful woman, Felicity, a Stanford graduate with a Masters in Horticulture. Less than a year ago, I founded a Hi-IQ club which now has over 130 members around the world, including Marilyn vos Savant and Christopher Harding, individuals recognized by the popular press as having the highest IQ's in the world. I write essays and fiction for various publications. I am 6'1" with blond hair and blue eyes and good health. My future prospects look great. But I want to have more fun. And I'll even give you something for your money. After everyone has sent me money, I will promise to have as much imaginative fun with it as I possibly can. Furthermore, after I do, I will send everyone who has contributed to Grady's Fun(d) a letter describing exactly how I "spent" my time. So, you can be the keystone of my summer blowout, or you can press "N" and go out for another desultory pizza tonight. Just fold a twenty dollar bill in a sheet of paper with your return address and send to: Grady's Fun(d) 380 N. Bayview Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94086 It's going to be *party* time! ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 88 06:50:08 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: Re: Astronaut selection paulf@Shasta.Stanford.EDU (Paul A. Flaherty) writes: >Um, why does Stanford show up twice in that list? Surprise, surprise: ============================================================================= You have received a message from NASA: ====== Thanks for catching the error. Eight astronauts have graduated from Stanford. The document is an update of an old NASA Facts booklet that shows seven Stanford graduates. Guess when JSC updated the document they missed a duplication. I'll pass the word along. Bill Anderson MSFC Public Affairs ====== ============================================================================= Eric ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 88 21:14:04 GMT From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Subject: Re: Ruskies find Heaven to the left of Pluto In article <1224@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Mr Jack Campin) writes: > Front page story from the Sunday Sport, 22 May 1988. > SPACECRAFT TAKES PICTURES OF HEAVEN > SCENES MATCH DESCRIPTION OF LIFE-AFTER-DEATH [Contents of ...err...interesting article deleted] > "The pictures are remarkable in their similarity to what people have seen > during near death experiences," revealed Dr Kurt Rauer, Germany's best > astrophysicist. > Does anyone know who Andreas Resch and Kurt Rauer are... It's not at all clear how one would determine who is the "best astrophysicist" in any category, but I wonder if Dr Kurt Rauer exists. No person named Rauer is listed in the International Astronomical Union directory, nor did any Rauer publish any articles in either the main European or the main US journal in 1986 (the latest year for which I have indices). > The amazing pictures have been dubbed "the most fantastic Christian find > since the Turin shroud." This part of the story may well be true. (Recall that the earliest written reference to the Shroud declares it to be a fake.) -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 88 16:16:14 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: NASA news - SN 1987A nova briefing I am crossposting this to sci.astro in the hope that that group deals with "..nomy", not "..logy" (these days, you never know). Needless to say, I'm not a subscriber. ============================================================================= NOTE TO EDITORS: NASA TO CONDUCT SUPERNOVA 1987A SCIENCE BRIEFING May 26, 1988 NASA will conduct a press briefing to present major scientific findings about the SN 1987A supernova at the NASA Headquarters 6th floor auditorium, 400 Maryland Ave., S.W., at 1 p.m. EDT, June 2, 1988. Presentations will be made by NASA and NASA-sponsored university scientists whose experiments have flown aboard aircraft, balloons or sounding rockets in the past year and will include supernova satellite observations. The formal presentation will be made by the following scientists: o Dr. David Helfand, Columbia University: overall scientific approach; o Dr. Robert Kirshner, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: ultraviolet and visible light findings; o Dr. Harvey Moseley, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center: infrared findings; o Dr. Tom Prince, California Institute of Technology: gamma-ray findings; o Dr. Stan Woosley, University of California, Santa Cruz: theoretical work and overall scientific findings. Presenters will employ a variety of graphic materials to illustrate precisely what is currently believed to happen when a star goes supernova. This will include video animation sequences of the supernova. The briefing will be available on NASA Select television and questions will be taken from participating NASA centers. ============================================================================= Eric ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 88 06:55:43 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: NASA news - USA-Japan talks re. Station ============================================================================= NASA/JAPAN NEGOTIATORS COMPLETE NEGOTATIONS ON STATION AGREEMENTS May 27, 1988 RELEASE: 88-70 Negotiators from NASA and the Government of Japan have reached agreement in substance on the text of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for cooperation in the detailed design, development, operation and utilization of the permanently-manned civil Space Station. The Japanese Science and Technology Agency will serve as NASA's counterpart in implementing this MOU. The Space Station is an international cooperative effort involving Canada and the European Space Agency, as well as Japan. This space venture is the largest cooperative civil science and technology project ever undertaken. Negotiations on the technical and programmatic framework between NASA and the partners have been going on for over 2 years. In addition to the MOU, the participating governments have nearly reached agreement in substance on a multilateral intergovernmental agreement (IGA) which will provide a policy and legal framework for the MOU. After reaching agreement on the texts of the MOU and the IGA, the negotiators on both sides will submit the two texts to their respective governments for consideration in accordance with their separate internal procedures. In the U.S., both agreements will be reviewed by the Executive Branch and the Congress. Under the terms of the new MOU, Japan will provide the Japanese Experiment Module (JEM) -- a permanently attached, pressurized laboratory module which includes an exposed facility and an experiment logistics module. The pressurized portion of the JEM will provide a shirt-sleeve environment for the Space Station crew to perform research activities. The JEM's exposed facility will be used for scientific observations, Earth observation, communications, advanced technology development and other activities requiring direct exposure to space. The experiment logistics module, which will provide transportation and storage of logistics items, will be transported to the Station by the Space Shuttle. Japan's participation in the Space Station program resulted from an invitation issued by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. NASA and Japan entered into a memorandum of understanding for the definition and preliminary design phase of the Space Station program in March 1985, and have been working together on the Space Station program since that time. ============================================================================= Eric ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #257 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Jun 88 07:33:04 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03372; Mon, 20 Jun 88 03:25:17 PDT id AA03372; Mon, 20 Jun 88 03:25:17 PDT Date: Mon, 20 Jun 88 03:25:17 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806201025.AA03372@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #258 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 258 Today's Topics: NASA news - Mars mission project Shuttle processing status, May 25 & 27 satellite oceanography STAR P.A.C. Re: Ruskies find Heaven to the left of Pluto Leaving NASA Prediction Bulletins Re: Space suits Bungled posting Re: skintight space suits Re: A New Holiday? (awkward question) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 May 88 06:53:08 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: NASA news - Mars mission project ============================================================================= LOCAL STUDENTS CHART COURSE FOR MARS MISSION May 27, 1988 RELEASE: 88-69 A three-month "Mars Mission" course concludes June 1 when District of Columbia students present mission scenarios to a Blue Ribbon panel of government aerospace managers and specialists. Presentations will begin 10:30 a.m. EDT at the Department of Transportation auditorium, sixth floor, 400 Seventh Street, SW. NASA has been conducting the course for 20 high school students of the District of Columbia's School Without Walls since February 1988. The school is an alternative high school using the community and its resources as the education setting. The community includes industry, museums, government, university and individual scholar mentors. The students were divided into U.S. and Soviet groups, and through role play, each group developed a manned Mars mission scenario using their country's resources. Throughout the course, NASA scientists, managers, and astronauts discussed space transportation systems, future flight systems, Soviet space programs, planetary science, Space Station, space physiology and medicine, and international agreements. From course lectures, the U.S. and Soviet groups designed their theoretical mission plan. The scenarios identify: * mission objective * mission schedule * crew participation * recreation/scientific activities * medical countermeasures * martian orbit precautions * international cooperation * political/budget obstacles The Blue Ribbon panel members include Dr. Franklin Martin, Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Station, NASA Headquarters; Dr. Marie Zuber, Geophysicist, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; Alan Ladwig, Director of Special Programs and Projects for Office of Exploration, NASA Headquarters; Carl Praktish, Special Assistant for External Relations, NASA Headquarters; Kathryn Schmoll, Assistant Associate Administrator of Space Science and Applications, NASA Headquarters; Frank Owens, Deputy Director of Educational Affairs, NASA Headquarters; and Marcia Smith, Aerospace Policy Specialist, Library of Congress. The Mars Mission course demonstrates NASA's continued commitment to improving the level of science literacy in the nation's schools and is a further extension of the NASA administrator's request for employees to participate in a volunteer effort to support the District's public school system. The NASA Headquarters Educational Affairs Division developed this course with Alan Ladwig and Dr. Andrew Gaffney, an astronaut mission specialist scheduled to fly a Spacelab mission in 1990. ============================================================================= Eric ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 88 06:51:59 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: Shuttle processing status, May 25 & 27 ============================================================================= WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1988 STS-26 - DISCOVERY (OV 103) - OPF BAY 1 Today, a 24-hour pressurization test of the main propulsion system helium bottles is planned. This test will locate any leaks in the helium tanks which are filled at the launch pad. This morning the frequency response test was completed and no sig- nificant problems were reported. A functional test of the payload bay doors is scheduled for this evening. Closeouts of all areas of the orbiter are underway in preparation for rollover to the Vehicle Assembly Building scheduled for the first week of June. Thermal protection system operations are being worked on all areas of the orbiter as flight processing continues. STS- 27 - ATLANTIS (OV 104) - OPF BAY 2 Powered down operations are scheduled while a panel, neces- sary for power up, is being repaired. After power up the radiators will be deployed for structural inspections. Meanwhile processing operations are continuing to ready the power reactant storage and distribution system for flight. Modifications are continuing to implement the crew escape system. The chin panel has been reinstalled for final fit checks and contour measurements. STS-28 - COLUMBIA (OV 102) - OMRF Operations scheduled today include crew escape, bonding heat absorbing strips to Columiba's belly for the RTV heat sink modification, and electrical modifications in the forward and aft sections of the orbiter. STS-26 SOLID ROCKET BOOSTERS - VAB Yesterday, technicians greased the metal parts of the last field joint on the right hand solid rocket booster. The metal parts of the segments were inspected in preparation for the mate. Prior to mate, adhesive will be applied to the j-seal, and the o- rings and the mating tool will be installed. Meanwhile, closeouts of the field joints on both boosters are continuing. Today, the right forward assembly is scheduled to be delivered to the VAB transfer aisle today. The left and right forward assemblies are scheduled to be installed this weekend. ============================================================================= Friday, May 27, 1988 STS-26 - DISCOVERY (OV 103) - OPF BAY 1 A pressurization test of the main propulsion system helium bottles is continuing today. Yesterday a functional test of the orbiter's star tracker was completed. Technicians finished shaving tiles around the nose landing gear and chin area. The nose landing gear doors are open and technicians will finish fine tuning adjustments of the thermal barrier. A functional test of the payload bay doors is scheduled for no earlier than midnight tonight. Technicians are inspecting the door hinges and the associated thermal covers. Orbiter closeouts are active on all areas of the shuttle in preparation for moving the vehicle to the Vehicle Assembly Building scheduled for June 4. Installation of ordnance devices is planned for tomorrow and thermal protection system operations are scheduled over the Memorial Day holiday weekend. STS-27 - ATLANTIS (0V 104) - OPF BAY 2 Power down operations are continuing today while two panels necessary for power up work are being repaired at the Rockwell Service Center. Yesterday, technicians installed an oxygen panel for the fuel cell system and electrical connections are planned today. No work is scheduled over the three-day weekend. STS-28 - COLUMBIA (OV 102) - OMRF Orbiter power down modifications scheduled today include checks of thermal blankets to be installed in the midbody, crew escape and electrical modifications in the forward and aft sections of the orbiter. No work is planned for the three-day weekend. STS-26 SOLID ROCKET BOOSTERS - VAB Today the left forward assembly will be mated to the left stack. The right forward assembly is scheduled to be mated by the weekend. In parallel with stacking the forward assemblies workers are conducting a leak check of the final right hand field joint. After all the hardware is stacked on the mobile launcher platform, measurements of the alignment will be taken. Closeouts of all the field joints is also in progress. ============================================================================= Eric ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 88 16:19:06 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: satellite oceanography Is anybody else out there doing oceanography using satellite radar data? (currents, mostly. Adding wind & waves) Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 88 08:58:41 GMT From: EWTILENI@pucc.princeton.edu (Eric William Tilenius) Subject: STAR P.A.C. Has anyone heard of a Political Action Committee called STAR PAC ? They ran an ad in The Christian Science Monitor back about a week ago advertising the need for strong national leadership of the space program. I don't have the actual ad copy, but it said something like "Who will lead us into space in the 21st century - Bush or Dukakis." I sent the organization a small contribution since I liked what they were advocating, but was leary about an unfamiliar organization. Has anyone heard anything else on STAR PAC? Is it newly formed, or does it have a track record? How does it compare with SPACE PAC? - ERIC - *----------------------===> SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------* * ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU // ewtileni@pucc.BITNET * * rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni // princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni * * ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"* *--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------* ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 88 05:22:51 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: Re: Ruskies find Heaven to the left of Pluto In article <1224@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Mr Jack Campin) writes: >First Hitler on the moon, and now this ... >Front page story from the Sunday Sport, 22 May 1988. >[For US readers: the Sunday Sport is basically a tits and bums paper... [the other 120 lines deleted] Yeah, yeah, we want more, we are all bored to death with those silly, uninformative, beside-the-point, endless summaries that Henry Spencer somehow finds time to pound into his keyboard ............... Eric ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 88 13:08:55 GMT From: ulysses!gamma!pyuxp!nvuxj!nvuxg!nvuxk!perseus@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (A D Domaratius) Subject: Leaving I will be leaving the net because I will be returning to my home company, New York Telephone. No boos and hisses please. I was on rotation at Bellcore since April, 1985. I have enjoyed many interesting articles on these nets and will miss the communications with other people (That includes you too |||SPIKE|||). I would like to find out if there is an access to these networks through Bulletin Board Services. If so then maybe I can continue to communicate with you people in the future. Al Domaratius Go METS (THIS ONE'S FOR YOU |||SPIKE|||) Go Bruins ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 88 17:04:44 GMT From: ut-emx!tskelso@sally.utexas.edu (TS Kelso) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins For those of you who are interested in satellite tracking, the most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (512) 892-4180, and are updated several times weekly. As a service to the amateur satellite community, the most current of these elements are uploaded weekly to rec.ham-radio. The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. -- TS Kelso ARPA: tskelso@emx.cc.utexas.edu The Center for Space Research The University of Texas at Austin UUCP: {ihnp4,allegra}!ut-emx!tskelso ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 88 21:49:26 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space suits Phil certainly knows whereof he speaks: contamination is something one does have to worry about, although the extent depends on what one is doing. However, note that neither existing manned spacecraft nor existing spacesuits are contamination-free; far from it. I doubt that the space activity suit would be spectacularly worse. -- "For perfect safety... sit on a fence| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology and watch the birds." --Wilbur Wright| {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 88 03:11:08 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: Bungled posting Sorry for posting the latest Shuttle processing report to sci.space. It obviously should have gone to .space.shuttle. Mea culpa.... Eric ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 88 21:36:53 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: skintight space suits > I'm willing to accept that human skin makes a good enough > space suit, with a little mechanical support. What about > human guts, human bladders, and human wombs? I have the > gut :-) feeling that with my head in a pressure bowl and > the other end exposed, I wouldn't need external propulsion. > How is that problem handled? Matching pressure shorts? I haven't seen that specific aspect addressed in the descriptions I've read, but I understand that concave spots in general are addressed with custom-shaped air-filled balloons inside the fabric. -- "For perfect safety... sit on a fence| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology and watch the birds." --Wilbur Wright| {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 88 05:21:49 GMT From: okstate!richard@rutgers.edu (Richard Brown) Subject: Re: A New Holiday? (awkward question) > In article <24337@bbn.COM> mfidelma@BBN.COM () writes: >> Does anybody else out there think that July 20 (the day of the first moon >> landing) should be a recognized holiday? Is my memory playing tricks on me? I had always thought the actual _landing_ took place on 19 July (Oklahoma time). The EVA was postponed until the crew had rested, &c. The "...giant leap for mankind" occurred after midnight. I remember vividly that this was the first time I was allowed to stay up all night, to watch the TV coverage and live broadcast from the moon. Uh, I suppose the landing could well have been on the succeding date if GMT were used. I really don't recall that much detail. It certainly _SHOULD_ be an International holiday! - richard -- Richard Brown, Oklahoma State University, Computer Science UUCP: {cbosgd, ihnp4, rutgers}!okstate!richard ARPA: richard@A.CS.OKSTATE.EDU BITNET: ....CISXRVB ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #258 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Jun 88 07:06:07 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04911; Tue, 21 Jun 88 03:24:35 PDT id AA04911; Tue, 21 Jun 88 03:24:35 PDT Date: Tue, 21 Jun 88 03:24:35 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806211024.AA04911@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #259 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 259 Today's Topics: Re: A New Holiday? Re: dialing for dollars that Canadian guy again Re: A New Holiday? (awkward question) Anonymous quotes and NASA corruption NASA apologist rantings NSS... Re: More on anti-matter Re: Ruskies find Heaven to the left of Pluto Re: Shroud of Turin (Re: Ruskies find Heaven ...) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 May 88 05:03:15 GMT From: okstate!richard@rutgers.edu (Richard Brown) Subject: Re: A New Holiday? >From article <8998@oberon.USC.EDU>, by robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve): > In article <24337@bbn.COM> mfidelma@BBN.COM () writes: >>Does anybody else out there think that July 20 (the day of the first moon >>landing) should be a recognized holiday? > > I think it's a marvelous idea. It could be called moon-day and it would > remind everyone how important space exploration is. It would also be a > yearly event during which media would undoubtedly seize on to demonstrate > how far we've come in the last year. ( let's not start until 1989, OK? ) All RiGGGGGHHHTTTTTTT!!!!!! This makes much better sense than manny of the holidays now celebrated! BTW, I have maintained for many years that event made a united civilization at least conceptually possible, if not necessarily immanent(sp)(i'm a computist, not a writer). Alas, it appears that anyone interested in being a part of such a civilization in the near term at least, had better be very familier with the cryllic alphabet......... Someone has pointed out that 'Mir'means 'peace' like "the war is over, -- We won" We lost a tiny handfull of much-celebrated explorers following the dream to the moon and beyond - and we stopped 'dead in the water'. In more robust days, we launched a great many expeditions westward and celebrated those who happened to return alive. Where has all our spirit gone? enough blather - richard -- Richard Brown, Oklahoma State University, Computer Science UUCP: {cbosgd, ihnp4, rutgers}!okstate!richard ARPA: richard@A.CS.OKSTATE.EDU BITNET: ....CISXRVB ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 88 16:17:51 GMT From: actnyc!jsb@uunet.uu.net (The Invisible Man) Subject: Re: dialing for dollars I would like to propose that future I.Q. tests include the following question: "Is it appropriate to post articles asking for money on the net?" I suspect a 'No' answer to this question would correlate highly with intelegence thus adding to the reliability of I.Q. measurement. However: In article <11148@apple.Apple.Com> grady@apple.UUCP (Grady Ward) writes: )Recently on the net I've seen a few messages asking for money. The )senders supply such worthy reasons as education, feeding a starving )sister, and so on. ) )Taking advantage of this trend, I would like to ask you all for money, )too. ) [ discriptions of the good fortune of the Grady Bunch deleted. ] )Less than a year ago, I founded a Hi-IQ club which now has over 130 )members around the world, I got a recent copy of the society's newsletter (Grady will send you one if you ask) and, aside from an interesting short piece by weemba, I find talk.bizarre better written and more informative. Well, maybe I mean more written and better informative? One article that particularly bothered me in this journal, a discussion of possible gender bias in I.Q. measurement, ends by saying that "only time and extensive research will prove" whether or not, if a cognative "difference exists" beteween men and women, "... it [can] truly be used as a marker of superiority in the hierarchical ranking of peoples". Sounds bizarre to me. If one rates high enough in the hierarchical ranking of peoples, one is entitled to disrupt newsfroups at will asking for spare change. Since I rate really high in the h.r. of p. too, I am continuing the disruption by not removing any of the froups of the original posting. Any of you folks who also rate high in the h. r. are invited to join me. And bring your lawn darts. -- "Notitiae gratia notitiarum" jim (uunet!actnyc!jsb) ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 88 17:33:59 GMT From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) Subject: that Canadian guy again >"For perfect safety... sit on a fence| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >and watch the birds." --Wilbur Wright| {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry Not content to flame our all-American Post Office, now Henry The Foriegner is abusing his position in Zoology to slur our bicycle makers! And in sci.SPACE! I bet he's a Space Alien -- does anybody know if his socks match? (sorry, Henry; I'm feelin' my wierds today.) ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 88 16:15:11 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: A New Holiday? (awkward question) >From article <3606@okstate.UUCP>, by richard@a.cs.okstate.edu (Richard Brown): > Is my memory playing tricks on me? I had always thought the actual > _landing_ took place on 19 July (Oklahoma time). The EVA was > postponed until the crew had rested, &c. The "...giant leap for > mankind" occurred after midnight. Yes, your memory is a day out - the landing was on 20 July at 2017:45 UT which is 20 July at 1517:45 Oklahoma time (I think?); the EVA was something like 0200-0300 UT on 21 July, or late evening 20 July US time. Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Mon, 30 May 88 12:49:08 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Anonymous quotes and NASA corruption I have, on several occasions, quoted or paraphrased individuals in the aerospace industry without providing their exact positions or other identifying information on a variety of issues. This is necessary because NASA has demonstrated repeatedly that it does not hesitate to engage in corrupt practices to suppress dissent. Since I am totally independent of aerospace funding, I can act as a mouthpiece for some of these people. The Justice Department is not interested in pursuing these issues and neither is the FBI. Agents in both organizations express regret at being unauthorized to pursue anonymous complaints and I cannot divulge the names of the individuals involved due to their sensitive positions. I've seen some of the best and brightest of this country broken by NASA corruption and am powerless to do anything about it. Maybe this bitterness has come through in my messages more than it should if I were a perfect statesman, but I'm not. I'm a citizen concerned at the tens of thousands of lives being wasted by malfeasance and corruption in NASA. If you had a wife and kids and mortgage to protect, you might understand the hesitance to come forth publically and risk everything for an ideal. If you want identification of my sources, you'll have to earn my and their trust. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Mon, 30 May 88 13:20:57 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: NASA apologist rantings There has been a lot of disinformation thrown around about my statements and positions in an attempt to make it appear that I am engaging in slander, libel, idiocy and attacks on the general public or something. This is a tactic I've run into before -- if you want a group of naive people to go after someone who you don't like, make the group think the person you don't like is a danger to them all. Unfortunately, there is a high correlation between being naive and liking NASA so this is a particularly effective tactic on computer networks and in space enthusiast groups when you want the naive among them to go after someone critical of NASA or your position as a NASA apologist. Just for the record here are a few things I am NOT saying: I am NOT saying Scott Pace or any other NSS board member is breaking the law (violating the Hatch Act or anything else). I AM saying that some individuals in positions of influence over POLITICAL ACTION in NSS are too closely tied to aerospace funding to be considered ethical and that this ethical violation is also a violation of the INTENT of the Hatch Act. I am NOT saying that we should terminate or even reduce government spending on space or that by so doing we would end up with lots of companies automatically rushing into space businesses. I AM saying that we can create a space MARKETPLACE (as opposed to just a spoon- fed aerospace industry) by associating full funding directly with each space objective independently so that those pursuing these objectives can purchase launch services and facility use from any source they choose. This is exactly the intent of Reagan's space policy wherein he supports launch vouchers for space scientists to let them launch on any service they like. As in any other marketplace, if foreign competition is government subsidized, appropriate tariffs and other actions are necessary. Since all systems developments have supposedly been in service of space research objectives, and since development is more appropriately pursued by the private sector, I've concentrated on space research objectives. I am NOT saying that research programs are partisan -- I am saying that large development programs are partisan (due to porkbarrel) and that civil servants who lobby for such ARE violating the Hatch Act (not just the INTENT). There has been a lot more disinformation spread around but these are the main, and most damaging, items. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 May 88 14:43:54 CST From: Kamal Mehta Subject: NSS... To: "SPACE Digest..." I'm pretty new to this list, and also a lot of other space related activiies. Recently i saw a posting about the name change for National Space Society. I would appreciate if someone could enlighten me on what it is and what it does. Thanks... Kamal Mehta Bitnet: EAKMM@TTUVM1 Texas Tech University ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 88 21:41:20 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Re: More on anti-matter In article <8805181623.AA01822@galileo.s1.gov> you write: >Paul Dietz writes the following on anti-matter: > >>Antimatter might be effective in a beam weapon. > >In a word, HAH! Such a beam weapon would not work in the atmosphere, as >an interaction with matter will cause a minimum 1900 MeV explosion per >anti-proton annihilated (about 1 MeV if positrons are used instead). >Such a huge amount of isotropic energy added to the beam will disperse >it real quick, setting off more explosions. This will all occur in or >just outside the nozzle! If one attempts to vacate a small volume of >space for an anti-matter pulse to travel through, say with a high power >laser, the same problem arises, though with many orders of magnitude >(like about 25) lower integrated cross-section. The same is true for >space based weapons, as the gas density is at least 1/cc and likelier to >be over 1000/cc. Current matter particle beam research is arguably >feasible in that one has only collisions rather than the very high >energy annihilations leading to beam dispersion. Of course I didn't mean a weapon to be used in the atmosphere. Jeez! And I suppose the disruption of antimatter beams by 1 atom/cc gas explains why CERN has not been able to store antiprotons in a storage ring, and therefore why they didn't detect the W and Z bosons. Care to explain how the annihilation of one of the antihydrogen atoms in a beam will "disperse [the beam] real quick"? I would think the annihilation products, which are penetrating, would not deposit any energy at all in something as nebulous as a particle beam. > >>An antimatter explosion would produce radiations not found in a >>conventional nuclear device. > >All that will be produced is a different energy spectrum of photons, >electrons, and neutrinos, as all of the other particles will decay or >annihilate on the order of a millionth of a second. One MAY be able to >produce neutrons, but that would require anti-proton - proton collisions >of very high energy (and luck). Such a branching is of very low >probability. Muons would travel up to a kilometer before decaying. Neutrons would be "produced" by liberating them from nuclei with which the antimatter interacts. I read, for example, that an antiproton annihilating in a uranium nucleus causes the emission of an average of 5+ neutrons. >This bomb will be as fallout-free as any nuclear device is. The fallout >of any nuclear explosion is due to the irradiated matter around the bomb >being blown up into the atmosphere (this includes the containment >mechanism of the bomb itself). It may be small, who knows the state of >current vaccum magnetic bottle experiments (extrapolated to room >temperature particle entrapment rather than solar core temperatures)? Fallout in current weapons is overwhelmingly fission products (condensed onto vaporized soil, etc.) Even in a large thermonuclear bomb, 50% of the energy comes from fission, I believe (mostly fission of U-238 by fusion neutrons). And who mentioned magnetic containment? >The big problem with anti-matter is in the production. As someone >stated earlier (and as was written up in a recent Science review), >anti-matter costs of order $10 million per milligram. The problem is >getting it in a usable form. SLAC, for example, has a 2 mile >accelerator to produce anti-particles. Then one needs another 2 mile >accelerator to slow them down again so that they can be handled and >contained, provided they were travelling in the correct direction to >begin with!. This all has to be done in a perfect vaccuum, otherwise >more 1900 MeV annihilations occur. Fun stuff, this anti-matter! > >Arnold Gill >Queen's University at Kingston >gill @ qucdnast.bitnet The SLC makes, cools and uses positrons, not antiprotons. "Perfect" vacuum is need? If I get just one gas atom anywhere in my system the whole thing blows up? Get serious. I note that if antimatter costs $10 million/millgram (it is currently far more expensive), a tactical radiation weapon containing 10 nanograms of antimatter would contain $100 worth of antimatter. Not much, although it would be lethal only out to maybe ten meters or less. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 88 05:09:42 GMT From: phri!dasys1!mikej@nyu.edu (Mike Johnston) Subject: Re: Ruskies find Heaven to the left of Pluto After reading this posting I am reminded of a book by the late Clifford D. Simak called "Project Pope" which has a storyline similar to the "Heaven found" thesis.... Interesting book though.... I shouldn't compare it with THIS though..... m.r.j -- Michael R. Johnston / cpmain!mrj Franchise Data Specialist ....cmcl2!phri!dasys1! Career Employment Services Inc. \ mikej ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 88 23:59:50 GMT From: valeria!wales@cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) Subject: Re: Shroud of Turin (Re: Ruskies find Heaven ...) In article <1034@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> willner@cfa.harvard.EDU (Steve Willner) writes: In article <1224@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Mr Jack Campin) writes: The amazing pictures have been dubbed "the most fantastic Christian find since the Turin shroud." This part of the story may well be true. (Recall that the earliest written reference to the Shroud declares it to be a fake.) In the earliest written reference to the Shroud of Turin (a letter from Pierre d'Arcis, the bishop of the French diocese of Troyes), the bishop said the Shroud had been declared a fake by "the artist who painted it". The 1978 analysis of the Shroud of Turin showed conclusively that, what- ever the Shroud of Turin may be, it is not a painting. Hence, if some artist in the late 1300's claimed to have painted the Shroud, he was presumably lying. Actually, though, some Latin scholars have pointed out that the medieval verb meaning "to paint" (depignere) could also mean "to paint a copy". Additionally, Latin lacks the definite article (a word for "the"). The passage in question, therefore, could be translated either as "the art- ist who painted it" or "an artist who copied it". Ian Wilson discusses the Pierre d'Arcis correspondence at some length in his book, _The Shroud of Turin_. -- Rich Wales // UCLA CS Dept // wales@CS.UCLA.EDU // +1 (213) 825-5683 3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024-1596 // USA ...!(ucbvax,rutgers)!ucla-cs!wales ...!uunet!cs.ucla.edu!wales "Zounds! A Gorkon death station appears! Evasive action!" ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #259 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 6 Jul 88 22:58:39 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01813; Wed, 6 Jul 88 19:41:38 PDT id AA01813; Wed, 6 Jul 88 19:41:38 PDT Date: Wed, 6 Jul 88 19:41:38 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807070241.AA01813@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #260 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 260 Today's Topics: Re: Bureaucracy vs. space Re: Bureaucracy vs. space space station Re: The launch loop author replies: Some more launch loop stuff... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 May 88 05:36:38 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Re: Bureaucracy vs. space > ME: An airplane takes off, flies and lands in an horizontal > position; it doesn't turn somersaults at takeoff the way a > shuttle does. > > HENRY: I wasn't aware of the shuttle turning any somersaults! > ... The shuttle does impose a higher fore-and-aft loading than > that of an aircraft, but 3 G is hardly bone-breaking. Aw, c'mon, won't you allow me a little poetic license? "The shuttle now consists of the Orbiter and External Tank. It continues to gain speed and altitude; 6.5 minutes into the flight you are traveling 15 times the speed of sound at an altitude of 80 miles (130 kilometers). Flying a path resembling a roller coaster, the shuttle begins a long shallow DIVE to 72 miles (120 kilomters). During this maneuver, you experience the maximum acceleration of 3g. Near the end of the dive, 8.5 minutes after you left the ground, the MAIN ENGINE CUT-OFF (MECO) command is given. The External tank is discarded 20 seconds later. The Orbiter maneuvers down and to the left of the tank which will splash down in a remote ocean area. Remember - throughout the ascent, you travel "upside down" with your head toward the ground." (From The Space Shuttle Operators Manual, quoted a while ago by Dale Amon). > ME: The shuttle payload must whithstand going from 1 atm to > vacuum during takeoff, and from frying to freezing many times > over when in orbit. > HENRY: So must any payload flown on an unmanned launcher, and > they have rather less stringent requirements imposed on them. > PHIL KARN: Henry is right about the max G loads on the shuttle; > they're about 3G. This *is* gentler than many expendables. > From the figures I have, I compute a peak acceleration of about > 4.5G for the Ariane 1, just before 2nd stage cutoff. > ... The kick motor on AMSAT Phase III-A would have produced > about 7-8G just before burnout. Agreed, but Henry's original posting was comparing shuttles with cargo planes, not with expendables. > HENRY: ... There is a *large* difference between being > space-qualified and being shuttle-qualified. ... NASA has no > interest in achieving a compromise between safety and utility > -- the sort of compromise that is necessary for almost any > aircraft. On the contrary, NASA has every reason to shoot for > the highest possible level of safety even if it makes the > shuttle nearly useless. Obviously I cannot tell whether NASA's safety regulations for the shuttle are excessive or not. My point is that it is perfectly reasonable for those regulations to be stricter than for expendables, given that the shuttle is manned, reusable, and more delicate than an expendable. As for being manned, it doesn't matter how much risk the astronauts are willing to take for the glory of NASA. Every manager or engineer on the ground still is morally required to worry about their safety --- much, much more than what he would be expected to worry in the case of an unmanned vehicle. As for reusability, in an expendable launch the only party who really needs to worry about payload safety is the payload owner, since he is the only one who stands to lose in case of an accident. Even when for expendables carrying multiple payloads, safety requirements should in principle be a matter of negotiation between the two or three customers involved. In contrast, with a reusable shuttle the potential loss to the launching agency is 10-100 times greater than to any customer; so, it makes perfect sense for the agency to be fussy about safety, even to the point of losing customers or defaulting on a couple of contracts. Finally, a shuttle is necessarily more complex than an expendable, and hence much more delicate --- there are more critical parts that may go wrong, the design safety margins are smaller, the operating regimes are more varied, and so on. Therefore, damage to the vehicle --- say, during payload deployment --- can have much more serious consequences for the shuttle than for expendables. Jorge Stolfi stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Several workmen, it is true, had paid with their lives for the rashness inherent in such dangerous projects. But these fatal accidents are impossible to prevent, and Americans worry very little about such details. They show more concern for humanity in general than for individuals in particular. Barbicane, however, profesed contrary principles, and tried to carry them out at every opportunity. -- Verne, _From the Earth to the Moon_ (1865) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 31 May 88 07:28:50 GMT From: agate!brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David desJardins) Subject: Re: Bureaucracy vs. space In article <13082@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes: >As for being manned, it doesn't matter how much risk the astronauts are >willing to take for the glory of NASA. Every manager or engineer on >the ground still is morally required to worry about their safety --- >much, much more than what he would be expected to worry in the case of >an unmanned vehicle. We went through this after the Challenger accident, so I won't belabor the point. I just want to point out that, as far as I can see, the people involved should be far more concerned about the $2G+ orbiter than about seven people. You can argue about what value our society puts on human life, but even a cursory analysis shows that it is several orders of magnitude short of $300M apiece. -- David desJardins ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 88 20:35:47 GMT From: oxy!doctor_who@csvax.caltech.edu (Jeffrey Katsumi Hombo) Subject: space station Why not just call it orbital station 1 ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 88 14:46:36 GMT From: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!johng@uunet.uu.net (John Gregor) Subject: Re: The launch loop author replies: In article <2553@vice.TEK.COM> keithl@vice.TEK.COM (Keith Lofstrom) writes: > >As John Gregor (a former student of mine and an unabashed partisan for >the launch loop) observes, Actually, I'm an unabashed partisan for getting to space. The launch loop is just much more attractive than learning Russian. Plus I think it's a good idea. If it doesn't make it, it should be on technical grounds (i.e. we have something better), not because it never got a chance. >it is hard to make a valid criticism of the launch >loop without reading the technical paper. I've only received one request for the paper. Did anybody out there get copies on their own. With all the megabytes flitting over usenet, I'm curious how many people out there actually take the time to look things up. >However, John has done an >able job of answering most of the questions (BRAVO, John), saving me some >effort. Thank you very much. >I've got a new version >of the paper with the equations in it; I'll be bringing copies to the >Denver conference. Any chance of it making it on sci.space or comp.doc? If not, can I get a copy. >6) "Okay, smarty pants, if it's so simple, why aren't you building one?" >Well, first, I'm lazy. I wrote the "Analog" article to drum up interest. >I mailed out around 200 copies of the paper, and wrote hundreds of personal >letters. I was hoping someone would steal the ball and run with it. Nuh-uh. Ok net.world, we have an idea. What can we do with it. Anybody know how to get research grants? This is also a very viable means of storing LARGE quantities of energy (DOE?). How about Universities that have the people, resources, and clout to do some initial studies (I'm a relatively soon to be grad student looking for a project)? Come on people, brainstorm! What can WE do? The next three paragraphs sum up my feelings about space as well as any other manifesto ever has. >8) "Why do this?" Well, I want to live and work in space. I don't want to >make somebody else pay for it, so it must be affordable. Since nobody else >is working on $10/lb low-gee launch systems, I guess it's my job. Sure the >thing is too damn big. So are the alternatives, and they yield a much smaller >payback for the same investment. If somebody out there has a system that will >accomplish the same ends with a smaller investment, PLEASE LET ME KNOW! I'll >send them money. I'll build their electronics. I'll clean their toilets if >they need it! Be careful, Jessica Hahn got started by cleaning toilets :-) >I may not get into space by working on the launch loop, or even helping on >some yet-to-be-defined better system. But I sure as hell WON'T get there >by telling somebody else how hard it is. If there were easy solutions, we'd >already be there! >Forty years from now, when you're in the back of the ambulance racing to the >hospital, while the EMT is trying to restart your heart, you may have other >regrets, but mine will probably be "I didn't make it into space". Most of >the current crop of space "activists" will be dead before it's affordable to >go there. Whose fault is that? >-- >Keith Lofstrom ...!tektronix!vice!keithl keithl@vice.TEK.COM >MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 When I was a kid, I believed all the NASA hype -- shuttle real soon now, missions to mars, moon bases, 10,000 person colonies etc. All of it was supposed to be there by now. Well, it's now folks. And now I'm not sure if any of it is even going to make it in my lifetime any more. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Gregor johng%ecrcvax.UUCP@pyramid.COM ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 88 14:58:35 GMT From: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!johng@uunet.uu.net (John Gregor) Subject: Some more launch loop stuff... I sent this to Dani Eder by email, but I don't see any reason not to put it on the net. Also, I'd really like to see more discussion on the following: 1) The launch loop -- obviously. 2) Other methods to orbit within todays technology. 3) What we can do. In industry, academia, on usenet, via letters to congresscritters, etc. >>>>---------- ------------- ------------- ------------ ------------ --- In article <1918@ssc-vax.UUCP> you write: >Not only have I read the paper, but I know Keith. In fact, he was >on usenet at one time (you out there?). The advanced propulsion >community is really a very small one. > I know Keith also. Way back when, when I was in high school, I worked on his "floater" (suspended magnetic bar) demo. I know he is still around on the net. I saw his vote in the summary for sci.nanotech a few weeks back. >400 tons of cargo is a piddly-ass amount. One airport runway >with a stream of 727s taking off represents 1200 tons of >passengers and cargo. I was comparing it to what our present launch capacity is, not what we do with planes. Do you know of some launch devices that could handle jet sized cargo? >Define 'we'. It was late. Not my best literary work. I guess in the broadest category, 'we' could mean humanity, but I didn't mail it to kremvax. :-) So, I guess it meant the US (my current location not withstanding). In the most specific sense, I guess 'we' could mean myself and the person reading the posting. I guess I should have rephrased it to be: "Why haven't I heard more about this (and other) design ideas. Who has looked at it? What do you think? Why?" >My personal opinion of the launch loop is that is is an overly >complex solution to the problem with failure modes that could >be used for special effects in a George Lucas film. > True. The megaSagans (million and billions) of Joules being dumped into the ocean would make a rather spectacular scene... > [ Lots of stuff regarding the ribbon composition and D-magnets ] >The turnarounds at each end are done by big magnets. 14km diameter....big.... yeah, I guess they are big. :-) >What I worry about is what happens if one of the turning magnets >fails (keeping in mind that everything manmade fails eventually) >then the ribbon continues straight into the ground behind >the turning magnet, creating a pile of slag in a crater , as >for several minutes a continuous stream of one pound >slugs hits the ground at 11,000 rounds per second. More likely the magnets would be sea based. No crater, but many suprised (and cooked) fish. The D-magnet segments are the most critical portion of the loop. I think they can stand the failure of a few segments, but loss of power or a clever terrorist would lead to failure. I think a lot of the structure could be salvaged from such a failure however. >On the >return leg of the loop, a part of the ribbon is missing. >The resulting unbalanaced forces may leave metal strips >flying every which way in earth orbit. I had never thought of the instability of having a missing W->E ribbon. I'd need a very good model of the system and a few cray hours to know if control would still be possible. My guess is yes. The track is there to damp oscillations in the ribbon, I think it could still do that while falling. Also, the segments wouldn't wind up in Earth orbit. They would go into solar orbit. Nothing like having a few thousand one kilo chunks of iron flying about in an earth intersecting solar orbit. :-( Maybe it would be a good test of our ability to clean up space junk. >To my way of looking at design, I would like my support >structure to be passive rather than active. The loop in the >launch loop is what holds up the structure by moving >at super-orbital speeds. The same result can be obtained >with a tower made of modern structural materials >(such as graphite epoxy for compressive columns and >fiberglass/kevlar/polyethelyne fo guy wires.) Is this possible now? I think stability of that structure would be almost as hard as for the loop. What are some of the non-rocket, non-classified methods of launching that you have looked at? References to papers are welcome. Active systems fail. That's a fact of life. Airplanes use a much more active support system than trains. They also fail in many more and spectacular ways. We use them, however, because they are more cost effective. The shuttle and NASP aren't exactly the most passive systems around either. >You can support an accelerator (linear motor, mass >driver, whatever) from a series of towers of increasing >height with suspension bridges strung between the >towers. If the power goes down, your structure does not >fall out of the sky. > >Using towers also allows for incremental construction. Again, is this within the capability of today's materials? Any references? BTW, Glad to know you are still around, I hadn't seen any postings for a while. >34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +280 ft altitude, Earth And all this time I though you were working out of Seattle. I should read signatures more often. So much for getting a tour when I go home...:-) John -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Gregor johng%ecrcvax.UUCP@pyramid.COM ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #260 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 7 Jul 88 06:21:08 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02740; Thu, 7 Jul 88 03:22:12 PDT id AA02740; Thu, 7 Jul 88 03:22:12 PDT Date: Thu, 7 Jul 88 03:22:12 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807071022.AA02740@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #261 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 261 Today's Topics: A coherent, efficient and well directed space program Space Cities Re: Ruskies find Heaven to the left of Pluto Re: The launch loop author replies: Re: Bureaucracy vs. space Re: women in space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Mon, 30 May 88 19:31:05 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: A coherent, efficient and well directed space program Dale Skran (not Amon) writes: > This is the core of Mr. Bowery's thinking. Instead of subsidizing the > aerospace corporations, the NASA budget will be doled out to countless > professors and grad students, who by some miracle of organization, will > generate a coherent, efficient, well directed space program. > > Translation: stop spending money in such a way that it benefits > engineers who work for large corporations. Instead, spend money in such > a way that it benefits my friends who do research at universities and > small companies. The miracle of organization is the same miracle of organization that serves ANY market: Some businesses figure out there is a lot of money to be made providing goods and services by looking for where the money is. This is called "market research." (One of those capitalist running-dog lackie concepts.) Then they get funding by developing a business plan and going out for investors (there's those capitalist swine again, trying to make a PROFIT) who look at the plan and the market under a scanning tunneling microscope to make sure it makes sense (of course, they couldn't possibly do as good a job as the extraordinarily insightful, intelligent, creative, critical and thoughtful project managers in NASA who come up with systems like Shuttle and Space Station and will have a job tomorrow no matter how badly they screw up with your money). This money from investors is then spent by the poor deprived ENGINEERS who I am so selfishly victimizing by not letting them work on cost+ government contracts conceived and managed by NASA bureaucrats. (By the way, I am an engineer and I know a lot more engineers paid by government contract than I do scientists in universities and small companies.) The really Draconian and Evil thing about this Heresy is that if the market researchers, project planners, investors and engineers get together to do something of intrinsic beauty and value like design, develop and operate a manned vehicle to deliver satellites to orbit and then blow one up because they were just a little, uh, "careless" about things -- they'll go BANKRUPT! OUT OF BUSINESS! And worst of all... THEY MIGHT HAVE TO BECOME PRODUCTIVE MEMBERS OF OUR SOCIETY!!! Dale really should tell Gorby on me -- oh wait... Gorby is turning into a capitalist swine too... Is there no hope for the Revolution? > Said organizations are working very hard to support private launch > operations. A current target is making sure that the DOT gets enough > dollars to process all their applications for private launch services. > > If Mr. Bowery was looking for constructive ways to help > NSS/Spacecause/Spacepac achieve the goal of a strong private launch > industry, he would find a lot to do, and a lot of people who agreed with > him. Unfortunately, he has chosen to devote his energies to a series of > wild and unsubstantiated attacks on various individuals in leadership > positions. First, I'd like to thank Dale for continuing to bring up this issue so I can continue to bring damning facts about these organizations to the attention of the public. It's interesting that my attempts to influence these organizations previously failed to achieve any effect, but when I started treating these folks like the "bad children" they were, they all of a sudden start behaving themselves! Good for them! Let's see more PRO-space legislative action now that they've gotten the picture. For example, get SpaceCause to stop avoiding support for CDSF -- oh I forgot... Sandra Adamson would be the person responsible for that and she works on Space Station. I will resume cooperation with the Legislative Committee, SpacePAC and SpaceCause the day all Directors of these organizations are free of aerospace industry funding. Oh well. I guess I'll have slap some of these bad children around some more until they REALLY get the picture. Isn't it horrible the way we can write congressmen and get RESULTS in this INCOHERENT, INEFFICIENT and UNDIRECTED Democracy of ours? It's about time we put a bunch of NASA managers in charge of the whole thing to make it coherent, efficient and well directed like the Shuttle program! ;-) >>> Replace the leadership of these bodies AND act on your OWN to support > > Translation: elect Mr. Bowery to the NSS board I decided to go ahead and see what I could do to bring out this issue prior to the International Space Development Conference in Denver knowing full well that it would be political suicide. I will not be elected to the board of directors of NSS and doubt there would have been much of a chance anyway given the way the nominating committee was set up by SpacePAC's founder, Mark Hopkins. Since there wasn't much of a chance, I decided to become a guided missile locked onto Mark's organizations to see if I could make a difference. Apparently I did, which is more effect than most people have who are elected to the Board. Maybe if Mark Hopkins' nominating committee wasn't a self-perpetuating political tool in support of Mark's political action organizations, people like me would choose to work WITHIN the Society instead of having to involve the authorities to clean up the mess he's making of NSS and of our space program. PS: Yes, I know that CDSF isn't as "commercial" as it used to be but it is a LOT more "commercial" than Space Station, and it makes a LOT more sense. So either start lobbying against Space Station or start lobbying FOR CDSF, if it isn't already too late. Yes I've heard the excuses about how lobbying for CDSF might jeopardize the Space Settlement Act and I don't buy it for a second. The stories given by Scott Pace and Sandra Adamson about this issue during the candidate's forum at the IDSDC didn't mesh and the whole thing is on VIDEOTAPE. Rid the Legislative Committee of everyone working on Space Station, send out another, unbiased, questionaire to NSS membership about what they want to see happen in space, rewrite the NSS policy statement that was originally written by Space Station contract employees, and they might be able to start to rebuild their credibility. As of now, this conflict is bringing out and emphasizing facts that are progressively destroying the credibility of the political action organizations which is as it should be until they are cleaned up. The rumors that NSS's lawyer is considering a lawsuit against me is only adding evidence to my case. It isn't going to intimidate me. If anyone can substantiate this rumor, or the rumor that NSS's lawyer is also a lawyer for NASA, please contact me with the information. PPS: To those who think I should be "nicer" about all this -- consider the fact that an average person's approximate actuarial value to society is $1,000,000 and that NASA spends the equivalent of about 10,000 idealistic and enthusiastic human lives every year even as they bring us closer to the day that we may loose our chance to grow beyond this pressure cooker, thus threatening most of the life on Earth. There maybe situations in which it is good to be very relativistic and tolerant of unethical behavior and human waste -- this isn't one of them. PPPS: I just picked up the dictionary and it fell open to page 666 "knowledgeability * kremlinology". Must be shere coincidence -- just like oracle 36 when Challenger blew. Webster's nineth new collegiate dictionary gives the following definition: conflict of interest (1951): a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust (as a government or corporate official) UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 88 16:16:04 GMT From: uflorida!novavax!maddoxt@umd5.umd.edu (Thomas Maddox) Subject: Space Cities Space Cities--Problems, Proposals, Questions The following material represents a somewhat formal version of some informal queries that I posed to the net a brief while ago, concerning the design of a fictive but real space city. (My ideal is, in Marianne Moore's words , "Imaginary gardens with real toads.") (1) General design characteristics: So far as I know, the accepted general designs fall into rotating torus, sphere, or cylinder, all providing spin-induced forces approximating gravity. I am currently using the "Stanford torus" model, as outlined in T. A. Heppenheimer's _Colonies in Space_. (Slightly over a mile in diameter, with a 1 rpm spin rate, central hub 400 feet in diameter, six spokes 50 feet wide going to an outer rim.) (One somewhat curious elaboration from the Heppenheimer book I plan to use: the city will occupy a "2:1 resonant orbit" that is 200,000 miles from Earth at farthest point, 100,000 miles at closest. In terms of narrative possibility, it provides openings and in general seems less boring than the usual "L5" colony" Any ideas on this?) Given what I know, this seems at once roomy (10,000 people, sight lines of 1/2 mile) and conservative, i.e., basically, a current- technology extrapolation of early visions of space cities. Questions: Has anyone suggested (a) *absolutely necessary* modifications of this design (because of, e.g., newly-discovered constraints) or (b) nice variations on it? Has anyone proposed an arguably superior design? [I am most definitely inviting *your own* comment and conjecture.] (2) Staying alive: Currently I am assuming that building materials will come from the Moon, that food and oxygen will be supplied by agriculture. Anyone know of interesting research that's been done within the past few years on such topics? In particular, I'm interested in details about the total ecology--which types of plants and animals can one expect to flourish together in the space city? What are the constraints? (Currently I'm thinking bright, tropical vegetation, the city as New Eden, lush and beautiful. Any reason not to do so? Anything concrete to add?) (3) Bright ideas: Of any sort. What vistas can you see opening up in a space city, what unique possibilities that one cannot expect life on Earth to provide? Art, entertainment, politics, sex, drugs, rock and roll. You name it. All entries welcome. (4) A particular problem: I want to have my city dwellers snag a metal-rich asteroid. I'm almost totally unclear on a few essentials. How big can it reasonably be? (I want it to have enough size to sustain tunnels in which a few a characters are going to have Amazing Adventures; I want it to be transportable.) Where is a good place for them to get it? ("Asteroid Belt" meaning exactly what in this context?) The idea is that some semi-expert robotic prospecting machines have located it, stuck some kind of rockets on it (probably fusion powered, using asteroid material, anything wrong with that?), and brought it back to the space city, which is orbiting as above. In summary, my big questions: *How big can the thing be, where will they find it, what will its exact composition be, and how long will it take them to get it home?* (5) General considerations: While I am very interested in having a clean, sound design, I do not feel constrained by current theory/technology at too detailed a level. I.e., if I or anyone else comes up with a lovely idea that reaches a little beyond the limits of the currently acceptable, that's fine, if the idea generates good narrative. Also, for those of you (which may be all of you) unfamiliar with my fiction, a few observations: my sf is new school (no Heinleinian digressions on the nature of the good life, high-tech (in the cyberpunk mode, I reckon), high-style (for better or worse, eh?). If you read (or have read) "Snake Eyes" (anthologized in _Mirrorshades_) or "The Robot and the One You Love" in the March, '88 _Omni_, these are representative pieces. So, finally, let me thank you in advance for your stated willingness to help. I'll certainly thank you individually, summarizing what I've learned, and probably will post a summary of results, unless you all have gone home for the summer or the millenium and don't respond. ------------------------------ Date: 31 May 88 20:27:08 GMT From: nsc!ken@decwrl.dec.com (Ken Trant) Subject: Re: Ruskies find Heaven to the left of Pluto in article <12797@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, khayo@sonia.math.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) says: % Yeah, yeah, we want more, we are all bored to death with those silly, % uninformative, beside-the-point, endless summaries that Henry Spencer % somehow finds time to pound into his keyboard ............... % Eric Maybe your bored, But who cares?, keep it up Henry!. -- PATH= Second star to the right, {...Ken Trant...} and straight on till morning "Official Sponsor, US Olympic Team" {...Merrill Lynch Realty...} 415-651-3131 *:-) 408-721-8158 ------------------------------ Date: 31 May 88 18:37:35 GMT From: s.cc.purdue.edu!ain@h.cc.purdue.edu (Patrick White) Subject: Re: The launch loop author replies: In article <550@ecrcvax.UUCP> johng@ecrcvax.UUCP (John Gregor) writes: >In article <2553@vice.TEK.COM> keithl@vice.TEK.COM (Keith Lofstrom) writes: >>it is hard to make a valid criticism of the launch >>loop without reading the technical paper. Two questions if you please... 1) since I picked up this discussion in the middle, where/how can I get a copy of this paper? 2) how big would this thing have to be to put a 1 lb payload into orbit.. or even sub-orbital? like, could someone build a model one in their backyard or something? Thanks muchly. -- Pat White ARPA/UUCP: j.cc.purdue.edu!ain BITNET: PATWHITE@PURCCVM PHONE: (317) 743-8421 U.S. Mail: 320 Brown St. apt. 406, West Lafayette, IN 47906 ------------------------------ Date: 31 May 88 22:38:26 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Bureaucracy vs. space > > PHIL KARN: Henry is right about the max G loads on the shuttle; > > they're about 3G. This *is* gentler than many expendables. > Agreed, but Henry's original posting was comparing shuttles with cargo > planes, not with expendables. Comparing the Space Shuttle with a cargo airplane is utterly pointless since they provide a completely different service. The Space Cadets seem to make careers of "proving" things by analogy, relevant or otherwise. By similar logic, one could compare a dialup telephone modem with a null modem and conclude that there must be something grossly wrong with the management of all the major modem companies because their products are so much bigger, slower and more expensive. In case you haven't figured it out yet, there is a world of difference between building airplanes and building space launchers. The fact that we went from Orville and Wilbur to the 747 and affordable air transport in a single human lifespan is not "proof" that the same rate of progress in space transportation could occur "if only the Government would get out of the way". Not only is the reasoning false, but it undervalues the considerable contributions that governments have made to both technologies, for whatever reasons. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 31 May 88 15:54:58 GMT From: steinmetz!sungoddess!oconnor@itsgw.rpi.edu (Dennis M. O'Connor) Subject: Re: women in space An article by clopez@ORION.CF.UCI.EDU ("Carlos A. lopez") says: ] [...] individuals with slow-twitch muscle fibers might be better suited to ] extended voyages than those with a fast-twitch physiology, regardless of ] sex. They use oxygen better, and tend to have less muscle mass. ] ] (Quick biology lesson: slow-twitch muscle fibers contract slower, but ] can do so longer because they use oxygen better. Fast-twitch fibers ] contract faster, and more powerfully, but tire quickly. [...]) Remedial biology lesson : you are confusing (fast|slow)-twitch with (high|low) oxidative. It is entirely possible ( usually through interval training ) to develop fast-twitch high-oxidative muscles which, unlike normal fast-twitch muscles, do not produce the high levels of lactic acid associated with fatigue. Prime example of fast-twitch high-oxidative athletes : mile runners, standardbreds. -- Dennis O'Connor oconnor%sungod@steinmetz.UUCP ARPA: OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa "The object of socialization is to teach wolves that they are sheep." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #261 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 8 Jul 88 06:26:07 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05144; Fri, 8 Jul 88 03:22:53 PDT id AA05144; Fri, 8 Jul 88 03:22:53 PDT Date: Fri, 8 Jul 88 03:22:53 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807081022.AA05144@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #262 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 262 Today's Topics: Re: Ruskies find Heaven to the left of Pluto passive vs. active support (was Re: Some more launch loop stuff...) Re: Space suits Re: Space suits Re: The launch loop author replies: Re: Ruskies find Heaven to the left of Pluto Re: Space Suits Re: that Canadian guy again Recycling Pershing-II's ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 May 88 23:53:13 GMT From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) Subject: Re: Ruskies find Heaven to the left of Pluto ken@nsc.nsc.com (Ken Trant) writes: ,khayo@sonia.math.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) says: ,% Yeah, yeah, we want more, we are all bored to death with those silly, ,% uninformative, beside-the-point, endless summaries that Henry Spencer ,% somehow finds time to pound into his keyboard ............... ,% Eric Was I out-of-step again by assuming that this was sarcastic and tongue-in-cheek? , , Maybe your bored, But who cares?, keep it up Henry!. ^^^^ What about my bored? :-) Yes, Henry, please keep up the summaries, the synopses, even the opinions. Otherwise... HELP ME!!! I'm a poor college student, just finished my M.S., workin' on Piling it Higher and Deeper, etc., and *I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY FOR MY OWN AW&ST SUBSCRIPTION!! So won't you please help? Send... (You get th' idea.) ------------------------------ Date: 31 May 88 21:30:22 GMT From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) Subject: passive vs. active support (was Re: Some more launch loop stuff...) In article <551@ecrcvax.UUCP> johng@ecrcvax.UUCP (John Gregor) writes: >Active systems fail. That's a fact of life. Airplanes use a much >more active support system than trains. They also fail in many more >and spectacular ways. We use them, however, because they are more >cost effective. The shuttle and NASP aren't exactly the most passive >systems around either. Actually, trains are more cost-effective than planes when all other things are equal. One reason that planes are used more than trains today in the U. S. is that all other things are NOT equal -- the government supports the infrastructure needed for air travel MUCH MORE than it supports the rail infrastructure -- otherwise we would most likely still have an extensive and decent-quality rail network and only limited air travel -- something like what one sees in European countries. In fact, if we are to cope with upcoming energy shortages, pollution problems, safety problems, and other problems, we are going to have to move in that direction, but that's a subject for a whole different newsgroup. The other reason people use planes instead of trains is that many people are willing to pay more to go faster. Now, for getting into space, it doesn't look like passive structures are going to cut it -- the cost of a passive structure is going to rise at least with the fourth power of its height, all other things being equal (which they aren't), because merely increasing all linear dimensions gives you a structure that is proportionately weaker in comparison to its weight. I don't know how actively-supported self-propelled vehicle cost scales up with how high it has to go but I'm pretty sure it isn't as bad as the fourth power of the height. >>You can support an accelerator (linear motor, mass >>driver, whatever) from a series of towers of increasing >>height with suspension bridges strung between the >>towers. If the power goes down, your structure does not >>fall out of the sky. >> >>Using towers also allows for incremental construction. > >Again, is this within the capability of today's materials? Any references? I see no reason why the support structures for a linear accelerator wouldn't be within the capability of today's materials -- particularly if you use mountains as part of your support structure. This kind of hybrid approach, where passive support is used part of the way (in the part before the cost gets scaled to the point of unfavorability), followed by ballistic and/or powered flight, is something that should be considered. However, I don't have a clue as to whether that or self-powered hyperspeed air-breathing vehicles (like the National Aerospace Plane but without the myriad foulups that the NASA and the rest of the government are sure to put into it) would be more cost-effective. Perhaps the best approach would be the following kind of hybrid: low-end linear accelerator gets air-breathing vehicle up to the speed at which scramjets become reasonably efficient, then air-breathing vehicle uses its scramjets to get out of the atmosphere at suborbital speed (it has been said that scramjets start to have trouble at speeds over Mach 20, so Mach 20 is suggested); finally, rocket-powered vehicle piggybacked on air-breathing vehicle gets into orbit while air-breathing vehicle re-enters (since it's not quite up to orbital speed) and lands for turnaround. Oh well -- if I can think of any way to get to the stars by train, I'll for sure let you know. . . . -- Lucius Chiaraviglio chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu lucius@tardis.harvard.edu (in case the first one doesn't work) Maybe your next spaceflight should be on a train. STARTRAK ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 88 13:55:59 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Space suits In article <1988May28.214926.2063@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >However, note that neither existing manned spacecraft nor existing spacesuits >are contamination-free; far from it. I doubt that the space activity suit >would be spectacularly worse. Even if the activity suit is outgassing all sorts of contaminants, the solution would be as simple as puting on a thin sealed plastic isolation suit like on earth. It doesn't need to hold any pressure, just channel escaping gas away. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 88 14:51:52 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Space suits In article <1988May22.011409.16510@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >...NASA >displays no interest in pursuing the scheme further, even though it funded >the original work and nobody has found any real flaws. If one were being >cynical, one might suspect an overly-cozy relationship between NASA and its >current space-suit suppliers; it wouldn't be the first time. And in article: <426@unisv.UUCP> vanpelt@unisv.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >Sounds bogus to me. .... >.... Probably (1) NIH and (2) not expensive enough. One idea which occured to me is that, how can I put this, the the skin of the female body is much easier to support and pressurise than that of the male. A large patch of strategically placed sticky tape, or its high-tech equivalent, would be enough to prevent escape of gas and liquids from the lower body openings, and to protect the more delicate tissues there. Support to pressurise the skin of male body would be more difficult to devise, and would be extremely uncomfortable to wear. The advantage would then be in employing female astronauts for all EVA work. Or am I overestimating the amount of support the more delicate skin tissues need? And also, has any thought been given to using this suit design for the lightweight suits needed on Mars if and when expeditions go there? Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jun 88 01:22:39 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Re: The launch loop author replies: In article <2553@vice.TEK.COM> keithl@vice.TEK.COM (Keith Lofstrom) writes: >2) Loop technology is useful for other things, and this provides a growth >path for the technology. Underground power storage and transmission may be >possible (this depends on real world small-bore rock tunneling costs, an >unknown). ... >6) "Okay, smarty pants, if it's so simple, why aren't you building one?" >Well, first, I'm lazy. I wrote the "Analog" article to drum up interest. >I mailed out around 200 copies of the paper, and wrote hundreds of personal >letters. I was hoping someone would steal the ball and run with it. Nuh-uh. What about those fellows at Argonne? Directly inspired by Keith's launch loop proposal -- they even cite the Analog article -- they noticed magnetically confined flywheels have excellent scaling properties (energy stored per unit system mass scales linearly with radius). They have published several papers on their concepts (see, for example, "Magnetically Confined Kinetic-Energy Storage Ring Using Attractive Levitation", J. R. Hull et. al., IEEE Trans. on Energy Conversion, Vol. EC-2, No. 4, Dec. 1987, pp. 586-591). They have a neat scheme for making attractive levitation passively stable using the strong focusing principle -- a spinoff of particle accelerator research -- that might be useful in the 180 degree bending sections of a launch loop. > "Simple" towers built around 2Km/sec ribbons can poke above > the atmosphere, and are useful for scientific observations... I still like the idea of levitating a superconducting cable using j x B forces, B the geomagnetic field, possibly augmented with ground cables running in the opposite direction. It's passively stable, although it does fall if the circuit breaks. You need pretty fierce current densities for this to work, though. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jun 88 03:30:39 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: Re: Ruskies find Heaven to the left of Pluto In article <9271@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon@iuvax.UUCP (RAMontante) writes: >ken@nsc.nsc.com (Ken Trant) writes: >,khayo@sonia.math.ucla.edu (Yours sincerely) says: >,% Yeah, yeah, we want more, we are all bored to death with those silly, >,% uninformative, beside-the-point, endless summaries that Henry Spencer >(etc.) >Was I out-of-step again by assuming that this was sarcastic and >tongue-in-cheek? No, you weren't - but did you have to say this? I was beginning to have a real ball... Eric ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 May 88 10:41 EDT From: ELIOT%cs.umass.edu@relay.cs.net Subject: Re: Space Suits The best concept I have seen for a rigid space suit has already been built in prototype form - for the movie 2001. The problem of staying still without using gross amounts of fuel would remain, but I would try to address that in the basic design of a space station. The first thing to build should be a tiny monorail track (a single aluminum I beam). Two more attached parallel tracks would give the beam structural stability and serve as permanent mounting beams for modules. (Solar wings, gas/fuel tanks, antenae etc.) There would be a single construction/repair site and an automated system for moving packages between attachment points and the construction site. Since movement and attachment is along rails it falls within the capacity of current robot technology. (Everything is rigid so the motions can be precisely described/programmed ahead of time.) Furthermore, the whole structure can be extended by making the rails longer. ------------------------------ Date: 31 May 88 17:00:25 GMT From: pacbell!att!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: that Canadian guy again > I bet he's a Space Alien -- does anybody know if his socks match? You lose -- it's summer (well, effectively so, in Toronto at least) and I've switched to sandals, so it's been weeks since I last wore socks! -- "For perfect safety... sit on a fence| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology and watch the birds." --Wilbur Wright| {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Subject: Recycling Pershing-II's Date: Wed, 01 Jun 88 09:49:17 -0400 From: Fred Baube [Moderator - Please feel free to abridge this] Today's (Wed 1 June) Washington Post describes how they will not go to a complete waste. Article by R. Jeffrey Smith, WP Staff Writer, excerpted without permission. There is a photo captioned, "A technician practices sawing up a US ground-launched cruise missile that has been drained of jet engine fuel." Further: "Each side will attempt to reclaim a portion of its hefty investment in the weapons by reusing missile components and associated equipment that are excluded from the INF constraints. The Soviets, for example, will modify nearly 1000 missile- launching vehicles under US inspection and use them to transport timber or large pipes, at an estimated savings equivalent to $73 million. [The Soviets will also reclaim precious metals] from missile guidance systems, and extract plutonium from warheads for use in civilian reactors. Arms negotiator Alexei Obukhov claimed that 'electronic instru- mentation' from the missiles would be used in 'radio engineering or television'. These efforts will not be subject to US monitoring. The US Army will retain several hundred truck cabs .. plus associated radios, generators and tool kits. 76 cruise missile launch control centers, worth $6 million each, will be modified for re-use in unspecified Air Force programs. Another $114 million worth of cruise missile motors and guidance sytems will be given to the Navy for installation in nuclear- tipped SLCM's .. Studies are underway on re-using the nuclear warheads in new US ALCM's and SLCM's that fall just outside the INF constraints. Although the theaty is widely said to be the first to eliminate an entire category of nuclear missiles, it allows each side to retain 15 missiles and launchers, to be irreversibly modified for harmless public display as a memorial to one of the most novel arms treaties ever achieved." Another story, also by the same writer, describes the atmosphere at the Hercules, Inc. plant west of Salt Lake City, where Soviet inspectors will be stationed for the next 13 years. "'Russians are coming, Russians are coming' screamed a recent headline in the company magazine .. Company officials are concerned that the Soviets .. will purloin company secrets .. and that the Pentagon will think twice about placing new orders at a plant where the Soviets can inspect much of what comes and goes thru the main gate. Their fears have been assuaged only partly by written orders from [Carlucci and others] barring such discrimination, and by an NSA pledge to make the company's internal communications network resistant to electronic eavesdropping." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #262 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 8 Jul 88 23:20:06 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06347; Fri, 8 Jul 88 20:17:27 PDT id AA06347; Fri, 8 Jul 88 20:17:27 PDT Date: Fri, 8 Jul 88 20:17:27 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807090317.AA06347@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #263 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 263 Today's Topics: space news from April 25 AW&ST Mobile Foot Restraint device ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Jun 88 02:05:38 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from April 25 AW&ST [Aviation Week & Space Technology subscription address is PO Box 1505, Neptune NJ 07754 USA. Rates depend on whether you are an "unqualified" or "qualified" subscriber, which basically means whether you look at the ads for cruise missiles out of curiosity, or out of genuine commercial or military interest. Best write for a "qualification card" and try to get the cheap rate. US rates are $55 qualified, $70 unqualified at present. It's weekly, it's thicker than Time or Newsweek, and most of it has nothing to do with space, so consider whether the price is worth it to you. -- HS] NASA expects to pick name for space station by June, and has asked its staff and contractors for ideas. Rules are: no acronyms, no names of living persons, and nothing that is ambiguous or offensive when translated into the languages of the international partners. ESA approves astronaut training plan for Hermes and Columbus; HQ will be in Germany with facilities in several other countries. Reagan urges Congress to adopt the $11.5G NASA FY89 budget uncut. The odds are not good. Recently revealed: as part of a routine Minuteman test last fall, SDI confirmed that minor damage to a missile warhead would prove fatal on reentry. A dummy warhead, damaged in a secret way to a secret extent, self-destructed on reentry. SDI is crowing about this as a demonstration that direct hits are not necessary. [I dunno. Seems to me that the hard part is being *sure* that you have inflicted damage; direct hits at those velocities are unmistakeable.] USAF to proceed with technology work on antisatellite weapons to replace the cancelled F-15-launched system. Leftover funds from the F-15 system are being used to start a new kinetic-kill system, and lasers are also being thought about. One system that is dead is the idea of putting the F-15 homer on top of a Pershing 2, since the Pershing 2s are to be scrapped. Something similar might still be done, though. USAF is re-evaluating the problems of the US inability to do rapid- reaction launches of military satellites. Gen. Bernard Randolph (USAF Systems Command) says existing launch vehicles were not conceived with rapid response as a goal, although improvements are possible. He claims ALS will be designed from the ground up for this. [My, my, ALS sure is turning into all things to all people, isn't it?] [More to the point, this stuff about existing systems not being conceived for quick response is utter nonsense. The Atlas and Titan were ICBMs, for God's sake! There were Titans sitting in silos until a year or two ago. Delta is a Thor derivative, and there was a time when Thors were theoretically ready to go on 15 minutes' notice. Most of the launchers are not quite the same as the old missile versions, but there is no inherent reason why they should take four orders of magnitude longer to launch from the word "go". The problems are with the management, not the hardware, as witness what the Soviets can do with ex-ICBMs of similar vintage. ALS will be no better unless the management improves.] QM-6 SRB test seems to have been a success. The boot ring survived. Things seem to have gone fairly well despite deliberate seal defects. Further details when the motor is disassembled. NASA reveals that mission 51J had a boot ring fail, probably very late in the mission since the boot was intact and there was little bearing damage. There is still some puzzlement about the source of the recent insulation debonds. NASA is putting a test segment in a vertical position for a while to see if slumping of the propellant is a factor. There were some minor debonds in QM-6, but they were not in vulnerable areas. The next test, in July, may deliberately expose some debonds to a hot gas leak to see what happens. NASA is considering various possibilities for a space-station crew rescue vehicle. One possibility is simply to buy another shuttle orbiter after the Challenger replacement is built. A variant on this is the idea of launching a shuttle unmanned, to get a rescue mission up without risking further lives. The shuttle office (which is now in charge of the rescue vehicle) will report its recommendations to Fletcher in June. [The shift of responsibility to the shuttle office is logical in one sense, but in another it may, um, *limit* serious consideration of non-shuttle ideas.] In testimony to Congress, Fletcher is holding out for the full $11.5G FY89 budget, on the grounds that it is all necessary and there is no more room for cuts. Congress is not happy, especially since some recent NASA projects -- notably the Transfer Orbit Stage -- have experienced some truly massive cost overruns. Mars Observer doesn't look like it will stay within budget either. One hopeful sign is that there is some sentiment in Congress for either funding the space station 100% or killing it outright. [Nice to see Fletcher showing some backbone, but this may be the wrong time for it...] India signs for two more Ariane launches, in 1990 and 1991. ESA is considering trying to reactivate Giotto for a flyby of comet Grigg- Skjellerup in 1992. Post-Halley analysis shows some damage; in particular, the pivoting external baffle that kept stray light out of the camera is gone, probably lost to dust erosion. Study of the power output of the solar cells indicates that the baffle is no longer casting a shadow on them. The loss of data at closest approach is now thought to have been due to a combination of slowing of Giotto's spin rate by dust impacts on the camera baffle and nutation from one or more large impacts. Both affected antenna pointing until the on-board systems got things under control again. The camera is thought to be still functional. ESA must now decide whether to fund reactivation of Giotto, currently in a quiet- cruise mode, early in 1990 for instrument checkout. If this is done and things are okay, ESA would then have to decide on funding the possible Grigg-Skjellerup encounter. Japan is considering retargeting Sakigake and Suisei [its Halley probes] for future comet encounters. Orbit corrections were made last year to bring them back near Earth for gravity-boost maneuvers; they will also return useful data from the Earth's magnetotail during these maneuvers. Close encounters with Honda-Mrkos-Pajdusakova (Sakigake, 1996) and Giacobini-Zinner (Suisei, 1998) are among the possible targets. USAF is pushing NASA for action on its problems with safety boundaries for shuttle launches, which the USAF thinks are too narrow, and with the rule that allows mission control to ignore range-safety rules so long as they declare that the orbiter is under positive control. One idea is to establish a backup safety line, beyond which crew survival is thought unlikely and destruct systems would be activated. The USAF safety people say that NASA cannot have it both ways: either the safety boundaries must be widened -- awkward because various viewing sites are just outside them now -- or destruct criteria must be loosened for better control. Leeds University scientists who pioneered the analysis of signals from the Soviet Glonass navsats are developing an experimental navsat receiver that can use both Glonass and Navstar. Letter from Don Vogel of Vermont, applauding Stofan's "the shuttle should have begun flying again 18 months ago", and adding: "It's been over two years now and re-inventing the shuttle still goes on. It was a very successful space vehicle until Jan 28 1986. It did not need re-inventing." -- "For perfect safety... sit on a fence| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology and watch the birds." --Wilbur Wright| {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Jun 88 10:04 EDT From: GODDEN%gmr.com@relay.cs.net Subject: Mobile Foot Restraint device >SPACE Digest V8 #240 >Date: 20 May 88 16:08:18 GMT >From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) >Subject: Re: Space suits > >Legs are not needed except for hooking your feet into some convenient >perch. In my office I have a poster available from Flagstaff Engineering that shows Bruce McCandless II on flight 41-B of the Challenger "trying out" a new device called the Mobile Foot Restraint. It's a disk attached to the shuttle and has two straps into which the astronaut slips his/her feet to avoid flying off into deep space and/or landing on Cleveland. In any case, written on this disk it is possible to make out the upside-down words "For Space Use Only". If you think about that for a minute, it becomes VERY amusing. -Kurt Godden godden@gmr.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #263 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 9 Jul 88 06:23:52 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06912; Sat, 9 Jul 88 03:22:27 PDT id AA06912; Sat, 9 Jul 88 03:22:27 PDT Date: Sat, 9 Jul 88 03:22:27 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807091022.AA06912@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #264 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 264 Today's Topics: Undeliverable mail ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 1 Jun 88 19:39 EDT From: PMDF Mail Server Subject: Undeliverable mail The message could not be delivered to: Addressee: RILEY Reason: %MAIL-E-NOSUCHUSR, no such user RILEY at node ---------------------------------------- Received: from JNET-DAEMON by BKNLVMS.BITNET; Wed, 1 Jun 88 19:36 EDT Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by BKNLVMS with Jnet id 8871 for RILEY@BKNLVMS; Wed, 1 Jun 88 19:30 EDT Received: by PSUVM (Mailer X1.25) id 3680; Wed, 01 Jun 88 19:29:49 EDT Date: Wed, 1 Jun 88 03:37:58 PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #240 Sender: space-request@angband.s1.GOV To: Chris Riley Reply-to: Space@angband.s1.GOV Comments: To: Space@angband.s1.gov SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 240 Today's Topics: Re: Space suits Re: Space suits Re: Space suits Re: Space suits Re: Space suits What to do with the external shuttle tanks Re: What to do with the external shuttle tanks Re: What to do with the external shuttle tanks Re: Converting Ephemeris Time to GMT Re: Converting Ephemeris Time to GMT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 May 88 15:25:35 GMT From: nyser!cmx!anand@itsgw.rpi.edu (Rangachari Anand) Subject: Re: Space suits In article <1783@cos.com> smith@cos.UUCP (Steve Smith) writes: >Many years ago, I saw an idea for a "spacesuit" that solved this >problem elegantly. It uses the fact that human skin is a very good >gastight membrane. It simply consists of a mechanical support layer >that doesn't let the user swell up in vacuum. Think of a *very* stiff >body stocking. A helmet finishes it off. There are some obvious >problems -- getting in and out would not be trivial, and there are >parts of the human anatomy that would be difficult to handle (armpits, >for example). Protection from vaccuum is not the only function of a space suit Thermal insulation and radiation insulation are also important. I recently read in Spaceflight that even with the current space suits, EVA times have to be restricted to not more than a few hours so as to minimize exposure to radiation. R. Anand anand@amax.npac.syr.edu ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 88 16:08:18 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Space suits Legs are not needed except for hooking your feet into some convenient perch. Most of the actual moving about is done either by using your hands or using a maneuvering unit of some sort. In a suit for serious construction work in space, e.g. on a large space colony, there would have to be a maneuvering unit attached to the suit. On the basis of keeping the system as simple and as cheap as possible, do away with the legs and torso and replace then with a simple cylinder. Some sort of anchor would also be needed to hold the suit in place while the occupant is working. If the cylinder is wide enough, the occupant could withdraw their arms from the sleeves to adjust instruments, feed, or just to scratch. To improve the suit arms and gloves, make the occupant wear a long pair of skin support gloves, put an air seal at the top of the wearer's arm above the bicep, and pump most of the air out. The gloves can then be designed to hold much less pressure, and be correspondingly more flexible. Make sure that the gloves are well thermaly insulated, 'though, things might get very hot in sunlight and very cold in shadow. Suits of this basic design used to be used 150 years ago for underwater salvage operations, before the invention of the diving suit. Bob. ------------------------------ Path: ucbvax!pasteur!ames!lll-tis!lll-winken!uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry From: utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Space suits Keywords: non-anthropomorphic Date: 22 May 88 01:14:09 GMT Lines: 9 Apparently-To: space-incoming@angband.s1.gov > Hard suits...best of both worlds.. Well, better of both worlds. The clear winner for the hassle-free spacesuit is the "space activity suit" concept, in which the body of the suit is just extra-stretchy fabric to supply pressurization, with the skin in vacuum. The idea has been tested in vacuum chambers; it works. Unfortunately, NASA displays no interest in pursuing the scheme further, even though it funded the original work and nobody has found any real flaws. If one were being cynical, one might suspect an overly-cozy relationship between NASA and its current space-suit suppliers; it wouldn't be the first time. ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 88 02:58:39 GMT From: spar!snjsn1!trojan!chuckc@decwrl.dec.com (Charles Crapuchettes) Subject: Re: Space suits In article <1988May22.011409.16510@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Hard suits...best of both worlds.. > >Well, better of both worlds. The clear winner for the hassle-free spacesuit >is the "space activity suit" concept, in which the body of the suit is just >extra-stretchy fabric to supply pressurization, with the skin in vacuum. > . . . In article <580158832.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >Small particles released with the liquids will suffer the same fate as >Delta rocket paint flecks: fly around Earth for a few years and then >either reenter or make craters in spacecraft windshields. How long would an astronaut have to be EVA to have a 50% chance of being injured by a chunk of crud (either artificial or man-made)? Do harder suits provide protection, or is the energy too high? Anyone with hard facts? InterNet: chuckc%sentry@spar.slb.com or crapuchettes%mother@spar.slb.com ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 88 04:33:44 GMT From: ubvax!unisv!vanpelt@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: Space suits In article <1783@cos.com> smith@cos.UUCP (Steve Smith) writes: >Many years ago, I saw an idea for a "spacesuit" that solved this >problem elegantly. It uses the fact that human skin is a very good >gastight membrane. It simply consists of a mechanical support layer >... Suposedly, a large aerospace company (Avco-Everett?) built a model >suit that was comfortable, inexpensive, and *far* more efficient than >NASA's suits. NASA rejected the idea with an excuse that translated >"not invented here". > >Does anybody have any further information? I heard a talk on space suit design a few years ago, and I asked about this suit. The speaker (don't remember his name, but he was involved in the Apollo suit design) said that for satellite work, you'll be doing a whole lot of outgassing, which is very bad for contaminating delicate parts. Sounds bogus to me. They don't put satellites in a vaccum canister for launch. Probably (1) NIH and (2) not expensive enough. That suit is supposedly very good for thermal control, too. Given the mechanical support, your skin does just as good a job of temperature control as on earth. Better, actually, as a little sweat provides a lot more cooling in vacuum. ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 88 22:47:59 GMT From: cadnetix.COM!beres@uunet.uu.net Subject: What to do with the external shuttle tanks * All details from Boulder Daily Camera, 5/6/88; information used and quoted without permission * FACTS: In todays Boulder Daily Camera (5/6) there is an article about a Boulder company that stands to benefit by a new amendment passed by the space sub-committee (Congress). The company is ETCO (External Tanks Corp.) of Boulder. ETCO was created by UCAR (Univ. Corp. for Atmospheric Research, also of Boulder) to study and design ways of using the ET in orbit. ETCO is/was founded as a co-op between gov't and the private sector; uses of the tanks are to be investor financed (yea!). Final bit of factual info: the bill to authorize NASA to make use of the ET was introduced by Rep. David Skaggs D-Colo. ME: Funny that a Boulder company could stand to benefit from this bill, huh? In any event, the bill is a good idea, no matter who is the *financial* winner. I know that uses of the ET has come up before in this group, but it might be a good time to discuss it again - since it just really might happen. To start the ball rolling, here are a few (well, 5) questions I have: 1. Does anyone in the know (Greg Woods at NCAR, others) know if the previous net discussion, amongst others I presume, influenced our Congress-critters/NASA to make use of the ET? Did it help? 2. The Camera article mentioned 20 to 30 experiments have been proposed to UCAR. Care to give us any details, anyone? 3. Timeframe, if Congress/NASA is timely about adoption of the plan? 4. Does anyone have a summary of previous net proposals? 5. What about integration with the space station/ISF plans? Speaking for myself only...if anyone else has a better summary of the amendment, speak up! -Tim ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 88 20:24:05 GMT From: attcan!lsuc!spectrix!tmsoft!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: What to do with the external shuttle tanks > 1. Does anyone in the know (Greg Woods at NCAR, others) know if the > previous net discussion, amongst others I presume, influenced > our Congress-critters/NASA to make use of the ET? Did it help? Unlikely. The most significant influence was probably that the Reagan space policy specifically called for NASA to provide ETs to private companies wanting them, and this is uncontroversial enough to pass Congress easily. > 3. Timeframe, if Congress/NASA is timely about adoption of the plan? NASA is supposed to release a detailed policy document on it soon. See my latest AW&ST summary for some related news. The main issue is that any company wanting an ET in orbit has got to demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that the tank will not make an uncontrolled reentry. This is a non-trivial problem since the tanks are big and light, would end up in quite a low orbit, and would naturally tend to orient themselves broadside- on to air drag. > 5. What about integration with the space station/ISF plans? If NASA were sensible, it would have provided for using an ET as expansion space for the station. It didn't. And I'd say Space Industries has enough problems with plain old ISF just now. NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 88 01:25:41 GMT From: al@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Al Globus) Subject: Re: What to do with the external shuttle tanks My favorite use for external tanks: sports arena. Note that the revenue from a major sporting event (Olympics, SuperBowl) can be in the $100 millions range. Put an aft cargo compartment on the tank so that modification work that cannot be done on the ground can be done in a shirt sleeve environment. First launch sets up the facility and presurizes the oxygen tank. Next launch a Shuttle and a Soyuz simulataneously to dock with the facility (this may be tricky). The shuttle carries a pilot and commander, a video technician, two American and two Soviet atheletes. The Soyuz carries a Soviet pilot, one American and one Soviet athelete. Take four days to train and aclimate. Then have three or four games, one per day with three on three teams, Americans vs Soviets. I guarantee VERY large audiences for at least the first game. With proper marketing you just might be able to make some money. In any case, the initial potential income vastly exceeds any other space venture. You should take in hundreds of millions in the first week of operation. The scientist and engineers have had the orbital sandbox to themselves for too long. It's time for others to get in the action. ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 88 18:26:55 GMT From: cfa!mink@husc6.harvard.edu (Doug Mink) Subject: Re: Converting Ephemeris Time to GMT In article <217@krafla.rhi.hi.is>, kjartan@rhi.hi.is (Kjartan R. Gudmundsson) writes: > I am working on a program which will give me on what days the moon is > full. I have a formula which gives the answer in Julian Ephemeris > Days, and now I need a formula to convert these in to GMT. A example > with the formula shows that New Moon in February 1977 was on JD = > 2443192.6525 or 1977 February 18 at 3 Hours 39.6 min (ET). > If someone could give me this formula I would be thankful. I run into this problem all the time doing occultation predictions. Until recently, I've been working over a period of time during which ET-UT could be closely approximated by a linear fit (it is an empirical number whcih can only be accurately computed for the past). I had occasion to look at data over a period from the late 1940's to the present, and no polynomial fit would work, so I built in a table of ET-UT over a the period from which observations are most likely to be used. The fit back past the 1940's is based on the real ET-UT which I didn't want to tabulate; ET-UT fluctuates strangely before 1930. The fit into the future fits the extrapolated data for the next two years and should work for longer. I use it through 1999 in my work. Here is a program I wrote: c*** March 24, 1988 c*** By Doug Mink c--- Calculate ET - UT given seconds after 1/1/1950 Subroutine JPDT (TSEC0, DT) Real*8 TSEC0 c Date in format (yyyy.mmdd) c or if >3000.d0, seconds after 1/1/1950 0:00 et Real*8 DT c ET - UT in seconds Real*8 TSEC,YEAR,YDIFF,DIFF Integer*4 IYR c Table containing ET - UT in seconds from the Astronomical Ephemeris Real*4 DTTAB(40) Save DTTAB Data DTTAB/28.71,29.15,29.57,29.97,30.36,30.72,31.07,31.35,31.68,32.18, 1 32.68,33.15,33.59,34.00,34.47,35.03,35.73,36.54,37.43,38.29, 2 39.20,40.18,41.17,42.23,43.37,44.49,45.48,49.46,47.52,48.53, 3 49.59,50.54,51.38,52.17,52.96,53.79,54.34,54.90,55.40,56.00/ TSEC = TSEC0 c Convert date to seconds after 1950.0101 If (TSEC .lt. 3.d3) Then Call VCON (TSEC0,0.d0,TSEC) Endif c Convert to years since 1950 (divide by 365.25d0*8.64d4) YEAR = TSEC / 31557600.d0 IYR = Idint (YEAR) + 2 c Extrapolate into past using fit based on data from 1930 to 1950 If (IYR .lt. 1) Then DT = 29.157184d0 + 0.589892348d0 * DYEAR + 7.701803d-3 * DYEAR*DYEAR 1 - 4.7890824d-4 * DYEAR*DYEAR*DYEAR c Interpolate from table from the Astronomical Ephemeris (1987) (1949-1988) Elseif (IYR .lt. 40) Then DIFF = Dble (DTTAB(IYR+1) - DTTAB(IYR)) YDIFF = YEAR - Dble (IYR-2) DT = Dble (DTTAB(IYR)) + (YDIFF * DIFF) c Extrapolate into future using fit based on data from 1975 to 1988 Else DT = 28.76304734d0 + 0.719777265d0 * (YEAR) Endif Return End ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 88 05:52:00 GMT From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Converting Ephemeris Time to GMT While Dr. Mink's posting is quite accurate, as far as it goes, let me just fill in some data for longer periods. Actual observed differences in the two clocks over the last three centuries are (all times in minutes): 1710 -0.2 1770 0.1 1870 0.0 1903 0.0 1940 0.4 1971 0.7 1730 -0.1 1800 0.1 1880 -0.1 1912 0.2 1950 0.5 1977 0.8 1750 0 1840 0.0 1895 -0.1 1927 0.4 1965 0.6 [Meeus] For longer periods (centuries), Meeus suggests the approximation: diff = 0.4992 * T**2 + 1.2053 * T + 0.41 where diff is the difference between the two clocks, in minutes, and T is the time since 1900.0, in centuries. Another useful and simple approximation is diff = 0.015 * Y + 0.91, where Y is the time since 1985, in years, and diff is again in minutes; this approximation appears in the programs distributed by Allan Paeth. This last one is within a few seconds for periods 1950-present. Kevin ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #240 ******************* ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #264 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 9 Jul 88 23:24:44 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07904; Sat, 9 Jul 88 20:22:50 PDT id AA07904; Sat, 9 Jul 88 20:22:50 PDT Date: Sat, 9 Jul 88 20:22:50 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807100322.AA07904@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #265 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 265 Today's Topics: Re: Some more launch loop stuff... Re: Some more launch loop stuff... Re: Bureaucracy vs. space Mir elements, epoch 25 May Re: Mir elements, epoch 25 May Re: Space Station Names Re: Space Suits RE: SPACE Digest V8 #240 Re: Naming the space station. Re: Nuclear bombs Tours of NASA Ames during Usenix Space Digest skin tight space suits Re: Some more launch loop stuff... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Jun 88 02:49:17 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!looking!brad@uunet.uu.net (Brad Templeton) Subject: Re: Some more launch loop stuff... What ever happened to the good old fashioned 500 mile linear acellerator? At 3.5g for 3 minutes 20 seconds you hit orbital velocity. You have to correct to circular with a reaction rocket later of course, and you have to also get back the velocity you lose to air. But the point is we could build such a thing. 500 miles isn't that long, with mass production techniques. If it costs $20 million per mile to build, that's only $10 billion -- lots less than the space scuttle program. Share it with the Russians, Japanese, Canadians and ESA even if it costs $100 million per mile. Float it at sea and have it shoot up the Rockies or the Andes. Stretch it over the desert. Use it as a supercollider when it isn't busy launching. The launch loop would fail in a bad way. Geostationary towers can't stand because they would be hit by satellites. I think it's this or super fast scramjets, folks. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jun 88 16:13:05 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Some more launch loop stuff... > ... Also, the segments wouldn't wind up in Earth orbit. > They would go into solar orbit. Nothing like having a few thousand > one kilo chunks of iron flying about in an earth intersecting solar > orbit. :-( Not to worry, there are millions of one-kilo-sized nickel-iron meteorites out there already. The only reason space junk is a concern in Earth orbit is that near-Earth space, especially the most interesting regions, isn't very big. We can't totally disregard the issue elsewhere, but given the natural background level already present, it will be a while before it's a real concern. -- "For perfect safety... sit on a fence| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology and watch the birds." --Wilbur Wright| {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jun 88 16:31:04 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Bureaucracy vs. space > Agreed, but Henry's original posting was comparing shuttles with cargo > planes, not with expendables. True, but it doesn't affect my point, which is that the cargo environment for the shuttle is not severe enough to explain the massive difference in paperwork. > ... it is perfectly > reasonable for those regulations to be stricter than for expendables, > given that the shuttle is manned, reusable, and more delicate than an > expendable. Sure. But several orders of magnitude? The Hercules is also manned and reusable, if a bit more durable. By the way, I think you're overestimating the robustness of expendables; no space-launch system is made any heavier than it absolutely needs to be. If anything, the shuttle has to be more robust than expendables. > As for being manned, it doesn't matter how much risk the astronauts are > willing to take for the glory of NASA. Every manager or engineer on > the ground still is morally required to worry about their safety --- > much, much more than what he would be expected to worry in the case of > an unmanned vehicle. The same comment applies to airlines. They seem to find it possible to fly cargo and people at reasonable costs with reasonable paperwork... but then, they have incentive. They have to be useful, or they go broke. > As for reusability, in an expendable launch the only party who really > needs to worry about payload safety is the payload owner, since he is > the only one who stands to lose in case of an accident... Ho ho. Sorry, wrong. The launcher supplier has to worry about the effects of a failure on future business. This is *not* a trivial issue, especially with production volumes as low as they are today. (That is, he can't just say "well, we had a failure, but with 357 successes in the last three years, we can quite safely say that it was a fluke and our booster is still amply reliable". The airliner builders have a bit of an advantage here.) At the very least, the launch outfit has to have iron-clad proof that the failure was the satellite's fault, and that's not easy to get. The Soviets might have commercial Proton business by now if they hadn't had those failures. With volume so low and costs so high, it doesn't take many failures for customers to decide that your launcher is jinxed. Expendable builders get to worry a lot about payload safety. However, unlike NASA, they do have to be useful, so they have some incentive to keep things under control. -- "For perfect safety... sit on a fence| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology and watch the birds." --Wilbur Wright| {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jun 88 20:07:00 GMT From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements, epoch 25 May Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 212 Epoch: 88144.82886303 Inclination: 51.6140 degrees RA of node: 192.4097 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0022899 Argument of perigee: 5.3494 degrees Mean anomaly: 355.2223 degrees Mean motion: 15.75455582 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00019094 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 12999 Semimajor axis: 6721.43 km Apogee height*: 358.66 km Perigee height*: 327.88 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jun 88 20:16:00 GMT From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Mir elements, epoch 25 May Sorry about the delay on this posting; I was in Denver for the National Space Society convention. During the convention, I observed Mir visually twice, on Saturday and Sunday evenings. Since it arrived exactly when predicted (+/- a few seconds, perhaps) I surmise that as of Sunday night, 10:20pm MDT, the Soviets had not yet reboosted and dumped Progress 36. One may expect that they will in short order, as they plan to launch a visiting Soyuz this week and will need to clear the rear docking port of Kvant to accomodate it (The side ports cannot be used until the first Star module with a remote manipulator system is on-orbit). Kevin Kenny UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny Department of Computer Science ARPA: kenny@M.CS.UIUC.EDU University of Illinois 1304 W. Springfield Ave. Urbana, Illinois, 61801 Voice: (217) 333-6680 ------------------------------ Date: 24 May 88 04:12:15 GMT From: nfsun!ditka!formtek!darth!pitt!cisunx!bgarwood@uunet.uu.net (Robert Garwood) Subject: Re: Space Station Names In article <8552@ames.arc.nasa.gov> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes: >And now the question you've all been staying up late for: what the >heck are they going to name the Space Station?? How about just painting it white with the following in large black letters : "Space Station" Why pay more for a brand name when generic will do? Bob Garwood "I don't have a .signature file." ------------------------------ Date: 22 May 88 22:37:36 GMT From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) Subject: Re: Space Suits Someone mentioned the 'skin suit' style space suit, and asked for some references. Enjoy them courtesy of J.E. Pournelle, in Vol. 2, No. 3 of the now defunct _Destinies_. NASA Report CR-1892, Development of a Space Activity Suit, by James Annis and Paul Webb. Ask your congresscritter, and he should send you one - that's how I got my copy (since misplaced in one of my moves...). The suit is basically a multilayer (seven in this version) tight leotard. Pressure maintained is ~170 torr around the torso, tapering to ~100-120 torr at the extremities. Multiple layers are preferable for ease of construction (one layer is not required to support all that pressure), ease of tailoring, and of course redundancy. Pressure integrity is kept around the head by a bladder extending over the torso, providing constant volume while inhaling. Cooling is provided by sweat (quite efficient cooling, what with instant evaporation). Loss of several pints expected in average EVA. Heating was planned by electrical resistance heaters in on oversuit - said oversuit also to provide radiation and thermal protection. Dexterity in the test suits was far far superior to the existing semi-hard suits. (Interesting parts included 'rounders' where the human body had concavities and flats, such as the backs of the hands, in order to allow the suit to exert pressure.) Estimated cost for the seven layer suit, including silk underlayers for ease of donning was $2000 1974 dollars, compared to the rather extreme cost of period and present suits. Present shuttle suit costs ~$200K. Difficulties included _individual_ tailoring, including a need for a new suit if the owner changed weight by more than a few pounds, and the task of putting on seven layers of _tight_ leotards. Note also the low pressure in the suit, 170 torr compared to the present shuttle pressure of 760 torr, which may require compression - decompression cycles. Tailoring and donning problems were expected to be reduced with more experience, plus some work on user- friendly zipper pull handles. The overall design was thus a multilayer leotard, oxygen tank, battery and radio backpack, covered by a heavy silvered coverall with sweat vents. Very light, cheap, and providing (compared to any other design) incredible freedom of movement. Also a large safety margin - a tear would simple cause pain, swelling, and edema (sp? Swelling of the skin due to vapor pressure of under- lying fluids.). Not instantly fatal decompression and loss of suit enviornment unless the helmet or torso bladder are ruptured. An excellent design. NASA never picked up on it for reasons completely unknown to me. Perhaps somebody was instinctively repelled by the thought of expensive astronauts floating around in expensive skivvies?... kwr "Jest so ya know..." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Jun 88 00:04:24 -0900 Reply-To: Sender: From: Scott Dennis, Computer Support Subject: RE: SPACE Digest V8 #240 Well, then she was probably pretty lucky! Darn cars don't even see motocycles.. Well, I'm hittin' the hay. I'll see you in the morning at about 10, then! ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 88 17:39:43 GMT From: hall!pai!erc@umn-cs.arpa (Eric Johnson) Subject: Re: Naming the space station. In article <12487@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, cc1@CS.UCLA.EDU writes: > How about "Fred"? > > --Net.Rabbit Count mine as another vote for Space Station Fred -- Eric F. Johnson | Phone +1 612-894-0313 | Are we Prime Automation,Inc | UUCP: ihnp4!umn-cs!hall!pai!erc | having 12201 Wood Lake Drive | UUCP: sun!tundra!pai!erc | fun Burnsville, MN 55337 USA | BIX: erc | yet? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1988 14:40-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Nuclear bombs I'd also suggest those interested dig through back issues of Life, around 1959-61 for a picture of a hole in the ground in a Carolina farm field after it was accidentally dropped from a B-52 or B-57. Triggers made a good size crater and caused some local cleanup problems, but the last time I drove through the Carolina's they were quite well populated... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 14:40:33 pdt From: Eugene N. Miya Subject: Tours of NASA Ames during Usenix I go on vacation and my mailbox, etc. fills. gezz.... Several of you have written to tell me you would like tours of the Ames Research Center while you are visiting SF during Usenix. Contrary to popular belief, my job isn't to read mail and news, I am supposed to be doing development and research. I wish I could really help a lot of you, but it's too short a notice for me to do anything with a large group of you. It's not clear to me that I will be going to Usenix for more than an a day (there's just not that much on the program to interest me). I've also been asked to convey a NASA Internal Unix User Group meeting, so this puts severe time contraints on me. If you guys had suggested this 6 months ago... Actually, Ames is pretty boring stuff, no mission controls, no high performance aircraft (well, a couple of Harriers, F-104s and T-38s). Tours are only given during daylight (working hours) on strict time schedules. FOREIGN NATIONALS TAKE 1 week to 1 month to clear in advance since this is a Government reservation, this includes English speaking nations (sorry Bob and others). So I have to turn you guys down in a blanket way, there's just too many of you on too short a notice. Now if you win a Field's or Nobel Prize, and you have time to stop by to give a talk, I'm sure they can make exceptions for you. Next conference, have the local arrangements communittee reach by 6 months in advance. Contact the Public Information Office (get the phone as a exercise for the reader [remember this one?]) if you still want to try, we are 40 minutes South of SF on 101 (terrible drive during rush hour) it's the Moffett Field exit (the first street exit after Stierlin [Silicon Graphics and E&S and Pyramid, and Bridge?] and Rengdorff [ SUN Microsystems]. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 14:37 AST From: Subject: Space Digest Please send me Space Digest Volume 8, Issue 230. Thank you. gf ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jun 88 14:48:17 GMT From: mtunx!whuts!sw@rutgers.edu (WARMINK) Subject: skin tight space suits All this discussion about the skin-tight pressure suits reminds me of the suits worn (?) by the adventurous space men & women on the covers of those old science fiction magazines... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Please continue the petty bickering, | Stuart Warmink, APT UK Ltd. it is most intriguing" Cmdr. Data | !whuts!sw, Whippany NJ USA -----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of APT UK Ltd. <----------- ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jun 88 14:58:16 GMT From: mtunx!whuts!sw@rutgers.edu (WARMINK) Subject: Re: Some more launch loop stuff... In article <1703@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > > What ever happened to the good old fashioned 500 mile linear acellerator? > At 3.5g for 3 minutes 20 seconds you hit orbital velocity. > You have to correct to circular with a reaction rocket later of course, > and you have to also get back the velocity you lose to air. Don't forget about air resistance - quite substantial at orbital velocity and near sea level, not to mention the frictional heating effects! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Please continue the petty bickering, | Stuart Warmink, APT UK Ltd. it is most intriguing" Cmdr. Data | !whuts!sw, Whippany NJ USA -----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of APT UK Ltd. <----------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #265 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Jul 88 06:39:14 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08522; Sun, 10 Jul 88 03:23:07 PDT id AA08522; Sun, 10 Jul 88 03:23:07 PDT Date: Sun, 10 Jul 88 03:23:07 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807101023.AA08522@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #266 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 266 Today's Topics: Re: Recycling Pershing-II's space station name Re: Shooting the Moon.... Space Digest Re: satellite oceanography Getting Nuked Mir docking Book Review wanted Re: Getting Nuked RE: Nuclear Fantasma ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Jun 88 22:15:04 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: Recycling Pershing-II's In article <8806010951.aa16990@note.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube) writes: }[The Soviets will also reclaim precious metals] from missile }guidance systems, and extract plutonium from warheads for use in }civilian reactors. I find this hard to believe..... Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jun 88 17:44:29 GMT From: pacbell!att!alberta!ubc-cs!fornax!zeke@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Zeke Hoskin) Subject: space station name Inasmuch as one of the constraints on space station name is "Not subject to ambiguous puns in any relevant language", there is no chance that "High 'n' Lyin'" could be used. (pun courtesy Spider Robinson) -- What makes one step a giant leap|Zeke Hoskin/SFU VLSI group,Burnaby,BC,Canada Is all the steps before | ...!ubc-cs!sfu_fornax!zeke ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1988 16:45:46 CDT From: "Jonathan C. Sadow" Subject: Re: Shooting the Moon.... killer!tness7!tness1!sugar!peter@eddie.mit.edu (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <5181@cup.portal.com>, Daniel_C_Anderson@cup.portal.com.UUCP writes: >> Nuking Mars would be a crudity akin to spray-painting directions to >> your party in 100-ft letters on the Grand Canyon. A cosmic act of >> inconsideration by a F-T-Universe species. It'd make us look bad. > >Why? What good is Mars? It doesn't even have an ecosystem. There's a lot >to be said for just busting the thing wide open and making a bunch of >useful asteroids. Venus, too... in fact you could make a better case for >Venus. > >But there's really no hurry. There are plenty of asteroids out there >yet. Let Mars lie fallow for a while. Hell, we haven't even gotten a >decent start on the moon. We've had even less of a start on Mars, and I see no reason to explode thermonuclear warheads or the planet itself before we can take a good look at it. After all, it's the only Mars we'll ever have.... Seriously, our knowledge of planetary regoliths is extremely limited at this time, and we should keep Mars (or any other extraterrestrial body) as 'pristine' as possible for as long as possible. Flattening out a landing site via the described method may be quick, but it's quick and dirty, too. Slow and steady wins the race (something I have to keep telling myself every time I hear of another launch of a planetary mission being delayed...). -J. Sadow GEOS21@UHUPVM1.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 88 18:29:04 GMT From: ecsvax!gas@mcnc.org (Guerry A. Semones) Subject: Space Digest Pardon my ignorance, but I've noticed mention of 'subscriptions' to Space Digest here. If this is an E-mail implentation of sending out copies of the Space Digest, I'd like to know how to get signed up. Please, no flames if I dropped this message in the wrong place.... -- Guerry A. Semones BITNET: drogo@tucc.BITNET Information Services USENET: gas@ecsvax.UUCP Duke University My views are despairingly mine only. Talent Identification Program "We ain't gifted, we just work here." ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jun 88 05:23:28 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: satellite oceanography This machine (apl) is not accessible to me for some reason. This is otherwise should be mail since it is not of general net interest. Sure there's lots of people, most not ARPAnet accessible. I was just visiting a friend and climbing partner, Dudley Chelton at OSU [author of the book CLIMB on Colorado climbing, PhD Oceanography Boulder (always funny so far from the sea)]. He's part of the TOPEX group seeking climbing partners in Corvalis BTW. He's on SPAN at least. There's Len Bryan at JPL and his crew and numerous RSAG people. Ray Smith at UCSB. There's tons of references: %A J. P. Ford %A R. G. Blom %A M. L. Bryan %A M. I. Daily %A T. H. Dixon %A C. Elachi %A E. C. Xenos %T Seasat Views North America, the Caribbean, and Western Europe with Imaging Radar %R TR 80-67 %I JPL, Caltech %C Pasadena, CA %D Nov. 1980 Xerographic copying of this report isn't recommended, detail will be lost. Consequently it will be harder to find, my stack of six has dwindled to one just sitting at my Ames office. This TR reads: "It is expected that the material will be of interest to a wide audience, including university students who wish to explore the potential value of this new remote sensing tool. In turn, this should foster analysis of the remaining 99% of Seasat's SAR land images." What this means is "we only have so much money to process (auto-correlate) raw image data, send money." Added note to the comment of the person who noted my sarcastic comment: NO, these types of radar systems are vastly different. Go learn about radar. There are numerous other technical reports which I do not recommend requesting that the net bug researchers unless they are grad students (or profs) interested in projects (like this fellow?). It's really expensive to make copies of these %Q JPL %T Seasat Gulf of Alaska Workshop [I,II] Report %R TR 622-107 %C Pasadena, CA %D January 1980 There are other useful instruments like the altimeter (or "How I know orbits are bumpy (not smooth) things."): %Q JPL %T Accuracy Assessent of the Seasat Orbit and Height Measurement %R IASOM TR 79-5 %I Institute for Advanced Study in Orbital Mechanics, U Texas %C Austin, TX %D Oct. 1979 Finally when you get raw data, you get reports like: %Q JPL %T Seasat-A Sensor Data Record Tape Specification Interface Control Document and Telemetry Dictionary %R TR 622-57, Rev. A %I JPL, Caltech %C Pasadena, CA %D May 1979 "Can't I just tar the data?" "No, silly, what makes you think this is a 9 track tape? It isn't." Blue sky: %A Gregg Vane %T Opportunities on Earth-Orbiting Missions through 1990 and Beyond %R TR %I JPL, Caltech %C Pasadena, CA %D March 1980 %X This TR is now obsolete with the introduction of R. Reagan who cancelled most of these missions. I have tons more, but it gives you the flavor what a space mission is about. There are far too many notes for me to read on the net. I will start hitting the 'c' command on news more often. If I miss you posting, query what ever, sorry, but tough beans. News is unreliable as it is. Just think who will miss this. I don't know all the reasons why Jim is trying to defend his not revealing sources. I guess others are asking him for sources, too. Good for YOU guys! I asked him for sources early on, he said no, and I left it at that. Note: at the time I had a direct audience with the Inspector General of NASA and can drop a very heavy hammer at the word GO. I will still leave it at that. If the man doesn't want to give specifics for fear of reprisal, then he does not have to tell us. I have more important work to do. Let me come to Eric's defense about his comment about Henry whom posts more that which should be mail. Right on, sort of, but Henry does make a few good comments on occasion. I just hit 'n' otherwise. I honestly wish a few of you guys would use a library. This guy (remember oceanography? like Alice) had a legit question. If you want a copy of the above reports, and think you really deserve one, before you mail to JPL (don't bother mailing me), what significance is the year 1964 to space radar oceanography, what happened? If you can answer this pass GO, and collect $200. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Jun 88 10:49:28 EDT From: dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Getting Nuked All this talk about nuking Mars to make a landing pad is entertaining, although not terribly practical. I wonder, though, if nature might not have done it already. If you go back 4.6 billion years to the beginning of the solar system you find natural uranium would be about 30% U-235. I wonder what effect this highly enriched stuff would have had on the early solar system. Could heat from chain reactions have caused some asteroids to differentiate? What effect would large amounts of radioactivity have had on the prebiotic Earth? Could natural nuclear explosions have occured in the early solar system? I suppose one could try to answer these questions by looking at isotope ratios on various planets. Noble gases like xenon might be useful. Tangentially: does xenon freeze at the lunar poles? If so, would there be a terrestrial market for lunar xenon? Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jun 88 20:40:40 GMT From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard the Nerd) Subject: Mir docking Hi everyone! As many of you know by now, there will be a launch of a visiting crew of cosmonauts to Mir on June 7th. I sent the following to the people on my Mir predictions mailing list, and I thought some of you that are not on it would find it interesting, so I'll just post it here. ------- Well, I've done some calculations regarding the launch of the Soyuz on June 7th. These are based on previous launches - it turns out the Russians follow a fairly tight routine in launching Soyuz craft and therefore these calculations should be pretty accurate. Obviously, the launch is very dependent on orbital geometry. I used Mir's current elements to figure out when the launch will be. I came up with 14:02 UTC on June 7th. If the docking manouevres proceed like those of the past launches, the Soyuz will dock with Mir on its 33rd revolution, or about 2.1 days after the launch. You will therefore be able to see the spacecraft flying in formation if there is a night pass for your location on June 7th or 8th. Soyuz will always be behind Mir. It should also be about 1-2 magnitudes fainter. The separation between the two (in minutes) can be derived approximately from the formula: delta T = 46 - 0.93 * t Where t is time _in hours_ since 14:02 UTC on June 7th. (Obviously the formula does not apply past t=50h since by that time the craft are docked.) Now, this is a VERY rough equation, so don't flame me if it's a few minutes off. It all depends on what the Russians decide to do anyway. Note that for passes on the evening of the 7th, Mir will be around 30 min ahead of the Soyuz and therefore the Soyuz will likely not show up on the same path at all. This is because even though the two ships are in almost identical orbits, YOU are rotating with the Earth which shifts the whole picture. A little intuition will tell you which way you should look. I would say, however, that you will probably not succeed in seeing the Soyuz on the 7th just by 'winging it'. If you are SERIOUSLY interested in observing this, drop off a note and I'll prepare a special prediction for you assuming I don't get too many requests. On the 8th, however, Mir will only be ~10 minutes ahead of the Soyuz and the two should follow almost the same path. Try to see it then. By the 9th, Mir and Soyuz will have docked if everything goes according to plan, and for us observers the fun will be over until a week later when they undock and land the Soyuz. More on that later. Good luck to all of you! I would appreciate any observations and/or measurements you make of this event. Have fun! -Rich ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 88 08:37:23 GMT From: sdcrdcf!csun!polyslo!jsalter@hplabs.hp.com (The Ag Major) Subject: Book Review wanted Has anyone read Stephen Hawking's new book? I just saw it in our campus store (at a price a bit above my current available funds) and I am wondering about it's contents. Specifically if it is written for the layman, the intelligent layman, or the intellectual. With the recent passing on of Feynmann(sp?), people such as Hawkings & Weinstein seem to be the future hope for mathematical physics, and astro-physics, and I'd like to learn as much from them and about them as is possible. Thanks. -- James A. Salter -- Yes, math majors can use UNIX(tm), too... jsalter@polyslo.calpoly.edu | sin x / n = 6 (Cancel the n's!) ...{csustan,csun,sdsu}!polyslo!jsalter | Cal Poly Math Professor :-) ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 88 07:46:38 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Getting Nuked Naturally formed uranium reactors *have* occurred on the earth. Several were discovered in West Africa by the patterns of U-235 depletion in the uranium ore. There was an article in Scientific American on the subject. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Jun 88 12:25 EDT From: ELIOT%cs.umass.edu@relay.cs.net Subject: RE: Nuclear Fantasma Consider this. Using a bomb (of any type) to clear a landing site might create a landing site, but destroys a large amount of scientific data in the process. (Every feature and rock on the surface of Mars can be considered scientific data). It is difficult to think of any useful experiments that can be done in such an artifically manipulated environment. On the other hand finding a way to avoid obstacles seems feasible and would be itself a technological contribution. Finding a way to generate 1m resolution images of Mars (and doing so) would actually be a valuable scientific investigation, in addition to supporting a landing. In summary, a brute force approach might land a space craft. A more elegant approach could both land it, and generate considerable side benefits, without destroying anything. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #266 ******************* Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for ota+space.digests@andrew.cmu.edu ID ; Sun, 10 Jul 88 23:23:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for ota+space.digests; Sun, 10 Jul 88 23:22:00 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09530; Sun, 10 Jul 88 20:22:30 PDT id AA09530; Sun, 10 Jul 88 20:22:30 PDT Date: Sun, 10 Jul 88 20:22:30 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807110322.AA09530@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #267 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 267 Today's Topics: space news from April 11 AW&ST Crisis in NASA funding Crew problems on Bulgarian/Soviet mission? Re: Nuclear Fantasma Re: Nuclear Fantasma Re: Book Review wanted Re: SPACE Digest V8 #244 Re: Book Review wanted Re: Recycling Pershing-II's ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 6 Jun 88 11:43:04 EDT From: loeb@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU To: marsh@mitre-bedford.arpa Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: space news from April 11 AW&ST Because explosive-powered ejection seats of pretty dangerous in the event of NO emergency. They can cause their own emergancy. For the first few flight of the shuttle, they included such seats for the 2 pilots (the only passengers). They were removed when the shuttle was deemed a little safer, and when they started having more than just the 2 pilots. Not much fun if the pilots eject and leave the passengers to enjoy the remainder of the flight. danny ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Mon, 6 Jun 88 10:15:02 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Crisis in NASA funding I just want to thank Don Doughty for posting the names and addresses of key congressional leaders to contact about NASA funding in this time of funding crisis. They have my advice to squeeze NASA as hard as they can as long as NASA remains intransigent toward its proper role in American society. I encourage others on the network to contact their congressmen and let them know of this rare opportunity to give NASA some incentive to reform. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jun 88 18:01:11 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Crew problems on Bulgarian/Soviet mission? An interesting development has occurred in the Soviet/Bulgarian space mission planed for tomorrow (June 7th). The Russians have stated that the final crew choice would occur tonight (June 6th)! Previously they had stated that the prime crew would consists of Victor Savinyhk (commander with 75 days on Soyuz T4/Salyut 6 and 168 days on Soyuz T13/Salyut 7 in June '85 - the Salyut rescue mission), Anatoly Stoyanov (rookie cosmonaut: Flight engineer) and Alexander Alexandrov (Bulgarian - backup on Soyuz 33 - Apr. '79). The backup crew was stated as Vladimir Lyakhov, Anatoloy Solovyev (rookie) and Krasimir Stoyanov (Bulgarian rookie). Now it looks like there may be problems with the prime crew and they will decide who will fly the night before the mission. They have not stated the crew name during the past month, while the actual primary and backup teams were presented to the press back in December. Another interesting point here, it has been stated that the Bulgarian will probably do a space walk, the first by a non USA/USSR space traveler. Finally it turns out that the Austrian mission for 1992 is not a guest cosmonaut, but rather the first paying passenger for the Soviets. The bill is for $13 million, rather cheap by western standards since it includes the training as well as the flight. Mean while the House and Senate committees are meeting this week to cut about $500 million out of the space station budget. At this rate Russian space liners will be taking passengers to Soviet hotels in orbit before the NASA station is built. Does not any one in Congress listen? Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 88 19:46:37 GMT From: paulf@shasta.stanford.edu (Paul A. Flaherty) Subject: Re: Nuclear Fantasma In article <8806060632.AA06382@angband.s1.gov> ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU writes: > > Consider this. Using a bomb (of any type) to clear a landing site > might create a landing site, but destroys a large amount of scientific > data in the process. (Every feature and rock on the surface of > Mars can be considered scientific data). It is difficult to think > of any useful experiments that can be done in such an artifically > manipulated environment. Enter the rovers. Since by definition, nice flat areas are uninteresting, we want to get away from the landing site anyway. The real question that the sci folks had to answer was "can we get far enough away to do real science", and the answer for the blast size was "yes". The real problem (arrghhh, n+1 times I've had to post this) is that a small blast really won't pulverize the boulders that we'd have problems with. > On the other hand finding a way to avoid obstacles seems feasible > and would be itself a technological contribution. Finding a way > to generate 1m resolution images of Mars (and doing so) would actually > be a valuable scientific investigation, in addition to supporting > a landing. Um, we already have 1m resolution in three colors, and with some perspective info. Problem is, 1m is still a pretty big boulder; if you want to make you lander survive 1m boulders, you can, but the weight penalty is hideous. We've currently settled on a multipad doppler radar system. > In summary, a brute force approach might land a space craft. A > more elegant approach could both land it, and generate considerable > side benefits, without destroying anything. Turns out that the blast would provide us with tons of info on atmospherics and seismics, especially after the penetrators land. Like I said before, at this point, it's doubtful that we can get a blast that will eliminate large boulders. As long as that's the case, the political realities of the situation doom the proposal. As an aside, I note that one of the Summit items was "the peaceful use of nuclear explosions in space". -- -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | One Internet to rule them all, -- Tome Computer Systems Laboratory | One Internet to find them; of Stanford University | One Internet to bring them all, Internet ->paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU | And in the Ether bind them. Hacking ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 88 20:24:28 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Re: Nuclear Fantasma Hello folks! Sorry to be late with this information: The latest numbers floating around at the Mars Observer Camera project are 250 sq. meter minimum per pixel using the wide angle optics, and 1.4 sq. meter per pixel using the narrow angle optics. Depending on the number of observations of a possible landing site, and the response of the optics to two features very close together, a site should be able to be evaluated for rock greater than 4 meters across [3 raw pixels], and possibly (through enhancement and multiple-view processing) down to 1.5m [one raw pixel]. I'm just barely starting on the MOC team, so please don't take this as gospel truth. As soon as I learn more about the optics, especially the resolution (from the test procedures to be designed and written), I'll try to summarize. Now all we need is an orbit to draw the Observer closer.:-) I think that these figures are for an orbit 450 km from the Martian surface-- I'll check the whiteboard again in my (shared) office next week. -- Joe Beckenbach beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu Caltech 1-58, Pasadena CA 91125 Ground Support Environment, programmer "This is space? Neat." Mars Observer Camera Project Caltech Planetary Sciences Division ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 88 21:45:58 GMT From: grits!ddavey@bellcore.com (Doug Davey) Subject: Re: Book Review wanted In article <3057@polyslo.UUCP> jsalter@polyslo.UUCP (The Ag Major) writes: > Has anyone read Stephen Hawking's new book? I just saw it in our campus > store (at a price a bit above my current available funds) and I am wondering > about it's contents. Specifically if it is written for the layman, the > intelligent layman, or the intellectual. I'm currently reading the book (i.e. Hawking's "A Brief History of Time"). It's quite readable by the intelligent layperson, but will not bore an intellectual. E=MC^2 is the only equation in the book. I highly recommend the book to anyone interested in Hawking or his work. Doug Davey, Bellcore, bcr!ddavey #include ------------------------------ Sender: "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@xerox.com Date: 6 Jun 88 05:44:51 PDT (Monday) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #244 From: "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@xerox.com In his 11 May 88 07:06:07 GMT Carl Paukstis writes: >I believe that the "official" C-word is "Cocoa", although everybody I've heard (US only) uses "Charlie". You hear "Sugar" occasionally; "Foxtrot" is generally shortened to "Fox".< The NATO phonetic alphabet, standardised both in the US and elsewhere, is: Alfa Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliet Kilo Lima Mike November Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo Sierra Tango Uniform Victor Whiskey X-ray Yankee Zulu No modifications of these words are normally considered acceptable in conventional radio practice (though this doesn't stop people from modifying them). In UK licenced amateur practice any phonetics may be used provided that they are not 'of a facetious or objectionable nature' - though the NATO set has become standard among all but the 'Old Timers'. Regards, Chaz G6UVO ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jun 88 00:52:28 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Book Review wanted Query: who read Hawking book? Response 1: liked it I've not read it, but it came up two weeks ago in a conversation with a windsurfing partner (Bill Burke) who is writing the review for Physics Today: he didn't like it, you can read his review shortly. This means I will have to pick it up..... What's this doing in sci.space? Needless to say Bill has his own cosmology book. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 88 15:41:16 GMT From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: Recycling Pershing-II's From article <8806010951.aa16990@note.nsf.gov>, by fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube): > Another story, also by the same writer, describes the atmosphere > at the Hercules, Inc. plant west of Salt Lake City, where Soviet > inspectors will be stationed for the next 13 years. > > "'Russians are coming, Russians are coming' screamed a recent > headline in the company magazine .. I don't work for Herc, but my wife and a lot of friends of mine work there. I saw the issue of the company magazine with this head line and it describes the way the whole valley feels. Because of the large number of defense contractors, military bases, and other high tech and/or classified activities going on around here, SLC has been an area that Soviet citizens have been barred from visiting. Hercules is not the only company worried that the presence of the KGB in SLC will have a chilling effect on their ability to get and keep contracts. Hercules is just the only one that has to allow the KGB on plant. All Hercules employees are undergoing INF treaty training. Being taught how to recognize an approach by a spy, where not to talk about work while eating lunch, that sort of thing. One of the things they mentioned was that one of the brain damaged Senators from the Pretty, Great State of Utah, gave a list of all the companies doing classified work in a thirthy mile radius of the Hercules inspection office to the local papers, who published it. Thus saving the KGB 1 to 2 years of effort. If he wasn't a Senator, he'd be doing time. The combination of the KGB and the local zoining commision might be enough to get Hercules to pack up and leave Utah, taking 4 thousand jobs with them. The local zoining commision allowed people to build houses across the street from a company that manufactures a few million pounds of explosives a year, the county built a grade school in the over pressure (read blast) zone of a large nitroglycerin plant. All in viloation of a sixty year old agreement between Hercules and the county. Now the county has refused permission to build the plant needed by Hercules to fullfil its Delta 2 and Titan 4 solid motor contracts. The zoning commission says the new facilies are not needed. These aren't government cost+ contracts. Hercules has no reason to build facilities it doesn't need for the contracts. Would you buy a house across the street from a 10 foot barbed wire fence with "Danger Explosives" signs ever 30 feet or so posted on it? Having done so would you feel you had the right to force that company out of business because it might be a danger to you? So what part of Texas is McGregor in anyway? > Company officials are concerned that the Soviets .. will purloin > company secrets .. and that the Pentagon will think twice about > placing new orders at a plant where the Soviets can inspect much > of what comes and goes thru the main gate. They are going to have to build special roads on the Hercules plant to allow Soviet inspectors to drive around and visually inspect all parts of the plant that were used to build PII. That is an awful lot of road and most of the plant. > Their fears have been assuaged only partly by written orders from > [Carlucci and others] barring such discrimination, and by an NSA > pledge to make the company's internal communications network > resistant to electronic eavesdropping." Ah, so thats what the funny truck with all the antennas was! I picked up my wife at work the other day and there was this truck with about a hundred antennas sticking out of it about a hundred yards from the building she works in. I guessed it was NSA, I knew the KGB were still barred from the area. I really would like to know how they are going to make the microwave links between plants eavesdrop proof, or on second thought, maybe I don't want to know that at all. Bob P.-- Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet Alternate: {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet I am solely responsible for what I say. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #267 ******************* Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for ota+space.digests@andrew.cmu.edu ID ; Mon, 11 Jul 88 06:54:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for ota+space.digests; Mon, 11 Jul 88 06:53:12 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10310; Mon, 11 Jul 88 03:26:15 PDT id AA10310; Mon, 11 Jul 88 03:26:15 PDT Date: Mon, 11 Jul 88 03:26:15 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807111026.AA10310@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #268 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 268 Today's Topics: Coming to the National Air & Space Museum Soyuz TM-5 mission to USSR's Mir set to go comments/reply for SPACE_DIGEST comments/reply for SPACE_DIGEST Re: SPACE Digest V8 #244 What's going on here? NSS, Spacepac, and Spacecause USSR's Soyuz TM-5 mission begins ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Jun 88 15:25:59 GMT From: ulysses!mhuxo!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxh!mhuxu!att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!wayback!atux01!jlc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (J. Collymore) Subject: Coming to the National Air & Space Museum I am cross-posting this netnews article from comp.sys.mac. I think that some of you in these newsgroups may also be interested in this. Jim Collymore =============================================================================== ----------------------------------------------------------- Students Give Museum Visitors A Chance To Launch Rockets Washington, DC. May 3, 1988. Millions of visitors to the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum soon will be able to test their own abilities to design and launch rockets into space. They'll do it with the help of a computer program created by three college students. The program is the winning entry in the "Race for Space Software Chase," a nationwide software writing contest sponsored by the Smithsonian and Apple Computer, Inc. of Cupertino, Calif. Undergraduate and graduate students at leading universities across the country were challenged to write computer programs that would let museum visitors actually experience some of the ways computers are used in aviation and space flight. The best entry was promised a place in a new air and space museum gallery that will showcase the vital role that computers play in aerospace technology. The gallery, called "Beyond the Limits" will open in May 1989. Three students from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, Calif., captured the grand prize with a program on rocket design. The winning software was designed by Pierce T. Wetter III, a junior electrical engineering major from Simi Valley, Calif.; Mike Meckler, a sophomore physics major from Columbus, Ohio; and Glenn C. Smith, a junior physics major from South Pasadena, Calif. The software will allow museum visitors to see how changing variables such as thrust, weight and fuel type affect a rocket's ability to overcome gravity and leave the earth's atmosphere. Once a visitor arrives at a workable design, the program "launches" the rocket, calculates the maximum altitude it will reach and compares these results with attempts by other visitors. "The museum as a teaching institution hopes to stimulate thought -- on both a scientific and a popular level -- about the challenges and excitement of aerospace technology," said Martin O. Harwit, director of the National Air and Space Museum. "We are happyto exhibit the work of the grand prize winning students in our new computer gallery and to expand our role of educating the public." "Creating highly interactive, graphically sophisticated software is no small accomplishment--one that would have been unheard of for students just a few years ago. Today's computing tools give students both the means and the motivation to solve real-world problems," Dave Barram, Apple's vice president of corporate affairs, said today in announcing the winners at a news conference at the museum. The grand prize includes a summer internship at the museum for one member of the Cal Tech team and 10 Macintosh II computers, donated by Apple to the university. In addition to Cal Tech, four other schools earned honors in the contest: the University of California at Davis for a program that simulates effects of a wind tunnel;Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois for software that demonstrates how air crews use computers during reconnaissance flights. Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif. and the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana, which each submitted programs that simulate the results of aircraft design decisions. Each university was awarded two Macintosh II computers. All entries were required to be two-minute, interactive demonstrations that show how computers are used in aerospace engineering. The entries were judged in four categories; content, creativity, ease of use, and use of computer science methodology. The competition was judged by distinguished names in the aerospace and computer industries: Burt Rutan, designer of the aircraft Voyager, which in 1986 flew around the world non-stop without refueling; Paul MacCready, creator of the Gossamer Condor and other human- and solar-powered aircraft; Alan Kay, scientist and Apple Fellow whose ideas and innovation in programming languages were critical to the development of personal computers, including Apple's Macintosh; Robert E. Holzman, manager of computer graphics lab at Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., which is well-known for its computer animation of the flights of Voyager II and other unmanned flights into deep space; and Paul Ceruzzi, associate curator in the Space Science and Exploration Department. About nine million people visit the museum each year to view 23 exhibition galleries displaying some of the most significant aircraft and spacecraft ever assembled in one place. The museum's new gallery will demonstrate the role computers play in aerospace technology--including design, testing, manufacturing and production, simulation and training, navigation and ground control, on-board control and air and space operations. Apple, the Apple logo and Macintosh are regisitered trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc. Press Releases Headlines & Guide __________________________________________________________________________ Ken Eddings CSNET: eddings@andy.bgsu.edu Department of Philosophy ARPANET: eddings%andy.bgsu.edu@csnet-relay Bowling Green State Univ. ALink: UG0182 attn: Ken Eddings Bowling Green OH 43403 GEnie: K.EDDINGS __________________________________________________________________________ "The prudent mariner never relies solely on any single aid to navigation." -=Old Mariner's Proverb=- __________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jun 88 09:47:02 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soyuz TM-5 mission to USSR's Mir set to go The Soviets are set to go ahead with the launch today of the Russian/ Bulgarian mission (Soyuz TM-5) to the Mir/Kvant complex. According to their news announcements the vehicle has been checked out and the lift off will take place in the evening, Moscow time, (about noon hour today Eastern Daylight Time). One interesting point is they gave some costs for the typical mission this year. Roughly the booster (A2 class) is about $5 million per launch, while the capsule costs $8 million. The booster cost is consistent with their charge of $10 million for a launch on the A class vehicles for your satellite - just contact Space Commerce Corp. in the USA for the arrangements. By the way talking to a Space Commerce officer I learned that the USSR really is offering room for paying passengers to Mir (they have done this already for the Austrians). Also they are now modifying some of their communications satellites to meet the standard Hughes type specifications. If they cannot sell their boosters for launching Western satellites then they will try and sell both the satellites and the boosters. It will be interesting to see what they are supplying in terms of guarantees for lifetimes or replacements. From the point of view of most countries they do not care whether they by from Western or Soviet suppliers. All that matters is price, delivery time and the service they get from the satellite. US manufacturers beware, you may stop them from selling here but there is a whole world out there that wants satellites of their own. This country must meet their prices or fail in the space business. Well at least the shuttle is going through a count down test today, that is some progress. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jun 88 15:37 EST From: Subject: comments/reply for SPACE_DIGEST From SPACE_DIGEST Vol8 No.253: Date: 23 May 88 02:38:06 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!CaptainDave@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: cooling by radiation >So, just what are Lithium batteries, and why would they be prohibited on >a space flight, when I am allowed to take one in my watch and mingle >around thousands of people in public places? Are they radioactive? What >about a leak? I'm no battery expert, but I have a feeling that for powering a satellite there might be a size or weight issue at stake here(I've always thought they[watch batteries] were heavier than they looked), and since the space-faring variety are much bigger that their timepiece counterparts, maybe they just weigh too much. Also, isn't there a warning on th e back of just about any battery to ``avoid extreme heat or fire''??--If the bay is pointed sunward, or the shuttle is on re-entry, I'd say that that might just be heat enough. Flames, comments,etceterizations to Steve Okay (ACS045@GMUVAX.BITNET) "A Joke??--No, a sales campaign!" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jun 88 15:37 EST From: Subject: comments/reply for SPACE_DIGEST From SPACE_DIGEST Vol8 No.253: Date: 23 May 88 02:38:06 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!CaptainDave@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: cooling by radiation >So, just what are Lithium batteries, and why would they be prohibited on >a space flight, when I am allowed to take one in my watch and mingle >around thousands of people in public places? Are they radioactive? What >about a leak? I'm no battery expert, but I have a feeling that for powering a satellite there might be a size or weight issue at stake here(I've always thought they[watch batteries] were heavier than they looked), and since the space-faring variety are much bigger that their timepiece counterparts, maybe they just weigh too much. Also, isn't there a warning on th e back of just about any battery to ``avoid extreme heat or fire''??--If the bay is pointed sunward, or the shuttle is on re-entry, I'd say that that might just be heat enough. Flames, comments,etceterizations to Steve Okay (ACS045@GMUVAX.BITNET) "A Joke??--No, a sales campaign!" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Jun 88 08:25:32 EDT From: Bruce Humphrey Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #244 Having read Space Digest for a couple months now, I have a question for the more technologically literate in the group (please humor an old liberal arts grad): How accurate is the book 'Deep Black', about american photorecon history and capabilities? I was generally impressed by its completeness (excepting any mention of special imaging/sensing capabilities), but as a historian I have some suspicions of anything written by non-experts--particularly self-taught jouurnalistic 'experts'. There is a certain "gosh-wow" attitude by the writer concerning the analytical side, rather than anything worthwhile about the training/accuracy of image analysts. Also, while he makes some deductive speculations about the state of photorecon, they do not always reflect the more expert opinions I've seen on the net. If you have anything specific for me: Bruce Humphrey Bruce@TEMPLEVM ------------------------------ Return-Path: FHD%TAMCBA.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1988 21:55 CDT From: H. Alan Montgomery Subject: What's going on here? Somewhere along here I have lost track of what we are trying to do. I thought maybe if I displayed my train of logic someone could show me where the flaw in my thinking is. First off, I am a task oriented person who is not very socially adept. To me when a problem comes up you marshal your forces, get the best people available to attack the problem and then go until the problem is either solved or has become acceptablely uncomfortable. The best people in any field normally come with alot of unwanted baggage and are generally not people you would hang out with for fun. You work with the best whether you like them or not, because they get results. I have noticed in this list and in the SIG on CompuServe and in the various space publications that there is alot of hopelessness out there. The dream of easy access to space in our lifetime seems to be drifting slowly but surely out of our reach. The response to this goal denial is a search for a scapegoat, someone to take the blame for the unacceptable possibility that no one alive right now, today will will get to space in person before they die. To me as a social misfit the concept of a scapegoat seems silly, not only a waste of time, but making the possibility of goal acheivement even more remote. In the Seventies, a great many mistakes were made by the NASA, space activists, and other involved individuals. We cannot change those mistakes. We cannot do anything to make those mistakes go away by attacking the people who made them. Do you think that the people who made the mistakes are feeling great about the mistakes? Do you think the administrators at NASA is saying, "Wow, we sure did make a good choice in making the Shuttle the only access to space"? Come on, get real! We live in an imperfect world, a good choice now sometimes becomes a disasterous choice later. Right now the majority of America's corporations are owned by institutions (mutual funds, pension plans, insurance companies, etc.) who are risk averse. The money which could come from large corporations is just not there. Looking for Boeing or GM or Rockwell to move into space without government support is just wishful thinking. Any manager in today's economic environment who suggested a program which did not pay off in six months is looking to be unemployed. It may turn out that NASA was in league with the tooth fairy to deny us access to space on purpose. I doubt it though. I would believe in stupidity, short sightedness, and just plain ignorance before I would believe malice. So what does all this mean. To me it means that the bickering and witch hunting have got to stop. It means that we have got to start looking to lower the capital risk to getting to space. It means that we cannot depend on THEM (whoever they are) to get us to space. Something has to done to make each step into space profitable. Not twenty years in the future, but six months in the future. It means that we need to keep NASA plugging ahead, so that at least some door is open, some option available. As long as space has a greater than six month payoff, no non-astronaut is going to visit there. If you truely want to go to space, stop bitching about the people who are working toward the same goal you are, no matter how flawed you think they are, because they at least agree with you in principle. Somehow or another the space movement has gotten sidetracked into looking at the causes of our failures and stopped searching for answers to our problems. NASA and the big companies will not search for solutions. If you go to bed at night screaming "I WANT TO GO!!!!", then you best start looking for ways to lower the payoff time for a space venture. Does that mean that we need a cost to orbit of $2/pound? No, it means that an investor can get a positive rate of return within six months. The rate of return does not even have to be above 5%. So the bottom line here is that we need many small moneymakers which add up to a big project, not one big project which just MIGHT be a big moneymaker. You best also stop feeling hopeless and helpless, because both of those emotions cause you to do stupid, self-destructive things. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 88 07:45 EDT From: RON PICARD Subject: NSS, Spacepac, and Spacecause Can anyone tell me the different roles Spacepac and Spacecause play and their relationship, if any, to NSS? Ron Picard ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 88 11:51:14 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: USSR's Soyuz TM-5 mission begins The USSR' s Soyuz TM-5 mission successfully began yesterday at 18:03 (Moscow Daylight Time - 11:03 EDT). The crew is listed as Anatoly Yakovlevich Solovyov (rookie cosmonaut age 40: commander), Viktor Petrovich Savinykh (flight engineer age 48: with 75 days on Soyuz T4/Salyut 6 and 168 days on Soyuz T13/Salyut 7 in June '85 - the Salyut rescue mission) and Alexander Alexandrov (Bulgarian age 36: backup on Soyuz 33 - Apr. '79) (note: there were some errors in my prelaunch posting about the crew, thanks to Jonathan Mcdowell at Harvard for pointing them out). The launch was televised "live" on Soviet and Bulgarian TV (and I think CNN got the same feed but was not able to watch them then). The crew will dock with the Mir/Kvant complex on June 9th, and stay for 8 days on the station. Mission experiments will include space physics, remote sensing, biology and medicine, though few details have been given. One funny point. This was not even a high profile mission on Soviet shortwave broadcasts. Usually a takeoff is the number 1 or 2 event. This time it was 3rd on their broadcasts. One point to note is that most news reports, NBC, CBS, the NY times etc called this the first Soviet manned mission of this year, and did not mention that they were visiting a crew already on board the Mir station (CNN did it correctly). This makes it seem like the Russians are doing little in manned flights, when the opposite is true. I guess they feel if they just hide their heads in the sand the Soviet missions will just go away. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #268 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Jul 88 23:24:07 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11573; Mon, 11 Jul 88 20:23:18 PDT id AA11573; Mon, 11 Jul 88 20:23:18 PDT Date: Mon, 11 Jul 88 20:23:18 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807120323.AA11573@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #269 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 269 Today's Topics: The U.S. Virtual (or Imaginary) Space Program Launch Sequence Details Re: Cometesimals Re: Bureaucracy vs. space MOOSE Re: Bureaucracy vs. space Re: Bureaucracy vs. space Re: Mars Underground News Re: Recycling Pershing-II's ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Jun 88 21:23 PDT From: William Daul / McAir / McDonnell-Douglas Corp Subject: The U.S. Virtual (or Imaginary) Space Program message It struct me as being a bit humorous the SPACE news today. The primary story was the launch of the 3 Soviet cosmonauts (1 actually Bulgarian) and the secondary story was the successful imaginary (CBS did use that word to describe the simulation) launch of the shuttle. It got my imagination going... The US is so far ahead of the soviets in the imaginary space program. They can't even dream how far ahead. The imaginary launch even had a imaginary problem causing a imaginary early return. Imagine that! Our virtual space program is on the verge of great accomplishments. Perhaps we could have a virtual manned mission to Mars. The program would cost so much less. Virtual dollars are almost unlimited if we DO need to spend anything on it. The program would only be limited by the imagination. I am a bit jealous of the Soviet program...that is why I make light of ours here. I do hope we find the path to return to space. --Bi(( ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 88 08:10:09 MDT From: ZSYJKAA%WYOCDC1.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Jim Kirkpatrick 307 766-5303) Subject: Launch Sequence Details Where might I find detailed launch-sequence specifications for, say, the Space Shuttle? I'm interested (just curiosity) in details such as have recently shown up on the amateur radio list: (paraphrasing from memory) "At H0 minus .38 seconds propellant valves are opened" and "at H0 plus 63 seconds the pad hold-down clamps are blown open." I have long thought a fascinating short movie (15-30 minutes) could be made that chronicles the launch sequence with detailed verbal explanations accompanied by appropriate photography and computer-generated animation. Such a movie would probably begin long before launch (begin with fueling and arming perhaps), and as it gets closer to actual launch, where things get real busy real quick, the time scale would obviously have to shift. I have no doubt many technical people would find this a fascinating insight. I also have few doubts it would never get done. So, is there at least a publicly-accessible document/article that details a real sequence? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jun 88 20:38:15 CDT From: kistler%Iowa.Iowa@romeo.caltech.edu (Allen C. Kistler) Subject: Re: Cometesimals For those interested in the small comet theory of Lou Frank, John Sigwarth, and John Craven (all here at the University of Iowa), these are the references (not in bibliographic form, but good enough) which some of you have requested. All of these are in _Geophysical_Research_Letters_, a monthly publication of the American Geophysical Union covering research in space science, atmospheric studies, geology, hydrology, and oceanography. AGU is a non-profit organization, equal-opportunity employer, and all those other good things. Someday I'll be a member. {I've got some text of my own afterwards.} Original papers are in the April 1986 GRL ----------------------------------------- [1] On the Influx of Small Comets in the Earth's Upper Atmosphere: I. Observations [2] On the Influx of Small Comets in the Earth's Upper Atmosphere: II. Interpretation Replies to Comments (NOTE: Titles listed below are my own designation. Usually published titles run like "Reply to .") ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] June 1986 Atmospheric transport of extraterrestrial water; and effects of cometesimals on Venus and Mars [2] June 1986 Dusty mantles of the cometesimals [3] Sept 1986 Cometesimal signatures for in situ ionospheric measurements [4] Sept 1986 Thermal stability of cometesimals in the inner solar system [5] Oct 1986 Statistical possibility of instrumentation fluke [6] Nov 1986 Estimation of maximum lunar seismic event amplitude [7] Dec 1986 Crustal deposition rate of extraterrestrial iridium; and comparison of cometesimals to larger comets [8] Feb 1987 Calculation of optical detection rate [9] May 1987 More statistical consideration of instrumentation flukes [10] July 1987 Recapitulation of extraterrestrial iridium deposition ## And now for a different tactic... ########################################## >From: mtunx!whuts!sw@rutgers.edu (WARMINK) > > .... It is generally accepted that water once flowed >on Mars, but cycles of thawing and freezing? I would immagine that such cycles >would have a drastic impact upon the Martian surface, which does not fit in >with the large number of craters observed. I would be interested to find out >where the evidence for multiply thawing/freezing cycles comes from. Does >water vapour have the same greenhouse effect as CO2? Why water vapour anyway? >The Martian atmosphere contains a significant percentage of CO2.... There are not freezing/thawing cycles. Water arrives at Mars via the cometesimals. The same thing happens at Mars that happens at Earth: the atmosphere heats the snowballs until they are clouds of vapor. However the Martian atmosphere cannot support the water, so most of it freezes on the surface. What does remain in the atmosphere generates a greenhouse effect. Water DOES have the same effect as CO2. The planet heats up; the atmosphere can support more water; the heating rate increases, etc., until the ice melts, rivers flow, and Mars has Spring, such as it is. But Mars is a smaller planet. With all this heat, it essentially blows its stack. The water escapes out into space, including the liquid water which is now evaporating. There is no longer enough greenhouse effect to keep the planet warm. Mars cools down, waterless. The CO2 stays because it's heavy by comparison. But there are still the cometesimals bringing water in from the Oort disk.... There are maybe THAWING cycles, if you want to call them that. "Periodic Spring" is a more common designation. It's an idea that's been kicked around previously, but nobody ever figured out a way that it could happen. The cometesimal theory hardly turns on this point, however. If you would like the authors' own words, read Reply [1] above. >From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) > >In article <1002@aicchi.UUCP> dbb@aicchi.UUCP (Burch) writes: >>... Could this explain (neatly) the occasional reports that >>lunar observers have made of clouds of water vapor? I recall that these >>have been from near the terminator, logical if a snowball hit during the >>night, and was being vaporized by the sun.... > >.... A comet or small comet or snowball is in orbit round the sun. If the >moon gets in the way, the snowball would hit the lunar surface at a velocity >measured in kilometers per second. (or miles per second if you are observing >from the Space Station :->) > >Any snowball would be ionised by the impact, which would >also make a large hole in the surface.... >From: Peter Scott > >Well, hold on a moment. Using the authors' figures of 12m diameter and >0.1 g/cm**3 density, such a snowball travelling at 6 km/sec impacts with >1.5 *10**12 joules, a yield of about a quarter of a kiloton.... If >someone can explain how such an impact could not leave a crater at least >10m in diameter, I'd like to hear from them. By my calculations, at >most one-fifth of the energy would be used in vaporizing the snowball. >From: oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Michael McNeil) > >I also believed that the lack of lunar craters constantly being created >was a flaw in this idea, but then one newspaper report I read implied >that what was happening was that tidal forces would break up the very >fragile snowballs well before they got near the Earth or the Moon. If >the matter were sufficiently dispersed by the time it arrived at the >Moon, creation of a crater could be avoided.... Tidal forces help break up the cometesimals as they approach the Earth, but are insufficient to break them up as they approach the moon. They hit the moon with about a kiloton of TNT equivalent energy. It is an important point that the cometesimals are water instead of rock. They are vaporized within about 5 msec (read "instantly"). The shock of impact compression heats them to more than just sea-level boiling. The deepest depression would only be about 20 cm deep. I wouldn't call that a crater, but if you want to... okay. For the authors' own words, see Reply [6] above. ------------------+------------------------------------------------------------ Allen Kistler | kistler%iowa.iowa@Iago.Caltech.edu Internet <-use sparingly University of Iowa| kistler::iowa SPAN <-NASA pays ------------------+------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: Any mangling of the above concepts is my own mistake, otherwise it's not MY fault if it's true! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 88 22:52:25 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Bureaucracy vs. space > Comparing the Space Shuttle with a cargo airplane is utterly pointless > since they provide a completely different service. Strange, I had always thought they were rather similar except for different operating regions. Certainly NASA has said so in the past. Can you elaborate on how, say, delivering a satellite into low orbit is *completely* different from delivering a load of instruments to Antarctica? > In case you haven't figured it out yet, there is a world of difference > between building airplanes and building space launchers. Of course there's a real difference, the same way there's a difference between building trucks and building airplanes. Oddly enough, I do not find this to be sufficient explanation for the sad state of spaceflight at the moment. Especially since the Long March is built by a refrigerator company and works just fine as a space launcher. > The fact that > we went from Orville and Wilbur to the 747 and affordable air transport > in a single human lifespan is not "proof" that the same rate of progress > in space transportation could occur "if only the Government would get > out of the way"... No... but it suggests what might, perhaps, be possible if the government stopped trying to run the show and concentrating on *helping*, the way it did for aviation. If agreeing with people like Max Hunter and Del Tischler that progress could be much quicker makes me a Space Cadet, so be it. (For those who don't recognize the names: Hunter took the Thor missile [today's Delta launcher is a somewhat souped-up Thor] from initial design to initial deliveries in something like two years. His entire staff was smaller than the current government *launch crew* for a Delta. Tischler wrote the specs for the F-1 [definitely the US's most successful big rocket engine] in 24 hours, had them reviewed in a couple of weeks, and had full- scale development underway within three months.) -- "For perfect safety... sit on a fence| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology and watch the birds." --Wilbur Wright| {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 88 01:16:19 GMT From: ecsvax!dgary@mcnc.org (D Gary Grady) Subject: MOOSE Anyone remember the Man Out Of Space Easiest (MOOSE) project? As I recall, this was a 60s effort to develop a reentry vehicle usable by individuals. It comprised a spacesuit, something to generate a foam heatshield (inflated in the fashion of a life vest), a retro pack, and a parachute. Seems to me it would be useful for certain space shuttle emergencies. -- D Gary Grady (919) 286-4296 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary BITNET: dgary@ecsvax.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jun 88 16:31:46 GMT From: mnetor!spectrix!tmsoft!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Bureaucracy vs. space [If you think you've seen this before, it's because the first version contained a *serious* typo that I didn't notice until just now. I've sent out a cancellation for it.] > Comparing the Space Shuttle with a cargo airplane is utterly pointless > since they provide a completely different service. Strange, I had always thought they were rather similar except for different operating regions. Certainly NASA has said so in the past. Can you elaborate on how, say, delivering a satellite into low orbit is *completely* different from delivering a load of instruments to Antarctica? > In case you haven't figured it out yet, there is a world of difference > between building airplanes and building space launchers. Of course there's a real difference, the same way there's a difference between building trucks and building airplanes. Oddly enough, I do not find this to be sufficient explanation for the sad state of spaceflight at the moment. Especially since the Long March is built by a refrigerator company and works just fine as a space launcher. > The fact that > we went from Orville and Wilbur to the 747 and affordable air transport > in a single human lifespan is not "proof" that the same rate of progress > in space transportation could occur "if only the Government would get > out of the way"... No... but it suggests what might, perhaps, be possible if the government stopped trying to run the show and concentrated on *helping*, the way it did for aviation. If agreeing with people like Max Hunter and Del Tischler that progress could be much quicker makes me a Space Cadet, so be it. (For those who don't recognize the names: Hunter took the Thor missile [today's Delta launcher is a somewhat souped-up Thor] from initial design to initial deliveries in something like two years. His entire staff was smaller than the current government *launch crew* for a Delta. Tischler wrote the specs for the F-1 [definitely the US's most successful big rocket engine] in 24 hours, had them reviewed in a couple of weeks, and had full- scale development underway within three months.) -- "For perfect safety... sit on a fence| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology and watch the birds." --Wilbur Wright| {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 88 15:36:47 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Bureaucracy vs. space In article <1988Jun7.163146.14733@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: ... delete ...... delete ...... delete ...... delete ...... delete ... >. . .since the Long March is built by a refrigerator >company and works just fine as a space launcher. > And remember, the Space Shuttle was built by a company that also makes power tools! :-> >(For those who don't recognize the names: Hunter took the Thor missile >[today's Delta launcher is a somewhat souped-up Thor] from initial design >to initial deliveries in something like two years. His entire staff was >smaller than the current government *launch crew* for a Delta. Tischler >wrote the specs for the F-1 [definitely the US's most successful big rocket >engine] in 24 hours, had them reviewed in a couple of weeks, and had full- >scale development underway within three months.) >-- Some time ago I remember reading an article in SpaceFlight I think, about a sounding-rocket project carried out in Austrailia. (I read this a year ago, and I forget most of the details) The rockets were very successful, reaching altitudes of several hundreds of miles I believe. The entire team consisted of not much more than a dozen engineers. An American army type toured the facility and couldn't believe what they did with so few people, considering that the army had over a hundred working on a similar project. The secret? None of the engineers would think twice about picking up a broom, and sweeping up if necessary. That is, the phrase "but it's not my job!" was not in their vocabulary. (Henry may want to fill in the details, otherwise I could look them up) Randumb observations by. . . -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "Being a dwarf does have it's shortcomings" [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jun 88 10:15:18 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: Re: Mars Underground News X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@angband.s1.gov" Maybe I'm confusing this with another Mars Underground News, but I seem to recall paying $10 (to the Planetary Society, I believe), for the privilege of receiving this newsletter (of which I only remember seeing one). Is this newsletter in Space Digest the same thing? If so, I don't begrudge the society the money - I'd contribute anyway - but it doesn't seem right to publish something for free that people have paid for. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jun 88 18:27:53 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Recycling Pershing-II's > > Another story, also by the same writer, describes the atmosphere > > at the Hercules, Inc. plant west of Salt Lake City, where Soviet > > inspectors will be stationed for the next 13 years. Don't forget that the treaty gives the US similar rights to inspect Soviet manufacturing facilities. Any agreement that gives equal inspection rights to both countries is likely to work in our favor, since the Soviets are normally so much more secretive than we are. I would like nothing better than a treaty so comprehensive and providing for so much intrusive on-site verification that military contractors doing classified work are actually forced out of business, assuming of course that the same happens to their Soviet counterparts. Stop thinking about "saving jobs" and start thinking about the effect that the products of those jobs are having on the world. Good old financial greed and narrow self-interest (on both sides) has driven the arms race as much as any genuine Soviet threat. Phil ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #269 ******************* Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Jul 88 06:28:12 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12350; Tue, 12 Jul 88 03:27:22 PDT id AA12350; Tue, 12 Jul 88 03:27:22 PDT Date: Tue, 12 Jul 88 03:27:22 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807121027.AA12350@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #270 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 270 Today's Topics: Re: comments/reply for SPACE_DIGEST Lithium Batteries (was Re: comments/reply for SPACE_DIGEST) Re: satellite oceanography Re: What's going on here? Re: satellite oceanography First start of ARIANE 4 Re: Book Review wanted Re: A New Holiday? (awkward question) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Jun 88 15:13:12 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: comments/reply for SPACE_DIGEST > >So, just what are Lithium batteries, and why would they be prohibited on > >a space flight, when I am allowed to take one in my watch and mingle > >around thousands of people in public places? Are they radioactive? What > >about a leak? > > I'm no battery expert, but I have a feeling that for powering a satellite there > might be a size or weight issue at stake here... Yes, there is a size/weight issue, but it strongly favors lithium batteries. That's why everybody wants to use them. The cell voltage is about 3 volts (twice that of most primary batteries) and they put out considerably more watt-hours/kilogram. This is inherent in lithium's high electronegativity (i.e., it likes to release electrons) and its small atomic number (which means you waste relatively little mass carrying protons and neutrons, in contrast to other battery anodes like zinc, cadmium and especially lead.) Lithium batteries also have an unusually long shelf life, which would be especially useful given the long delays and slips a typical Shuttle payload encounters. The reason NASA bans them from the shuttle is because they have been known to explode when shorted. They can usually tolerate a short lasting a few seconds (typically 5), which is how they can be wave-soldered to PC boards. No, they are not radioactive. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 88 21:15:59 GMT From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) Subject: Lithium Batteries (was Re: comments/reply for SPACE_DIGEST) In article <1139@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: >Yes, there is a size/weight issue, but it strongly favors lithium >batteries. That's why everybody wants to use them. The cell voltage is >about 3 volts (twice that of most primary batteries) and they put out >considerably more watt-hours/kilogram. This is inherent in lithium's >high electronegativity (i.e., it likes to release electrons) [. . .] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You are correct in stating that lithium likes to release electrons, but the term you want for this is "electropositivity" (it likes to acquire a positive charge -- electronegativity refers to a tendency to acquire a negative charge, and this occurs by *attracting* electrons, usually away from other atoms). >The reason NASA bans them from the shuttle is because they have been >known to explode when shorted. [. . .] Wouldn't it make more sense for NASA to just require that the lithium batteries be kept inside a housing that will contain explosion fragments, and that they not be kept in areas in which a breathable atmosphere must be maintained? Seems that if a battery exploded in the payload bay but the fragments were contained within the housing of the thing holding the battery, it shouldn't be able to do any harm. Also, it seems to me that if any battery was shorted for long enough it would explode or do something else nasty. I once made the mistake of carrying a battery in the same pocket with a bunch of change and keys, and it shorted on this stuff. Even though this battery was only a battery to power a smoke detector and was nearly dead, it got quite hot. . . -- Lucius Chiaraviglio chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu lucius@tardis.harvard.edu (in case the first one doesn't work) "Gunpowder hasn't been invented yet." "It hasn't?!?!?" . . . ********!!!!!!!!!!BBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!******** "Well, I could be wrong, you know. . . ." ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jun 88 18:51:04 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!news@mimsy.umd.edu (news) Subject: Re: satellite oceanography } }Added note to the comment of the person who noted my sarcastic comment: }NO, these types of radar systems are vastly different. Go learn about radar. From: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) Path: stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm Allow me to clarify: I am specifically interested with the altimeter radar and ITS applications toward dynamic oceanography. }There are numerous other technical reports which I do not recommend }requesting that the net bug researchers unless they are grad students (or profs) }interested in projects (like this fellow?). It's really expensive to }make copies of these Yep. Quit being a grad student a number of years ago. Maybe again later.... }There are other useful instruments like the altimeter (or "How }I know orbits are bumpy (not smooth) things."): And other nice things to do with it! }I have tons more, but it gives you the flavor what a space mission is about. I have an idea as of the taste. The geosat is run from here. }I don't know all the reasons why Jim is trying to defend his not revealing }sources. I guess others are asking him for sources, too. Good for YOU guys! }I asked him for sources early on, he said no, and I left it at that. What the hell are you talking about? I have gotten nothing from anyone. This is the first thing I have seen. At the beginning of this message you say : }This machine (apl) is not accessible to me for some reason. This is }otherwise should be mail since it is not of general net interest. Since you say you cannot get to me, I have the deep impression that you are lying, for reasons unknown. If someone wants sources, Jack Calman is the head of a team evaluting real-time geosat altimeter data applied to dynamic oceanography. Larry Manzi & I are doing the software & processing. Harvard is incorporating the data into their Ocean Model. The US Navy is using it. Give us a call at APL. If this is an indication of JPL, you would be wasting you time to call there. (301) 953-5000. My extension is 4580. }Note: at the time I had a direct audience with the Inspector General of }NASA and can drop a very heavy hammer at the word GO. I will still }leave it at that. If the man doesn't want to give specifics for fear of }reprisal, then he does not have to tell us. I have more important }work to do. Golly gee. I'm really scared. Woopie shit. Feel better? }I honestly wish a few of you guys would use a library. }This guy (remember oceanography? like Alice) had a legit question. Huh? }If you want a copy of the above reports, and think you really deserve one, }before you mail to JPL (don't bother mailing me), what significance }is the year 1964 to space radar oceanography, what happened? If you can answer }this pass GO, and collect $200. What makes you think: 1. I give a shit? 2. I really care what you think? }Another gross generalization from "Gross" is an excellent choice of terms. } }--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov What the HELL are you talking about????? Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 88 05:52:21 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: What's going on here? Okay, I'll be straight for once. In article <8806080443.AA29904@jade.berkeley.edu> FHD@TAMCBA.BITNET (H. Alan Montgomery) writes: >Somewhere along here I have lost track of what we are trying to do. I >thought maybe if I displayed my train of logic someone could show me >where the flaw in my thinking is. Don't worry, we don't know where we are going either ;-). >First off, I am a task oriented person who is not very socially adept. This is also a problem is NASA (the task oriented criticism): great for one shot missions, not great for long-term research. It's an engineering approach, not a research approach. NASA is also socially inept. ;-) >I have noticed in this list and in the SIG on CompuServe and in >the various space publications that there is alot of hopelessness out >there. The dream of easy access to space in our lifetime seems to be >drifting slowly but surely out of our reach. The response to this CompuServe is not representative. The hopelessness is largely found in computer jockeys who don't do much. People in the aeronautics community can't be held back for instance. To a degree you should ignore what the net says (take with a grain of salt, including me [resident cynic]). Note what is part of the problem can be thought about by considering the volumes of energy it takes to orbit a human and his(her) supplies. It's like an expedition, to get a team high, you need intermediate camps or caches, to place these takes more supplies (quadratic, not linear). The types of energy we are talking (launching rockets) are usually not placed in the hands of individuals (instanteous). We are talking lots of power. >Right now the majority of America's corporations are owned by >institutions (mutual funds, pension plans, insurance companies, etc.) who >are risk averse. The money which could come from large corporations is >just not there. Looking for Boeing or GM or Rockwell to move into space >without government support is just wishful thinking. Any manager in >today's economic environment who suggested a program which did not pay >off in six months is looking to be unemployed. The thing you need to realize is that these corporations are people. People don't want to risk their money. My father (died in Feb.) couldn't see any reason for going into space. Fortunately, this generation is dying off. There are world governments who only see economic future in space, our's isn't quite one, this will chance, you only have to be patient (computers, too fast response time). The end users of satellite data: oceanographers, geologists, physicists, etc. all understand it some times takes decades to build ships, telescopes, accelerators, so shuttles aren't any different for them. >deny us access to space on purpose. I doubt it though. I would believe >in stupidity, short sightedness, and just plain ignorance before I >would believe malice. Ah! Good a realist! 8-) >So what does all this mean. To me it means that the bickering and witch >hunting have got to stop. It means that we have got to start looking to Oh, very good! >lower the capital risk to getting to space. It means that we cannot >depend on THEM (whoever they are) to get us to space. Something has to >done to make each step into space profitable. Not twenty years in the Well, I can't vouch for profitability, yet. 6 months is too short We have to start thinking of long term research goals, otherwise the Japanese and others will pass us. This is part of our (US == United States) problem. >future, but six months in the future. It means that we need to keep NASA >plugging ahead, so that at least some door is open, some option >available. > >As long as space has a greater than six month payoff, no non-astronaut >is going to visit there. If you truely want to go to space, stop bitching >about the people who are working toward the same goal you are, no matter >how flawed you think they are, because they at least agree with you in >principle. Ditto above. When I say, "Jump!" Do you say "How high?" It's a funny progressive thing. We need a lot of little launches. Hans Mark has admitted space was a "calculated gamble." You probably would not have invest in the Hudson Bay Company or Jamestown, but this is not a criticsm, the world takes all kinds. You were unlucky, I caught your note, next time I will use the comand to "catch up reading news" and ignore more articles. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov just a mail man, . . . sent by post masters, . . . to deliver a bill. resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." Another dated refer BTW: %A Atul Jain %T Broad Perspectives in Radar for Ocean Measurements %R TR 78-4 %I JPL, CIT %C Pasadena, CA %D Feb. 1978 %X Very old, note pre-Seasat. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jun 88 00:13:21 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: satellite oceanography Oh, James, so sorry! I was summarizing 3 articles in that note after returning from vacation. The "Jim" is Jim Bowery in San Diego who has been flaming of recent, not you. Wish mail would work. I said mail is better in this case. My apologies. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 88 13:02:07 GMT From: mcvax!esatst!neil@uunet.uu.net (Neil Dixon) Subject: First start of ARIANE 4 The first launch of ESA'a ARIANE 4 is now scheduled for 15 June. The launch windows are: 11:13 - 12:09 GMT 13:32 - 14:46 GMT For this first flight three payloads are carried: ESA's meteorological satellite METEOSAT P2, the radio amateur satellite AMSAT 111C, and the US built satellite Pan American Satellite 1 (PAS 1). The ARIANE 4 family will consist of 6 different types of launchers with payload capacity ranging from 1.9 tons to 4.2 tons. -- Neil Dixon UUCP:...!mcvax!esatst!neil, BITNET: NDIXON@ESTEC Thermal Control & Life Support Division (YC) European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC), Noordwijk, The Netherlands. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 88 22:21:15 GMT From: pacbell!att!mtunx!mtune!petsd!cjh@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Chris Henrich) Subject: Re: Book Review wanted In article <3057@polyslo.UUCP> jsalter@polyslo.UUCP (The Ag Major) writes: >Has anyone read Stephen Hawking's new book? I just saw it in our campus >store (at a price a bit above my current available funds) and I am wondering >about it's contents. Specifically if it is written for the layman, the >intelligent layman, or the intellectual. Jeremy Bernstein reviews it in this week's New Yorker. His review is favorable - the book is written for the intelligent layman, and is interesting to the specialist as well. Regards, Chris Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich UUCP: ...!rutgers!petsd!cjh Phone: (201) 758-7288 US Mail: MS 322; Concurrent Computer Corporation; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Concurrent Computer Corporation is a Perkin-Elmer company. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 88 01:45:28 GMT From: phoenix!amlovell@princeton.edu (Anthony M Lovell) Subject: Re: A New Holiday? (awkward question) In article <3606@okstate.UUCP>, richard@a.cs.okstate.edu (Richard Brown) writes: > postponed until the crew had rested, &c. The "...giant leap for > mankind" occurred after midnight. I remember vividly that this Actually, Armstrong botched his line (as he'd prepared it). He MEANT to say "That's one small step for a man.. One giant leap for a midget or small child!" -- amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu ...since 1963. disclaimer: These are MY opinions. You only WISH they were yours. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #270 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Jul 88 09:48:17 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Wed, 13 Jul 88 06:06:06 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 13 Jul 88 06:06:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 13 Jul 88 05:58:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 13 Jul 88 05:40:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 13 Jul 88 05:34:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 13 Jul 88 05:33:29 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13496; Wed, 13 Jul 88 01:07:57 PDT id AA13496; Wed, 13 Jul 88 01:07:57 PDT Date: Wed, 13 Jul 88 01:07:57 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807130807.AA13496@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #271 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 271 Today's Topics: Re: Shuttle sim Naming the space station. Re: Martian water, life Re: Bureaucracy vs. space Re: Naming the space station. Soyuz TM-5 flight docks to Mir Re: Space Station naming rules Re: Cometesimals From Space to the Farm: Chicago presentation No new Mir elements Re: Lithium Batteries (was Re: comments/reply for SPACE_DIGEST) Hawaiian spaceport? (Was: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Jun 88 17:11:35 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Shuttle sim [line.eater food] My normal sources of information failed me, and I was caught with my dish down for the tuesday Shuttle sim. Did anyone with a TVRO system get it on videotape, I'd love to get a copy. *** mike *** -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "Being a dwarf does have it's shortcomings" [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 11:11:08 EDT From: loeb@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU To: portal!cup.portal.com!Daniel_C_Anderson@uunet.uu.net Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Naming the space station. Well to be totally nonsexist you should just say Rob Heinlein. And to be grammatical you should say "Everyone who cares at all about space probably cut their ...." Danny ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1988 12:44-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Martian water, life Many researchers feel that liquid water may exist deep in the martian regolith. The buildup of pressure in aquifers has been suggested as one possible source of out rush flood features on Mars. It has also been suggested the massive landslides on the sides of Valles Marineris might be caused by undercutting as water is (was) lost the base. The bottoms of the various chasma are deep enough to cut strata which could contain liquid water. The chasma walls would expose such fluid such that it would freeze and sublime, thus weakening the bottom of the cliff and causing collapse. The areas covered by some of the slides are so large that entrained ice and water are thought to have been needed to 'fluidize' the material. If such free water does indeed exist, then one could hypothesize life deep in the regolith. I recommend "Geology of the Terrestrial Planets" to anyone interested in pursuing this furthur. It is somewhat date and needs supplemented with recent research findings on Mars, but is nonetheless quite good. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jun 88 12:39:06 GMT From: nsc!taux01!amos@decwrl.dec.com (Amos Shapir) Subject: Re: Bureaucracy vs. space For anyone trying to fathom the role of bureaucracy in any organization, C. N. Parkinson's book "Parkinson's Law" is a must (and funny, too!) -- Amos Shapir (My other cpu is a NS32532) National Semiconductor (Israel) 6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel Tel. +972 52 522261 amos%taux01@nsc.com 34 48 E / 32 10 N ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jun 88 16:44:59 GMT From: agate!soup.ssl.berkeley.edu!gckaplan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (George Kaplan) Subject: Re: Naming the space station. Several people around here have been mispronouncing Mir to rhyme with 'myrrh'. Maybe we should call our station 'Frankincense' :-) (Actually, Mir sounds more like 'mere') - George Kaplan gckaplan@ssl.berkeley.edu gckaplan@sag2.ssl.berkeley.edu ..!ucbvax!ucbssl!sag2!gckaplan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 16:03:03 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soyuz TM-5 flight docks to Mir The Soviet's Soyuz TM-5 craft successfully docked with the Mir/Kvant space station complex at 20:00 hours Moscow Daylight time (12:00 noon EDT) today (June 9th). This was a slight delay from the initially announced docking time of 19:00 hours. This of Anatoly Solovyov, Viktor Savinykh and Alexander Alexandrov have now joined the long duration Mir crew of Vladimir Titov and Musahi Manarov. The visitors have a scheduled 47 experiments to accomplish and will stay on board Mir for about 8 day. Note that the station cosmonauts have now been in orbit for 171 days, more than twice the time of the longest Skylab mission. They are still expected to stay aloft for a full year. One correction, lift off time was stated in my June 7th message as 11:03 EDT but it should actually be 10:03 EDT. Mean while the Soyuz TM-6 is entering its final checkout at the Baikonour cosmodrome. This will go up in August and will carry an Afghan guest cosmonaut. I heard an interesting story concerning the Cosmos 1889 biosatellite that the soviets launched last September. As you may recall one of the monkeys in it worked its hand loose from the restraining straps so that the Russians had to bring the satellite home several days early. That resulted in the vehicle landing 2000 Km off course. The Soviet officials phoned up the mayor of the nearest town and told him to send people to get the capsule into a safe warm place, but not to open it. He sent the Soviet eskimos off on snow mobiles. When they found the lander they built an igloo around it, and a fire within the igloo. When the real recovery team arrived the monkeys were conformably warm, instead of frozen to death as would have happened otherwise. Nice mixture of old craft and high tech in that story. (The Russians told this to the people at Payload Systems during their discussions about doing work on the Mir space station). The flight schedule for the end of the year looks very strong for the Russians. Let us work to get the shuttle flying so that we do not fall further behind. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jun 88 13:12:26 GMT From: killer!tness7!tness1!sugar!peter@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Space Station naming rules In article <10109@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, marchant@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu writes: [ that NASA is seeking space-station names ] > Names under consideration include Earth Star, Freedom, > Independance, Jupiter, Minerva, Olympia, Pilgrim, and Starlight. Truly awful names. How about "Peace"? Only half-smiley. "Destiny", as in "Manifest Destiny" might be appropriate :->. How about "Proxmire"? Get the old bastard on the right side. Or given its likely success, "Roanoake". -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These may be the official opinions of Hackercorp. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jun 88 21:12:14 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Re: Cometesimals Frank et. al.'s cometesimal theory, if correct, has some interesting implications for space colonization. The good news is that water might be very abundant at the lunar poles. Cometesimals hitting the moon would deliver an enormous amount of water over geologic time, so even if one molecule in a million is trapped, there would still be a lot there. The bad news is that large space structures would be at risk. Frank et. al. estimate a density of about 3e-12 cometesimals per cubic kilometer. Travelling at 20 km/sec, the flux of comets near the earth would be something like 6e-11 per square kilometer per second. A ten square kilometer powersat would be hit once every fifty years, on average. Each impact would deliver several kilotons of energy. We might expect smaller cometesimals, which would not show up as UV shadows, to be even more common. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 20:15 CDT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: From Space to the Farm: Chicago presentation Original_To: SPACE Chicago Space Frontier Society presents ISTARS: FROM SPACE TO THE FARM Professor John Cesarone University of Illinois at Chicago ADMISSION FREE TO THE PUBLIC Illinois farmers may soon use personal computers and satellite imaging to make their jobs easier, if a proposal by a group of Illinois engineers succeeds. Dr. John Cesarone will explain ISTARS (Illinois System for Tracking Agricultural Resource Status) in a free presentation at 7:00 PM on Monday, June 20, at the Chicago Academy of Sciences, 2001 North Clark Street in Chicago, just west of the Lincoln Park Zoo. Dr. Cesarone, an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Illinois at Chicago, will explain how ISTARS would collect information from earth-resources observation satellites and from computer databases and make it available to farmers and other users. Such data as images of fields, early warning of crop disease, improved damage assessment, and detailed weather forecasts should make for better farm planning and higher productivity. The ISTARS proposal has been submitted to the new Illinois Space Institute. ############################################################# The Chicago Space Frontier Society, sponsor of this event, is dedicated to the opening of the space frontier. CSFS is the local chapter of the National Space Society. Among its activities are monthly meetings at the Chicago Academy of Sciences which always feature presentations on some aspect of space development. Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month at 7:00 PM. For more information call Bill Higgins at (312)293-1050 or Larry Ahearn at (312)373-0349, or send mail to HIGGINS@FNALC.BITNET. Coming July 18: Highlights of the 7th Space Development Conference. Spaceweek Celebration Saturday, July 23, 1 PM at the Adler Planetarium. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jun 88 05:38:00 GMT From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: No new Mir elements I know that several of you are waiting breathlessly for a new set of elements for Mir, but Goddard hasn't come out with one since Soyuz TM-5 went up. Following are the elements for Progress 36 as of 5 June; I don't have the word on when it was undocked from the Mir complex; these elements, which indicate a reboost, may be usable for Mir. I make no guarantees! Progress 36 1 19117U 88156.88193794 0.00015998 12287-3 0 261 2 19117 51.6138 130.3633 0004000 18.9284 341.1013 15.72231650 3615 Satellite: Progress 36 Catalog id 19117 Element set 26 Epoch: 88156.88193794 Inclination: 51.6138 degrees RA of node: 130.3633 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0004000 Argument of perigee: 18.9284 degrees Mean anomaly: 341.1013 degrees Mean motion: 15.72231650 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00015998 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 361 Semimajor axis: 6730.62 km Apogee height*: 355.15 km Perigee height*: 349.76 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jun 88 22:43:13 GMT From: actnyc!prh@uunet.uu.net (Paul R. Haas) Subject: Re: Lithium Batteries (was Re: comments/reply for SPACE_DIGEST) In article <1884@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> chiaravi@silver.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes: > >>The reason NASA bans them from the shuttle is because they have been >>known to explode when shorted. [. . .] > > Wouldn't it make more sense for NASA to just require that the lithium >batteries be kept inside a housing that will contain explosion fragments, and >that they not be kept in areas in which a breathable atmosphere must be >maintained? Seems that if a battery exploded in the payload bay but the >fragments were contained within the housing of the thing holding the battery, >it shouldn't be able to do any harm. The energy density is comparable to dynamite. The housing may end up weighing more than the battery. I have also heard of lithium batteries "outgassing" ie. spewing out the nasty electrolyte. Lithium batteries are usually made of lithium and something from the other side of the periodic chart, iodine, bromine, chlorine, etc... Now you can tell me what is wrong with my scheme: Build a fuse in series with each cell in the battery and/or put in enough resistance to avoid explosion. I would think a lithium battery with a resistor is still more efficient than other explosion resistant batteries. This should work to prevent a battery from exploding due to external shorts, (touching keys in the astronaut's pocket, etc...). I have no idea how to cope with internal shorts, like astronauts pounding nails through batteries. :-) ---------------------------------------------- Paul Haas uunet!actnyc!prh ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jun 88 01:35:52 PDT From: super@csa5.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) Reply-To: M_Helm@csa5.lbl.gov Subject: Hawaiian spaceport? (Was: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221) Elias Israel wrote: >First, the location for the proposed spaceport in Hawaii is in Palima >Point on the big island (Hawaii) not anywhere near Maui. Yes, I have >been to Haleakala and it's one of the most beautiful sights anywhere. >Palima Point is not on or near Mauna Kea or Mauna Loa, the two ACTIVE >volcanoes of the big island. From the sketches that I have seen, the >proposed site is (guess what) on the beach, on the south of the island, >I think. EVERYTHING on the south of the island is near Mauna Loa & the Kilauea region, the two currently-considered active volcanoes on Hawaii. In fact, one could probably make the case that the south end of the island more or less IS Mauna Loa. I'm not sure exactly where the site is, I never really gave this idea much credence, and Hawaiian names can be easily confused one for another in some cases, but Palima Point is just a few miles southwest of Hawaii Volcanoes Nat'l Park, near a rather nice black sand beach (Punaluu), & definitely located in the back of beyond in Hawaiian terms. I think the coastal area is pretty flat around there, so perhaps that's the place. It's only 20-30 miles from Kilauea, which is near where the current eruptions are taking place, & only 20-30 miles from the summit of Mauna Loa, ALL DOWN HILL. And if you think that's a joke, all you need do is drive anywhere around the south end of the island, & read in your guidebook or posted sign or hear from the locals about this lava flow that came down in '59, in '63, &c &c. Another point to consider: the south end of the island is REALLY WINDY. I don't recall Punuluu being as bad as South Point (your car gets a free sandblasting there), but someone ought to consider this and see if it's a problem. >Also, the benefits of a site in Hawaii are hefty! For the state of >Hawaii, the flow the technology to the state can only mean more money >for the state coffers. Naturally, Governor Waihee is a supporter of the >Palima Point proposal. For the possible users of the launch facility, >it sure is hard to beat a launch site with water in every direction ^^^^ Only 3; 4000 meter mountains in one direction! >that's only 12 degress off the equator and in a friendly country to >boot! I'll look into this some more.... My sister, who lives in Hawaii, told me that the idea was brot up & passed around without talking too much to the farmers who live in the area. This place is, like I said, the back of beyond: no tv, radio, etc; no plutocrats like other parts of Hawaii, &c; the locals had NO IDEA this was going down. When the news finally reached them (!!) they started finding out about things like an 11-mile security zone around the spaceport...where their farms are... and got a trifle upset. That's 2nd hand, I'll try to dig up newspaper clippings if there's any interest (that's *try*). I'm not sure of what's expected to be built at this site, either, or what services will be offered. Point Pulima is maybe 50-75 miles from Hilo & Kona, the two big population areas on Hawaii (& by big, we're talking a few 10000s). The road is not great, & the stretch from Hilo to Punuluu runs thru the national park, part of it right by Kilauea (VERY active in recent times). The island airports looked pretty small to me, too. If something on the order of KSC is going to built there I have a lot of trouble imagining how it's going to work. Go there & see for yourself! (you'll get a good vacation out of it, in any case). > >I say do it. The age of commercial space development is coming. If you >thought the GOVERNMENT did some nifty things in space, just wait until >the businessmen who *know what they're doing* take a crack at it. Let's look a little more before we leap. Maybe there are better, or at least more reliable, sites for something like this. Do we really want to invest $Tax$ in a site that MIGHT, I admit only MIGHT, suddenly be repaved by an eruption from unpredictable Mauna Loa? It might even be worthwhile to look at some other sites on other Hawaiian islands, altho this might be politically more difficult. Michael Helm (M_Helm@lbl.gov) LBL Disclaimer: My thoughts only. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #271 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Jul 88 06:37:23 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 14 Jul 88 04:34:32 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 14 Jul 88 04:34:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 14 Jul 88 04:22:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 14 Jul 88 04:07:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Thu, 14 Jul 88 04:06:32 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14597; Thu, 14 Jul 88 01:07:04 PDT id AA14597; Thu, 14 Jul 88 01:07:04 PDT Date: Thu, 14 Jul 88 01:07:04 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807140807.AA14597@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #272 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 272 Today's Topics: Re: Lithium Batteries (was Re: comments/reply for SPACE_DIGEST) Significant accomplishments in space Re: Hawaiian spaceport? (Was: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221) Christine McAuliffe Re: Christine McAuliffe Re: Christine McAuliffe Mir elements Re: comments/reply for SPACE_DIGEST Space Shuttle Black Box Addendum to "Significant Accomplishments in Space Sciences" survey ... Mir passes for San Francisco Re: Cometesimals ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Jun 88 06:12:59 GMT From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) Subject: Re: Lithium Batteries (was Re: comments/reply for SPACE_DIGEST) In article <1884@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> chiaravi@silver.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes: >In article <1139@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. >Karn) writes: [About the tendency of lithium batteries to explode] >>The reason NASA bans them from the shuttle is because they have been >>known to explode when shorted. [. . .] > > Wouldn't it make more sense for NASA to just require that the lithium >batteries be kept inside a housing that will contain explosion fragments, and >that they not be kept in areas in which a breathable atmosphere must be >maintained? [. . .] Somebody mailed me a message indicating that the weight of the extra housing would make it not worth it to send lithium batteries up. I did not intend to indicate putting an extra housing on, although now I see that my message actually reads this way. What I should have said was that any housing that is already there should be made so as to contain explosion fragments, and the lithium battery placed between other parts of the package so that they absorb the greater part of the energy of any explosion so that the housing does not have to be made unduly heavier. Also, the batteries should be designed with fracture points and/or safety gaskets so that they would burst earlier and with less vigor upon overheating. -- Lucius Chiaraviglio chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu lucius@tardis.harvard.edu (in case the first one doesn't work) "Gunpowder hasn't been invented yet." "It hasn't?!?!?" . . . ********!!!!!!!!!!BBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!******** "Well, I could be wrong, you know. . . ." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jun 88 17:08 EST From: Subject: Significant accomplishments in space For reasons which are too detailed to go into here, I would like to conduct a survey on the net regarding what each of you feels are/will be the most significant achievements relating to mankind's efforts to explore and develop space. I am interested not only in those accomplishments directly related to space, but any development in any discipline which has contibuted to these efforts. Responses should however, be restricted to a time period beginning around 1900 A.D. and extending as far into the future as you like. Projections for the future should be based on some logical extrapolation of current technology or theory (no science fiction please) and if highly speculative, the development path from current science should be described. Last of all, (naturally) responses should be E-mailed to me personally rather than put on the net. After I have received and analyzed the responses, it is my intent to put the results of the survey (i.e. the accomplishments that are generally felt by the majority to be the most significant) on the net. Maybe we'll even get one of two good topics of serious concern to space out of it, rather than some of the political and linguistic drivel (Flame expected) like "manned vs. femmed" or what "CBS should be doing" that seems to have permeated the net in the last couple of months. Your responses will be greatly appreciated. Rick R. Johnson RJOHNSON@CEBAF1 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 88 04:01:46 GMT From: phri!dasys1!tbetz@nyu.edu (Tom Betz) Subject: Re: Hawaiian spaceport? (Was: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221) I agree it would be unwise to build a launch base on Hawaii proper. But the general area is conducive to launch sites, so other alternatives should be investigated. Has anyone looked into the feasability of artificially- constructed "islands", perhaps just over the horizon to the south of the Hawaiian Islands? There must be suitable volcanic reefs there that are normally submerged... it would be a nontrivial task to install the necessary facilities, but it would be the least intrusive approach when it comes to affecting the tourist trade, and much of the facility (that which does not require absolute stability) could be constructed to float on the sea, much as oil drilling platforms do. The energy contributed to the launch process would be considerable... would it be enough to justify the expense? It seems that it might... and what are the relative pros and cons of sea ditching versus land ditching as regards safety to crew and others? Strikes me that Hawaii as a launch location would provide the Shuttle ample opportunity for both. -- Tom Betz {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\ ZCNY {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!tbetz Yonkers, NY, USA 10701-2509 {sun}!hoptoad/ "Opinions? What opinions? These are >facts masticol@styx.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes: > >Does anyone know of a good biography of Christine McAuliffe? I also >remember seeing a video biography of her shortly after the Challenger >explosion; I could use this too if it's available. > >Thanks for your help! >- Steve Masticola (masticol@paul.rutgers.edu) I would recommend "I Touch the Future" (I think that's the title, since I don't have the book with me). It's a good, direct writeup by a reporter from Christa's home town. He had the closest contact of anyone during the selection process and her training. mike -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "Being a dwarf does have it's shortcomings" [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 88 00:04:46 GMT From: m2c!jjmhome!lmann@husc6.harvard.edu (Laurie Mann) Subject: Re: Christine McAuliffe In article , masticol@styx.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes: > > Does anyone know of a good biography of Christine McAuliffe? Her full name was: Sharon Christa Corrigan McAuliffe. At least one has been written in the last two years. Read any news/personality magazine from mid-1985 through early 1986 and you're bound to find quite a bit about her. \* This is the way the future is... Hacking net address: {harvard,ulowell}!m2c!jjmhome!lmann ** lmann@jjmhome.UUCP Working net address: harvard!anvil!es!Laurie_Mann (Stratus Computer) uS(n)ail: Laurie Mann, Stratus, M22PUB, 55 Fairbanks Blvd, Marlboro, MA 01752 ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jun 88 05:16:00 GMT From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements The elements I posted for Mir (they were labeled, `Progress 36') a couple of days ago are still usable for visual observation. I observed Mir overfly Champaign, IL at 22:34 CDT (03:34 UTC) tonight. It was not more than about ten seconds away from predicted time; I would say that it was more likely a few seconds early than late. I noticed that it was about half a magnitude brighter than usual (perhaps not as bright as Arcturus, but comparable to Vega). The additional reflecting surfaces provided by the solar panels of the second Soyuz are, apparently, quite noticeable. Clear skies for the rest of the overflights this week! Ad astra, Kevin ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jun 88 16:45:16 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: comments/reply for SPACE_DIGEST In article <1139@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: }> >So, just what are Lithium batteries, and why would they be prohibited on }> >a space flight, when I am allowed to take one in my watch and mingle }> >around thousands of people in public places? Are they radioactive? What }> >about a leak? } }The reason NASA bans them from the shuttle is because they have been }known to explode when shorted. They can usually tolerate a short }lasting a few seconds (typically 5), which is how they can be }wave-soldered to PC boards. No, they are not radioactive. They don't like getting wet much, either. Is this a consideration for something launched over an ocean that spends most of its time (when it is not in a warehouse) above water? Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 88 19:44:40 GMT From: ganelon.usc.edu!robiner@oberon.usc.edu (Steve) Subject: Space Shuttle Black Box I posted this request a few months back, but alas, no responses. Perhaps someone new is listening: I heard that a court case last year ordered NASA to release the cockpit black box tape from Challenger. This was around June or so of last year. There was a reported 2-3 minutes of tape *AFTER* the explosion. Anyone know any details on this. The case was brought to court by the New York Times, but I haven't seen anything in there about it. =Steve= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jun 88 12:28 EST From: Subject: Addendum to "Significant Accomplishments in Space Sciences" survey ... I just realized after my first couple of responses to my "Significant Achievements In Space" survey, that I was perhaps not absolutely clear in my request for responses. What I am interested in in addition to the mention of the accomplishments themselves, are the dates that you think they were/will be completed. For those of you that have already responded, I would appreciate a follow up on your responses containing this information. Also, although the accomplishments in the future are of prime importance, please include info on the past accomplishments, since part of my interest is to see how familiar everyone is with these past accomplishments, and which ones you all feel have been the most important. Sorry about the vagueness, and thanks once again. Rick R. Johnson RJOHNSON@6414 ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 88 07:21:32 GMT From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard the Nerd) Subject: Mir passes for San Francisco Hi! These are predictions for the passes of the Soviet space station Mir over San Francisco. Since the Soyuz TM-5 is now docked to Mir, the complex is now about 0.5 magnitudes brighter than usual! These passes should indeed be spectacular. According to Mr. K. Kenny who has been very helpful in keeping me up to date (he gets all the good weather!), Mir is 7 seconds early compared to the element set upon which this prediction was based. If you would like to receive predictions like this, calculated for your own location, send me email. For smooth operation, it would help if you could find your exact coordinates and time zone. -Rich Prediction for: San Francisco CA Lat: 37.800000 Lonw: 122.400000 Ht: 0. Zone: 8.00000 DST: 1.0 Satellite: Mir 16609 Age: 10.3 days Unc: 46 sec Local Date: 1988 6 14 TIME MAG ILL AZ EL R.A. DEC RANGE VANG -------- ----- --- --- -- ----- ----- ----- ---- 21:46:30 3.0 18 344 29 06:21 74.4 669 0.48 21:46:50 2.3 26 355 35 06:03 85.5 584 0.63 21:47:00 2.0 31 2 37 19:28 87.7 550 0.70 21:47:10 1.7 37 11 40 18:47 80.4 524 0.77 21:47:20 1.4 44 22 42 18:42 72.4 507 0.82 21:47:30 1.2 51 33 43 18:40 64.0 500 0.85 21:47:40 1.1 58 45 42 18:40 55.5 504 0.84 21:47:50 1.1 65 56 41 18:40 47.4 517 0.79 21:48:00 1.0 71 65 39 18:41 39.7 539 0.73 21:48:10 1.1 76 73 36 18:41 32.8 570 0.66 21:48:20 1.2 80 80 33 18:42 26.6 608 0.58 21:48:30 1.3 83 85 30 18:43 21.1 651 0.51 21:48:40 1.4 86 90 27 18:44 16.4 700 0.45 Prediction for: San Francisco CA Lat: 37.800000 Lonw: 122.400000 Ht: 0. Zone: 8.00000 DST: 1.0 Satellite: Mir 16609 Age: 11.3 days Unc: 56 sec Local Date: 1988 6 15 TIME MAG ILL AZ EL R.A. DEC RANGE VANG -------- ----- --- --- -- ----- ----- ----- ---- 22:12:20 3.1 21 280 25 09:42 23.4 743 0.40 22:12:40 2.5 27 272 30 10:19 20.0 644 0.52 22:12:50 2.2 32 266 33 10:40 17.6 602 0.60 22:13:00 1.9 37 260 36 11:04 14.7 565 0.67 22:13:10 1.6 43 251 39 11:29 11.3 536 0.75 22:13:20 1.3 50 242 41 11:56 7.3 515 0.81 22:13:30 1.1 57 231 42 12:24 2.9 504 0.84 22:13:40 1.0 64 219 43 12:53 -1.8 503 0.84 22:13:50 0.9 71 208 42 13:21 -6.3 512 0.82 22:14:00 0.9 77 198 40 13:47 -10.6 531 0.76 22:14:10 1.0 82 189 37 14:12 -14.5 559 0.69 22:14:20 1.1 86 182 34 14:36 -17.9 594 0.61 Prediction for: San Francisco CA Lat: 37.800000 Lonw: 122.400000 Ht: 0. Zone: 8.00000 DST: 1.0 Satellite: Mir 16609 Age: 13.3 days Unc: 77 sec Local Date: 1988 6 17 TIME MAG ILL AZ EL R.A. DEC RANGE VANG -------- ----- --- --- -- ----- ----- ----- ---- 21:29:20 3.1 18 271 26 09:30 16.8 723 0.46 21:29:40 2.5 26 260 30 10:08 11.9 641 0.58 21:29:50 2.2 31 254 33 10:29 8.7 609 0.64 21:30:00 1.9 36 246 35 10:52 5.2 584 0.70 21:30:10 1.7 42 237 36 11:17 1.3 567 0.74 21:30:20 1.5 49 228 37 11:42 -2.9 559 0.76 21:30:30 1.4 55 218 37 12:07 -7.1 560 0.76 21:30:40 1.3 62 209 36 12:32 -11.2 571 0.73 21:30:50 1.3 67 201 34 12:57 -15.1 590 0.69 21:31:00 1.3 72 193 32 13:20 -18.6 617 0.63 21:31:10 1.4 77 187 30 13:42 -21.6 651 0.57 21:31:20 1.4 80 181 28 14:02 -24.2 690 0.51 21:31:30 1.5 83 177 25 14:21 -26.5 735 0.45 Enjoy! ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 88 19:01:07 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Re: Cometesimals In article <18206@cornell.UUCP> dietz@loki (Paul F. Dietz) writes: > Frank et. al. estimate a density of about 3e-12 cometesimals per > cubic kilometer. Travelling at 20 km/sec, the flux of comets > near the earth would be something like 6e-11 per square kilometer > per second. A ten square kilometer powersat would be hit once > every fifty years, on average. Correction: 3e-11 per km^3, and 10 km/sec, not 20. So the powersat is hit once every ten years, on average, if the cometesimals exist. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #272 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Jul 88 01:13:33 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 14 Jul 88 22:28:36 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 14 Jul 88 22:28:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 14 Jul 88 22:26:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 14 Jul 88 22:17:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 14 Jul 88 22:07:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Thu, 14 Jul 88 22:06:22 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15661; Thu, 14 Jul 88 19:06:50 PDT id AA15661; Thu, 14 Jul 88 19:06:50 PDT Date: Thu, 14 Jul 88 19:06:50 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807150206.AA15661@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #273 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 273 Today's Topics: News on Shuttle oxidizer Re: Mir elements Re: Hawaiian spaceport? (Was: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221) data Re: Cometesimals Ariane 4 successfully flys Soyuz TM-5 update, future missions & new info about Soyuz T-14 recent gender discussion Pandora's case is still open. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 88 16:32:01 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: News on Shuttle oxidizer X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@angband.s1.gov" >From the JPL UNIVERSE, June 10: "Shuttle's oxidizer supply assured despite explosion" The explosion of the Pacific Engineering and Production Co. plant at Henderson, Nev., May 4, destroyed one of the two facilities capable of producing ammonium perchlorate, the oxidizer used in all solid-propellant rocket motors. The only other manufacturer of ammonium perchlorate is Kerr-McGee Corp. NASA said there is sufficient ammonium perchlorate on hand for the first four shuttle missions beginning with STS 26, now scheduled for late August. The oxidizer for the fifth mission (Magellan) is nearly ready at Kerr-McGee. NASA has indicated that two key JPL projects, Magellan and Galileo, have a high priority. JPL director Lew Allen has been in consultation with NASA Headquarters about the status of the problem. The Kerr-McGee plant at Henderson was closed following the explosion on the recommendation of a six-member safety panel. The firm was scheduled to resume production this week and has said it could produce up to 40 million pounds per year of the chemical. That is still less than the combined pre-explosion production capacity of Kerr-McGee and Pacific Engineering of 62 million pounds per year. The production amount of 40 million pounds per year is still less than is needed by all users, including NASA, Department of Defense, and commercial. There will be an allocation process developed among the DoD, NASA and the commercial users. It takes 1.7 million pounds of the oxidizer to launch one shuttle. The U.S. Air Force and NASA are considering alternatives for construction of a new plant for the production of ammonium perchlorate. Such a facility may take as much as two years to build and begin full production. --------------------------------------------- I want you to know it took a heroic effort to avoid snide editorial comments during the above... Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 88 03:31:00 GMT From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Mir elements I recommend against using Goddard's latest set of Mir elements (epoch date 88158.85227235) -- they give a poorer fit than the set that they gave for Progress 36 late last week. Using the P36 elements, I observed Mir tonight over Champaign, IL; it appeared roughly seven seconds early, for those that are into tweaking the B* term. NOTE: P36 has been de-orbited; these elements date from a point at which it was still docked to the Mir/Kvant complex. For those that missed them the first time, the P36 element set I used was: Satellite: Progress 36 Catalog id 19117 Element set 26 Epoch: 88156.88193794 Inclination: 51.6138 degrees RA of node: 130.3633 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0004000 Argument of perigee: 18.9284 degrees Mean anomaly: 341.1013 degrees Mean motion: 15.72231650 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00015998 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 361 Semimajor axis: 6730.62 km Apogee height*: 355.15 km Perigee height*: 349.76 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean equatorial radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 88 18:54:54 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Hawaiian spaceport? (Was: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221) > Let's look a little more before we leap. Maybe there are better, or > at least more reliable, sites for something like this... Yeah, Cape York! The biggest thing wrong with Hawaii is that it's in the wrong country. The ideal site for a commercial launch facility would have (a) sane liability laws, (b) sane technology-transfer rules, and (c) no existing government-run space program to lobby and intrigue against commercial competition. The US flunks all three criteria. (If you think I'm kidding about (c), note that most of the Reagan administration's moves to encourage free-enterprise spaceflight have been met with grumbling from the USAF and screams of outrage from NASA. If Bush loses the election, the next few years may be rough for commercial spaceflight. [Things may not be great even if he wins -- they haven't been great under Reagan -- but the odds are better.]) -- "For perfect safety... sit on a fence| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology and watch the birds." --Wilbur Wright| {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jun 88 02:23:47 GMT From: uop!todd@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (uop!todd) Subject: data How available is data from say, JPL to do some research with? Would they require you have lots of number crunching capability at your disposal? For instance, if imaging data from a voyager, or IR data from IR satellite (IRIS or IRAS? I forgot) available? And what about MAGSAT? Thanks for any help you can provide. How do you prepare for Atmospheric Microphysics, Astronomical Technique, and Topics in Partial Differential Equations? Have a Thomases' English Muffin! (yeah right) ;-) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- + uop!todd@uunet.uu.net + + cogent!uop!todd@lll-winken.arpa + + {backbone}!ucbvax!ucdavis!uop!todd + ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jun 88 00:23:33 GMT From: palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu (David Palmer) Subject: Re: Cometesimals In article <18262@cornell.UUCP> dietz@loki (Paul F. Dietz) writes: >In article <18206@cornell.UUCP> dietz@loki (Paul F. Dietz) writes: > >> Frank et. al. estimate a density of about 3e-12 cometesimals per >> cubic kilometer. Travelling at 20 km/sec, the flux of comets >> near the earth would be something like 6e-11 per square kilometer >> per second. A ten square kilometer powersat would be hit once >> every fifty years, on average. > >Correction: 3e-11 per km^3, and 10 km/sec, not 20. So the powersat >is hit once every ten years, on average, if the cometesimals exist. > > Paul F. Dietz > dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu Comet strikes need not be fatal if the powersat is designed reasonably. A 10 meter snowball would merely make a 10 meter hole in whatever it hit, plus whatever damage the fragments do, if the structure is sufficiently flimsy. There is no reason to make the structure rigid enough that the comet delivers the bulk of its energy to the rest of the structure. David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer "In retrospect, no one should have been surprised by the discovery that Harvard Business School was being supported by a consortium of large Japanese companies." -- 1993, The Year In Review ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 88 10:00:25 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Ariane 4 successfully flys The European Space Agency successfully launched their new Ariane 4 rocket today (June 15) from the French Guiane launch site. The Ariane 4 is designed to lift a range of cargoes depending on the types of strapon first stages. This goes from 2 solids up to 4 solids, and 2 liquids to 4 liquids (plus one intermediate combination of solid/liquid). This is an important flight as the Ariane 4 is expected to be the main ESA booster for the next 8 years or so. 50 boosters of this class are currently on order. Maximum lift to geo transfer orbit is about 4.2 Tonnes. Until the Titan 4 or Shuttle flies this gives the ESA the same (or more) heavy lift capacity as the USA has. Unless changes are made this country is definitely moving into third place in space. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 88 14:01:45 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soyuz TM-5 update, future missions & new info about Soyuz T-14 The Soyuz TM-5 flight is now at its mid point. The crew of Anatoly Solovyov, Viktor Savinykh and Alexander Alexandrov, along with the long duration Mir crew of Vladimir Titov and Musahi Manarov held a telanews conference on June 13th with reporters on the ground. The current mission will leave the station on June 17th, probably using the Soyuz TM-4 capsule (which was launched on Dec. 21, 1987) and leaving the fresh TM-5. The Russians prefer to keep Soyuz's to less than 7 months in orbit time connected to their space stations. By the way this current flight was moved up to June 7th from its original scheduled start of June 21 to avoid the full moon. The Bulgarian cosmonaut is doing some observations with the Kvant astrophyics instruments which would conflict with the higher light level from the moon at the end of June (the moon was dark on June 14th). Some more information is available about the upcoming missions. The August flight will have Col. Mohammad Dauran or Capt. Abdol Ahad as the cosmonaut from Afghanistan. This mission was originally scheduled for next year but moved up due to the current withdrawal of Soviet troops from that country. The November French flight will see Alexander Volkov as the mission commander (Soyuz T-14, 64 day mission in Sept 17, '85 to Salyut 7) with Jean-Loup Cretein as the guest (the flight engineer has not been named as of yet). An interview with Volkov was recently published in the June Spaceflight issue where he reveals that on the T-14 mission the flight was originally to last until Mar 16, '86, long after Mir was launched (Feb 20, '86). Soyuz T-14 you may recall did a semi crew switchoff with Dzhanibekov from Soyuz T-13 coming down with Georgi Grechko (T-14 crew) while Viktor Savinykh (who is the flight engineer on the current Soyuz TM-5 mission) stayed on board. Savinykh was part of the original crew of Volkov and Valdimir Vasyutin meant for a Salyut 7 mission in the summer of '85 when the station problems required that a repair crew (Soyuz T-13) be sent up. Note that the Soyuz T-15 crew flew on Mar. 13, '86 to Mir. This suggests that original intention was for the Soyuz T-14 crew to occupy Sayut 7 and not come down until the T-15 crew had docked with the new Mir station. This was prevented due to the illness of Vasyutin, which forced them to come down on Nov 23. That suggests two interesting things were in the Soviet plans at that time, though neither was achieved. First they probably planed permanent manned habitation to begin with Salyut 7 in June '85 and for Mir to be manned continuously from its initial occupation (the Soyuz T-15 mission to Mir appeared to end suddenly, probably due to the delays in the Kvant expansion module's launching). Secondly if Savinykh had completed the original planed mission he would have been up there for 284 days, exceeding the 237 day flight of the Soyuz T-10b crew from '84. This would explain the long delay until last year in breaking that previous record of time in orbit. Thus if their problems had not occurred on Soyuz T-14 we might now be looking at 3 years of permanent Soviet space manned presence, rather than 1.3 years, and more time in orbit records. Obviously the Russians have not had things go according to their plans over the past few years. Yet they have continued to build up a huge lead in manned experience in space. Here we have NASA closing down the whole manned activity for about 2.5 years with a problem on the shuttle. That is not the way to show "leadership" in the space field. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 88 10:33:14 CDT From: "k.c. powell" Subject: recent gender discussion I have seen some of the recent network discussion of gender, etc. in sci- fi and fantasy. I would like to respond to a few things. The first was the suggestion that Heinlein's proposition that men somehow bear children bespoke some feminism on his part. I would ask you to read Frankenstein if you want to see the process of creation in the hands of men. One can argue that the desire to reproduce is the ultimate autoerotic, misogynist fantasy. Remove women from the process altogether. I grant that this is a radical interpretation and one with which I do not agree but it shows that there truly are several sides to any story. My second comment is to Henry Spencer who dismisses, in a fashion typical of those who have nothing to gain by a change and possibly some ego to lose, the need to address the sexism inherent in language. Henry, there is no more immediate, profound or basic concern than the structure of communication especially when it's structure has a built-in repression. I only ask that men like yourself read a few things in which the generic she is used and see if indeed it does not require a bit of double identifica- tion. This is the gripe, and I believe a legitimate one. The use of "he" to refer to both men and women is confusing to the subconscious. The female must say oh, okay that means me too but her subconscious knows it is not. Beyond the issue of double identification, the generic "he" tells little girls and big that all doctors, lawyers, candlestick makers, astronauts, etc. are male. We grow up reading that all representatives of humanity are male. It is a subtle innuendo that perhaps we do not quite qualify as humans. Anyway, Mr. Spencer, I only ask that you reconsider your cavalier view of language and its role in our lives, evolution, aspirations, and fundamental relation one to another. Sincerely, K.C. Powell ------------------------------ Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!trout.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim Date: Mon, 13 Jun 88 22:22:53 PDT From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Pandora's case is still open. Dale Amon writes: > Several individuals have been slandered who are not present to defend > themselves. Dale, you falsely accuse me of slander (although you mean libel) which is a crime and are, therefore, engaging in libel. Either substantiate or retract your accusation against me. Do so in a timely manner. I can claim that members of the National Space Society's Legislative Committee are engaging in unethical conduct all I want. Even Edwin Meese states that while unethical conduct is not a crime, people should still not engage in it. If someone in Meese's position can make such statements, certainly I can, and I should not be libeled for doing so. Dale flatters himself by association with Scott Pace et al. He isn't in the same league as the members of the Legislative Committee who are paid to work in government funded aerospace. These "citizen space activists" claiming to be the political representatives of thousands of naive space enthusiasts are far more unethical than Dale. Dale is just a nice guy who wants to get along with everyone by going with the flow. Too bad the flow happens to be so destructive to Dale's goals. > Since our organizational watch word is "I WANT TO GO!!!!!" I would > suggest that most of our more energetic members will eventually work > professionally in some facit of space. > ... I want to go, and I work with other people > who also want to go. Anyone who doesn't had better get out of my way. Where does it say in any NSS document "I WANT TO GO!!!!!!", Dale? The world does have priorities other than letting you and your friends go to space regardless of what gets in your way. Your adolescent urges will not receive the funding you seek. Why not face reality? Work for real advance in space instead of making unsuccessful attempts at propping up NASA's suppression of public science and private development. Sure you will lose a few friends but you don't have to be friends with people who are getting in the way of your only real hope of going to space. > I will also note that "aerospace" money does not dominate the > organization. Such monies are received through the AIAC (Aerospace > Industries Association Council), but are used only for special > projects, NOT for operating expenses. According to the financial report presented at the space development conference, AIAC funding is used for OPERATING EXPENSES. Perhaps Dale contradicts the facts here because the NSS Board of Directors was denied access to NSS financial statements that were, instead, given to the AIAC. Both of these facts prove Dale's claim that the AIAC is "at a safe arms length" to be ridiculous on the face of it. > I will also state (having been one of the people who voluntarily worked for > severals days to encode last fall's survey) that a vast majority of the > membership places strong support of the space station in the context of > going for a lunar base and then to Mars. The policy stands of the > organization follow this. I'm personally in favor of Space > Industries/WESPACE, External Tank Company, etc INSTEAD of the station. > But so long as I am a representative of a membership that > feels otherwise, I will bow to their wishes while occasionally pointing > out the alternatives and working to insure they are noticed. Dale defends the existence of aerospace leaders in positions of trust and authority in NSS. Yet these leaders, by Dale's own statement, have not led the membership to a rational view of space activities, choosing instead to promote large government development projects which pay their salaries. The membership of NSS wants valuable things to happen in space. They have been duped, with the help of the NSS leadership, into thinking that Space Station and other bogus projects are the only way this will happen. It is hardly surprising that, in such an environment, the NSS membership would answer a biased survey in a way that follows the leadership's greed. > I will also note the copy of the Space Cause voters guide in front of > me has Dukakis as the first entry and gives him nearly a full page. In the previous voters guide, which had been circulated for months, Scott Pace rather transparently tried to get away with saying that Dukakis had no space policy even though it had been announced in advance of other policies published in the same guide. This changed only after I caught him in the act and confronted him on this net (just as he supported a rather uncontroversial commercial space measure after I confronted him on the net about his failure to act decisively in favor of commercial space). I wonder which part of Dukakis's policy Scott disagreed with? Was it the termination of NASP? Termination of the current space station program? The way Scott changes his story at his convenience, we'll certainly never know. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #273 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Jul 88 05:51:36 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Fri, 15 Jul 88 04:24:36 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Fri, 15 Jul 88 04:24:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 15 Jul 88 04:17:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 15 Jul 88 04:07:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Fri, 15 Jul 88 04:06:16 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15819; Fri, 15 Jul 88 01:06:42 PDT id AA15819; Fri, 15 Jul 88 01:06:42 PDT Date: Fri, 15 Jul 88 01:06:42 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807150806.AA15819@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #274 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 274 Today's Topics: Re: Christine McAuliffe Re: Coming to the National Air & Space Museum Re: Recycling Pershing-II's NASA news - Small explorers, Pioneer 10 Mir EVA planned Pegasus Re: Launch Sequence Details ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Jun 88 19:37:52 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!David_Zonker_Harris@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Christine McAuliffe Try "I touched the Future"...written by a reporter assigned to cover the "Teacher in Space" angle of the mission. He bacame friends of the family and really put together a great book/biography! Enjoy it when you find it! David K Z Harris (aka KB6FVA, aka Zonker) ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 88 11:40:47 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Coming to the National Air & Space Museum In article <684@atux01.UUCP> jlc@atux01.UUCP (J. Collymore) writes: >I am cross-posting this netnews article from comp.sys.mac. >----------------------------------------------------------- >Students Give Museum Visitors A Chance To Launch Rockets [...] >The software will allow museum visitors to see how changing variables such as >thrust, weight and fuel type affect a rocket's ability to overcome gravity and >leave the earth's atmosphere. Once a visitor arrives at a workable design, >the program "launches" the rocket, calculates the maximum altitude it will >reach and compares these results with attempts by other visitors. Exactly this type of system has been running in the Spaceflight gallery in the Science Museum in London for the last two and a half years. You are asked to select number of stages; thrust and fuel type for each stage; and the payload weight. The computer then launches the rocket, and draws the trajectory it would follow. For ease of calculation the Earth is assumed to be flat, but some designs still make it into orbit. :-> Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 88 14:50:39 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Recycling Pershing-II's In article <855@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes: >From article <8806010951.aa16990@note.nsf.gov>, by fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube): >All Hercules employees are undergoing INF treaty training. Being >taught how to recognize an approach by a spy, where not to talk about >work while eating lunch, that sort of thing. One of the things they But suppose the spies have also been on the course, they would then know not to keep refering to people as "comrade". They would be drinking coke instead of vodka, their party armbands would have been left at home, and they would have been carefully trained not to quote the sayings Lennin or Marx. Of course, if the soviets were really clever, they could always get a sleeping agent elected as a Senator. Information could then be passed as slips of the tongue. >mentioned was that one of the brain damaged Senators from the Pretty, >Great State of Utah, gave a list of all the companies doing classified >work in a thirthy mile radius of the Hercules inspection office to the >local papers, who published it. Thus saving the KGB 1 to 2 years of >effort. If he wasn't a Senator, he'd be doing time. See what I mean... Large numbers of :-> s should be added to the above where appropriate. Most of the Soviet spies who have been discovered are notable only in just how unlikely they were to have been spies. I don't see that the presence of a few carefully monitored Soviet personnel is going to be much of an extra security risk. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 88 09:05:39 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: NASA news - Small explorers, Pioneer 10 ================================================================== NASA ANNOUNCES CONFERENCE FOR SMALL-CLASS EXPLORERS June 14, 1988 RELEASE: 88-79 NASA will conduct a conference to discuss space science research opportunities in the Explorer Program at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, Md., June 21, 1988. The Explorer Program is a long-standing NASA program for launching small and moderate-sized space science mission payloads. Dozens of Explorers have been launched, including the Solar Mesospheric Explorer, the Infrared Astronomical Satellite, the Dynamics Explorer, the Active Magnetospheric Particle Tracer Experiment and the International Ultraviolet Explorer, which has produced scientific data for more than 1,400 articles in scientific journals. The new Small-class Explorer Program, to be managed by GSFC's Special Payloads Division, will conduct scientific research in the space science disciplines: astrophysics; space physics; and upper atmosphere science. The Small-class Explorer Program will consist only of the smaller missions characterized by the scope and capability of investigations conducted on spacecraft launched by Scout-class launch vehicles. Because one purpose of the Small-class Explorer Program is to provide a rapid execution of scientific investigations, the proposed missions should take no more than 3 years from initiation to launch. NASA will launch up to two missions per year allocating an average of $30 million in developmental costs for each mission. The development phase of the initial mission is planned to commence in the second half of fiscal year (FY) 1989, with tentative plans to launch in early FY 1992. The selected investigators will have exclusive use of the scientific data from the mission for a period of 12 months after receipt of the data. After this period, guest observer programs and data analysis and interpretation will be supported through other programs. ================================================================== PIONEER 10 CONTINUES SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION AND DISCOVERIES June 13, 1988 Pioneer 10, the first spacecraft to leave the solar system, is the most distant human-made object in existence. The Pioneer explorer continues to make discoveries about the Sun's influence in the local interstellar medium, called the heliosphere, and to seek the boundary between this and the true interstellar gas. Pioneer 10 continues its search for gravity waves and a possible 10th solar system planet. Today, Pioneer 10 has spent 5 years beyond the orbit of the outermost solar system planet Pluto, some 4 billion, 175 million miles from the Sun. Radio signals, moving with the speed of light at 186,000 miles per second, now take 12 hours and 26 minutes to travel from Earth to the explorer spacecraft and back. Launched in 1972, Pioneer 10 was the first spacecraft to cross the Asteroid Belt, fly by Jupiter and return pictures, chart Jupiter's intense radiation belts, measure the mass of its four planet-sized moons, locate the giant planet's magnetic field and discover that Jupiter is predominantly a liquid planet. Its primary mission, originally scheduled for 21 months, was accomplished by December 1973. At that point, scientists reprogrammed Pioneer for an indefinite mission to explore the outer solar system and beyond. Perhaps the most important finding about the outer solar system concerns the extent and characteristics of the heliosphere. Pioneer 10 continues to measure the "solar wind," the million-mile-per-hour flow of charged atomic particles boiling off the sun's surface, forming the sun's tenuous atmosphere. Scientists had predicted in 1956 the modulation (alteration) of galactic cosmic rays out past the orbit of Jupiter, indicating a heliosphere presence out that far. The probe is now almost nine times that distance and has not yet reached the boundary of the solar heliosphere. And, the sun's direct influence continues to be strong. A number of scientists believe that this boundary may be as far away as 9.3 billion miles. Several scientists, including Dr. James Van Allen, one of Pioneer's principal investigators and discoverer of the Earth's radiation belts, and Dr. Darrell Judge, University of Southern California, also a Pioneer investigator, suggest that the heliosphere varies in size with solar activity and is nearly spherical in shape. Because of this, they think Pioneer 10 may break through the boundary of the solar atmosphere and pass into interstellar space in the next 1 to 3 years. There the spacecraft could directly measure the interstellar gas, which so far has not been possible. Pioneer 10 has found that the sun strongly influences the heliosphere characteristics as far away as 4 billion miles. Scientists are finding major variations keyed to its cycle, such as outward traveling shocks that accelerate charged particles. The sun changes a great deal during this cycle. The number of sunspots -- the enormous and violent magnetic storms on the solar surface -- varies radically, as does the shape of the sun's magnetic field and movements in the hot gases surrounding the corona, the outer portion of the sun. The coronal material has sparse areas called "coronal holes" located around the sun's two magnetic poles. When the sun approaches its most active phase, solar maximum, these coronal holes creep toward the solar equator by extending "tongues" 10 or 20 degrees wide in longitude. During the solar minimum, the holes retreat back to the poles. Pioneer 10 and other closer-in spacecraft are measuring the "high speed streams" in the solar wind whose source is the movement of the coronal holes. Pioneer 10 found that other changes are triggered by movements of a vast electromagnetic structure called the current sheet, which bisects the sun's field. Particles slow down as this sheet "flaps" toward them. Pioneer also has made new findings on cosmic rays entering our portion of the Milky Way. Cosmic rays are high velocity sub- atomic particles from our galaxy. Normally, the number of these particles inside the heliosphere varies with the solar cycle, and large amounts of low energy cosmic rays were found to flow in from the galaxy during the recent low point of activity on the sun. This may suggest that Pioneer is approaching the heliosphere boundary where the solar influence stops. The possible existence of a 10th planet at the outer fringes of the solar system may be determined by measuring minute changes in Pioneer 10's flight path. In 1978, astronomers have suggested the presence of a new planetary body since Pluto was found to be too small to explain past irregularities in the orbits of planets Uranus and Neptune. Pioneer 10 and its twin, Pioneer 11, are excellent indicators of the gravitational pull of celestial objects. Because the spacecraft are spin stabilized, they generate almost no forces of their own that would affect their straight-line flight path. Thus, large, nearby masses, exerting gravitational forces, should easily be observed by changes in Pioneer 10's flight trajectory. Thus far, NASA scientist John Anderson has found no evidence of any uncharted planetary bodies. Despite this lack of evidence, Anderson and others strongly believe that the huge volume of past measurements, made by many eminent observers, showing irregularities in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune are too widespread and consistent to be discarded. They suggest that whatever perturbed the outer planets between 1800 and 1900 has now "gone away." It could well be an object whose orbit is tilted at a high angle to the plane of the solar system. These gravitational anomalies are no longer observed because the object is currently too far away or too high above the planets to affect either Pioneer or the outer planets. Anderson and other researchers have suggested places to look for this planet-sized body, and a number of groups are searching these regions of space. Tracking the Pioneer 10 also provides scientists with an opportunity to detect "gravity waves," predicted by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. In theory, infrequent and enormously powerful cataclysmic events, such as collisions between entire galaxies or two massive black holes, would "rattle" the entire universe, producing gravity waves. A number of university research groups around the world have been using elaborate equipment to search for gravity waves for well over a decade. None so far has been found. Gravity waves may be especially easy to detect in the extremely long wavelengths (one to four billion miles) that both Pioneers are in position to measure, but neither Pioneer has yet found such waves. Gravity waves would dwarf the longest radio waves, the largest waves commonly measured on Earth, which span only hundreds or thousands of feet. Recent improvements in the NASA ground stations are expected to allow communications with Pioneer 10 to continue until the range approaches 6 billion miles, more than twice the prelaunch estimates. Project manager Richard O. Fimmel expects that NASA will be able to track Pioneer 10 until the craft's power source limits communications toward the end of the 1990's. Scientists believe that both Pioneers 10 and 11 will travel among the stars virtually forever because the vacuum of interstellar space is so empty. Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 have long since passed the region of greatest potential danger, which occurred at the Jupiter and Saturn encounters. Both Pioneers 10 and 11 carry an easily-interpreted graphic message in the event an intelligent life form may capture either spacecraft on its journey. Engraved on a gold-anodized aluminum plaque, the message features a drawing of a man and a woman, a diagram of our solar system and a map depicting our solar system with reference to galactic "lighthouses," known as pulsars. ================================================================== Eric ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 88 13:33:15 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!kaa@husc6.harvard.edu (Keith Arnaud x57400) Subject: Mir EVA planned A colleague in England tells me that an EVA is planned for the end of the month to repair the Utrecht/Birmingham X-ray telescope on Kvant. The replacement detector was sent up on a Progress a few weeks ago and the rest of the parts for the operation went up in the luggage of the cosmonauts on the recent Soyuz. Happy Bloomsday, Keith -- Keith Arnaud | uucp : noao!cfa!cfa200!kaa Center for Astrophysics |bitnet : kaa@cfa2 60 Garden Street | arpa : kaa@cfa200.harvard.edu Cambridge MA 02138 | span : 6676::kaa ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 88 20:50:57 GMT From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Pegasus Since no one else has, I thought I'd point out the article on p.10 of US News & World Report for June 13. It said that Orbital Sciences Corp. and Hercules Aerospace announced a plan to develop Pegasus, a 50-foot stub-winged rocket. Air launched from a B-52 or converted airliner at 40,000 ft., it would put an 850-pound payload into a 250 mile high orbit. Expected to fly in mid-1989, at $6 million per launch. Some years ago, the Air Force tested air launch of a Minuteman from a C-5. Anyone know how that went (like, how did the C-5 respond to the c.g. change as the rocket rolled out the back)? * David Smith HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com * To forestall flamage, I suppose I must add that this is not intended as a criticism of Pegasus, which could be launched like an X-15. -- David Smith HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 88 22:54:31 GMT From: aplcen!rkolker@mimsy.umd.edu (5915) Subject: Re: Launch Sequence Details A pretty good sequence is in the report of the Challenger Commission (I think in the first volume...don't have it handy). Another useful document would be an ascent checklist from any flight...If you ask Houston real nice, they'll probably give you one. ++rich ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #274 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Jul 88 05:52:42 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Fri, 15 Jul 88 22:22:39 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Fri, 15 Jul 88 22:22:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 15 Jul 88 22:14:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 15 Jul 88 22:07:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Fri, 15 Jul 88 22:06:07 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA16815; Fri, 15 Jul 88 19:06:50 PDT id AA16815; Fri, 15 Jul 88 19:06:50 PDT Date: Fri, 15 Jul 88 19:06:50 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807160206.AA16815@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #275 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 275 Today's Topics: Re: Pegasus Re: Hawaiian spaceport? (Was: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221) Re: Space Shuttle Black Box Re: Mir elements Fusion Power Info Re: Pegasus advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! NASA news - Tony England; Senate ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Jun 88 23:02:05 GMT From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: Pegasus In article <4772@hplabsb.UUCP>, dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes: > Since no one else has, I thought I'd point out the article on p.10 of > US News & World Report for June 13. It said that Orbital Sciences Corp. > and Hercules Aerospace announced a plan to develop Pegasus, a 50-foot Wouldn't you know it, posting this was the library's cue to finally put out the June 6 AW&ST, which has Pegasus on the cover. Let that be the primary reference, I guess. So now it's doubly surprising to me that, with all the oddball, exotic, and trivial stuff that gets discussed in this forum, Pegasus hasn't stirred more comment. David Smith HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com -- David Smith HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 88 19:32:22 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Hawaiian spaceport? (Was: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221) > ... and what are the relative pros and cons of sea ditching versus > land ditching as regards safety to crew and others? ... As for others, you are less likely to hit something when you come down in the sea because people don't build houses there very often. As for the crew, it makes no real difference because the orbiter is too fragile to survive a ditching. -- Man is the best computer we can | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology put aboard a spacecraft. --Von Braun | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 88 19:38:15 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Black Box > I heard that a court case last year ordered NASA to release the > cockpit black box tape from Challenger. This was around June or > so of last year. There was a reported 2-3 minutes of tape *AFTER* > the explosion. > > Anyone know any details on this... The only incident like this that I know of was a successful attempt to make NASA release the tape from an on-board voice recorder. This was *not* a "black box" in the usual sense of an armored flight recorder -- the shuttle does not carry one of those. As I recall, the only thing that was on the tape beyond what was heard over the radio was someone saying "uh-oh" at about the time the shit hit the fan. Nothing was recorded after the breakup of the orbiter. (I don't remember why, but the obvious reason would be loss of power.) There were some earlier odds and ends on it that didn't go out on the radio, but nothing with any relevance to the accident. -- Man is the best computer we can | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology put aboard a spacecraft. --Von Braun | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 88 03:17:00 GMT From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Mir elements Goddard *still* hasn't come out with a reliable set of Mir elements. What *are* they doing since Soyuz TM-5 went up? Fortunately, the old Progress 36 ones are still usable. I observed Mir visually this evening; it appeared roughly twenty seconds behind a prediction using the SGP theory. Unfortunately, I won't be able to confirm the elements visually any more during the mission; that was the last overflight of my location on this precessional cycle. Clear skies to those of you who have overflights yet to observe, and good luck on seeing the Soyuz separation (I didn't see any other objects during this overflight, but could have missed the Soyuz; there was still a lot of twilight). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jun 88 14:40:06 CDT From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: Fusion Power Info There used to be an Internet "Energy" mailing list to which I could have directed this query, but it isn't listed in the List-of-Lists any more, so I suppose it is gone. Therefore, I ask this of Space, hoping that some of the readership there will be familiar with this subject: I just finished reading a book called THE MAN-MADE SUN, by T. A. Heppenheimer, dated 1984, which is a survey of the research into generating fusion power. Unfortunately, since it had to cut off in late '83, it left many then-current developments hanging, and I would like to find something to read that would bring me up-to-date on the subject, in general pop-science terms. Can anyone recommend any recent books, or magazine articles, that would provide a general discussion of where things are now in fusion research? I would particularily like to know what happened to Bussard and Inesco with regard to Riggatrons; that seemed an interesting and promising area. By the way, I found Heppenheimer's book interesting and it seemed to be a good introduction to the field. Unfortunately, it shifted its emphasis in the latter portion away from the technical developments to devote inordinate amounts of space to the details of the funding process and the personality clashes between people at DOE and OMB; while this is important in fact, because it determined how much money there was to put into the technical research, it wasn't what I wanted to read about. I would have preferred that those details be put into footnotes, or compressed into a paragraph or two, instead of having chapters devoted to them. To tie this to Space, there is a bit of discussion of research into fusion-powered spacedrives. At the time of writing, it seems there was a still-classified paper in the Livermore archives that worked out quite a lot of the problems and presented a feasable design for such a craft. The book is currently being remaindered; I saw it in the latest Strand catalog, and then found it at the library. Due to its faults, I would recommend you read a library copy first rather than buy one. Regards, Will Martin wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (on USENET try "...!uunet!almsa-1.arpa!wmartin") ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 88 20:13:23 GMT From: att!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D. Starr) Subject: Re: Pegasus In article <4774@hplabsb.UUCP>, dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes: ...Orbital Sciences Corp. and Hercules Aerospace announced a plan to develop Pegasus, a 50-foot stub-winged rocket. Air launched from a B-52 or converted airliner at 40,000 ft., it would put an 850-pound payload into a 250 mile high orbit. Expected to fly in mid-1989, at $6 million per launch... ...it's doubly surprising to me that, with all the oddball, exotic, and trivial stuff that gets discussed in this forum, Pegasus hasn't stirred more comment. What's the surprise? At $6 million to launch 850 lbs (over $7000/lb), the per-pound cost of Pegasus will be: 23.5 times that of Energia ($300/lb), 9.4 times that of Proton (750/lb), 2.2 times that of Delta (3275/lb), 1.4 times that of Titan 4 (5100/bl), and (indignity of indignities) 4% higher than the Shuttle (6800/lb). That ain't too exciting. [Note on sources: Cost/lb to orbit estimates are from the infamous Newsweek article, which has been accused of *over* estimating the costs of launching on Shuttle and Titan. I did not compare with the Soviet "A" booster, which can be yours for a mere $13 million (according to a recent article on this network), because I don't know the exact payload capacity--but if it's even equivalent to the Delta (~5 tons), Pegasus is a good 5 times more costly. Anybody out there want to compare to Ariane or Long March?] ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 88 05:31:32 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! [As you have probably noticed, I am behind on AW&ST summaries. I will try and catch up a bit before I leave for Usenix. However, this one won't wait. The June 6 issue just arrived, and the lead story is the best news in years. So here's a special out-of-sequence report.] New launcher: Pegasus, a winged three-stage design that will be air- launched from a B-52. It's a joint effort of Orbital Sciences and Hercules, with Rutan building the wing. Payload is 600lb into low polar orbit, 900 into low equatorial orbit. Now the GOOD news... Pegasus is 100% private, although the first customer is DARPA. Total funding is $40-45M, about a third of it already spent. It has been underway about one year, they are already bending metal on the first one, and it flies NEXT YEAR! There is already a lineup of customers. Cost to orbit will be half or less that of similar-sized payloads on existing launchers. [At **LAST**, a launcher being built by sensible people! Note the modest size, the rapid schedule -- two years from startup to launch -- and the miniscule budget. Not to mention the lack of any attempt to force the taxpayers to fund it. This is how commercial launchers OUGHT to be done; thank all the gods that somebody had the guts to try doing it right!] DARPA is in the final stages of becoming the first customer, with a contract expected to be signed next week. The nature of the payload has not been released, but it is thought to be a small experimental comsat. Launch is set for July 1989. DARPA is buying launch services only, no funding for development is involved. Second launch will probably be another DoD payload from "a different agency" [betcha it's SDI] in Oct 1989. A NASA science payload is a candidate for number three in Dec 1989. OSC and Hercules are splitting the development cost 50-50 and will split profits the same way. Funding is entirely from internal resources and no outside capital is involved. Contractors have been picked, staff has been hired, parts are being built. Pegasus uses three new-design Hercules solid motors. Use of existing motors was considered, but new motors looked like a better bet. Cases are graphite composite, as is the wing, being developed by Burt Rutan. The thing is 49 feet long with a wing span of 22 feet, total weight 40klbs. These numbers are almost identical to those of the X-15, and the X-15's old B-52 will be the initial carrier aircraft. Gordon Fullerton, NASA research pilot and former astronaut (two shuttle missions) will command the B-52 for the first launch. Pegasus will pay NASA for the use of the aircraft for commercial launches. Up to 15 launches might be made from the NASA B-52, after which transition to a commercial heavy transport is expected. The aircraft has been picked but its identity is proprietary as yet. [Now why would they keep the identity of the aircraft secret? I mean, the 747 is the obvious choice. Unless... you don't suppose they're going to use an Airbus A340?!? Congress will be livid.] Drop will be at 40,000 ft. The first stage will light and fly a shallow wing-borne trajectory to Mach 8.7 at 208,000 ft. The wing is on the first stage, so the second and third stages fly more conventional upper-stage trajectories into orbit. The first launch will be into polar orbit, starting offshore from Vandenberg. Using air launch, of course, launch site and direction are pretty much arbitrary. It also means that Pegasus does not have to fight for access to launch facilities. [And they don't have to deal with the government, or mortgage their mothers to pay for insurance against launch-site damage.] Pegasus develoment is considered 50% complete; OSC+Hercules will hold a major engineering review this week. Late this month they will start using Ames's supercomputers for aerodynamic simulation -- Pegasus will not be wind-tunnel tested. They are already working with Ames people. [Eugene? You involved in this?] OSC+Hercules expect to price a Pegasus launch at under $10M. They forecast 10-12 per year and believe that it can support itself with half that. Breakeven will be reached after 16-18 launches, and with luck this will be two or three years after the first flight. Lots of people are interested, and a relatively diverse mix of customers is likely. This should give a fairly stable customer base. Pegasus's payload shroud is relatively large for the payload mass, 72in long by 46in wide, permitting a wide range of payload designs. Pegasus is being built for minimum prelaunch handling; eventually it is hoped that only 6-7 technicians will be needed for final assembly and launch. This will help costs a *lot*. Minimal ground hardware will be needed; no cranes. Also of interest, especially to Ames, is hypersonic flight testing at high altitudes and Mach numbers. The early Pegasus flights will carry quite a bit of Ames instrumentation to gather data relevant to the Aerospace Plane. 1500 lbs could be carried on a dedicated suborbital flight. Air launch turns out to give a 10-15% reduction in the necessary delta-V. The forward speed of the aircraft helps a bit. Launching at 40,000 ft helps much more: it reduces drag, reduces stress on the structure, reduces aerodynamic heating, reduces pressure loss in the exhaust, and permits a higher expansion ratio in the first-stage nozzle. The horizontal launch and the wing permit flying a much flatter and more efficient trajectory, and also greatly reduce the angle of attack needed for an air launch (a wingless air-launched rocket would have to make a sharp turn upward). The excellent supersonic wing (L:D 4:1) gives better performance than a similar weight of rocket fuel. (The wing will actually start to char just before first-stage burnout, but it doesn't matter since Pegasus is not reusable.) The net result is twice the payload mass fraction of a ground-launched booster. [Like I said, this is the best news in years. I hope OSC and Hercules make a bundle from this: they deserve it.] [Hmmm... 900 pounds, 42 inches. Kind of tight, and the upper-stage accelerations look uncomfortably high, but I bet you could man-rate it if you really tried.] -- Man is the best computer we can | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology put aboard a spacecraft. --Von Braun | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 88 07:52:39 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: NASA news - Tony England; Senate ===================================================================== ASTRONAUT ENGLAND TO LEAVE NASA June 15, 1988 RELEASE: 88-80 NASA astronaut Anthony England, Ph.D., will leave NASA in October 1988 to accept a position with the University of Michigan as professor of electrical engineering. England will head the university's space remote sensing research for the Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences Department at Ann Arbor. England was selected as an astronaut in August 1967. He served as support crewman for Apollo missions 13 and 16 before taking a position as research geophysicist for the U.S. Geological Survey in 1974. In 1979, he returned to the Johnson Space Center and was subsequently assigned to Shuttle mission STS-51F (Spacelab-2) as a mission specialist. During that flight, which featured experiments in astronomy, solar physics, life sciences, and atmospheric research, England was responsible for operating the Spacelab Instrument Pointing System. England logged 188 hours in space on that mission. ===================================================================== NOTE TO EDITORS: NASA RESPONSE TO SENATE APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE MARK-UP June 16, 1988 The following comment was made today by NASA Administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher in response to the Senate Sub-Committee on HUD/Independent Agencies Committee on Appropriations mark-up of the NASA FY 1989 budget request: "It's not unexpected but it's near disaster for the space program, particularly the Space Station. We hope our friends on the Hill will reconsider." ===================================================================== Eric ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #275 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Jul 88 05:28:30 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sat, 16 Jul 88 04:26:38 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat, 16 Jul 88 04:26:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 16 Jul 88 04:21:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 16 Jul 88 04:07:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sat, 16 Jul 88 04:06:22 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA16938; Sat, 16 Jul 88 01:06:58 PDT id AA16938; Sat, 16 Jul 88 01:06:58 PDT Date: Sat, 16 Jul 88 01:06:58 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807160806.AA16938@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #276 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 276 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #255 Space Digest Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! Re: News on Shuttle oxidizer Re: Hawaiian spaceport? (Was: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221) Re: Pegasus Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! Dukakis vs private spaceflight Re: Cometesimals ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 88 11:48:21 EDT From: Dess-DEMON-a Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #255 Introducing! A new line of unisex skintight space suits, for men, women & those that are undecided. Hey, question: What contraception does a martian use? And would their antennae stick up/out? For that matter, with all that skintight fasion going around in space, what contraception would space people use? Q: Does anyone REALLY believe that earthings will be able to survive in space stations in various locations? Just a thought... (Do you think we'll have an orbital station around Uranus? Who'd want to live there? It's SO COLD!) >From Dess & Jimbo (like Rambo, his wife Bimbo, & his dog Spot-bo) Sung to "THE JETSONS" Acknowledge-To: ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jun 88 21:24 AST From: Subject: Space Digest Please send me Volume 8, Issues 230, 241 and 247. No one who has access to bitnet here in Fairbanks seems to have any of these issues. Are you able to tell what happened to them please? Thanx in advance for any information you are able to offer gf ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 88 13:35:27 GMT From: phri!roy@nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > Pegasus, a winged three-stage design that will be air-launched from a B-52. > [...] Payload is 600lb into low polar orbit, 900 into low equatorial orbit. For the benefit of us interested-but-ignorant observers, can you give me some idea of how useful a 600-900 pound (still no metric!) payload is? What does a typical commsat weigh, for example? Or a typical package of scientific instrumentation? Or (God forbid), a typical military payload (warhead, spysat, whatever). Is there even such a thing as "typical"? Would such a delivery system be useful for making small emergency shipments to a permanent space station ("Houston, we, uh, seem to have loaded our camera wrong and wasted all our film; think you could Pegasus up another few rolls before this comet goes out of range?"). Sounds like putting one of these up might be a lot faster than waiting for the next scheduled shuttle. -- Roy Smith, System Administrator Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 {allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 88 14:43:40 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: News on Shuttle oxidizer In article <880614163201.0000023D481@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@grouch.jpl.nasa.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: >From the JPL UNIVERSE, June 10: [...] >The production amount of 40 million pounds per year is still less than is >needed by all users, including NASA, Department of Defense, and commercial. > >There will be an allocation process developed among the DoD, NASA and the >commercial users. This may seem a very strange suggestion to some people, but why don't they buy the chemical on the international market? I am sure there must be other chemical plants capable of supplying what is needed until the new US production capacity is built. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 88 14:34:10 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@uunet.uu.net (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Hawaiian spaceport? (Was: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221) In article <1988Jun13.185454.705@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Yeah, Cape York! The biggest thing wrong with Hawaii is that it's in the >wrong country. For the latest on the Cape York spaceport, look at "New Scientist" dated 12 May. pages 36 and 37. There are two rival groups of companies investigating seting up a spaceport on the cape york penninsula. The Cape York Space Agency is a group of 64 companies appointed by the Queensland Government to oversee the project. The Australian Space Group is carrying out it's own study. Two sites are being considered.the west coast site at Weipa already has harbour facilities and makes polar orbits easier. A site on the east coast makes equatorial orbits easier, launches directly over the Pacific, and has the added tourist attraction of the Great barrier Reef. The Soviet space authority, Glavkosmos, is said to want to install a Proton launcher on the site to get round restrictions on exporting American technology to the Soviet Union, if the USA can be persuaded that Australia is neutral ground. Does anyone in Australia have any more information? There was a posting from there last year about the project but nothing since then. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 88 17:30:20 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Re: Pegasus In article <8240@ihlpa.ATT.COM> animal@ihlpa.ATT.COM (D. Starr) writes: >>In article <4774@hplabsb.UUCP>, dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes: >> ...it's doubly surprising to me that, >>with all the oddball, exotic, and trivial stuff that gets discussed in >>this forum, Pegasus hasn't stirred more comment. > >What's the surprise? At $6 million to launch 850 lbs (over $7000/lb), the >per-pound cost of Pegasus will be: ... That ain't too exciting. The advantage of the Pegasus is presumably the much lower amount of red tape needed to launch something, and the faster turn around time. The delay and hassle of launching a 600 pound payload on the shuttle is considerable, even though it doesn't show up in the raw dollars/pound to orbit figures. I also suspect Pegasus will have a steeper learning curve than its larger competitors, since it is relatively simple and per unit cost is lower. Cynically, a market is guaranteed because the thing is air launched. That means it would still be useful in a war after fixed launcher sites have been destroyed. By the way: how much does a nuclear reentry vehicle weigh? Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 88 17:53:31 GMT From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! In article <3361@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: }[regarding Pegasus launch:] Sounds like putting one of }these up might be a lot faster than waiting for the next scheduled shuttle. You bet it would be faster than a shuttle launch! With proper procedures, it should be possible to emergency-launch one within an hour of the word "GO". If you can't get one up within 24 hours, there's something wrong with your procedures (this assumes, of course, that you have one on hand, as well as its payload). The shuttle's rollout from the VAB to the pad alone takes several hours, not to mention the army of techs to check it out, over, inside, out, etc. -- {harvard,uunet,ucbvax}!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=- AT&T: (412)268-3053 (school) ARPA: RALF@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU |"Tolerance means excusing the mistakes others make. FIDO: Ralf Brown at 129/31 | Tact means not noticing them." --Arthur Schnitzler BITnet: RALF%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA -=-=- DISCLAIMER? I claimed something? ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 88 08:26:56 GMT From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! In article <1988Jun17.053132.5314@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo (Henry Spencer) writes: > The June 6 issue just arrived, and the lead story is the >best news in years. So here's a special out-of-sequence report.] > >New launcher: Pegasus, a winged three-stage design that will be air- >launched from a B-52. It's a joint effort of Orbital Sciences and >Hercules, with Rutan building the wing. Payload is 600lb into low >polar orbit, 900 into low equatorial orbit. > >Now the GOOD news... Pegasus is 100% private, although the first customer >is DARPA. Total funding is $40-45M, about a third of it already spent. >It has been underway about one year, they are already bending metal on >the first one, and it flies NEXT YEAR! There is already a lineup of >customers. Cost to orbit will be half or less that of similar-sized >payloads on existing launchers. > Private development is not new-- Space Services Inc. of Houston has designed, built and *flown* the Conestoga using private funds. And they are offering their launchers to DARPA on a strictly commercial basis. Furthermore, it is an exaggerated claim that the $10M launch price (or is it expected launch price) of the Pegasus is half that of the competition. If DARPA commits to buying launches on a vehicle which is still in the development stage, how is that significantly different from them paying for development? What happens when there are cost overruns and production delays? The article also raises questions about possible hidden subsidies: How much are OSC and Hercules paying for use of the NASA B52? How much are they paying for computing at Ames? There are certainly advantages to a B52-launched vehicle, and Henry mentioned several. But there are still large obstacles to be overcome. Hercules and OSC claim that they will develop, build and certify not one, not two, but three new motors with $45M, and in one year. I hope so! How is Hercules doing on its more luxuriously funded motor development programs? One of the more important aspects of this article is the tense. The Pegasus will cost less than $10M per launch. The Pegasus will fly next summer, even though none of the three motors has yet been built. The Pegasus will only cost $45M to develop. The Pegasus will succeed because the project needs only five to six missions annually to remain viable. Hercules and OSC have far to go before this project amounts to much more than the inflated claims of a marketing campaign. I sincerely hope they succeed, and wish them luck. -- -- ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 88 02:30:10 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Dukakis vs private spaceflight (This started out as a reply to private mail, which is why you haven't seen the quoted passage... But the path I tried to use failed, and it occurred to me that it might be of more general interest anyway.) > [Dukakis supports industry] ... My expectation would be that > private space industries would do as well under Dukakis as Bush. > Have you heard or read something specific that contradicts this, or > is it just a general impression? I have nothing particularly specific to go on, no. I haven't been following Dukakis's position in particular, since I don't get to vote in US elections. :-) The problem is that there are strong consituencies within the government -- NASA and the USAF -- that prefer government control rather than free enterprise. They've been doing their level best to obstruct private spaceflight, with limited success of late since the Reagan administration has a firm ideological commitment to private industry. I'm not so much worried that Dukakis would be anti-private- spaceflight -- it would be a difficult position to justify -- as that he won't be sufficiently pro-private-spaceflight to back the fledgling space industries when they come to a showdown against the big, powerful, entrenched bureaucracies. The anti-private-spaceflight tendency is already there within the government; Dukakis needs to make an active effort to counter it, and I'm not sure he will. -- Man is the best computer we can | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology put aboard a spacecraft. --Von Braun | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 88 06:10:35 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Re: Cometesimals > PAUL DIETZ: Cometesimals hitting the moon would deliver an enormous > amount of water over geologic time, so even if one molecule in > a million is trapped, there would still be a lot there. The latest issue of _Science_ (10 Jun 88, p.1403) has an article on Louis Frank's cometesimals. It seems the theory now gained two independent (if rather dubious) supporting pieces of evidence. Piece #1 is that the dark spots that are attributed to the cometesimals have been found also in ultraviolet images of the Earth taken by a Swedish satellite (they had to call it "Viking", just to confuse everybody --- why couldn't they call it "Haggar" or "Bergman" or "Volvo"?). Apparently each spot covers only half a dozen pixels or so, and some investigators who have analyzed the images claim the spots are mere artifacts of the imaging system. Piece #2 is the possible detection of cometesimals by C. Yates from JPL, using a CCD camera on the Space Watch Telescope at Kitt Peak. He cleverly pointed the telescope at a random spot in the sky and swept it in a random direction at a random speed, thus precisely matching the random motion of the hypothetical cometesimals in their random orbits. (For a more precise but less amusing description of the technique, go read the _Science_ article yourself). The result was a handful of 18th magnitude tracks (1 or 2 pixels wide, up to 20 pixels long). These tracks are said to closely match the predicted appearance and motion of cometesimals 3 to 4 meters in diameter halfway between the Earth and the Moon. The article says that Yates was able to eliminate other obvious explanations, such as meteors, fireflies, cosmic rays, and rocket debris. However, the images haven't been checked by other astronomers yet (although three of them are reproduced in the article). -xox- Apparently, one of the most troublesome aspects of the theory is the assumption that cometesimals are largely made of water ice. Halley's water starts to evaporate at Jupiter's distance, producing a visible coma; yet the cometesimals in the Earth's neighborhood cannot do that, or we would see them. Also, the dryness of Venus is hard to explain given the huge amount of water that would be brought in by the cometesimals, which would be enough to fill all the Earth's oceans over geologic time. My question is, what is the evidence that the cometesimals contain any water at all? Here from my armchair it would seem that any soot-black cometesimal only 12 meters across in the Earth neighborhood should have been baked dry by now. Its surface should be hot enough to fry an egg even if averaged by rotation, right? Is it possible that a few meters of "comet dust" can insulate an icy core long enough for it to reach the Earth intact? ("Long enough" may be a couple of years if the cometesimals are new arrivals from outer space, or saganillions of years if they have always been in our neighborhood.) Besides, is it known how opaque "comet dust" is to longwave infrared radiation? (Graphite is rather transparent, isn't it?) also, what is the current official guess for the thickness of Halley's dry dust cover? I believe that one reason for assuming that cometesimals are mostly water is that they must disintegrate before they reach the lower atmosphere (otherwise we would see them as meteors). This rules out rocks and pebbles as common constituents of the cometesimals. Does it also rule out cometesimals entirely made of dry and fluffy "comet dust"? Note that this dust need not be silicates; it may be carbon soot or a more exotic (organic?) substance. (Halley's dust includes a high proportion of "organic" compounds, and anyway Frank's cometesimals may or may not be Halley's relatives). Finally, could the dark spots in the UV pictures be produced by vaporized "comet dust" of suitable composition, instead of H2O? In that case, would we still need 100 tons of dust to make one spot? National Enquirer mind wants to know, +-----------------+ Jorge Stolfi | DANGER | DEC Systems Research Center | FALLING STARS | stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi | NEXT 5e11 MILES | +-----------------+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ DISCLAIMER: Don't look at me that way --- I didn't put them up there. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #276 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Jul 88 12:01:16 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sun, 17 Jul 88 09:25:50 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 17 Jul 88 09:25:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 17 Jul 88 09:21:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 17 Jul 88 09:10:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 17 Jul 88 08:50:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 17 Jul 88 08:49:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sun, 17 Jul 88 08:49:28 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17538; Sat, 16 Jul 88 19:06:46 PDT id AA17538; Sat, 16 Jul 88 19:06:46 PDT Date: Sat, 16 Jul 88 19:06:46 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807170206.AA17538@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #277 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 277 Today's Topics: Re: NASA news - Mars mission project Man-rated Pegasus Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! Mir elements Re: Fusion Power spacecraft drive Re: News on Shuttle oxidizer Re: -- Pegasus launch vehicle SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN SPACE ADDENDUM TO SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLIHMENTS ADDENDUM TO SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS SURVEY REQUEST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jun 88 14:00:34 GMT From: killer!tness7!tness1!sugar!peter@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: NASA news - Mars mission project In article ... khayo@sonia.math.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) writes: > The scenarios identify: > * recreation/scientific activities > The Mars Mission course demonstrates NASA's continued > commitment to improving the level of science literacy in the > nation's schools... It also demonstrates NASA's priorities for scientific activities. Nuff said. -- -- `-_-' Peter (have you hugged your wolf today?) da Silva. -- U Mail to ...!uunet!sugar!peter, flames to /dev/null. -- "A foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds". ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 88 17:05:58 GMT From: cae780!ubvax!unisv!vanpelt@hplabs.hp.com (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Man-rated Pegasus In article <1988Jun17.053132.5314@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >[Hmmm... 900 pounds, 42 inches. Kind of tight, and the upper-stage >accelerations look uncomfortably high, but I bet you could man-rate it >if you really tried.] For those who want to get into space in the worst way -- That would be (almost!) the worst way. (Especially if I tried to cram my bulk into the thing -- those accelerations standing up??) Well, it's a little better than the Celestis method. :-) -- "When you strip all the technospeak away, they're claiming that it can't be done because it hasn't been done yet, and therefore, we ought not even try doing it, because it can't be done. That's Luddite Logic if I ever heard it." -- Tom Clancy on SDI. Mike Van Pelt vanpelt%unisv@ubvax.ub.com ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 88 05:55:12 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! > ...some idea of how useful a 600-900 pound (still no metric!) payload is? It's not big enough for most recent payloads, which have tended heavily toward the pile-everything-into-one-huge-lump school of design. However, many people feel that this tendency has gone much too far, and that there would be many benefits from going back to small single-mission satellites for a lot of jobs. 600-900 lbs is lots for *one* scientific experiment plus support equipment, and is enough to be useful for things like communications and espionage if you are willing to design the equipment to fit. Personally, I suspect you could make money on even smaller payloads if you offered cheap, frequent, short-notice, low-hassle launches. > Would such a delivery system be useful for making small emergency > shipments to a permanent space station... Yes, assuming a solution to the unmanned-rendezvous-and-docking issue. (The OMV now under development might suffice.) -- Man is the best computer we can | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology put aboard a spacecraft. --Von Braun | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 88 20:03:00 GMT From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements The following are Mir elements, epoch date 16 June 1988. Mir has likely been maneuvered with the return of the visiting crew, so these elements are not to be taken as gospel. Moreover, I suspect that there was a maneuver of some sort taking place over the period of the observations, as the B* and mean motion acceleration for Mir itself seem a trifle high, while those of the other objects are negative. A regression line for the mean motions of the four objects at the epoch times yields a comparable figure, though. Mir 1 16609U 88168.13128141 0.00167019 11837-2 0 2587 2 16609 51.6173 72.7048 0004233 65.4999 294.7332 15.72897577133666 Kvant 1 17845U 88167.87723404 -.00007076 -48913-4 0 4524 2 17845 51.6182 74.0065 0004510 71.9423 288.8139 15.72840560 69897 Soyuz TM-4 1 18699U 88167.94080028 -.00007087 -48913-4 0 1785 2 18699 51.6195 73.6766 0004606 59.3092 301.6177 15.72875297 28009 Soyuz TM-5 1 19204U 88167.75013351 -.00007058 -48913-4 0 183 2 19204 51.6146 74.6578 0004027 51.1780 309.4049 15.72776079 1295 Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 258 Epoch: 88168.13128141 Inclination: 51.6173 degrees RA of node: 72.7048 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0004233 Argument of perigee: 65.4999 degrees Mean anomaly: 294.7332 degrees Mean motion: 15.72897577 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00167019 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 13366 Semimajor axis: 6728.72 km Apogee height*: 353.40 km Perigee height*: 347.71 km Satellite: Kvant Catalog id 17845 Element set 452 Epoch: 88167.87723404 Inclination: 51.6182 degrees RA of node: 74.0065 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0004510 Argument of perigee: 71.9423 degrees Mean anomaly: 288.8139 degrees Mean motion: 15.72840560 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: -0.00007076 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 6989 Semimajor axis: 6728.88 km Apogee height*: 353.75 km Perigee height*: 347.68 km Satellite: Soyuz TM-4 Catalog id 18699 Element set 178 Epoch: 88167.94080028 Inclination: 51.6195 degrees RA of node: 73.6766 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0004606 Argument of perigee: 59.3092 degrees Mean anomaly: 301.6177 degrees Mean motion: 15.72875297 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: -0.00007087 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 2800 Semimajor axis: 6728.78 km Apogee height*: 353.72 km Perigee height*: 347.52 km Satellite: Soyuz TM-5 Catalog id 19204 Element set 18 Epoch: 88167.75013351 Inclination: 51.6146 degrees RA of node: 74.6578 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0004027 Argument of perigee: 51.1780 degrees Mean anomaly: 309.4049 degrees Mean motion: 15.72776079 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: -0.00007058 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 129 Semimajor axis: 6729.06 km Apogee height*: 353.61 km Perigee height*: 348.19 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 88 04:30:58 GMT From: ubvax!unisv!vanpelt@lll-winken.llnl.gov (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: Fusion Power spacecraft drive In article <8806172004.AA00415@angband.s1.gov> wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes: >To tie this to Space, there is a bit of discussion of research into >fusion-powered spacedrives. At the time of writing, it seems there was a >still-classified paper in the Livermore archives that worked out quite a >lot of the problems and presented a feasable design for such a craft. If you're thinking about the paper I'm thinking about, it isn't classified. The author just doesn't want copies spread about until it is published. He gave a presentation on it at the monthly meeting of the National Space Society. In some respects it builds on the Daedalus design, but this isn't just a concept, this is a detailed design. One of the more interesting features is that the ship is shaped like a hollow cone, and flys blunt end first. The entire structure of the ship, especially including living spaces, is built in the neutron shadow of the shielding for the magnetic nozzle coils. Neat idea. -- Mike Van Pelt vanpelt%unisv@ubvax.ub.com The electronic networks, of course, have always been the terrorist's most reliable ally, for they have never failed to bend over backwards to give him what he craves: extravagant publicity. -- Petr Beckmann ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 88 06:18:06 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: News on Shuttle oxidizer In article <1476@its63b.ed.ac.uk>, bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) writes: > This may seem a very strange suggestion to some people, but why > don't they buy the chemical on the international market? I am > sure there must be other chemical plants capable of supplying > what is needed until the new US production capacity is built. > Bob. The grains of ammonium perchlorate must be of a specific size and shape to give the appropriate burn rate when used in solid motor. The entire design of the motor depends on the burn rate (affects pressures, thrust levels, etc.). Probably alternate suppliers can't provide the right grain types, or, alternately, they can, but the paperwork to CERTIFY that they meet the government specifications would probably take longer than rebuilding the burnt down factory. Another reason the government would give for not using foreign suppliers is the dependance that would create for military programs (the Trident and MX missiles, and military satellites launched on the Titan, Delta, and Shuttle all require solid motors with ammonium perchlorate). Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder (205)461-2606(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, AL 35824 34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +280 ft altitude, Earth -- Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder (205)461-2606(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, AL 35824 34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +280 ft altitude, Earth ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 88 06:06:25 GMT From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: -- Pegasus launch vehicle In article <3361@phri.UUCP>, roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > > For the benefit of us interested-but-ignorant observers, can you give > me some idea of how useful a 600-900 pound (still no metric!) payload is? > Would such a delivery system be useful for making small emergency > shipments to a permanent space station ("Houston, we, uh, seem to have loaded > our camera wrong and wasted all our film; think you could Pegasus up another > few rolls before this comet goes out of range?"). Sounds like putting one of > these up might be a lot faster than waiting for the next scheduled shuttle. > -- Funny you should ask. One trade study going on right now at Boeing's space station effort is looking into ELV's for station resupply. (We have the Logistics Elements part of the job, among others) The current station design quantizes most of the interior hardware into 'double racks', which are large enough to hold two 19 inch standard rack-mountable pieces of equipment side by side. Hence the double rack is 42" wide. It is about 74-80 in high and 30-40 in deep. The rack estimated weights run from about 400 pounds to 1800 pounds, with a mean ofa little over 1000 pounds. The racks are all designed be removed as units. It would be really convenient to have a one-rack capacity launch vehicle (about 2000 lb), but even 900 lb will come in very handy: "Houston, we just lost the number 4 air revitalizer, could you send up a spare, NOW!!??" (no smiley face) With a solid rocket, presumably you could treat it like a big missile, and not have to spend more than a few hours prepping it for launch. Then the airplane can cruise to get under the Station's orbital path as soon as possible, making a <12 hour response time possible. Compare to the 90 day wait if a problem crops up the day after an Orbiter goes home. Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder (205)461-2606(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, AL 35824 34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +280 ft altitude, Earth -- Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder (205)461-2606(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, AL 35824 34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +280 ft altitude, Earth ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jun 88 15:26 EST From: Subject: SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN SPACE For reasons which are to detailed to go into here, I would like to conduct a survey on the net regarding what each of you feels are/will be the most significant achievements relating to mankind's efforts to explore and develop space. I am interested not only in those accomplishments directly related to space, but any development in any discipline which has contibuted to these efforts. Responses should however, be restricted to a time period beginning around 1900 A.D. and extending as far into the future as you like. Projections for the future should be based on some logical extrapolation of current technology or theory (no science fiction please) and if highly speculative, the development path from current science should be described. Last of all, (naturally) responses should be E-mailed to me personally rather than put on the net. After I have received and analyzed the responses, it is my intent to put the results of the survey (i.e. the accomplishments that are generally felt by the majority to be the most significant) on the net. Maybe we'll even get one of two good topics of serious concern to space out of it, rather than some of the political and linguistic drivel (Flame expected) like "manned vs. femmed" or what "CBS should be doing" that seems to have permeated the net in the last couple of months. Your responses will be greatly appreciated. Rick R. Johnson RJOHNSON@CEBAF1 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jun 88 15:28 EST From: Subject: ADDENDUM TO SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLIHMENTS I just realized after my first couple of responses to my "Significant Achievements In Space" survey, that I was perhaps not absolutely clear in my request for responses. What I am interested in in addition to the mention of the accomplishments themselves, are the dates that you think they were/will be completed. For those of you that have already responded, I would appreciate a follow up on your responses containing this information. Also, although the accomplishments in the future are of prime importance, please include info on the past accomplishments, since part of my interest is to see how familiar everyone is with these past accomplishments, and which ones you all feel have been the most important. Sorry about the vagueness, and thanks once again. Rick R. Johnson RJOHNSON@6414 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jun 88 15:29 EST From: Subject: ADDENDUM TO SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS SURVEY REQUEST I just realized after my first couple of responses to my "Significant Achievements In Space" survey, that I was perhaps not absolutely clear in my request for responses. What I am interested in in addition to the mention of the accomplishments themselves, are the dates that you think they were/will be completed. For those of you that have already responded, I would appreciate a follow up on your responses containing this information. Also, although the accomplishments in the future are of prime importance, please include info on the past accomplishments, since part of my interest is to see how familiar everyone is with these past accomplishments, and which ones you all feel have been the most important. Sorry about the vagueness, and thanks once again. Rick R. Johnson RJOHNSON@6414 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #277 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Jul 88 04:49:11 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sun, 17 Jul 88 09:32:38 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 17 Jul 88 09:32:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 17 Jul 88 09:23:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 17 Jul 88 09:14:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 17 Jul 88 09:10:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 17 Jul 88 08:50:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 17 Jul 88 08:49:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sun, 17 Jul 88 08:48:53 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17686; Sun, 17 Jul 88 01:06:45 PDT id AA17686; Sun, 17 Jul 88 01:06:45 PDT Date: Sun, 17 Jul 88 01:06:45 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807170806.AA17686@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #278 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 278 Today's Topics: Soviet Soyuz TM-5 mission ends Soyuz TM-5 mission ends Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! Pegasus Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! Discovery Launch Long Term Effects of Weightlessness... Re: -- Pegasus launch vehicle Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! Re: Henry's von Braun comment Re: Cometesimals at Tunguska Chapter Directory and Notes from Denver Meetings ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 88 16:55:09 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soviet Soyuz TM-5 mission ends The Soviet Soyuz TM-5 flight ended on June 17th, after a 9 day 18 hour mission (my own unofficial estimate of the mission duration), 8 days of which were spent on the Mir/Kvant space station complex. The crew of Anatoly Solovyov, Viktor Savinykh and Alexander Alexandrov (the Bulgarian guest cosmonaut) have proved to be in excellent condition since the landing. This was the longest guest cosmonaut mission to date. Left on board were the long duration Mir crew of Vladimir Titov and Musahi Manarov which on June 21 will have spent one half a year in orbit. That is the mid point of their mission. Sorry about the delay in this report, but our VAX is having problems. One interesting point here is that even this short term mission was longer than all but one shuttle flight (STS-9 in Nov. '83, 10 days, 7 hours). It is worry some when even the Russian's short duration guest missions are longer than almost all of our own flights. This must change if the US is to have any significant presence in space. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jun 88 14:31:08 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soyuz TM-5 mission ends The Soviet Soyuz TM-5 flight ended on June 17th, after a 9 day 18 hour mission (my own unofficial estimate of the mission duration), 8 days of which were spent on the Mir/Kvant space station complex. The crew of Anatoly Solovyov, Viktor Savinykh and Alexander Alexandrov (the Bulgarian guest cosmonaut) have proved to be in excellent condition since the landing. This was the longest guest cosmonaut mission to date. Left on board were the long duration Mir crew of Vladimir Titov and Musahi Manarov which on June 21 will have spent one half a year in orbit. That is the mid point of their mission. Sorry about the delay in this report, but our VAX is having problems. One interesting point here is that even this short term mission was longer than all but one shuttle flight (STS-9 in Nov. '83, 10 days, 7 hours). It is worry some when even the Russian's short duration guest missions are longer than almost all of our own flights. This must change if the US is to have any significant presence in space. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 88 21:01:41 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! > Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft. --Von Braun Last week's successful Ariane-4 launch put AMSAT Phase 3-C and two other satellites into the following orbit: perigee 221 km (nominal: 220 km) apogee 36,359 km (nominal: 36,294 km) inclination 10.01 deg (nominal: 10 deg) I'd like to see some fighter jock/astronaut do as well by flying a launch manually. Perhaps you should limit the scope of this statement somewhat. Von Braun, of all people, should have known better. But he was not exactly known as one who always placed high ethical standards above doing and saying whatever was required to get funding from whomever he happened to be working for at the time. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 88 15:57:31 GMT From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Pegasus > In article <4772@hplabsb.UUCP>, dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes: > > Since no one else has, I thought I'd point out the article on p.10 of > > US News & World Report for June 13. It said that Orbital Sciences Corp. > > and Hercules Aerospace announced a plan to develop Pegasus, a 50-foot > > Wouldn't you know it, posting this was the library's cue to finally put > out the June 6 AW&ST, which has Pegasus on the cover. Let that be the > primary reference, I guess. So now it's doubly surprising to me that, > with all the oddball, exotic, and trivial stuff that gets discussed in > this forum, Pegasus hasn't stirred more comment. > > David Smith > HP Labs > dsmith@hplabs.hp.com I've been waiting for Henry to post the AW&ST summary for June 6. I've been wondering how the doom and gloom, U.S. business has no foresight, people will respond to it. To toss in a few facts from sources at Hercules, a launch contract for the first pegasus has been signed. Launch costs are closer to $10 million. $6 million would be a good guess at the build cost. Development costs are expected to be $40-$45 million, with pay back in 16 to 18 launches. Which works out to about $2.5 million in profit per launch! Total development time is planned at 18 months. There will be NO filght tests before first commercial launch (talk about trusting your cfd code). Pegasus can be used as a carrier for hypersonic flight experiments that do not reach orbit. The claim is that the combination of a winged vehicle and launching from 40,000 feet at mach 0.8 gives 10% to 14% improvement in performance over a ground launched vehicle. Pegasus will be able to put ~600 pounds into a polar orbit and ~900 pounds into an equatorial orbit. Because it is launched from a long range aircraft pegasus can be launched in any direction. Note that all, 100%, every dime, of the development costs are being covered by private capital. It is a joint venture of OSC, an energetic entrepreneurial company, and Hercules Aerospace, an established, respected, highly experienced rocket propulsion company. I hope to see more of this kind of deal as companies face the fact that big old companies are too set in their ways and young energetic companies don't have the resources or the expertice needed for real innovation. Bob P. -- Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet Alternate: {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet I am solely responsible for what I say. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 88 16:59:53 GMT From: devvax!smythsun!david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Smyth) Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! In article <1988Jun20.055512.21817@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >> ...some idea of how useful a 600-900 pound (still no metric!) payload is? > >It's not big enough for most recent payloads, which have tended heavily >toward the pile-everything-into-one-huge-lump school of design. However, >many people feel that this tendency has gone much too far, and that there >would be many benefits from going back to small single-mission satellites >for a lot of jobs. Unfortunately, we need to get funding for space exploration. Such funding generally comes from Congress. Seasoned NASA people have found that it is about as hard to get $10million as $10billion. Therefore, it is far more likely that future missions will use yet more complex spacecraft, even though everybody knows about K.I.S.S. >600-900 lbs is lots for *one* scientific experiment >plus support equipment, and is enough to be useful for things like >communications and espionage if you are willing to design the equipment >to fit. Personally, I suspect you could make money on even smaller >payloads if you offered cheap, frequent, short-notice, low-hassle launches. If the business of space-borne experiments ever becomes a profit-oriented industry, I would agree with you. However, nobody seems to look at it in that way, at least in this country. Here, in our "free market economy" we have the major companies enslaved to the stock market, and the stock market is at best interested in the instantaneous second derivative of profits or income, but usually totally random. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 88 17:49:00 GMT From: UCSFVM.BITNET!DR9021@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Discovery Launch Date: 22 June 88, 10:48:01 PDT From: Donna Reynolds DR9021 at UCSFVM To: SCI-SPACE at VAX.BERKELEY.EDU Subject: Discovery Launch I will be covering the Discovery launch for a Bay Area publication. Are there any WOMEN on the net who will be traveling to Canaveral for the launch and who would like to discuss sharing accommodations? I hope to keep costs down on this assignment, and it seems the price of everything on the Cape doubles (at least) around launch time. I plan to stay in Titusville and probably will arrive 3-5 days before the launch. I've already made tentative reservations. If interested, please contact me via e-mail at: dr9021@ucsfvm.ucsf.edu Donna Reynolds ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 88 16:14:30 GMT From: rochester!ur-tut!sunybcs!campbl@bbn.com (Scott S. Campbell) Subject: Long Term Effects of Weightlessness... In article <8806202055.AA09825@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes: >... >Anatoly Solovyov, Viktor Savinykh and Alexander Alexandrov (the Bulgarian guest >cosmonaut) have proved to be in excellent condition since the landing. This >was the longest guest cosmonaut mission to date. >... > Left on board were the long duration Mir crew of Vladimir Titov and >Musahi Manarov which on June 21 will have spent one half a year in orbit. >is the mid point of their mission. I'm generally (i.e., non-techinically) curious about the affects of weightlessness on the human body over long periods of time. Now that the Soviet Union has put several people into zero-G for extended periods of time, has there been any mention of the ability of these cosmonauts to re-adapt to the pull of Earth's gravity? How did the recovery time relate to the amount of time spent in the space station? What thereapy was necessary to re-adjust? Just curious, Scott - Scott S. Campbell campbl@cs.buffalo.edu campbl@sunybcs.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 88 04:17:47 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: -- Pegasus launch vehicle In article <2022@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: }"Houston, we just lost the number 4 air revitalizer, could you send }up a spare, NOW!!??" (no smiley face) How about toilet paper!!!!!! } }With a solid rocket, presumably you could treat it like a big }missile, and not have to spend more than a few hours prepping it }for launch. Why would not the time spent waiting for the window be longer than "prepping" if for launch? If it is like a missle, would not the launch vechicle ALWAYS be ready for launch? Unless, of course, you meant time spent prepping the payload. Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 88 14:46:08 GMT From: pacbell!cogent!uop!todd@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Dr. Nethack is back) Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! In article <1176@thumper.bellcore.com>, karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > > Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft. --Von Braun > > Last week's successful Ariane-4 launch put AMSAT Phase 3-C and two other > satellites into the following orbit: > > perigee 221 km (nominal: 220 km) > apogee 36,359 km (nominal: 36,294 km) > inclination 10.01 deg (nominal: 10 deg) > > I'd like to see some fighter jock/astronaut do as well by flying a > launch manually. Perhaps you should limit the scope of this statement > somewhat. Computer operations can, at times be more efficient, perhaps his claim was more philosophic.. when a computer breaks, or malfunctions, or (at times) performs its task, it still is not capable of the intuitive things a human is. And there is the kicker. Has nothing to do with jockness. And everything to do with improvisation.. Computers *helped* bring back Apollo 13, as a tool to devise various probabilties, etc. But Men brought her home, both ground crew, and otherwise. Now are you going to say, she should have never flown? That would be as absurd as saying you can tell me whenever a jet should never take to the skies. You can't predict everything...at least a human is flexible enough to *try* different things. Voyager's computers had to be re-tweaked from the ground due to damage, could it do that itself? (Maybe we are finally getting close enough in technology for self corrections but there is still the cause and effect of needing a human in the chain somewhere.. if only to look at the images!) ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 88 01:30:18 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Henry's von Braun comment I side with Phil on this one. I also note Todd's response. The fundamental problem with computing at the moment is that computers aren't really reliable. We build redundany into them: sure I recommended buying a 3B20D and a Tandem at one point, and JPL had the STAR, but the point is: why can't our electronics do without parity (shades of Seymour), SECDED, etc.? This is retorical comp.arch can use a good fault tolerance discussion, and if you are only on the ARPAnet without Usenet access, sorry you can't discuss computer architecture, tough cookies, someone should gateway that group. If you plan to discuss this topic, move it to arch, not space unless you are talking specifically about spaceborne systems. I don't quite know what Todd meant about Voyager computer problems, they added data compression for Uranus and beyond. There were a few other things. Oh, I did meet Henry last evening at Usenix, briefly, associated a net address with a face. --eugene ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 88 07:18:16 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!Paul_L_Schauble@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Cometesimals at Tunguska The recent discussion on cometesimals has me wondering if this could explain another puzzle. In 1908, a large explosion flatened a section of the Tunguska region in Siberia. As far as I know, there has never been a satisfactory explaination for this event. (Pointers to more data are !very! welcome.) The sticking point is that the damage pattern matches that of a nuclear air burst. Trees are broken down in a pattern radiating away from ground zero, but with no significant crater or extra damage at ground zero itself. This couldn't happen with a normal meteor, because anything large enough to have caused the blast would have survived to ground impact. I wonder if the fluffy snowball wouldn't do it. I'm thinking that a large, low density, fast moving object could couple all of its kinetic energy to the atmosphere. This would leave a shock wave traveling on the same path as the object, which might leave the right damage pattern. Well, how far out in left field am I? Paul ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 88 07:58:31 GMT From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) Subject: Chapter Directory and Notes from Denver Meetings If you would like a copy of any of the following documents, please email your request to me. 1. NSS Chapter Directory: contains general information about chapters, including meeting times and places, officers, projects, 2. Notes from the "Chapter Meetings" at the ISDC: the meetings at which the "Transition Committee" was established to create a "Chapter Assembly" within the NSS. I will make some announcement when there is a significant update to the Chapter Directory, e.g. when I finish the newsletter section listing info about chapter publications. William Baxter ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!{garnet,brahms,math}!web ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #278 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Jul 88 23:30:08 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sun, 17 Jul 88 22:55:16 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 17 Jul 88 22:55:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 17 Jul 88 22:43:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 17 Jul 88 22:24:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 17 Jul 88 22:19:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sun, 17 Jul 88 22:18:40 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA18246; Sun, 17 Jul 88 19:06:29 PDT id AA18246; Sun, 17 Jul 88 19:06:29 PDT Date: Sun, 17 Jul 88 19:06:29 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807180206.AA18246@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #279 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 279 Today's Topics: Space Shuttle Differences Re: SPACE Digest V8 #255 Re: Henry's von Braun comment Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! Niven's _Ringworld_ Re: Long Term Effects of Weightlessness... Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! More on Data Compression Re: spacecraft computers Re: Pegasus Re: Cometesimals at Tunguska Re: Cometesimals at Tunguska ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Jun 88 05:22:20 GMT From: aplcen!jhunix!ins_ackg@mimsy.umd.edu (Choon Kiat Goh) Subject: Space Shuttle Differences Are all the operational shuttles the same, ie. in terms of lifting capability, weight, etc. ? Or are there functional differences? --- Ian --- ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 88 19:49:26 GMT From: nsc!nessus@decwrl.dec.com (Kchula-Rrit) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #255 In article <8806200320.AA02811@angband.s1.gov> R2CDN@AKRONVM.BITNET (Dess-DEMON-a) writes: > ... >Q: Does anyone REALLY believe that earthings will be able to survive in > space stations in various locations? Just a thought... (Do you think > we'll have an orbital station around Uranus? Who'd want to live there? > It's SO COLD!) ^^^^ Sure, I'll go! It'll be just like home! I'm from Minnesota... K-R -- Kchula-Rrit "In challenging a kzin, a sream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap." ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 88 19:53:26 GMT From: devvax!jplpro!leem@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Lee Mellinger) Subject: Re: Henry's von Braun comment In article <10722@ames.arc.nasa.gov> eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene N. Miya) writes: | |I don't quite know what Todd meant about Voyager computer problems, |they added data compression for Uranus and beyond. There were a few |other things. Oh, I did meet Henry last evening at Usenix, briefly, |associated a net address with a face. | |--eugene Hi Gene, you might remember me from about 1978-79 in regards to a Modcomp Pascal project I was peripherally involved with in the DSN. Voyager, which one I don't remember (must be age, the first thing to go you know), had some serious control problems shortly after launch. One of the things the project did to clear the problems was a complete CCDS reload (which the project had promised they would never do). I remember this quite vividly, as the commanding, 8 plus hours of it, was done by the then brand new and buggy Mark III command system at DSS 12. We were all holding our collective breath. The Voyager computers have been completely reprogrammed more than twice since launch, on one occasion to make the attitude control fuel usage *much* more efficient, and twice to refine the image handling and compression techniques. Lee -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- |Lee F. Mellinger Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA| |4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516 FTS 977-0516 | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------| |UUCP: {ames!cit-vax,psivax}!elroy!jpl-devvax!jplpro!leem | |ARPA: jplpro!leem!@cit-vax.ARPA -or- leem@jplpro.JPL.NASA.GOV | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 88 17:45:46 GMT From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpsel1!campbelr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bob Campbell) Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! >> Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft. --Von Braun > . . . > > I'd like to see some fighter jock/astronaut do as well by flying a > launch manually. Perhaps you should limit the scope of this statement > somewhat. > > Phil ---------- Were all of the computers used onboard the spacecraft? I agree that Von Brauns statement may need some context help, but we could quickly disolve into a disscussion of what is a computer. Bob Campbell Some times I wish that I could stop you from campbelr@hpda.hp.com talking, when I hear the silly things you say. Hewlett Packard - Elvis Costello ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 88 04:03:15 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Niven's _Ringworld_ To: C445585%UMCVMB.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, space@angband.s1.gov, sf-lovers@rutgers.edu, Physics@unix.sri.com There are no major problems with the concept of a ringworld. Obviously it would be an extremely difficult engineering feat. There are several minor problems, most of which Niven addresses in his sequel _The Rignworld Engineers_. Personally, I think it would be more likely that people will colonize asteroids, and when we run out that we will demolish useless planets to make more asteroids. Ultimately, this strategy can support a much higher population than a ringworld. It's also much more immune to common-mode failures such as the superconductor eating bacterium in _Ringworld_ and the far greater danger in _The Ringworld Engineers_. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 88 22:58:53 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpm!njd@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (DiMasi) Subject: Re: Long Term Effects of Weightlessness... Scott S. Campbell writes: > > ..... > > I'm generally (i.e., non-techinically) curious about the affects of > weightlessness on the human body over long periods of time. Now that the > Soviet Union has put several people into zero-G for extended periods of time, > has there been any mention of the ability of these cosmonauts to re-adapt to > the pull of Earth's gravity? How did the recovery time relate to the amount > of time spent in the space station? What thereapy was necessary to re-adjust? I don't recall the details, but I remember reading (about 2 years or so ago?) that cosmonauts who had flown on more than one long-duration mission re-adapted to 1G more quickly on their second (third if any) missions. It seems that the human body "learns" to re-adapt. As I remember, only re-adaptation to 1G in terms of ability to move around easily, pick up objects, etc. was discussed in the article I read. I don't recall anything about recovery of muscle mass, bone mass, etc. Nick DiMasi Uni'q Digital Technologies (Fox Valley Software subsidiary; ^ working as a contractor at AT&T Bell Labs in Naperville, IL) ( | this is an accent mark, supposed to replace the dot over the 'i') ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 88 01:14:36 GMT From: necntc!adelie!infinet!rhorn@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Rob Horn) Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! In article <3361@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: >henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Pegasus, a winged three-stage design that will be air-launched from a B-52. >> [...] Payload is 600lb into low polar orbit, 900 into low equatorial orbit. > >What does a typical commsat weigh, for example? Depends on the type. Geosynch tend to be heavier. 2000kg and up. One major consideration is power supply and another is fuel for station keeping. BUT, low earth orbit fit easily in this. The latest AMSAT (Up and WORKING !!!! yeah) weights 140 kg. This kind of satellite supports packet radio techniques. DARPA has funded paper studies of a ``cloud'' of these as an alternative to geosynch. > Or a typical package of >scientific instrumentation? I've gotten data from a 10kg satellite. But there is no typical. > Or (God forbid), a typical military payload >(warhead, spysat, whatever). Spysats are HUGE, partly because optics are huge and partly because they want maneuvering capability (fuel+motor) and partly for long life. But a lot of this is the result of the present difficulty in making a decision to launch on a day's notice. (Optics being the exception.) -- Rob Horn UUCP: ...harvard!adelie!infinet!rhorn ...ulowell!infinet!rhorn, ..decvax!infinet!rhorn Snail: Infinet, 40 High St., North Andover, MA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 88 14:05:48 PDT From: Eugene Miya To: jaw@eos.arc.nasa.gov, space@angband.s1.gov Subject: More on Data Compression Just when you thought it was safe to go back and read Aviation Leak and Space Technocracy, the latest issue of Computing Surveys has an article on DATA COMPRESSION. It's not a bad article by two authors from Irvine, it lacks a few words (I think the section on Errors could say a bit more, but it is a Survey). %V 19 %N 3 %D Sept. 1987 I decided to give the above refer with keywords (The list is more than I want to type). %P 261-296 --eugene ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jun 88 16:24:37 EDT From: dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Interested parties might want to read this article: "Electromagnetic Launch: Highway to the Stars", IEEE Trans. on Magnetics, Vol. 24, No. 2, March 1988, pages 703-710. It is highly readable, if somewhat hyperbolic, and makes some interesting claims. To summarize... Use of space has been blocked by the stagnation of launch cost using chemical rockets. Historically, further progress depends on the introduction of new technology. Electromagnetic launchers promise much higher payload ratios. Recent progress in e.m. launcher and associated technology has been rapid. The article describes one particularly attractive concept, called the solenoid quench gun. The launcher is a superconducting solenoid with a field of 20-30 Tesla. The projectile coil, also superconducting, is accelerated up the solenoid, quenching solenoid segments as its goes (so the coil remains at the "end" of the solenoid). If the quenched coils are shunted through a s.c. circuit the efficiency can approach 100%. The most interesting things about the launcher are its inherent simplicity and small size. The article claims that a 3 ton projectile (1 ton of which is payload destined for geosynchronous orbit) could be launched by a gun with a mass in the *tens* of tons. E.m. launchers would seem to be well suited to materials processing, since only a modest kick motor is needed to raise the projectile into a long elliptical orbit (and, similarly, to deorbit it). Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 88 20:31:32 GMT From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: spacecraft computers In addition to the well cited CACM articles, I recall the IEEE has advertised some books on spacecraft computer systems. I seem to recall them because I think they were advertised with some books on communication systems by Pierce and Posner. Serious readers can determine this (costs were in excess of $75, I'll check Posner next time I swing past my old Branch's library). Computers onboard tend to be small, small scale things. I think Lee would agree with this. 8-) I think most of the companies who would seriously buy these books will not be on the net (like Hughes or Huge). I also note there is increasing interest in GaAs. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 88 15:27:35 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net (Alastair Mayer) Subject: Re: Pegasus Don't have the reference handy to give the exact figures, but Pacific American's Liberty I launcher has equivalent payloads to Pegasus to orbit at around $2 to $4million. Payload weight may even be higher. Either way the per/lb cost is substantially less than Pegasus. And yes, Pacific American has a customer for Liberty I, they're currently bending metal on it. (I heard they're 'rolling out' first engine and propellant tanks this week or next). Liberty is conservative design: pressure-fed LOX/kerosene first stage, N2O4-hydrazine second stage. That's one of the keys to low cost. -- Alastair JW Mayer BIX: al UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 88 15:18:49 GMT From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: Cometesimals at Tunguska In article <6719@cup.portal.com>, Paul_L_Schauble@cup.portal.com writes: > In 1908, a large explosion flatened a section of the Tunguska > region in Siberia. As far as I know, there has never been a satisfactory > explaination for this event. > > The sticking point is that the damage pattern matches that of a nuclear air > burst. Trees are broken down in a pattern radiating away from ground zero, > but with no significant crater or extra damage at ground zero itself. This > couldn't happen with a normal meteor, because anything large enough to have > caused the blast would have survived to ground impact. > > I wonder if the fluffy snowball wouldn't do it. I'm thinking that a large, > low density, fast moving object could couple all of its kinetic energy to > the atmosphere. This would leave a shock wave traveling on the same path as > the object, which might leave the right damage pattern. Around six years ago, Science News ran an article on explosions of meteors, largely based on photographic patrols in Czechoslovakia. The conclusion was that fast-moving stony meteors, undergoing great stress in the atmosphere, can suddenly shatter into many small pieces. The greatly increased surface area causes extremely rapid "burn-up" of the fragments in an explosion. The researchers believed this to be the best explanation of the Tunguska event. -- David Smith HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 88 21:18:25 GMT From: puff!astrix@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Lou Goodman) Subject: Re: Cometesimals at Tunguska when speaking of "old" sources for Tunguska, I seem to remember one of the films in the ACClarke "mysterious somthing-or-other" in which he examined it. One of the experiments made was to do an air blast over simulated trees. The zone of "ground zero" under the simulated blast was relatively unaffected by the blast while outside of that zone the "trees" were flattened. He also pointed out that it was not until the 20's that anyone even got to the site and that it is a morass of fens and bogs, very people unfriendly. I've always enjoyed the "spaceship (read ufo) gone critical". By now most evidence (if any does or did indeed exist) may be gone/incorporated into the current matrix. astrix (Lou R. Goodman), UW Madison ------------------------------------------------------------------- || He who knows, who really knows, and knows that he knows...... || || knows just how much he doesn't know...... || ------------------------------------------------------------------- || "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but flames... oy weh!" || ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #279 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Jul 88 05:49:11 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Mon, 18 Jul 88 04:31:03 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 18 Jul 88 04:31:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 18 Jul 88 04:27:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 18 Jul 88 04:12:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 18 Jul 88 04:05:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 18 Jul 88 04:04:50 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA18388; Mon, 18 Jul 88 01:05:55 PDT id AA18388; Mon, 18 Jul 88 01:05:55 PDT Date: Mon, 18 Jul 88 01:05:55 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807180805.AA18388@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #280 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 280 Today's Topics: The ASTRA Connection Re: spacecraft computers Postcard from Lewis: Having a wonderful time, wish you were here Re: Long Term Effects of Weightlessness... Re: Postcard from Lewis: Having a wonderful time, wish you were here Space cities--replies ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Jun 88 04:45:30 GMT From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) Subject: The ASTRA Connection Is anybody who reads this group connected with ASTRA? Or is there someone from Glasgow who wouldn't mind passing the occasional message? Thanks. William Baxter ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!{garnet,brahms,math}!web ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jun 88 05:19:34 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Re: spacecraft computers Onboard computer systems have to be small; the more room they take, the less room for the instruments. Aside: the information I am presenting is approxiamate, since I remember images and orders of magnitude much better than the numbers. The Mars Observer Camera (MOC) is very data-intensive and therefore is "computer-heavy". George Pauls, our mechanics and electrical engineer, is doing his damnest to fit everything onto both sides of two flat circular electronics boards about the area of a car window. He's probably just barely going to be able to shoe-horn it all in, God willing, without trying to sneak in another board. I'm guessing really off-the-cuff that about half of it deals directly with keeping the camera aimed and synchronized with the surface it's imaging, and the other half is analyzing and compressing the data for storage and/or return. Now friends, no NASA instrument has yet tried flying parts that we need. I raised an eyebrow when I was told that no-one has tried flying a gate array before, and was annoyed to hear that the highest size memory chip flown before was 16K bytes. Of course, now that I think about it, I'm not too surprised: MOC is doing some pretty intense data-grabbing. Still, the only way to get the memory needed is to go to megabit RAMs, which means radiation-testing &etc. Oh, here's a neat image: stick your arms straight out in front of you. Imagine you're holding one end of a short barrel to your chest. The barrel is about as long as your arms, and about as wide as your torso. Slap a pair of binoculars as long as the barrel on top of that. The barrel is the narrow-angle camera [the telescope]; the left binocular lens is the red-sensitive wide-angle fisheye (140 degree) camera, and the right binocular lens is the blue-sensitive wide-angle fish-eye camera. The electronics board is pressed against your chest, exactly where the camera will have the rest of the orbiter. Now look through the binoculars at Mars. Well, at least that image keeps -me- excited. -- Joe Beckenbach beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu Caltech 1-58, Pasadena CA 91125 Mars Observer Camera Project Caltech Planetary Sciences Division Ground Support Engineering, programmer "This is space? Neat." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jun 88 16:50:55 EDT From: PH418000%BROWNVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu Subject: Postcard from Lewis: Having a wonderful time, wish you were here FROM: GEOFFREY A. LANDIS, FORMERLY: BROWN UNIVERSITY CURRENTLY: NASA LEWIS RESEARCH CENTER, 302-1 CLEVELAND, OH 44135 Hi, everybody-- Just back at Brown temporarily and using a friend's computer account to catch up on things, so DON'T reply to me at this account--I won't be here and I'm not hooked up to the net at work (which saves me a few hours everyday--it's hard to believe what a time waste computers are.) It's interesting to view NASA from the inside--or, at least as close to inside as a two-year postdoc gets-- There seems to be intermittant episodes of NASA bashing that occur on the net. You have to keep in mind that most of NASA consists of dedicated people who working hard. Decisions on what direction to go are made by a very few top management--i.e., politicians. An encouraging thing that I've found is that people here really are interested in the good stuff. There's a lot of interest in establishing a lunar base, manufacturing oxygen, etc; and comparitively little interest in going to Mars--although Phobos seems interesting. There's also an interesting proposal to use a tether concept to deorbit the space shuttle from the space-station, simultaneously reboosting the station everytime you drop a shuttle off. This seems like a great idea, and I hope it gets implemented, although the space station looks like it's going to be another bare-bones minimum budget thing with all the emphasis on keeping the up-front cost low, regardless of operational cost. Sigh. But that's the province of the politicians and beaurocrats. It's also hard to believe just how conservative the actual spacecraft manufacturers are. Nobody wants to fly anything that hasn't already been demonstrated in space already. This is very frustrating to those people who want to advance the technology--but nobody wants to risk a few million dollars on something new that might work a tiny bit better if there's any chance at all that something unforseen might go wrong. I've been having a good time. Basically the people at Lewis are very nice and easy to work with. I've been working on my main project, which is investigating higher-efficiency solar cells, but also looking at other things, ranging from investigating the effect of array orientation on the space-station orbit, to a study of the feasability of making solar cells on the moon, and even looking into space suit design. I've also been getting involved with a new informal group called "VISION-21" which is looking into the possibilities of new ideas. They may have a conference sometime next year. Speaking of which, I assume that everybody has now had a chance to see Brian O'Leary's new book, advocating a joint US-Soviet trip to Phobos, with a short (few hour) sortie to the Martian surface, in 1999. It's an interesting plan, including propellant processing from materials mined from the Martian moons to establish an infrastructure that uses extraterrestrial materials-- although I could very easily see the Phobos propellant processing part of the mission somehow getting pushed off into the (nebulous) future in the shadow of a perceived goal of "landing a man on Mars before the end of the Millenium." Well, good to type at you all again for a while. Gotta sign off now-- --Geoff ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 88 18:29:57 GMT From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) Subject: Re: Long Term Effects of Weightlessness... Re: long-term 0G effects. I know exercise is considered a must for keeping the muscle tone from deteriorating too much. I believe there's some evidence that calcium loss from bones stops after a certain point, which is encouraging when considering long-term missions. --Rod P.S. Ask the Soviets. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 88 00:23:50 GMT From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) Subject: Re: Postcard from Lewis: Having a wonderful time, wish you were here In article <8806262055.AA10047@angband.s1.gov> PH418000@BROWNVM.BITNET writes: } There's also an interesting proposal to use a tether concept to deorbit }the space shuttle from the space-station, simultaneously reboosting the station }everytime you drop a shuttle off. This isn't all that new an idea. See the SF novel "Descent of A????" (it's been at least five years since I read it), which gives a nice account of using just this concept to deorbit a shuttle (though the other end was its payload, rather than the space station). Written ca. 1980. -- {harvard,uunet,ucbvax}!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=- AT&T: (412)268-3053 (school) ARPA: RALF@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU |"Tolerance means excusing the mistakes others make. FIDO: Ralf Brown at 129/31 | Tact means not noticing them." --Arthur Schnitzler BITnet: RALF%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA -=-=- DISCLAIMER? I claimed something? ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 88 01:24:01 GMT From: uflorida!novavax!maddoxt@umd5.umd.edu (Thomas Maddox) Subject: Space cities--replies A short while ago, I posted a list of queries about the design and functioning of space cities. As I explained in that posting, I am currently working on a novel in which a space city figures prominently. So, as promised, here are excerpts from the replies I got. J. Storrs Hall ("JoSH," moderator of the sci.nanotech newsgroup) says, with regard to the overall design: I would expect as much variation in space cities as ground cities--lots of room for style, random variation, "historical reasons", etc. Not to mention differences in overall functionality. Concerning the ecology of the city: Genetic engineering will almost certainly be able to create systems of artificial life that are specifically designed to be the "opposite half" of a human-bearing ecology. [A]ll the plants are designed for the job. I would expect the plants to be the bio-engineered terminal nodes of the climate control system. All wired into the "nerve net" of the city. They act as sensors and controllers for humidity and gas content of the air. They, and the lights and the doors and a zillion other things are the "fingers" of an intelligent environment. I suspect the intelligent environment is not only a fancy extra, but will be considered a necessity for safety reasons. And the economic infrastructure: An early occupation of the space city will probably be the manufacture of antimatter, and genetic engineering, and other pursuits that involve tiny, dangerous things, presumably carried out in nearby, detached, facilities. And the politics: Take a population of smart, intellectually aggressive people in close (confined) social contact, all dependent on the same integrated system for their lives, and you have a sure recipe for the hairiest, fieriest, politics in human history. One of my central questions concerned an asteroid that my city dwellers would discover, snag, and transport to the space city. JoSH says, To my surprise, when I worked out the math, this will actually work. Solar orbital velocities in this area are about 30 km/sec, and for a 100-meter asteroid massing 1e11 kg, that represents 3e14 watts of kinetic energy. Assume we can build a 10 gigawatt fusion plant (modern fission plants are 1 gigawatt) it can supply that amount of energy in a year. Build more plants (or assume more powerful ones) and time shrinks. You still need transit time after the thrust, of course. The thing could be up to a mile (multiply above numbers by 200). They could find it anywhere inside Jupiter's orbit, depending on the time constraints of the plot. There are occasional asteroids that cross Earth's orbit, though most are found between Mars and Jupiter. You would not be too far off base to assume the composition was any fairly small distortion of earth's. Silicates, boron, nickel, iron. Spice it with rare earths to fit the plot. Marc Ringuette says, The spokes are very useful things - probably exercise gyms and recreational facilities at anywhere from null to full gravity, as well as science research, hospital recovery facilities . . . I presume there'd be a fair bunch of non-rotating zero-g docking, communications, maintenance, and research modules. So what are some idea-generating features of the environment? - variable gravity available - vacuum available - linear organization of the city (a skinny loop) - closed society. towns of 10,000 barely have a swimming pool! - high tech population - jobs are space, mining, science, astronomy John Turner, from L5 Computing, Edmonds, Washington, writes: 1) Be sure to portray the window shielding right. I don't remember whether Heppenheimer's book mentioned the chevron shields. They are cribs of some dense material faced with mirrors, supported on metal legs above the torus windows. Sunlight follows a crooked path through the mirror maze this creates, with the hard radiation absorbing harmlessly into the rock, metal, etc. that fills the cribs. Try to find a diagram if you don't have one already; without the chevron shields a Stanford torus is a joke. 2) Don't make your metal asteroid much larger than five hundred meters across, about one-half billion tonnes mass. The motors for moving such a beast would rate around 100,000 tonnes thrust for a fairly speedy trip, less if a few microgravities is all you'll need. Many plans for mining such small objects include a sort of bag surrounding the body, to catch flying shards during blasting or excavation. [. . .] 5) Spin gravity isn't the same as the real thing. The coriolis effect in even a large structure like a Stanford torus could be *felt* as a weak vertigo if you rocked your head, twisted it side to side. Gossip has it that you could find the spinward direction from anywhere in a Stanford torus by nodding your head a few times. 6) Space eats your brains out. Even inside the stationary "bicycle tire" shield and window shielding of a Stanford torus, enough radiation gets through to make personal dosimeters a good idea. Traveling through the unshielded spokes would cause blue splotches to dance before your eyes; they are called phosgenes and are a visible (to you) manifestation of dying brain cells. Too many dead brain cells and you'll be a vegetable, fed blue liquid down a tube. Space settlers would be almost obsessive about tracking their radiation histories, and would forbid their children access to poorly shielded areas. Douglas F. DeJulio, from Carnegie-Mellon, suggests, How 'bout several concentric toruses (torusi?) of different sizes, with different rotational speeds? The closer to the center, the faster the spin. That way it covers more area (because you have people live at more than one radius) and you have similar gravity in each ring. Travel from ring to ring would be interesting. Travel *within* a ring could be done by hopping to another ring, waiting, and hopping back in a new place. And Jack Campin, from Glasgow University, asks: OK, what about radiation shielding? I don't recall any of the advocates of space colonies having an answer to the infrequent (every few decades) but REALLY lethal blasts of solar wind that are detectable in the tree-ring record by the C14 they generate (see last week's New Scientist). You could maybe have enough lead boxes for the humans, but for the whole ecosystem? (The answer I have: the rotating ring of the torus [and the central hub] would be protected by a shield of crushed lunar rock; light would be reflected into the ring through a system of mirrors and shields, the chevron shields alluded to by John Turner above. Travel through the spokes would simply be prohibited during radiation storms. Anyone got a comment or refutation on this topic? It's obviously of overwhelming practical importance.) Dani Eder, who works for Boeing on the Space Station program, writes: You are trying to retrieve a stony-iron type [of asteroid] (because of the variety of materials found within). You start with a solar concentrator and heat up some metal found in the asteroid then roll it out in thin sheets. Us this as a bigger solar concentrator to melt more metal, etc. bootstrapping. The sheets are attached to 'masts' made of extruded bar stock of the same metal. Use refractory oxides from the 'stony' part to make the dies through which the bars are extruded. This assemblage becomes a solar sail , so that the asteroid sails ITSELF to earth orbit. Rick Crownover, from Duke University, promises more and writes concerning the city's orbit: A quick note on the design: oblate and prolate ellipses are ok also, and if you look in the letters section of IASFM's June issue, there is discussion of a counterbalanced "pendulum" which might suit your needs quite well -- even has a useful place to park the asteroid. J. Eric Thompson writes from "Flatline" (I'll tell Gibson about it, if J. Eric will tell me what it is) in Houston, concerning the city's biological functioning: Soybeans. Lots and lots of soybeans. You can make lots of stuff from soybeans. :-). Seriously, though, everything from food to clothes, and that's just from non-genetically engineered plants. No telling what you could do with a mutant strain or three... And concerning social life: A closed environment of 10,000 people can be really nasty. (Says he who lived in a small town of 10,000 people for a few years). Without a changing population (immigrants and uh . . . outer-grants?) stable family lines may develop. Also, the "everybody knows everybody else" starts to develop. Minorities. Especially blacks, hispanics and homosexuals. They seem to get left out of most future-novels . . . Especially blacks and homosexuals. There're a thousand orientals it seems, and a hispanic every now and then, but they're mostly minor characters. There seem to be no blacks in science fiction. Well, in Gor... :-) I take that back. My SO just read a book where the central character was a black female. I can't remember the author's name, though . . . (Wouldn't be Octavia Butler, would it?) Homosexuals. Mistreated more than females.... Oh well. It'd be nice to see a future community where a wide spread of people are represented. . . . Beverly Erlebacher writes from Toronto: the most land-efficient agriculture is found in southern china and other parts of southeast asia. under very good climatic conditions and meticulous hand cultivation, an acre can support about 5 people with enough calories for reasonable health. . . . a closed ecology with cheap power and labour might optimise for maximal nutritional value produced per square or cubic footage per unit time. under such a system, green vegetables would be cheap and plentiful, most carbohydrates would come from root crops like potatoes and tropical yams rather than from grains, and tree fruits would be incredible luxuries. small amounts of meat, eggs and milk could be produced by rabbits, chickens and goats or cattle consuming garbage and agriculture waste. on the other hand, fish would be much more available. as part of the water recycling system, there are large tanks of algae cultures feeding fish such as tilapia and possibly some invertebrates. nutrients for the hydroponics come from the same system. in your book, you might consider some of the lush tropical vegetation being food plants like fruit trees and squash, bean, melon and grape vines. on another topic, that of air, you might want to read the may issue of scientific american which had an article on indoor air pollution. up here in the north, in order to save heat, new buildings are often tightly sealed and air is recirculated. these buildings are really awful to live and work in. the air has a bad character to it, and people often get headaches or a sort of general dopey feeling after a few hours. colds are much more common. unions have been trying to get things changed for their workers on these issues. i could do some hand waving about 'wild' animals and birds in your space city, but for now, i think i would just recommend you avoid importing rats, mice, pigeons, sparrows, starlings, rabbits and red deer. on the other hand, these critters are pretty well guaranteed to succeed. :-) Finally, Graeme Williams writes from somewhere I won't mention: I have one observation on what sort of society might develop in a space city, assuming that it is driven by technology and doesn't end up re-creating small-town Kansas. Fashion is possible (only?) when trivial changes in form are possible with negligible changes in function. Observing my colleagues . . . we have that in spades. This sort of change interacts with our organizational culture, which seems basically tribal. We are of course organized in a hierarchy, but as you might expect this has the most impact at the level of sections (up to about 10 people) and departments (up to about 50, although above about 35 it doesn't really seem stable). This posting having grown quite large, I'll abandon it (though I may return to the topic later with comments and further queries) by saying thank you to all who took the considerable trouble of thinking about and replying to my questions. All the replies were intelligent and well-informed, many gave gratifying detail. I have benefitted enormously from reading them, and you may consider me in your debt. If I have slighted anyone, or improperly identified anyone or his or her affiliation, my apologies: I simply wanted to give proper credit. By the way, I'm still happy to receive responses. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #280 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Jul 88 23:36:32 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Mon, 18 Jul 88 22:31:43 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 18 Jul 88 22:31:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 18 Jul 88 22:26:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 18 Jul 88 22:11:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 18 Jul 88 22:06:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 18 Jul 88 22:04:59 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19403; Mon, 18 Jul 88 19:06:06 PDT id AA19403; Mon, 18 Jul 88 19:06:06 PDT Date: Mon, 18 Jul 88 19:06:06 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807190206.AA19403@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #281 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 281 Today's Topics: "Space Exploration Cost Understanding" Signup signup space Re: solar flares Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! Re: Postcard from Lewis: Having a wonderful time, wish you were here Re: Pegasus Salyut 7 elements Re: Pegasus Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 88 11:05:43 PDT From: Eugene N. Miya Subject: "Space Exploration Cost Understanding" It was recently noted that trash isn't personal property anymore. Friday, during our afternoon bull session (Hamming's Alternate Musings, we call them "officially," inspired by Dick from his Los Alamos days), I stumbled on a set of view graphs entitled "Space Exploration Cost Understanding." Most are dull, but there are a few gems you might be interested. The presenter is from JSC (houston), associated with the Mars/Lunar Exploration office, interesting view graph is on the section entitled "Constraints on the Spaced Program" with 3 subsections: Budget Considerations, High Cost of Programs, and Public Perception. The first mentions the Deficit, Non-Discretionary Items Growing, Military Space, NASA Pressures: Challenger Accident Recovery, Space Station, and loss of "business" reimburseable launches. High Cost of Programs was what caught my eye: In small print at the bottom, (NOTE ALL COSTS in FY88$) [This is why economics is not a science, but a joke, not deserving a Nobel Prize. We have all heard dollar figures associated per given year like $24 Billion for the manned lunar programs, but when normalizing, we get a different comparison.] Anyway on with the VG: NASA Manned Programs (Expensive) Apollo was Over $88 Billion [Usualyy cited as $24 B 1960s $$] Shuttle is $75 to date Station "May Cost" over $18 Billion Recent Unmanned Programs also Relatively Expensive Viking $3 B [Usually cited as $1B 1975 Dollars] Space Telescope $2.2 B (so far) TDRSS is $1.9 B to date Public Perception slide: Public Confidence is at an all time low Less than 20% of the General public thinks NASA funding should be increased Most people think NASA is much more expensive than it really is Few people recognize benefits "Crisis of Confidence" that led to the Apollo program is unlikely to be repeated In a different section under Cost and Scheduling Trends NASA is Realizing Diseconomies of Scale Constant value budget for 15 years Total Budget is 1/3 of peak Apollo era Spacecraft budgets at 1/4 of Apllo era NASA Cultural Norms set during Apollo [I agree] Man power at 50% All Apollo era Installions still exist I skip the Gantt charts, and the other gobblety-gook. I thought the numbers would be of interest to you guys, I think they are a few oxymorons in the slides like "tailored cookbook," this presentation would have been interesting to sit in on and throw stones, but like I said, the numbers are a bit informative. Is this "Insider information?" 8-0 8-) Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jun 88 15:32:38 EST From: MD0FAERG%MIAMIU.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT Subject: Signup Date: 27 June 88, 15:32:17 EST From: Mike DeLaet MD0FAERG at MIAMIU To: SPACE at MC.LCS.MIT ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jun 88 15:33:42 EST From: MD0FAERG%MIAMIU.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT Subject: signup space Date: 27 June 88, 15:33:05 EST From: Mike DeLaet MD0FAERG at MIAMIU To: SPACE at MC.LCS.MIT signup space ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 88 23:40:36 GMT From: watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov (John S. Watson) Subject: Re: solar flares In article <3204@entire.UUCP> elt@entire.UUCP (Edward L. Taychert) writes: >I read in the paper this morning that a giant solor flare has errupted >(The details of `giant' are missing.) Magnetic storm due to hit earth monday... In article <1162@csccat.UUCP> clb@loci.uucp (CLBrunow) writes: > Aren't these things (flare) dangerous to astronauts/cosmonauts? > Somewhere I thought I heard/read something about it but the > memory is vague. If so, I'm wondering how the crew of Mir will > deal with the threat. In the book SPACE by James Mitchner, the fictitious Apollo 17 astronauts are zapped by a solar flare. (Two die, one barely makes it back to earth). I've never heard whether or not Mitchner was making this up, or if it could have really happened to the astronauts/cosmonauts. Is there a doctor in the news group? P.S. Just had an earthquake today (a real E-ticket!), any correlations? :-) -- John "Elementary" Watson, IBM heir in hiding ARPA: watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov NASA Ames Research Center UUCP: ...!ames!watson Any opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author and do not represent the opinions of NASA or the U.S. Government ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 88 22:44:08 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! [ Description of Pegasus, and accompanying comments, deleted. ] Best news I've heard in years. Hope the responsible parties get filthy rich for doing it. It's no more than they deserve. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 88 23:15:56 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Postcard from Lewis: Having a wonderful time, wish you were here In article <2064@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) writes: > In article <8806262055.AA10047@angband.s1.gov> PH418000@BROWNVM.BITNET writes: > } There's also an interesting proposal to use a tether concept to deorbit > }the space shuttle from the space-station, simultaneously reboosting the station > }everytime you drop a shuttle off. > > This isn't all that new an idea. See the SF novel "Descent of A????" (it's "Descent of Anansi" by Larry Niven. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 88 23:14:11 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Pegasus In article <8240@ihlpa.ATT.COM>, animal@ihlpa.ATT.COM (D. Starr) writes: > > What's the surprise? At $6 million to launch 850 lbs (over $7000/lb), the > per-pound cost of Pegasus will be: > > 23.5 times that of Energia ($300/lb), > 9.4 times that of Proton (750/lb), > 2.2 times that of Delta (3275/lb), > 1.4 times that of Titan 4 (5100/bl), and (indignity of indignities) > 4% higher than the Shuttle (6800/lb). > > > That ain't too exciting. Another way to look at it: I can ship a small package to Oakland (my watch crystal is cracked and I really ought to ship it to the service center there). I can haul it up there in the (fairly small) tankbag on my BMW motorcycle. Or I can ship it UPS. The UPS shipping would be cheaper (even if you figure my time as worth nothing...), but if there aren't any other packages going UPS, I might have to wait a long time for a scheduled run. And paying for trucking the watch up all on it's lonesome will be pricey. The cost/gram of using the 'bike is pretty high, but the total actual cost of the UPS truck is greater, and might be less convenient. (Here, of course, is where the analogy falls apart. *Thud*) > [Note on sources: Cost/lb to orbit estimates are from the infamous Newsweek > article, which has been accused of *over* estimating the costs of launching > on Shuttle and Titan. I did not compare with the Soviet "A" booster, which > can be yours for a mere $13 million (according to a recent article on this > network), because I don't know the exact payload capacity--but if it's > even equivalent to the Delta (~5 tons), Pegasus is a good 5 times more costly. > Anybody out there want to compare to Ariane or Long March?] Different payloads, customers, schedules, etc. call for different launch systems. There is no "best" system (yet, anyway), just as there is no "best" car, camera, bicycle, ... If OMC/Hercules can come up with the product, I'd say that's just great. There are probably more customers for $6M (or $10M) launches than there are for $13M or $25M or whatever, especially when you don't really want to wait for ten years to get your baby off the ground. seh ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 88 18:31:00 GMT From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Salyut 7 elements I haven't posted Mir elements this week because: (1) Once again, there's now new set from NORAD. (2) There isn't a set of overflights coming up for continental US viewers for a while yet. On the other hand, the first week of July has an incredibly large collection of overflights of Salyut 7 over most of the US. If you've never seen a spacecraft overflight before, Salyut 7 is a good one to start with. It's big and bright, and it's not terribly active, so it appears quite regularly as predicted. For those that want to try their hand at it, the elements are: Salyut 7 1 13138U 88167.81914382 0.00004331 14566-3 0 1247 2 13138 51.6136 296.3330 0001209 119.2446 240.8590 15.32899308351875 Satellite: Salyut 7 Catalog id 13138 Element set 124 Epoch: 88167.81914382 Inclination: 51.6136 degrees RA of node: 296.3330 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0001209 Argument of perigee: 119.2446 degrees Mean anomaly: 240.8590 degrees Mean motion: 15.32899308 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00004331 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 35187 Semimajor axis: 6845.26 km Apogee height*: 467.93 km Perigee height*: 466.27 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean equatorial radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 88 21:45:35 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Pegasus Am I the only one who is amazed that anyone would give any credibility at all to the launch costs projected by the manufacturer of a radically new launcher that hasn't even been built yet, much less tested and made operational? Or hasn't anyone learned from the Shuttle experience? Phil ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 88 21:34:03 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! > station keeping. BUT, low earth orbit fit easily in this. The latest > AMSAT (Up and WORKING !!!! yeah) weights 140 kg. This kind of > satellite supports packet radio techniques. DARPA has funded paper > studies of a ``cloud'' of these as an alternative to geosynch. The Oscar-13 (aka Phase 3-C) spacecraft that was just launched is designed to work in a Molniya orbit. The payloads are VHF/UHF "bent pipe" repeaters. Except for the frequency bands and the unusual orbit, it's not too much different in principle from your standard geostationary comsat. There is a packet radio experiment on board, but it is just an add-on to one of the bent pipes. Oscar-13 carries a kick motor intended to get it into an approximation of the Molniya orbit from a geostationary transfer orbit. The total launch mass was 142.6 kg. 57.8 kg of this was fuel (Aerozine-50 + N2O4), and a good chunk of the rest is fuel and pressurant (helium) tankage, valves, pipes, rocket motor, etc. We would not have needed a propulsion system at all if there had been a launch available to us that went directly into Molniya orbit, but when you hitchhike, you have to be prepared to do some walking... Packet radio satellites designed to operate at low altitude can be considerably smaller and lighter than Oscar-13 since they do not require high gain antennas, active attitude control or a propulsion system. Follow the "Pacsat" project now being developed within AMSAT if you want to see how far this can go. Phil ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #281 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Jul 88 06:11:34 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Tue, 19 Jul 88 04:31:48 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 19 Jul 88 04:31:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 19 Jul 88 04:19:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 19 Jul 88 04:05:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Tue, 19 Jul 88 04:04:50 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19587; Tue, 19 Jul 88 01:05:53 PDT id AA19587; Tue, 19 Jul 88 01:05:53 PDT Date: Tue, 19 Jul 88 01:05:53 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807190805.AA19587@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #282 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 282 Today's Topics: Sample Salyut 7 overflight predicti space station bucks ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Jun 88 18:32:00 GMT From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Sample Salyut 7 overflight predicti Following Rich Brezina's lead, I've decided to post the predictions for the San Francisco Bay area, since (at least according to him) there are a lot of people there who are interested in these things. This is the biggest cluster of overflights I've ever seen; the reason is that we are close to the summer solstice, and hence the Sun is nearly as far north of the Equator as it gets; moreover, the plane of the spacecraft's orbit is nearly face on to the Sun's rays, so the spacecraft isn't going into eclipse for much of the orbit; almost any nighttime overflight is therefore visible. Salyut 7 is also `parked' in a fairly high orbit, which helps visibility as it is outside the Earth's shadow cone more of the time. I've arbitrarily suppressed overflights occurring after midnight. Clear skies! Explanation of ephemerides: Time is the local time, on a 24-hour clock. Azim is the azimuth, or direction in which the spacecraft appears. Azimuth is expressed in degrees; 0 is North, 90 is East, and so on. Elev is the elevation, or how high up in the sky the spacecraft appears. Elevation is measured in degrees above the horizon. RA is the Right Ascension of the spacecraft. Right ascension is measured as an hour angle. Decl is the Declination of the spacecraft. Declination is measured in degrees away from the celestial equator; South is negative. Dist is the distance from the observing site to the spacecraft, in a straight line, measured in kilometers. SunEl is the elevation of the Sun at the time of the overflight. It is measured in degrees below the horizon. Some twilight can be observed with the Sun as low as 15 degrees below the horizon, but bright objects such as Mir can be seen readily with the Sun as high as 10 degrees below the horizon. Vis is a `visibility factor.' A figure of less than 1 indicates that the spacecraft is at least partially eclipsed. This factor is actually the distance from the spacecraft to the center of the Earth's shadow cone, measured in Earth radii. LatN is the latitude of the spacecraft. It is measured in degrees from the Equator; negative figures are South. LongW is the longitude of the spacecraft. It is measured in degrees from Greenwich; negative figures are East of Greenwich. Alt is the altitude of the spacecraft, measured in kilometers above mean sea level; the reference geoid is from the 1961 Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Ephemeris. Salyut 7 NORAD catalog # 13138 Overflight of San Francisco, CA on revolution #35424 Closest approach at Thu Jun 30 23:40:47 1988 --Time-- Azim Elev RA Decl Dist SunEl Vis LatN LongW Alt ------------------------------------------------------------------ 23:43:01 56.4 21.6 23:18 +39.2 1059 -25.5 0.98 43.0 113.1 461.7 23:43:31 55.1 16.5 23:44 +37.4 1251 -25.6 0.99 44.0 111.1 461.6 23:44:01 54.2 12.5 00:03 +35.7 1449 -25.6 0.99 45.0 108.9 461.4 23:44:31 53.6 9.2 00:18 +34.1 1649 -25.6 1.00 45.9 106.7 461.3 23:45:01 53.1 6.5 00:30 +32.7 1852 -25.7 1.00 46.8 104.4 461.2 23:45:31 52.8 4.1 00:40 +31.4 2055 -25.7 1.01 47.7 102.0 461.1 23:46:01 52.5 1.9 00:48 +30.1 2260 -25.8 1.01 48.5 99.6 460.9 23:46:31 52.3 0.0 00:56 +28.9 2464 -25.8 1.02 49.2 97.1 460.8 Salyut 7 NORAD catalog # 13138 Overflight of San Francisco, CA on revolution #35439 Closest approach at Fri Jul 1 23:08:28 1988 --Time-- Azim Elev RA Decl Dist SunEl Vis LatN LongW Alt ------------------------------------------------------------------ 23:10:01 69.4 30.0 21:44 +33.2 846 -22.6 0.98 40.7 114.9 462.1 23:10:31 64.4 22.9 22:25 +33.6 1019 -22.7 0.99 41.8 113.0 461.9 23:11:01 61.2 17.6 22:54 +33.2 1204 -22.7 0.99 42.9 111.0 461.7 23:11:31 59.0 13.4 23:17 +32.5 1397 -22.8 0.99 43.9 109.0 461.6 23:12:01 57.5 10.1 23:34 +31.7 1594 -22.8 1.00 44.9 106.8 461.4 23:12:31 56.3 7.2 23:49 +30.8 1795 -22.9 1.00 45.9 104.6 461.3 23:13:01 55.4 4.7 00:01 +29.8 1996 -22.9 1.00 46.8 102.3 461.2 23:13:31 54.7 2.6 00:11 +28.9 2199 -23.0 1.01 47.6 100.0 461.1 23:14:01 54.1 0.6 00:20 +28.0 2403 -23.0 1.01 48.4 97.5 460.9 Salyut 7 NORAD catalog # 13138 Overflight of San Francisco, CA on revolution #35454 Closest approach at Sat Jul 2 22:36:09 1988 --Time-- Azim Elev RA Decl Dist SunEl Vis LatN LongW Alt ------------------------------------------------------------------ 22:30:31 215.5 0.1 12:49 -40.0 2464 -18.2 0.99 20.5 135.2 465.0 22:31:01 214.5 2.0 13:00 -39.0 2262 -18.2 0.99 22.0 134.0 464.8 22:31:31 213.4 4.1 13:11 -37.9 2061 -18.3 0.99 23.4 132.7 464.6 22:32:01 212.1 6.5 13:23 -36.6 1861 -18.4 0.99 24.9 131.5 464.4 22:32:31 210.4 9.1 13:38 -35.2 1664 -18.4 0.99 26.3 130.1 464.1 22:33:01 208.1 12.2 13:55 -33.5 1470 -18.5 0.99 27.7 128.8 463.9 22:33:31 205.1 15.9 14:15 -31.3 1281 -18.5 0.99 29.1 127.4 463.7 22:34:01 201.0 20.5 14:40 -28.5 1100 -18.6 0.99 30.5 126.0 463.5 22:34:31 194.8 26.2 15:12 -24.6 933 -18.7 0.99 31.8 124.5 463.3 22:35:01 185.0 33.2 15:53 -18.9 787 -18.7 0.99 33.2 123.0 463.1 22:35:31 168.8 40.9 16:46 -10.7 677 -18.8 0.99 34.5 121.4 462.9 22:36:01 143.7 46.1 17:49 +00.0 623 -18.9 0.99 35.8 119.8 462.8 22:36:31 115.2 44.4 18:57 +10.9 639 -18.9 0.99 37.0 118.1 462.6 22:37:01 94.1 37.5 20:00 +19.2 720 -19.0 0.99 38.2 116.4 462.4 22:37:31 81.2 29.9 20:53 +24.2 848 -19.0 0.99 39.4 114.6 462.2 22:38:01 73.3 23.4 21:34 +26.9 1005 -19.1 1.00 40.6 112.8 462.1 22:38:31 68.1 18.3 22:06 +28.2 1179 -19.2 1.00 41.7 110.9 461.9 22:39:01 64.5 14.1 22:31 +28.6 1363 -19.2 1.00 42.8 108.9 461.7 22:39:31 61.9 10.7 22:51 +28.6 1555 -19.3 1.00 43.8 106.8 461.6 22:40:01 60.0 7.8 23:07 +28.3 1750 -19.3 1.00 44.8 104.7 461.4 22:40:31 58.5 5.3 23:21 +27.9 1949 -19.4 1.01 45.8 102.5 461.3 22:41:01 57.3 3.1 23:33 +27.4 2149 -19.5 1.01 46.7 100.2 461.2 22:41:31 56.3 1.1 23:43 +26.8 2351 -19.5 1.01 47.5 97.8 461.1 Salyut 7 NORAD catalog # 13138 Overflight of San Francisco, CA on revolution #35469 Closest approach at Sun Jul 3 22:03:50 1988 --Time-- Azim Elev RA Decl Dist SunEl Vis LatN LongW Alt ------------------------------------------------------------------ 21:58:31 210.0 1.0 12:48 -42.3 2367 -13.9 1.02 20.4 133.0 465.0 21:59:01 208.7 3.0 13:00 -41.4 2168 -14.0 1.02 21.9 131.8 464.7 21:59:31 207.0 5.1 13:14 -40.3 1971 -14.1 1.02 23.3 130.5 464.5 22:00:01 204.9 7.5 13:29 -39.1 1777 -14.2 1.02 24.8 129.2 464.3 22:00:31 202.3 10.3 13:48 -37.6 1587 -14.2 1.02 26.2 127.9 464.1 22:01:01 198.9 13.5 14:09 -35.8 1402 -14.3 1.01 27.6 126.6 463.9 22:01:31 194.4 17.2 14:35 -33.4 1226 -14.4 1.01 29.0 125.2 463.7 22:02:01 188.1 21.6 15:07 -30.1 1063 -14.4 1.01 30.4 123.8 463.5 22:02:31 179.1 26.7 15:46 -25.5 920 -14.5 1.01 31.7 122.3 463.3 22:03:01 166.0 32.0 16:33 -19.0 808 -14.6 1.01 33.1 120.8 463.1 22:03:31 147.8 36.1 17:27 -10.4 741 -14.6 1.01 34.4 119.2 462.9 22:04:01 126.5 36.7 18:24 -00.6 732 -14.7 1.01 35.7 117.6 462.7 22:04:31 107.0 33.4 19:19 +08.3 783 -14.8 1.01 36.9 115.9 462.6 22:05:01 92.5 28.2 20:08 +15.1 883 -14.9 1.01 38.2 114.2 462.4 22:05:31 82.4 22.9 20:48 +19.6 1019 -14.9 1.01 39.4 112.4 462.2 22:06:01 75.5 18.3 21:20 +22.4 1177 -15.0 1.01 40.5 110.6 462.0 22:06:31 70.5 14.4 21:46 +24.0 1350 -15.1 1.01 41.6 108.7 461.9 22:07:01 66.9 11.1 22:08 +25.0 1532 -15.1 1.01 42.7 106.7 461.7 22:07:31 64.1 8.2 22:26 +25.4 1721 -15.2 1.01 43.8 104.6 461.6 22:08:01 61.9 5.7 22:41 +25.6 1914 -15.3 1.01 44.8 102.5 461.4 22:08:31 60.2 3.5 22:54 +25.5 2110 -15.3 1.01 45.7 100.3 461.3 22:09:01 58.7 1.5 23:05 +25.2 2309 -15.4 1.02 46.6 98.0 461.2 Salyut 7 NORAD catalog # 13138 Overflight of San Francisco, CA on revolution #35484 Closest approach at Mon Jul 4 21:31:31 1988 --Time-- Azim Elev RA Decl Dist SunEl Vis LatN LongW Alt ------------------------------------------------------------------ 21:26:01 205.8 0.0 12:36 -45.4 2479 -9.2 1.05 18.8 132.0 465.1 21:26:31 204.2 1.8 12:50 -44.5 2283 -9.2 1.04 20.3 130.8 464.9 21:27:01 202.3 3.8 13:04 -43.5 2090 -9.3 1.04 21.8 129.5 464.7 21:27:31 200.0 6.0 13:21 -42.4 1900 -9.4 1.04 23.3 128.3 464.5 21:28:01 197.1 8.4 13:40 -41.1 1714 -9.5 1.04 24.7 127.0 464.3 21:28:31 193.5 11.1 14:03 -39.5 1534 -9.6 1.04 26.1 125.7 464.1 21:29:01 188.9 14.2 14:29 -37.3 1363 -9.6 1.04 27.6 124.3 463.9 21:29:31 182.8 17.7 15:00 -34.5 1205 -9.7 1.03 28.9 122.9 463.7 21:30:01 174.6 21.5 15:37 -30.5 1065 -9.8 1.03 30.3 121.5 463.5 21:30:31 163.6 25.4 16:19 -25.0 953 -9.9 1.03 31.7 120.0 463.3 21:31:01 149.5 28.5 17:06 -17.8 878 -9.9 1.03 33.0 118.5 463.1 21:31:31 132.9 29.8 17:55 -09.4 851 -10.0 1.03 34.3 117.0 462.9 21:32:01 116.3 28.5 18:43 -00.9 877 -10.1 1.03 35.6 115.4 462.7 21:32:31 102.1 25.4 19:27 +06.5 950 -10.2 1.03 36.9 113.7 462.5 21:33:01 91.1 21.6 20:05 +12.2 1062 -10.2 1.03 38.1 112.0 462.4 21:33:31 82.9 17.7 20:37 +16.3 1201 -10.3 1.03 39.3 110.2 462.2 21:34:01 76.7 14.2 21:03 +19.0 1358 -10.4 1.03 40.5 108.4 462.0 21:34:31 72.1 11.1 21:26 +20.9 1529 -10.5 1.03 41.6 106.5 461.9 21:35:01 68.5 8.4 21:45 +22.1 1709 -10.5 1.03 42.7 104.5 461.7 21:35:31 65.6 5.9 22:01 +22.8 1895 -10.6 1.02 43.7 102.4 461.6 21:36:01 63.3 3.8 22:15 +23.2 2085 -10.7 1.02 44.7 100.3 461.4 21:36:31 61.4 1.8 22:28 +23.4 2278 -10.8 1.02 45.7 98.1 461.3 Salyut 7 NORAD catalog # 13138 Overflight of San Francisco, CA on revolution #35485 Closest approach at Mon Jul 4 23:09:20 1988 --Time-- Azim Elev RA Decl Dist SunEl Vis LatN LongW Alt ------------------------------------------------------------------ 23:04:01 253.7 0.9 11:31 -12.2 2373 -22.2 1.03 30.7 145.0 463.4 23:04:31 255.4 2.8 11:33 -09.7 2178 -22.2 1.03 32.0 143.5 463.2 23:05:01 257.5 4.9 11:35 -06.8 1986 -22.3 1.03 33.4 142.0 463.0 23:05:31 260.0 7.2 11:36 -03.4 1797 -22.3 1.03 34.7 140.4 462.9 23:06:01 263.2 9.8 11:37 +00.7 1613 -22.4 1.03 35.9 138.8 462.7 23:06:31 267.1 12.8 11:38 +05.5 1436 -22.4 1.03 37.2 137.1 462.5 23:07:01 272.3 16.1 11:37 +11.6 1268 -22.5 1.03 38.4 135.4 462.3 23:07:31 279.1 20.0 11:35 +19.1 1114 -22.5 1.03 39.6 133.6 462.1 23:08:01 288.5 24.2 11:30 +28.7 981 -22.6 1.03 40.8 131.7 462.0 23:08:31 301.1 28.3 11:21 +40.5 880 -22.6 1.03 41.9 129.8 461.8 23:09:01 317.2 31.2 11:02 +54.5 820 -22.7 1.03 43.0 127.8 461.7 23:09:31 335.4 31.6 10:15 +68.9 813 -22.7 1.03 44.0 125.7 461.5 23:10:01 352.3 29.3 07:30 +79.3 859 -22.8 1.03 45.0 123.6 461.4 23:10:31 5.9 25.3 03:20 +76.6 950 -22.8 1.03 45.9 121.4 461.2 23:11:01 16.0 21.1 01:58 +68.3 1075 -22.9 1.03 46.8 119.1 461.1 23:11:31 23.5 17.1 01:30 +60.8 1224 -22.9 1.03 47.7 116.7 461.0 23:12:01 29.0 13.6 01:17 +54.6 1388 -23.0 1.03 48.4 114.3 460.9 23:12:31 33.3 10.5 01:11 +49.6 1563 -23.0 1.03 49.2 111.7 460.8 23:13:01 36.6 7.8 01:08 +45.4 1746 -23.1 1.03 49.8 109.2 460.7 23:13:31 39.3 5.5 01:06 +41.8 1933 -23.1 1.03 50.4 106.5 460.6 23:14:01 41.5 3.3 01:05 +38.8 2124 -23.2 1.03 50.9 103.8 460.5 23:14:31 43.4 1.4 01:06 +36.1 2318 -23.2 1.03 51.4 101.0 460.5 Salyut 7 NORAD catalog # 13138 Overflight of San Francisco, CA on revolution #35500 Closest approach at Tue Jul 5 22:36:55 1988 --Time-- Azim Elev RA Decl Dist SunEl Vis LatN LongW Alt ------------------------------------------------------------------ 22:31:31 249.2 0.8 11:14 -15.8 2383 -18.5 1.05 29.3 144.1 463.6 22:32:01 250.6 2.8 11:17 -13.4 2186 -18.5 1.05 30.6 142.7 463.4 22:32:31 252.4 4.9 11:19 -10.7 1990 -18.6 1.05 32.0 141.2 463.2 22:33:01 254.5 7.2 11:22 -07.6 1796 -18.7 1.05 33.3 139.7 463.0 22:33:31 257.1 9.9 11:24 -03.9 1606 -18.7 1.05 34.6 138.1 462.8 22:34:01 260.5 13.0 11:26 +00.6 1421 -18.8 1.05 35.9 136.5 462.6 22:34:31 264.9 16.7 11:27 +06.2 1245 -18.8 1.04 37.2 134.8 462.5 22:35:01 271.0 21.0 11:28 +13.4 1080 -18.9 1.04 38.4 133.1 462.3 22:35:31 279.6 26.1 11:27 +22.8 933 -19.0 1.04 39.6 131.3 462.1 22:36:01 292.1 31.5 11:25 +35.0 816 -19.0 1.04 40.7 129.5 461.9 22:36:31 309.6 36.0 11:17 +50.2 741 -19.1 1.04 41.8 127.5 461.8 22:37:01 331.1 37.3 10:55 +67.2 721 -19.1 1.04 42.9 125.5 461.6 22:37:31 351.5 34.5 08:54 +82.4 762 -19.2 1.04 44.0 123.5 461.5 22:38:01 7.1 29.4 01:56 +79.8 855 -19.3 1.04 45.0 121.3 461.4 22:38:31 18.0 24.0 00:53 +69.4 985 -19.3 1.04 45.9 119.1 461.2 22:39:01 25.5 19.3 00:37 +61.1 1139 -19.4 1.03 46.8 116.8 461.1 22:39:31 30.9 15.2 00:32 +54.6 1308 -19.5 1.03 47.6 114.5 461.0 22:40:01 34.9 11.8 00:30 +49.4 1488 -19.5 1.03 48.4 112.0 460.9 22:40:31 38.0 8.8 00:29 +45.2 1675 -19.6 1.03 49.1 109.5 460.8 22:41:01 40.4 6.3 00:30 +41.7 1866 -19.6 1.03 49.8 106.9 460.7 22:41:31 42.4 4.0 00:31 +38.7 2060 -19.7 1.03 50.4 104.3 460.6 22:42:01 44.0 2.0 00:33 +36.1 2256 -19.8 1.03 50.9 101.5 460.5 22:42:31 45.4 0.1 00:34 +33.8 2454 -19.8 1.03 51.4 98.8 460.5 Salyut 7 NORAD catalog # 13138 Overflight of San Francisco, CA on revolution #35515 Closest approach at Wed Jul 6 22:04:30 1988 --Time-- Azim Elev RA Decl Dist SunEl Vis LatN LongW Alt ------------------------------------------------------------------ 21:59:01 244.6 0.7 10:57 -19.3 2399 -14.2 1.07 27.9 143.2 463.8 21:59:31 245.8 2.6 11:01 -17.2 2198 -14.2 1.07 29.3 141.9 463.6 22:00:01 247.1 4.8 11:04 -14.8 1999 -14.3 1.06 30.6 140.4 463.4 22:00:31 248.8 7.2 11:08 -11.9 1802 -14.4 1.06 32.0 138.9 463.2 22:01:01 250.9 9.9 11:11 -08.6 1607 -14.5 1.06 33.3 137.4 463.0 22:01:31 253.6 13.1 11:15 -04.5 1416 -14.5 1.06 34.6 135.9 462.8 22:02:01 257.1 17.0 11:18 +00.6 1231 -14.6 1.06 35.9 134.2 462.6 22:02:31 262.1 21.7 11:22 +07.3 1056 -14.7 1.06 37.1 132.6 462.4 22:03:01 269.5 27.6 11:25 +16.1 897 -14.7 1.06 38.4 130.8 462.3 22:03:31 281.0 34.6 11:29 +28.2 762 -14.8 1.05 39.6 129.0 462.1 22:04:01 299.4 41.5 11:34 +44.2 669 -14.9 1.05 40.7 127.2 461.9 22:04:31 325.4 44.7 11:40 +63.3 635 -15.0 1.05 41.8 125.2 461.8 22:05:01 351.4 41.4 12:02 +82.4 669 -15.0 1.05 42.9 123.3 461.6 22:05:31 9.7 34.5 23:16 +81.5 763 -15.1 1.05 43.9 121.2 461.5 22:06:01 21.2 27.5 23:33 +69.5 897 -15.2 1.05 44.9 119.1 461.3 22:06:31 28.6 21.6 23:39 +60.6 1057 -15.2 1.05 45.9 116.8 461.2 22:07:01 33.5 16.9 23:43 +53.9 1232 -15.3 1.04 46.8 114.6 461.1 22:07:31 37.1 13.0 23:46 +48.8 1416 -15.4 1.04 47.6 112.2 461.0 22:08:01 39.8 9.8 23:50 +44.7 1607 -15.4 1.04 48.4 109.8 460.9 22:08:31 41.9 7.1 23:53 +41.3 1801 -15.5 1.04 49.1 107.2 460.8 22:09:01 43.6 4.7 23:56 +38.4 1999 -15.6 1.04 49.8 104.7 460.7 22:09:31 45.0 2.6 23:58 +35.9 2197 -15.6 1.04 50.4 102.0 460.6 22:10:01 46.1 0.6 00:01 +33.7 2397 -15.7 1.04 50.9 99.3 460.5 Salyut 7 NORAD catalog # 13138 Overflight of San Francisco, CA on revolution #35530 Closest approach at Thu Jul 7 21:32:06 1988 --Time-- Azim Elev RA Decl Dist SunEl Vis LatN LongW Alt ------------------------------------------------------------------ 21:26:31 240.0 0.5 10:41 -22.9 2420 -9.4 1.07 26.5 142.3 463.9 21:27:01 240.9 2.4 10:45 -21.0 2218 -9.5 1.07 27.9 140.9 463.7 21:27:31 241.9 4.6 10:50 -18.8 2016 -9.6 1.07 29.3 139.5 463.5 21:28:01 243.1 7.0 10:54 -16.3 1815 -9.6 1.07 30.6 138.1 463.3 21:28:31 244.6 9.8 10:59 -13.3 1616 -9.7 1.07 32.0 136.6 463.1 21:29:01 246.5 13.1 11:04 -09.7 1421 -9.8 1.07 33.3 135.1 462.9 21:29:31 249.1 17.1 11:10 -05.2 1230 -9.9 1.07 34.6 133.5 462.7 21:30:01 252.7 22.1 11:16 +00.7 1046 -9.9 1.07 35.9 131.9 462.6 21:30:31 258.3 28.6 11:24 +08.8 874 -10.0 1.07 37.1 130.2 462.4 21:31:01 267.7 37.1 11:34 +20.1 724 -10.1 1.07 38.4 128.5 462.2 21:31:31 285.0 47.2 11:50 +36.1 611 -10.2 1.06 39.6 126.7 462.0 21:32:01 316.7 54.2 12:21 +56.5 559 -10.3 1.06 40.7 124.9 461.9 21:32:31 352.7 50.6 14:09 +76.2 584 -10.3 1.06 41.8 122.9 461.7 21:33:01 14.7 40.7 20:13 +78.3 678 -10.4 1.06 42.9 120.9 461.6 21:33:31 26.3 31.4 22:03 +67.5 817 -10.5 1.06 43.9 118.9 461.4 21:34:01 32.9 24.2 22:35 +58.9 981 -10.6 1.06 44.9 116.7 461.3 21:34:31 37.1 18.7 22:50 +52.5 1161 -10.6 1.06 45.9 114.5 461.2 21:35:01 40.1 14.3 23:00 +47.5 1350 -10.7 1.05 46.8 112.2 461.0 21:35:31 42.2 10.8 23:08 +43.6 1544 -10.8 1.05 47.6 109.9 460.9 21:36:01 43.9 7.9 23:14 +40.4 1741 -10.9 1.05 48.4 107.4 460.8 21:36:31 45.2 5.4 23:19 +37.7 1941 -10.9 1.05 49.1 104.9 460.7 21:37:01 46.3 3.1 23:23 +35.4 2142 -11.0 1.05 49.8 102.3 460.6 21:37:31 47.2 1.1 23:27 +33.3 2344 -11.1 1.05 50.4 99.7 460.6 ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 88 06:37:45 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: space station bucks [] Well, since no one has mentioned it so far, I guess I'll do the honors. As unlikely as it sounds, there may be some hope for the senatecritters after all, or at least some. In the San Jose Mercury last Wedsnesday was the following report (back on page 128 or something). . . "A Senate panel has cleared the way for an $800 million appropriation for the planned U.S. space station, up from a $200 million package approved last week that officials said was so small it would derail the project. The Senate appropriations defense subcommittee voted Tuesday to shift $600 million from unspent defense funds to the NASA budget. The money is intended for the space station, said Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, D-Texas, who helped arrange the transfer." I think an optimistic, but cautious "yippee" is called for, (and perhaps a thank-you note to Sen. Bentsen). -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "Being a dwarf does have it's shortcomings" [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #282 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Jul 88 00:55:20 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Tue, 19 Jul 88 22:42:23 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 19 Jul 88 22:42:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 19 Jul 88 22:38:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 19 Jul 88 22:11:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 19 Jul 88 22:06:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Tue, 19 Jul 88 22:05:41 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA20572; Tue, 19 Jul 88 19:06:44 PDT id AA20572; Tue, 19 Jul 88 19:06:44 PDT Date: Tue, 19 Jul 88 19:06:44 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807200206.AA20572@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #283 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 283 Today's Topics: Space-support contest space news from May 2 AW&ST space news from May 9 AW&ST Soviet crew about to do EVA for X-ray telescope repair Re: Pegasus Re: Postcard from Lewis: Having a wonderful time, wish you were here NASA news Re: Sample Salyut 7 overflight predicti ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 88 11:01:55 CDT From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: Space-support contest The new (July/Aug) issue of NASA Tech Briefs just came in today's mail and it has an announcement of a contest SPACE readers might want to participate in: Deadline: August 31, 1988 Rules: Write a letter to the politician of your choice, outlining your reasons for asking him or her to support NASA and the civil space program. Then send a copy of the letter, with your phone number, to the attention of Bill Schnirring at the following address: NASA Tech Briefs Letter Writing Contest 41 East 42nd St., Suite 921 New York, NY 10017 (Note: the accompanying text states the letters will be judged by their editorial board, and the winning letters will be published in their October issue. All letter writers will have their names listed in their "Honor Roll", published in that same issue. They plan to send copies of *each* letter submitted to *every* Congressman.) Prizes: First prize is a tuition-free stay at the US Space Camp, choice of the 3-day adult camp at Huntsville or sending a child to a week-long camp in either Huntsville or Florida. Second prize is a complete set of NTB:BASE, a PC-compatible database of NASA technology. Five runners-up will each receive one NTB:BASE category. All entrants will get a certificate of recognition. In case you want to look this up, the info is on pages 14 & 15 of the July/August '88 issue of NASA Tech Briefs. Regards, Will Martin PS -- To those whose view of "supporting the civil space program" does NOT include supporting NASA, but instead pushing private space development, I suppose you could still enter by carefully wording your letter to avoid mentioning NASA. I doubt they'll choose such letters to win, though! Their interest is NASA-oriented, after all... WM ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 88 05:23:36 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from May 2 AW&ST Well, I'm back from vacation and past my immediate software troubles, so here we go again. The next few summaries are going to be rather terse, in the interest of catching up. Editorial urging NASA to avoid unrealistic attempts at scheduling the next shuttle launch as early as possible, and in particular suggesting a need for reasonable contingency margins to cover the unexpected. "In practice, virtually every task has taken more time than scheduled." April 8 SRB test revealed crack in aft SRB skirt weld and a bolt failure at 1.32 times expected launch loads. The official margin is 1.4; it has been suggested that this is overly conservative, since launch loads are now well understood. Japan successfully tests prototype SRB for the H-2 launcher. Ford Aerospace is hitting technical problems on instrumentation for the next-generation Clarke-orbit metsats, causing cost overruns. Delays are considered unacceptable because the existing GOES satellites have limited lifetimes and time is short. SDI planning classified multi-experiment package for Delta launch in August; it will replace the Relay Mirror Experiment originally planned, which has hit technical problems. USAF will fully mothball the Vandenberg shuttle pad next year. Keeping it in standby is too expensive when the USAF no longer expects to use it. It will not be converted for Titan 4; a new facility will be built for that. Specialized shuttle equipment will go to KSC. US Army wants a heavylift launcher to provide assured access to space, says it "must be cheap and built by workers in a foundry, not technicians in a clean room". USAF still wants space-based radar, but has a problem affording it. NASA runs full-scale shuttle landing rehearsal at Edwards. Ariane launch with Intelsat 5 slips one week for inspection of the third-stage engine; loose pieces of insulation have been found in another such engine, probably from the engine test stand. Scout launches two Navy navsats from Vandenberg April 25. April 20 SRB test goes okay, boot ring survives. It now appears that one boot ring failed near the end of the SRB burn on mission 51J. The nature of the problem appears to be that vent holes connecting the motor cavity to the inside of the flexible boot tend to plug up as burnout approaches, and as pressure falls inside the motor the trapped high pressure inside the boot puts extra stress on the rings. Nozzle vectoring makes this worse. Instrument readings suggest that the boot ring failure in December occurred after burnout, during post-burnout vectoring done to calibrate actuator forces. The April test did slightly less vigorous vectoring during the burn (to the software limit, rather than the hardware limit), and did not do post-burnout vectoring (so that the boot ring could be inspected in its burnout state). There is disagreement about whether SDI's planned Boost Surveillance Tracking Satellite and Zenith Star space laser experiments comply with the ABM treaty. SAC suspects Soviets are developing major military space systems not known to intelligence analysts; Soviet launch capacities appear to exceed known requirements by a considerable margin. -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle |uunet!mnetor!utzoo! henry @zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 88 05:44:31 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from May 9 AW&ST Aviation Week & Space Technology subscription address is PO Box 1505, Neptune NJ 07754 USA. Rates depend on whether you are an "unqualified" or "qualified" subscriber, which basically means whether you look at the ads for cruise missiles out of curiosity, or out of genuine commercial or military interest. Best write for a "qualification card" and try to get the cheap rate. US rates are $55 qualified, $70 unqualified at present. It's weekly, it's thicker than Time or Newsweek, and most of it has nothing to do with space, so consider whether the price is worth it to you. -- HS Intelsat seeks bids from Japan, China, Europe, and US to launch Intelsat 7 series, asking for both "standard" and "premium" bids; the latter would include schedule guarantees and requirements for refund or reflight in the event of launch failure. Fletcher says NASA budget crisis may lead to unilateral cancellation of international agreements on space station. Loss of the Pacific Engineering oxidizer plant near Las Vegas will not cause any near-term problems because existing stocks are substantial. Possible impact (direct damage and safety changes) to the Kerr-McGee plant nearby is still being sorted out; it's now the only one left... Long-term impact is less clear: total production capacity exceeded requirements, because both firms expanded considerably back when NASA was talking about weekly shuttle launches, but there may still be a net shortfall. To the stupefied surprise of absolutely nobody, the USAF MLV-2 contract went to General Dynamics for its Atlas-Centaur: 11 launchers to carry DSCS-3 military comsats and a Navstar technology experiment, with an option on 20 more. Long-time readers will recall that I've been claiming all along that MLV-2 was a transparent excuse for government subsidy of Atlas-Centaur. However, it's not nearly as bad as I thought; read on. GD will have to stretch A-C a bit to meet the specs; the alternative was a paper proposal from McDonnell Douglas and Martin Marietta. The really noteworthy and encouraging thing is that the USAF is buying launch services, not raw hardware, with a fixed-price guaranteed-reflight contract instead of government inspection of everything. The result is a fairly low price, $40M per flight. Full postmortem on the April SRB test shows mixed results. The seals mostly worked. One of the deliberate defects did not seal as expected, but the later seals stopped the gas and there was no leak. Office of Technology Assessment which works for Congress harshly criticizes SDI for various things, notably software issues and problems with survivability. A particularly serious survivability problem is direct-ascent non-orbital nuclear antisatellite weapons. OTA also says that space-based threats to SDI systems have not been given enough attention, and that there are implicit assumptions that the US will control certain sectors of space. Milstar advanced military comsat hits large cost overruns and slips two years, due to technical problems. One particular problem is that the full cost of a Titan-Centaur with a Milstar on top is now $1G. Launch of first converted-ICBM Titan 2 launcher slips to July due to minor electronics problems. -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle |uunet!mnetor!utzoo! henry @zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jun 88 10:30:57 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soviet crew about to do EVA for X-ray telescope repair The Soviet's long duration Mir crew of Vladimir Titov and Musahi Manarov (now up for 190 days, more than half a year) is preparing to make a space walk to repair the British/Dutch X-ray telescope on the Kvant astrophysical module. A 40 kilogram (88 pound) electronic portion of the system will be replaced in an Extra Vehicle Activity scheduled for Thursday June 30. The equipment for this EVA was brought up on the last Progress (36) and the Soyuz TM-5 mission. Currently the Titov and Manarov have checked out the space suits and only need to pass the medical checkout the night before the mission for the go ahead. One point here - again the cosmonauts on board are repairing space station elements, but unlike such work here they do not have the luxury of doing a test run in a water simulation tank. When you are on board the station for that long problems will arise that must be handled by the crew without ground preparation. Yes the ground cosomonauts can try things out in the simulator and tell them what works best, but in the end success depends on the general orbital skills of the people on the station. The Russians are getting very used to solving problems that way. Not only have they done it several times on Salyut 7 and now Mir but they are even using it commercially. For example the Payload Systems people were talking to the Glavcosmos people (who market their space systems) about training the cosmonauts for the materials processing experiments they are paying for to be done on Mir. The Soviets suggested that they should train a team in use of the equipments and materials which in turn would train the cosmonauts that use it. Payload's people said no, they would rather train the cosmonauts directly. Glavcosmos's man answered "but what if they have been on the station for months when you are ready to begin." The Payload people gave that as an example of the change in thinking they underwent when going from short duration shuttle experiments to longer ones on a station. One other point, as expected the Soyuz TM-5 capsule was left up at Mir during the last mission, and Bulgarian crew came down in the Soyuz TM-4 that Titov and Manarov went up in. That gives them a fresh capsule, good for another 6 months. Well at least the shuttle is finally moving towards the launch pad. Now it must fly again if this country is to catch up. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 88 18:21:01 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Pegasus In article <1191@thumper.bellcore.com>, karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > Am I the only one who is amazed that anyone would give any credibility > at all to the launch costs projected by the manufacturer of a radically > new launcher that hasn't even been built yet, much less tested and made > operational? > > Or hasn't anyone learned from the Shuttle experience? Well, this doesn't look to be anything near as bad as the Shuttle. 1. Not man-rated. 2. Not pushing the technology of engines like the SSMEs. 3. Not pushing the limits of size. 4. Not trying to be all things to all customers. What it looks like is (essentially) a solid-fuel, multi-stage, small launcher with wings. Maybe a Scout rigged for airdrop? (Not identical, but you get the idea.) The teams that designed the Thor and Redstone weren't doing anything much less complex (probably more), had less back- ground to draw on, and still worked out the projects in about the same time frame and without going grossly over budget. This one looks doable. (Maybe even on schedule and at cost. :} ) seh p.s. There are things to be said for KISS. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 88 08:00:06 GMT From: jplpub1!jbrown@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Jordan Brown) Subject: Re: Postcard from Lewis: Having a wonderful time, wish you were here In article <58147@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >In article <2064@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) writes: >> [de-orbit shuttle with cable] >> This isn't all that new an idea. See the SF novel "Descent of A????" (it's > >"Descent of Anansi" by Larry Niven. Correction: Larry Niven & Steve Barnes. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 88 07:05:07 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: NASA news Today is my last active day on the net. I'm off to a new location/job etc., where access will be uncertain. I won't be posting the NASA stuff any more; another 'volunteer' has to be found, if there's still interest. Thank you all for making life more interesting. --------------------------------------------------- GEnie mail: EJ.BEHR (checked occasionally) Compu$erve: 76545,2646 (even less often) Eric ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 88 14:55:30 GMT From: att!whuts!mhuxh!mhuxu!davec@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dave Caswell) Subject: Re: Sample Salyut 7 overflight predicti I'd just like to ask you folks that are posting overflight predictions to post the elements that you used. This would be very valuable to my efforts to generate a tracking program of my own. Thanks, DAveC -- --->Dave Caswell {allegra|ihnp4|...}!mhuxu!davec davec@mhuxu.att.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #283 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Jul 88 05:35:06 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Wed, 20 Jul 88 04:34:55 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 20 Jul 88 04:34:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 20 Jul 88 04:24:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 20 Jul 88 04:13:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 20 Jul 88 04:06:02 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA20760; Wed, 20 Jul 88 01:07:18 PDT id AA20760; Wed, 20 Jul 88 01:07:18 PDT Date: Wed, 20 Jul 88 01:07:18 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807200807.AA20760@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #284 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 284 Today's Topics: NASA news - Seasat Re: electromagnetic launchers RE: dialing for dollars sub Re: Pegasus Re: NASA news - Seasat Pegasus & Hercules open house Are you still there? No contact Soviet Mir cosmonauts; solar flares and EVA update ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Jun 88 06:47:21 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: NASA news - Seasat Downloaded from NASA SpaceLink BBS, Huntsville, Ala. (205) 895 0028 ==================================================================== 6/23/88: NASA SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY AIDS FUTURE SPACE RESEARCH MISSIONS June 23, 1988 RELEASE: 88-84 NASA's Seasat satellite, launched 10 years ago this week, ushered in a new era of space research focusing on unsolved questions of the world's oceans and weather. Launched on June 26, 1978, on an Atlas-Agena rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., Seasat carried a payload of five scientific instruments unlike any package on previous remote-sensing satellites. Seasat tested a payload of advanced sensing instruments and during its 3-1/2-month mission collected oceanographic information comparable to a century's worth of observations from a fleet of ships. Among the experimental instruments Seasat pioneered were a synthetic aperture radar, which provided highly detailed images of ocean and land surfaces; a radar scatterometer to measure near-surface wind speed and direction; a radar altimeter to measure the height of the ocean surface and waves; and a scanning multi-channel microwave radiometer to measure surface temperature, wind speeds and sea ice cover. The satellite also carried a passive visual and infrared radiometer to provide supporting data for the other four experiments. Seasat demonstrated how space sensors could be used in oceanography -- becoming a baseline for a new generation of international missions planned that could provide answers to some of the world's most baffling and threatening weather phenomena. Examples include an unusual water warming in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 1982 and 1983. Called El Nino, this phenomena caused billions of dollars in damage and considerable loss of life. Scientists also are investigating an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which could have severe consequences on plants and animal life. Missions derived from Seasat are expected to help scientists understand both phenomena. These new generation of oceanographic missions are expected to provide important, cost-saving aids for such industries as fishing, shipping and offshore oil production; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and the U.S. Navy. TOPEX/Poseidon and the NASA Scatterometer (NSCAT) are two oceanographic missions scheduled. TOPEX/Poseidon, a joint satellite mission with the French space agency (CNES), is scheduled for a late 1991 launch on an Ariane rocket. It will map the circulation of the world's oceans using a radar altimeter. NSCAT is a second-generation instrument being developed to measure wind speed and direction over the oceans' surfaces. A proposal to fly NSCAT as part of the payload on Japan's planned Advanced Earth Observation Satellite is currently under review. Both TOPEX/Poseidon and NSCAT are intended to support oceanographic studies during the 1990s under the World Ocean Circulation Experiment and the Tropical Oceans Global Atmospheres Experiment. These programs, sponsored by the World Climate Research Program and scheduled to continue operations for a decade, involve studies at and below the ocean surface in all parts of the world's seas. Other international projects scheduled include the European Space Agency's first remote-sensing satellite, Earth Resources Satellite 1 due for launch in 1990; Japan's Earth Resources Satellite 1 scheduled for a 1992 launch; and Radarsat, a proposed 1994 mission that would be a cooperative venture between Canada and the United States. Seasat's technology has not been limited to satellite oceanography. The Shuttle Imaging Radar (SIR), a series of synthetic aperture radar experiments flown on the Shuttle was a direct follow-on of Seasat's synthetic aperture radar. This marked the first time NASA had flown that advanced radar instrument in space. The first and second experiments in the series, SIR-A, which flew on a shuttle mission in 1981, and SIR-B, a shuttle payload in 1984, offered scientists several unexpected discoveries. SIR-A pierced cloud-covered rain forests of Guatemala to reveal previously unknown agricultural canals dug by the ancient Maya. SIR-B penetrated the sands of Egypt to produce a picture of a riverbed buried for many centuries. NASA's Jet Proplusion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif. is currently working on SIR-C slated for a 1991 shuttle mission. It will be combined with a German/Italian X-band radar. Also planned is an advanced radar system that will be flown on an Earth Observing System platform as part of NASA's Space Station program in the late 1990s. A radar similar to the first flown on Seasat is scheduled on NASA's Magellan mission to Venus in April 1989. Magellan will use a synthetic aperture radar to pierce Venus' dense cloud cover to provide the most complete, highest-resolution images of the planet's surface ever made. Another planetary mission benefiting from Seasat is the Mars Observer, scheduled for launch in 1992. That spacecraft will orbit the red planet to conduct extensive studies of the Martian surface with instruments including an altimeter derived from Seasat. Seasat was funded by NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications, Washington, D.C. Gene Giberson was JPL Seasat project manager; James A. Dunne was project scientist. S.W. McCandless, Jr. was Seasat program manager at NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. An international symposium celebrating Seasat's launch anniversary will be hosted in London next Tuesday through Thursday (June 28-30) by the British National Space Centre. Gene Giberson, JPL's project manager for Seasat, and Peter Woiceshyn, a JPL scientist who has worked on Seasat continuously since its inception, will be featured speakers. ==================================================================== Eric ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 88 10:46:01 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Re: electromagnetic launchers In article <8806242024.AA22232@gvax.cs.cornell.edu> dietz@GVAX.CS.CORNELL.EDU (Paul F. Dietz) writes: >The article claims that a 3 ton projectile >(1 ton of which is payload destined for geosynchronous orbit) could >be launched by a gun with a mass in the *tens* of tons. Correction: the article actually said the sabot/projectile combination would have a mass in the tens of tons, and in the 1-ton payload case would have a mass of three tons. It should have been obvious to me that the launcher itself must be much more massive than this -- acceleration is limited by the magnetic pressure (< 4 kbar) divided by the ballistic coefficient of the sabot/projectile combination. The launcher would have to be a good fraction of a kilometer long, with accelerations in the thousands of gees. Moreover, the launcher structure would have to contain the magnetic pressure, so it couldn't be light. Silly of me. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jun 88 13:43:13 EDT From: =3545*** Subject: RE: dialing for dollars I find it somehow ironic that, while arguing about IQ tests, the author misspelled "intelligence". Of course, I had to look up the correct spelling of "misspelled" first... -- Phil Plait// Univ. of Virginia Astronomy Dept// PCP2G@Virginia ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Jun 88 16:10:02 EDT From: pswecker@med.unc.edu (Peter St.Wecker) Subject: sub ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 88 18:50:12 GMT From: al@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Al Globus) Subject: Re: Pegasus >From article <1191@thumper.bellcore.com>, by karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn): > Am I the only one who is amazed that anyone would give any credibility > at all to the launch costs projected by the manufacturer of a radically > new launcher that hasn't even been built yet, much less tested and made > operational? There is one big difference, Pegasus is small. Also, it has many characteristics in common with the X15. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 88 19:45:35 GMT From: sgi!daisy!wooding@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Wooding) Subject: Re: NASA news - Seasat In article <13979@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, khayo@sonia.math.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) writes: < Downloaded from NASA SpaceLink BBS, Huntsville, Ala. (205) 895 0028 < ==================================================================== ... < NASA's Seasat satellite, launched 10 years ago this week, < ushered in a new era of space research focusing on unsolved < questions of the world's oceans and weather. ... < Among the experimental instruments Seasat pioneered were a < synthetic aperture radar, which provided highly detailed images < of ocean and land surfaces; a radar scatterometer to measure < near-surface wind speed and direction; a radar altimeter to < measure the height of the ocean surface and waves; and a scanning < multi-channel microwave radiometer to measure surface < temperature, wind speeds and sea ice cover. The satellite also < carried a passive visual and infrared radiometer to provide < supporting data for the other four experiments. ... How does the radar altimeter decouple its "height" above ocean surface from the "height" of the ocean's surface? What scales are involved (+-10 meters)? A reference point? < ==================================================================== < Eric m wooding ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 88 20:12:48 GMT From: oodis01!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@tis.llnl.gov (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Pegasus & Hercules open house Last Saturday, June 25, Hercules Aerospace held an open house to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Bacchus Works, their plant near Magna Utah. In the main lobby they have a 1/4 scale model of Pegasus. I stood around it for a while just listening to people talking about it. Everyone who came in immediately went over to the display, dragging their guests with them and explaining in very excited tones what Pegasus is and what it means to the company. Everyone seemed very excited about Pegasus. People who were not working on the project were bragging about working for a company that had the guts to get into this business. I've been told that they have a firm contract for a launch on Pegasus. I've also been told that I got the price wrong. It will be ~$6 million on a fixed price contract. I've read some nasty comments on the net about possible hidden subsidies. Could be. But I don't think so. The B52 is being paid for at a price set by whoever owns the thing. If a government agency can get a price break by buying the B52 time themselves and just buying the booster from OSC/Hercules, why not? My understanding is that launch contracts are fixed price, no fly/no pay deals. If it costs more than $40 - 45 million, OSC/Hercules eats the cost. If it doesn't fly by next summer, they lose business. If OSC/Hercules uses government supplied computation resources, they pay what anyone else pays. If the government doesn't charge enough to recover costs, well that is the governments business, but it is the same price that any other private company would have to pay. Hercules can give good estimates of how long it will take and how much it will cost to develop a new set of motors because they have been in the business of building rocket motors for at least 30 years. Telstar had a Hercules kick motor. So they've been in the commercial space propulsion business for 25 years. Compare Hercules' experience with other commercial space propulsion companies. Hercules pioneered filament wound solid rocket motors based on glass, Kevlar, and graphite (Magnamite?) fibers. Not to mention integrated manufacturing technology based on the net metal mandril and the wound elastomeric insulator. Someone mentioned the Liberty booster, how much experience do they have building boosters? Deke Slaytons' conestoga, last I read, is a collection of Thiokol castor motors. The same solid rocket motors used on Delta, notice that Hercules is making the uprated replacements for those motors on Delta II. Since deciding to go heavily into the commercial space market Hercules has invested over $125 million in new facilities. Hercules has won the Delta II, Titan 4, and Pegasus contracts, and is pursuing the ASRM contract. As far as I can tell from the outside, they've bet the company on commercial space. It looks like the bet is paying off. Talking to some of the engineers on the Pegasus project, I've been told that not having to put up with all the DOD paper work, and not having to put up with DOD inspectors has shaved YEARS off of the time required to do the Pegasus project. Years translates into millions of dollars. Bob Pendleton -- Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet Alternate: utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet I am solely responsible for what I say. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jun 88 10:50:16 CDT From: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Abrams) Posted-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 88 10:50:16 CDT Subject: Are you still there? Ted, I was just wondering if I had been inadvertantly dropped from the Space Digest mailing list. The last issue I received was Issue #259. Can you try re-sending those issues since then? Thanks, Steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jun 88 10:54:47 CDT From: enos@doc.cc.utexas.edu (Edward Kenny) Posted-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 88 10:54:47 CDT Subject: No contact Ted, I, too, (in addition to sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu) haven't received Space Digest recently. Any problems? Ted Kenny ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jun 88 16:51:28 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soviet Mir cosmonauts; solar flares and EVA update A rather interesting point concerning Mir was made by Bill Higgins of Fermi Lab in a mail message to me. He said: > I encountered a brief headline about a "magnetic storm" that's supposed > to hit this planet this week and stopped to wonder-- what do the Mir & Salyut > cosmonauts do when there's a solar flare? Obviously they don't pack up > and go home. Is there a storm cellar arrangement aboard Mir? Can you explain > the details? He raises a good point about the solar flare. There is no storm shelter on the Mir station. However they are located in low earth orbit, below the Van Allen belts. This means that the earth's magnetic field protects them from the proton particles of the flare. The X-rays from that event I think are rather soft so the station itself has enough mass that the cosmonauts are safe. Never the less they are located at an orbit >70 degrees inclination. That starts putting them near to where stuff leaks through at the magnetic poles, especially as flare tends to distort the magnetic field lines (note that the North magnetic pole is located well within northern Canada - about 78 degrees latitude). I would suspect that would give them substantially higher radiation levels than normal. It is interesting that they went ahead with the space walk under these conditions. Speaking of the EVA, Titov and Manarov on board Mir went out this morning (June 30th) for 5 hours to try and fix the British/Dutch X-ray telescope on the Kvant module. The current information I have is either the repair did not work, or was not finished. They plan another EVA in a few days. I will post more when I get more information. Does anyone out there know what NASA does during similar flares for high inclination shuttle orbits? Hopefully this to will become an issue that we are in space enough to consider. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #284 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Jul 88 03:01:08 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 21 Jul 88 00:35:05 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 21 Jul 88 00:35:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 21 Jul 88 00:13:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 20 Jul 88 23:57:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 20 Jul 88 23:56:48 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA22004; Wed, 20 Jul 88 19:06:06 PDT id AA22004; Wed, 20 Jul 88 19:06:06 PDT Date: Wed, 20 Jul 88 19:06:06 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807210206.AA22004@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #285 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 285 Today's Topics: Re: Space cities--replies Re: NASA news - Seasat Re: NASA news OZONE cont. New Ideas OZONE depletion NASA Deep Space Network to support Soviet Phobos mission (Forwarded) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Jun 88 16:58:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk!william@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Space cities--replies Very interesting. Only one quibble ... In reply to John Turner's contribution, is it true that spin gravity is not similar to real gravity? This city would have to be some miles in diameter (I assume - I didn't get the original posting) so I would have thought the variation in the effective gravity would be minute over small movements. As (I think!) the effective gravity is proportional to the distance from the centre, a 10cm head-nod on a 5km radius ring would cause a force variation of 2e-5. Could a human detect this change? Of course, if you had a small radius and used a long cylinder then you would definitely get some effect. ... Bill ************************************************************************ Bill Witts, CS Dept. * UCL, London, Errrp * Don't believe everything you hear, william@uk.ac.ucl.cs(UK) * or anything you say. william@cs.ucl.ac.uk(US) *********************************************** ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jul 88 00:31:39 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: NASA news - Seasat In article <1313@daisy.UUCP> wooding@daisy.UUCP (Mike Wooding) writes: }In article <13979@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, khayo@sonia.math.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) writes: }< Downloaded from NASA SpaceLink BBS, Huntsville, Ala. (205) 895 0028 }< a radar altimeter to }< measure the height of the ocean surface and waves; } } How does the radar altimeter decouple its "height" above ocean } surface from the "height" of the ocean's surface? What scales } are involved (+-10 meters)? A reference point? There is an altimeter on the geosat that is a follow-up to the seasat one. I do the real-time processing of the data - you not only get "height above ocean", but significant wave height, winds, and a measure of roughness off the altimeter. (probably more, but that is all I lift). This can be used to get current "edges", fronts, eddy locations, and all kinds of neat stuff. I asked about satellite oceanography earlier, but didn't hear about anyone else using altimeter data for oceanography. Anyone else? (geosat is run from here at APL, the only ground station) oh yes - changes in ocean height varies greatly with where on the ocean you get 'em. Biggest off japan..... Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Jul 88 13:14:31 PDT From: Eugene N. Miya To: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov Subject: Re: NASA news Cc: space@angband.s1.gov A tie? You wore a tie today? ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 88 14:08:00 GMT From: mailrus!uflorida!novavax!ankh!Laurie_Forti@csd1.milw.wisc.edu (Laurie Forti) Subject: OZONE cont. Internationally, NRDC is urging the State Department to make ratification and reassessment of the Montreal agreement a top priority in dealings with our European allies and Japan, who with the U.S. account for the bulk of world production of CFC's. NRDC is also pressing for passage of legislation now pending before Congress which would phase out CFC's over 6-8 years and take away the producers' windfall profits." . . The Natural Resources Defense Council is a not-for-profit member supported organization dedicated to protecting America's natural resources and to improve the quality of the human environment through scientific research, legal action, and citizen education. Memberships are $10 per year. NRDC, POBox 37269, Washington, DC 20013. . . (Why is the ozone layer so important?? Stress on the plant biomass by increased UV only adds to the attack on same by pollution, chemical agricultural systems, global deforestation, and desertification. Thousands of plant (and animal) species have already been destroyed by human activity, and there very well may be a threshold level of stress beyond which major areas of plant material are destroyed leading to loss of atmospheric oxygen and collapse of agricultural and other ecosystems. Read this as global famine and major depopulation of the planet. Let's hear it for technology, folks .... Laurie) -- FidoNet : 369/6 the Eye of Osiris - 305-973-1947 - OPUS/UFGATE UUCP : ...!{gatech!uflorida!novavax, hoptoad, umbio, attmail}!ankh ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jul 88 17:09:26 GMT From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: New Ideas In article <2064@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) writes: In article <8806262055.AA10047@angband.s1.gov> PH418000@BROWNVM.BITNET writes: There's also an interesting proposal to use a tether concept to deorbit the space shuttle from the space-station, simultaneously reboosting the station every time you drop a shuttle off. This isn't all that new an idea. See the SF novel "Descent of A????" (it's been at least five years since I read it), which gives a nice account of using just this concept to deorbit a shuttle (though the other end was its payload, rather than the space station). Written ca. 1980. -- There has been observed by myself and others a 'signal delay' of about five years within NASA for new ideas. Hypotheses to explain this delay range from the 'Not Invented Here' syndrome, to there not being a significant 'office of new ideas'. At the same time, the past few years has had an explosion of new ideas in space development. In the propulsion area alone, my friends and I have catalogued over fifty ways to get to and around in space (see the book "Mirror Matter" by Forward and Davis for a list). Only a few (chemical rocket, airbreathing, ion) are receiving non-trivial attention. Expect a revolution in the 'Paradigm' for space development over the next few years, as all the new ideas, not just the propulsion ones, but the extraterrestrial materials and energy, closed life support, seriously smart computers and robots, teleoperation, etc. get folded into the mix, and interact. For refernce the current paradigm: Space Shuttle launches Space Station Space Station is a staging base for chemical Orbit Transfer Vehicle Lunar Surface Station is Set up from Space Station using OTV All this occurs over now-2010 time period. Over next ten years (2010-2020) a few (3) manned mars missions are mounted from space station using large chemical rockets and aerobraking for arrival. -- Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder (205)461-2606(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, AL 35824 34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 88 14:04:00 GMT From: mailrus!uflorida!novavax!ankh!Laurie_Forti@csd1.milw.wisc.edu (Laurie Forti) Subject: OZONE depletion This article excerpted from the NRDC Newsline Vol. 6, No.2, May/Jun 1988 . "Ozone Depletion Worsens, NRDC Leads drive for Total CFC Phase-out" . Stratospheric ozone depletion is dramatically worse than we thought, according to a new report just issued by an international panel of more than one hundred scientists. The report prepared under the auspices of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), documents an unexpectedly rapid thinning of the stratospheric ozone shied all over the globe, with chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) the likely cause. The alarming findings add new urgency to NRDC's drive for a total phase-out of CFC's and other ozone-depleting chemicals. According to the scientists report, even after natural factors are accounted for, satellite and ground-based monitors show ozone losses since 1969 as high as 3% over the heavily populated regions of North America and Europe and 5% over parts of the southern hemisphere. What's more, depletion is occurring at 2 to 3 times the rate predicted by computer models scientists have previously relied on. "We are facing a global emergency," NRDC senior attorney David Doniger testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on March 30. Doniger called for immediate steps to strengthen the international agreement reached last September in Montreal -- which the Senate ratified by a vote of 83-0 just one day before the new scientific report was issued -- as well as Environmental Protection Agency regulations proposed last December under a court-ordered deadline won by NRDC. "The Montreal accord and the proposed EPA rules will cut CFC's (production) by less than 50% over 10 years. The world has _already_ suffered more ozone depletion than EPA predicted would occur under that level of cuts _by the year 2050_. Safeguarding the ozone layer requires a rapid and total CFC phase-out, not just a 10 year halfway measure." The findings of global ozone losses follow on the heels of proof, gathered by NASA last year, that CFC's are the cause of the massive Antarctic ozone "hole" that opens each year when spring returns to the southern hemisphere. Ozone levels over Antarctica plummeted by more than _50%_ last September and October. Ozone depletion will allow more ultraviolet (UV) radiation to penetrate to the Earth's surface, causing tens of thousands of extra skin cancers, cataracts, and immunological diseases in the U.S. (alone) over the coming decades. More UV also damages crops and other vegetation and endangers the marine food web. Even the Earth's climate may be changed. The new scientific report prompted a surprise announcement from du Pont, the world's largest CFC producer, which had led the industry _opposition_ to controls on these chemicals for more than a _decade_. Du Pont stated a "goal" of totally phasing out its CFC production and called for immediately reassessing the Montreal agreement once it takes effect next year. "While du Pont's new position is welcome, its conversion is far from complete," said NRDC's Doniger. "Du Pont has set _no schedule_ for its own actions, and it still opposes any move to phase-out U.S. production and use prior to reaching a new international agreement. In addition, du Pont and other CFC producers stand to make billions of dolFrom space-request@angband.s1.gov Tue Jul 5 08:55:20 1988 Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00430; Tue, 5 Jul 88 08:55:20 PDT id AA00430; Tue, 5 Jul 88 08:55:20 PDT Received: by ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (5.59/1.28) id AA15156; Sun, 3 Jul 88 23:20:44 PDT Received: from USENET by ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU with netnews for space-incoming@angband.s1.gov (space@angband.s1.gov) (contact usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU if you have questions) Date: 3 Jul 88 05:01:00 GMT From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@ee.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Soviet space station elements Message-Id: <21900023@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov To: space@angband.s1.gov Salyut 7 1 13138U 88179.68414465 0.00010405 33290-3 0 1404 2 13138 51.6128 239.0138 0001070 150.7375 209.3187 15.32968712353693 Mir 1 16609U 88179.75592934 0.00050649 35750-3 0 2763 2 16609 51.6160 13.0567 0003430 100.9284 259.3027 15.73519445135493 Satellite: Salyut 7 Catalog id 13138 Element set 140 Epoch: 88179.68414465 Inclination: 51.6128 degrees RA of node: 239.0138 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0001070 Argument of perigee: 150.7375 degrees Mean anomaly: 209.3187 degrees Mean motion: 15.32968712 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00010405 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 35369 Semimajor axis: 6845.05 km Apogee height*: 467.63 km Perigee height*: 466.16 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. Satellite: Mir Catalog id 16609 Element set 276 Epoch: 88179.75592934 Inclination: 51.6160 degrees RA of node: 13.0567 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0003430 Argument of perigee: 100.9284 degrees Mean anomaly: 259.3027 degrees Mean motion: 15.73519445 revs/day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00050649 * 2 revs/day/day Epoch Revolution: 13549 Semimajor axis: 6726.94 km Apogee height*: 351.09 km Perigee height*: 346.47 km Source: NASA Goddard via T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' * Apogee and perigee altitudes are referred to the mean radius of the Earth (6378.15 km), and not to the local radius of the geoid. They are only approximate, and should not be used for orbit prediction. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jul 88 15:59:07 GMT From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA Deep Space Network to support Soviet Phobos mission (Forwarded) Charles Redmond Headquarters, Washington, D.C. July 1, 1988 Jeff Vincent Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Jim Wilson Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif, RELEASE: 88-87 NASA DEEP SPACE NETWORK TO SUPPORT SOVIET PHOBOS MISSION When the USSR's Phobos 1 spacecraft lifts off for Mars on Thursday, July 7, it will be headed not only for a landing on the tiny Martian moon Phobos but also for a radio rendezvous with NASA's Deep Space Network (DSN). Phobos 1 and Phobos 2, scheduled for launch a week later, each carry 100-pound landers designed to analyze the 17-mile- long, potato-shaped moon, and the DSN's role in the mission is to provide essential tracking data to permit their landing on Phobos. The DSN then will shift to enabling a key scientific goal of the mission, to track Phobos very precisely. The DSN's 230-foot dish antennas in California, Spain and Australia, as well as a Soviet radio telescope in the Crimea will be used. The landings, and the special DSN tracking, are expected to begin in April 1989. Scientists are interested in the orbit of Phobos because it appears to be decaying. They believe tidal forces, the unequal attraction of gravity between different parts of two bodies, are making the moon spiral very slowly toward Mars and eventual destruction. Optical tracking is barely accurate enough to detect this phenomenon. Only active radio tracking, with a spacecraft on the site, can measure the orbit's decay rate. The Deep Space Network, developed and operated by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory over the past 3 decades, has built up unique expertise in determining the distance, within yards, and the velocity of spacecraft billions of miles from Earth. - more - - 2 - During the passage of Comet Halley in 1986, JPL and Soviet scientists cooperated to pin down the location of the comet's nucleus for the European spacecraft Giotto by precisely locating the Soviet Vegas spacecraft while they were photographing the nucleus, then reckoning from known camera locations and angles to find the target for Giotto's later flyby. This time, U.S. scientists will use a radio-astronomy technique called very long baseline interferometry (VLBI), which employs widely-spaced, paired ground antennas, as well as doppler and range tracking to pinpoint the position and motions of the moon Phobos. The Deep Space Network will receive telemetry, including images and other scientific measurements, from the two landers, but its principal responsibility will be the ranging and VLBI measurements. These will be complicated by the moon's rapid rotation once every 7 hours, 37 minutes and the fact that the lander antenna will be fixed, rather than tracking the Earth. Scientists expect to be able to track lander and moon for only about 17 minutes out of each rotation period, without the DSN's worldwide facilities, this would be still further reduced. Lander telemetry, like that from the Phobos orbiters, also will be collected by Soviet receiving stations. Between October 1988 and year's end, Phobos project and DSN scientists will check the VLBI technique under space flight conditions. Hardware was checked at the Goldstone tracking site in April. Then, after the Phobos spacecraft go into Mars orbit in late January, precise tracking by the DSN will help first Phobos 1 and then Phobos 2 edge down very close to the moon's orbit so that the manifold scientific operations can begin. The Phobos mission involves more than three dozen experiments, with scientists representing nations of Eastern and Western Europe as well as the United States and the U.S.S.R. Two orbiters and two landers, consisting of a long-lived scientific package and a 100-pound hopper which measures surface properties at several positions 20 to 40 yards apart, carry the instruments. - end - ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #285 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Jul 88 20:21:47 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 21 Jul 88 19:13:20 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 21 Jul 88 19:13:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 21 Jul 88 18:58:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 21 Jul 88 18:43:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Thu, 21 Jul 88 18:40:36 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA22157; Thu, 21 Jul 88 01:06:01 PDT id AA22157; Thu, 21 Jul 88 01:06:01 PDT Date: Thu, 21 Jul 88 01:06:01 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807210806.AA22157@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #286 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 286 Today's Topics: time travel??? Mail test for BITNET Mir and solar flares News test #2 for BITNET Ramscoop engine Re: Pegasus Condensed CANOPUS - May 1988 Re: NASA news - Seasat ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Jul 88 01:28:55 GMT From: mind!shari@princeton.edu (Shari Landes) Subject: time travel??? (From my 12-yr old son, Harlan) Is it possible that if you travel faster than the speed of light in space, and come back to earth, you would be able to see yourself in the past? I think it is possible because when you approach the speed of light, time slows down, and if you travel the speed of light, time stops. But, if you return to earth, after traveling in space faster than the speed of light, would you be able to see yourself before you left? -- Harlan -- Shari Landes 609-452-4663 Princeton Univ. Green Hall shari@mind.princeton.EDU Princeton NJ 08544 "Don't look back..." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jul 88 11:39:13 PDT From: Eugene N. Miya Subject: Mail test for BITNET Okay Argonne, ACK me if you get this. This was sent using ARPAnet gateway. --eugene ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jul 88 15:41:24 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Mir and solar flares A rather interesting point concerning Mir was made by Bill Higgins of Fermi Lab in a mail message to me. He said: > I encountered a brief headline about a "magnetic storm" that's supposed > to hit this planet this week and stopped to wonder-- what do the Mir & Salyut > cosmonauts do when there's a solar flare? Obviously they don't pack up > and go home. Is there a storm cellar arrangement aboard Mir? Can you explain > the details? He raises a good point about the solar flare. There is no storm shelter on the Mir station. However they are located in low earth orbit, below the Van Allen belts. This means that the earth's magnetic field protects them from the proton particles of the flare. The X-rays from that event I think are rather soft so the station itself has enough mass that the cosmonauts are safe. Never the less they are located at an orbit >70 degrees inclination. That starts putting them near to where stuff leaks through at the magnetic poles, especially as flare tends to distort the magnetic field lines (note that the North magnetic pole is located well within northern Canada - about 78 degrees latitude). I would suspect that would give them substantially higher radiation levels than normal. It is interesting that they went ahead with the space walk under these conditions. Speaking of the EVA, Titov and Manarov on board Mir went out this morning (June 30th) for 5 hours to try and fix the British/Dutch X-ray telescope on the Kvant module. The current information I have is either the repair did not work, or was not finished. They plan another EVA in a few days. I will post more when I get more information. Does anyone out there know what NASA does during similar flares for high inclination shuttle orbits? Hopefully this to will become an issue that we are in space enough to consider. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jul 88 18:40:52 GMT From: pioneer.arc.nasa.gov!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: News test #2 for BITNET Okay Argonne ACK this. Check the dates in the headers if you can. This was posted to the Usenet side. --eugene (Ted please let these thru) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Jul 88 12:19:36 CDT From: C445585%UMCVMB.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu Subject: Ramscoop engine I've read in various places (Carl Sagan's COSMOS, among others) that a ramscoop engine is possible. For those of you who don't know what a ramscoop is, it's essentially a big loose-hydrogen-nuclei collector that sweeps a pretty big area clean of stray hydrogen nuclei, gathers them together into a real hot, tightly packed stream, and fuses them. The idea of this kind of engine is that you can keep up a constant rate of acceleration/deceleration, without running out of fuel. I've got a couple questions, for anyone out there that has the time and inte rest to answer... 1.) How do you reverse the thrust in one? It looks like you'd just alter the scoop field so that the fusion would be blasting more forward than backward , but I have a hard time visualizing a stable ship design for this. 2.) What do you do about micrometeorites, and, for that matter, big meteors in your path? 3.) How much energy does it take to maintain the field, and can you safely keep getting that from the fusion reaction? Especially since the ramscoops are supposed to be for fairly long trips (100's of years!), how do you keep a power system running that collects lots of energy from the reactor working for 100`s of years, without any direct maintainance? (Definitely no HUMAN maintainance!) 4.) What do you do when you're decelerating, and you fall below ramscoop velocity? 5.) Does the density of stray hydrogen nuclei vary as much as it seems like it would between different areas of space? Is the density vastly thinner far away from stars? Is the density around the core different than the density in the outer arms of the galaxy? (Obviously, this might make a ramscoop's bottom velocity lower in dense areas...) Well, thanks for whatever you can give me... John Kelsey == Fiver == C445585@UMCVMB.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jul 88 20:20:17 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: Pegasus >From article <1191@thumper.bellcore.com>, by karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn): > Am I the only one who is amazed that anyone would give any credibility > at all to the launch costs projected by the manufacturer of a radically > new launcher that hasn't even been built yet, much less tested and made > operational? What is so radical about Pegasus? Air launch? We've been air launching rockets for 40 years. Remember the X-1? The motors? Carbon filament wound cases and solid propellant, not significantly different that MX 3rd stage. A wing? Come on. Hypersonic flight? Space Shuttle and other vehicles have been doing it for years. Guidance system? Off the shelf. Pegasus could have been built years ago if anyone had thought of it or had reason to try. > Or hasn't anyone learned from the Shuttle experience? Yes they have. Pegasus is a conservative design, built by private corporations with the goal of making money. Very different from the Shuttle. Now I hope they don't make a liar of me. Bob P. -- Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet Alternate: utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet I am solely responsible for what I say. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jul 88 19:36:30 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) Subject: Condensed CANOPUS - May 1988 Here's the condensed CANOPUS for May 1988. There are 9 articles. Eight are given in condensed form and one by title only. Comments in {braces} are from me and are signed {--SW} when they represent personal opinions. The unabridged version went to the mailing list weeks ago. Sorry this is so late, but things have been pretty hectic around here the last month. CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Send correspondence about its contents to the executive editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded). Send correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA, 1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019. Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS widely, either electronically or as printout copies. If you do, however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many others receive copies. CANOPUS is partially supported by the National Space Science Data Center. SPACE SHUTTLE STILL LOOKING AT AUGUST LAUNCH - can880506.txt - 5/10/88 {Title only; shuttle news widely reported elsewhere.} SMALL EXPLORER A.O. RELEASED - can880508.txt - 5/16/88 NASA has released its Announcement of Opportunity for the "Small- Class Explorer Mission" series. Perhaps because the program is intended to develop small payloads in quick order, the 50-plus-page A.O. is quite detailed and restrictive about what can and cannot be done. This broad A.O. is to lead to launches of one or two "Scout- class" Explorers year as budget allows over the next few years. It is open to astrophysics, space physics, and upper atmosphere disciplines, and to proposers in industry, academia, government, and foreign agencies. The research will be "of modest programmatic scope which can be launched within about three years of selection. The program intends to provide a continuing opportunity for quickly implemented flights of small free-flyers to conduct focused investigations which complement major missions, prove new scientific concepts, or make significant contributions to space science in other ways. It is the goal of the program to obtain a flight frequency of at least one flight per year. The scope of the missions is expected to be such that a single principal investigator will have responsibility for an individual investigation." {Instigation of this program is a real accomplishment for Lennard Fisk, Associate Administrator for Space Science, who seems genuinely interested in flying missions and not just running a bureaucracy. Now let's hope he can keep the budget at a level adequate to actually fly and not just build payloads. --SW} The new Scout-class category is defined as a spacecraft and instrument payload costing about $30 million and capable of being launched on a Scout expendable launch vehicle (ELV). Payload mass can vary depending of the orbit to be reached, but generally will be between 100 and 250 kg. Data will be relayed through ground stations and not through the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System because of the cost of using the latter. {So much for cost savings promised for TDRSS. --SW} SOVIET-AMERICAN COOPERATION IMPROVES - can880501.txt - 5/5/88 Cooperation between the Soviet and American space programs took a major step forward this month with the meeting of two working groups formed last year by an agreement between the two nations. No immediate plans were made for sharing hardware or placing one nation's instruments aboard other's spacecraft -- that will not come until the mid-1990s, the participants indicated -- but joint campaigns are anticipated for existing and currently planned spacecraft. A key example would be stereo X-ray imaging of the solar corona using instruments aboard the American Solar Maximum Mission satellite and aboard the Soviet's Phobos Mars spacecraft that will be launched next year. Cooperation never halted completely, {i.e. after invasion of Afghanistan} with life scientists still sharing data at the working level, and one small U.S. instrument package being flown aboard the Soviets' VEGA probes that flew past Venus and Halley's comet. AO FOR ATTACHED PAYLOADS ON SPACE STATION DUE SOON - CAN880503.TXT - 5/8/888 The Announcement of Opportunity for payloads attached to the manned Space Station should be issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration by the end of the month if the remainder of the preparation moves smoothly. Not included in the AO will be payloads for free-flyers (covered in large part by the Earth Observing System AO early this year), or "quick is beautiful" payloads. {As of July 5, I haven't seen the AO, but I may not be on that mailing list.--SW} Two more major AO's are planned for space station -- materials sciences in 1989 and life sciences in 1990. These will focus to a large degree on using multi-purpose facilities that NASA will provide. AROUND THE WORLD IN A BALLOON - can880505.txt - 5/9/88 NASA is soliciting instruments to fly aboard six long-duration balloon flights (LDBF) during the 1991 solar maximum period according to a research announcement (NRA-88-OSAA-04) released May 6. The program is intended for instruments which cannot observe adequately from the ground or during short-duration balloon or rocket flights, and "which are expected to advance our understanding of the solar energetic phenomena in a way that will not otherwise be possible until the subsequent solar maximum in the year 2002." Experimental LBDF flights to date have lasted 12 to 22 days going around the globe, and 6 to 12 days going from Australia to South America. Payloads can be up to 1,400 kg at altitudes to 40 km. Up to 8 to 12 hours of observations a day are possible. SHUTTLE-C COULD HELP SPACE STATION - can880507.txt - 5/10/88 An unmanned cargo version of the Space Shuttle could cut several months from the assembly time for Space Station by carrying more than double the payload of the manned Shuttle, according to its study manager. Shuttle-C looks much the current Space Shuttle but for wings and vertical stabilizer which are lacking, and windows on the forward fuselage. It would use the same boosters and tank, and would carry its cargo in a strongback sitting above an engine module identical to the Shuttle's boattail section. "CODE E" ADVISORY COMMITTEES TO MERGE - can880504.txt - 5/8/88 NASA's three science advisory committees will merge into a single body with three branches this summer. {Committtees are:} o Life Science Advisory Committee, o Space and Earth Sciences Advisory Committee, o Space Applications Committee, NASA DIRECTORY - can880502.txt - 5/8/88 NASA's main number is 202-453-1000. {Long list deleted; if enough demand, I'll post the list separately.} ASTRONAUT SELECTION GOES TO TWO-YEAR CYCLE - can880509.txt - 5/16/88 NASA will reopen the astronaut selection process starting July 1, 1989, for a "class" to be selected in January 1990, and will continue selections every two years. This will ease the demands on NASA resources for selection and training while maintaining flight crew levels. NASA has selected astronauts in 1978, '80, '84, '85 and '87. Applications may be obtained from: Astronaut Selection Office -- Code AHX Johnson Space Center Houston, TX 77058 -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jul 88 20:00:44 GMT From: devvax!jplpro!leem@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Lee Mellinger) Subject: Re: NASA news - Seasat In article <21900022@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: | |/* Written 2:45 pm Jun 29, 1988 by wooding@daisy.UUCP in m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */ | |An aside on SeaSat 1 -- The satellite failed some time before the end |of its expected service life. A persistent rumor states that it was |intentionally disabled, possibly by aiming sensors at the Sun; the |purported explanation was that it was able to detect the wakes of |ballistic-missile submarines. | |Kevin Kenny UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny The investigation into the failure of Seasat assigned the probable cause to a short across the slip rings that transfer the power generated by the solar cells to the power buss where the solar panels rotate. They attributed this to the poor design of the slip rings that had the various voltages (48 rings) alternating plus and minus, creating the maximun potential to catastrophic electical short. It was shown that there was a galling problem (in the ring bearings I believe) that created metal slivers. These slivers more than likely shorted the main power buss at the rings. The telemetery showed large voltage and current excursions in the milliseconds prior to loss of signal from the spacecraft. I too have heard unconfirmed rumors of the possibility that SSBM wakes could be seen in the radar imaging data. I was clear on the images that I saw that surface wakes were very visible. The spacecraft lasted only 90 days in a planned life of one year. I have had people tell me that they were not unhappy that the spacecraft had shut down because of the enourmous quantity of data that was pouring in. Lee . -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- |Lee F. Mellinger Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA| |4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516 FTS 977-0516 | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------| |UUCP: {ames!cit-vax,psivax}!elroy!jpl-devvax!jplpro!leem | |ARPA: jplpro!leem!@cit-vax.ARPA -or- leem@jplpro.JPL.NASA.GOV | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #286 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Jul 88 00:30:10 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 21 Jul 88 22:29:44 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 21 Jul 88 22:29:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 21 Jul 88 22:13:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 21 Jul 88 22:08:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Thu, 21 Jul 88 22:07:22 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA23204; Thu, 21 Jul 88 19:06:14 PDT id AA23204; Thu, 21 Jul 88 19:06:14 PDT Date: Thu, 21 Jul 88 19:06:14 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807220206.AA23204@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #287 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 287 Today's Topics: Re: OZONE cont. Re: Ramscoop engine Interstellar Ramscoops NASA calls Hubble Space Telescope ground test a success (Forwarded) Re: Rocket engine Re: New Ideas Re: Ramscoop engine re:Radiation in Near-Earth Space (was re: Mir and Solar Flares) Re: Rocket engine Re: Rocket engine ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Jul 88 00:33:22 GMT From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: Re: OZONE cont. I'm sure to get flamed for this: --------------------- Abstract: Science, February 12, 1988, vol. 239, pp. 762-4. Biologically Effective Ultraviolet Radiation: Surface Measurements in the United States, 1974 to 1985 J. Scotto et. al. "Recent reports of stratospheric ozone depletion have prompted concerns about the levels of solar ultraviolet radiation that reach the earth's surface. Since 1974 a network of ground monitoring stations in the United States has tracked measurements of biologically effective ultraviolet radiation (UVB, 290 to 330 nanometers). The fact that no increases of UVB have been detected at ground levels from 1974 to 1985 suggests that meteorological, climatic, and environmental factors in the troposphere may play a greater role in attenuating UVB radiation than was previously suspected." --------------------- The data in the paper actually show a 0.7% DECREASE per year. Perhaps, before we panic and replace clorinated fluorocarbons with something that could be MORE dangerous, we should calm down and look at ALL the data. Meanwhile, remember to put the cover back on the board cleaning tank. -- Keith Lofstrom ...!tektronix!vice!keithl keithl@vice.TEK.COM MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 88 11:13:51 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine In article <8807052350.AA00286@angband.s1.gov> C445585@UMCVMB.BITNET writes: > > I've read in various places (Carl Sagan's COSMOS, among others) that a >ramscoop engine is possible. Wonderful source. He's wrong, as far as I know. There are numerous apparently insurmountable problems with the concept. The most obvious is that fusing ordinary hydrogen is damn near impossible (luckily, otherwise all stars would burn out quickly). The losses in collecting and fusing the hydrogen would also likely overcome any thrust produced. The magnetic fields required are too high. And so on. Perhaps a better idea is a variant of an idea by Hans Alfven. I call it a "bootstrap rocket". It uses the interstellar medium as a momentum sink, not a fuel source. Basically, the relative motion of the spacecraft and the ISM is used to drive a generator (type unspecified). This exerts a drag force on the spacecraft. The energy from the generator is used to power some kind of rocket (using an onboard supply of reaction mass). If the exhaust velocity of the rocket is low enough and the mass flow rate high enough, thrust will exceed drag, and the spacecraft accelerates. (Exercise: why does this not violate conservation of energy?) The ISM, at least in the vicinity of he sun, is pretty sparse, although some evidence suggests it is substantially ionized, perhaps by a nearby (100 pc) supernova explosion in the last 10^5 to 10^6 years. Let's hope the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft encounter the heliopause before they expire. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 88 23:25:38 GMT From: aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: Interstellar Ramscoops Recent messages to this group indicate that the ramscoop idea as originally posed may be unworkable because of the difficulty/worthlessness of fusion in the collected hydrogen. Now suppose we carry a small tank of antimatter and use it as an energy source, merely using the interstellar medium as reaction mass? Are the magnetic fields required still too strong? We don't have to squeeze nearly so hard, and if the i.m. *is* ionized already... --JoSH ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jul 88 01:23:36 GMT From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA calls Hubble Space Telescope ground test a success (Forwarded) Charles Redmond Headquarters, Washington, D.C. July 6, 1988 Michael Braukus Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. RELEASE: 88-91 NASA CALLS HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE GROUND TEST A SUCCESS The most comprehensive ground test ever conducted with NASA's Hubble Space Telescope (HST) has been called a success by NASA despite the challenge of an unplanned anomaly which provided an unexpected bonus. The fourth in a series of ground system tests (GST-4) began Monday, June 20, 1988 at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, Md. It was scheduled to end early Sunday, June 26. This "full-up test" was designed to simulate almost a week of space flight operations and involved direct communication with the HST located in a clean room at the Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Sunnyvale, Calif. "Overall, the test was very successful," said Ron Felice, GSFC's deputy project manager of flight operations for HST. "Up until the anomaly, the test had exceeded our expectations in terms of science instrument operations, spacecraft operations and control room personnel." The problem developed without warning on Thursday at 5 p.m., when the HST's science computer and the instruments were placed in a safe mode by the on-board computer system. The system, which is in a pre-planned state, sensed unsafe conditions and activated itself for safe mode. The spacecraft's remaining sub- systems continued to operate according to the GST-4 time line. "Normally that would have been the end of the test," said Felice. "Instead, we convened systems and instrument specialists and on a real-time basis developed processes to trouble-shoot the problem. Sixteen hours later, we established plans to work around the problem and recover safely into the GST-4 time line." Felice reported that although NASA technicians are still studying the problem, a timing incompatibility between the science instruments and their computer appears to have caused the problem. If this proves correct, the problem can be avoided in the future by software adjustments. On Friday at approximately 12:15 p.m., the problem appeared again as expected. "Once again the on-board science computer and the instruments went into a safe mode. This time, because our technical people were exhausted from working 30-hours straight, we decided not to work the problem and to terminate the science portion of the test. The other elements of GST-4, which did not involve the science computer and its instruments, continued until late Friday evening when the test was ended." "Actually the HST's problem was an unexpected bonus for us," Felice explained. "It proved that we have established a team that is able to resolve problems involving an extremely complex and sophisticated spacecraft." The HST is scheduled to be carried into space on board the Space Shuttle Discovery in 1989. When placed in orbit, the HST will allow astronomers to see farther into the Universe with greater clarity than ever before. The six scientific instruments the HST will carry are: wide field and planetary camera, faint object spectrograph, high speed photometer, high resolution spectrograph, faint object camera and fine-guidance astrometer. The faint object camera was provided by the European Space Agency. The HST is managed by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. The GSFC manages the HST's operations and observations. It also manages the Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, Md. Additionally, GSFC manages five of HST's six instruments. HST is a cooperative project with the European Space Agency. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jul 88 03:10:25 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Rocket engine > Designing and constructing rocket engines is largely an art. I'm not a rocket designer, but I think I can agree with this. When the second Ariane (L-02) went into the ocean back in 1980, taking AMSAT Phase 3-A with it, I followed the AW&ST articles that described ESA's failure analysis and design correction process. For those of you who don't remember, this launch failed because of severe combustion instabilities in one of the four hypergolic first stage Viking engines. The first oscillation occurred barely off the pad; on the tape you can see a bright flash in the plume before the rocket even cleared the tower. Later oscillations resulted in the destruction of the engine. The instabilities were in the 2-3 KHz region. According to AW&ST, the problem was corrected by enlarging the holes in the engine fuel/oxidizer injectors and conducting hundreds of test firings. I could be wrong, but I got the *very* strong impression that the process was one of "diddle with it until it works". Before castigating the "rocket scientists" for their computational backwardness, however, consider what it would take to model a large rocket engine like Ariane's Viking on a computer. Pressures in the order of 50-60 atmospheres. Hypersonic hot gas flows, with extreme variations in temperature and pressure over very short distances and times. Mass flows on the order of tons/second. I don't know how much computational modeling of rocket engines is going on now, but it has got to be one of the most demanding CAD jobs around. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jul 88 15:39:30 GMT From: att!whuts!homxb!homxc!pixel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (J.CONANT) Subject: Re: New Ideas In article <2062@ssc-vax.UUCP>, eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: [in reference to deorbiting the shuttle with tethers] > There has been observed by myself and others a 'signal delay' of about five > years within NASA for new ideas. Actually, the Niven & Barnes novel an earlier poster referred to didn't originate the idea. An ESA scientist - G.Colombo, I believe - developed the tether concept in lots of neat ways long before their book. NASA was considering a joint missions with the Italian space agency to lower an instrument package into the upper atmosphere on a tether, though the concept seem to have langusihed. Jon Leech AT&T Pixel Machines __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 88 17:22:00 GMT From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!p.cs.uiuc.edu!carey@ee.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine The ramscoop engine idea is used in larry Niven's books. I don't know if he "invented" it. It is also used in S. Lem's new book "Fiasco." The advantage (especially plot-device-wise), is that with constant acceleration, no need for fuel-storage, fusion-propulsion of some kind, you could eventually build up speeds close to the speed of light, and thus travel long distances in a short period of time (by the reference of the ship) because of the relativistic effects of near-light speed. The questions you ask are rarely bothered with in any stories I have read that have used this. One more question I can think of off the top of my head -- what happens to heat dissipation as time slows down? As the fusion reactor approaches light-speed, would its heat dissipation also slow down, thus causing a meltdown? ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 88 22:52:17 GMT From: att!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (54317-T.EBERSOLE) Subject: re:Radiation in Near-Earth Space (was re: Mir and Solar Flares) In article <8807051941.AA00877@ll-vlsi.arpa~, glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes: ~A rather interesting point concerning Mir was made by Bill Higgins of Fermi ~Lab in a mail message to me. He said: ~>I encountered a brief headline about a "magnetic storm" that's supposed ~>to hit this planet this week and stopped to wonder-- what do the Mir & Salyut ~>cosmonauts do when there's a solar flare? Obviously they don't pack up ~>and go home. Is there a storm cellar arrangement aboard Mir? Can you explain ~>the details? ~ ~...I would suspect that would give them substantially higher ~radiation levels than normal. It is interesting that they went ahead with ~the space walk under these conditions. ~ Sorry I have no answers, but to continue the questions, what levels of radiation have current *-nauts been exposed to? Any data on what has happened to older astro-cosmo-nauts, which could be attributed to radiation exposure? Or is LEO fairly benign to the humans who have been there? Any data on the radiation levels Apollo crews were exposed to? -- Tim Ebersole ...!{allegra,ulysses,ihnp4,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jul 88 10:16:32 GMT From: jplpub1!jbrown@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Jordan Brown) Subject: Re: Rocket engine In article <1207@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: >... consider what it would take to model a large rocket engine like >Ariane's Viking on a computer. Pressures in the order of 50-60 >atmospheres. Hypersonic hot gas flows, with extreme variations in >temperature and pressure over very short distances and times. Mass flows >on the order of tons/second. Los Alamos simulates nuclear explosions using their Crays; I suspect that the pressures and speeds are somewhat larger than in rocket engines. (they like to make color 16mm films of the explosion in various axes - temperature, pressure, etc.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jul 88 14:06:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Anderson X-Andrew-Message-Size: 1026+0 Subject: Re: Rocket engine Date: 6 Jul 88 20:51:19 GMT Designing and constructing rocket engines is largely an art. There is some empirical study involved, but if your think the Shuttle or SV engines were fully simulated by computer, you are a decade too early. There have only recently been programs to simulate engine circulation and these programs are not yet for release outside the US. Engines are by and large a hack job. I think you might be able to write Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell Intl. and get some litearture. You will also obviously check the aeronautics section of your library thoroughly. Sorry, I can't help you much more than that. We have not yet begun to make a perfect engine. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #287 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Jul 88 06:02:03 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Fri, 22 Jul 88 04:48:59 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Fri, 22 Jul 88 04:48:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 22 Jul 88 04:41:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 22 Jul 88 04:31:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Fri, 22 Jul 88 04:07:01 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA23360; Fri, 22 Jul 88 01:05:59 PDT id AA23360; Fri, 22 Jul 88 01:05:59 PDT Date: Fri, 22 Jul 88 01:05:59 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807220805.AA23360@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #288 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 288 Today's Topics: Re: NASA news - Seasat Re: A New Holiday? (awkward question) Re: Ramscoop engine LPS info request Re: OZONE cont. Comment about science was Re: Rocket engine ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Jul 88 14:04:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Anderson X-Andrew-Message-Size: 8462+0 Subject: Re: NASA news - Seasat Date: 6 Jul 88 19:08:03 GMT A U-2 just took off, must be 1100. BTW I saw the Nova on Spy Machines. Thanks for the previous offers. I go on vacation again and some fool at NASA HQ has to send a press release out on a skeleton in a closet [well not that bad]. Let me see if I can address all these notes in a single article [the last time was grossly misinterpreted]. What's this doing in space.shuttle? In article <1003@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes: >In article <1313@daisy.UUCP> wooding@daisy.UUCP (Mike Wooding) writes: >} How does the radar altimeter decouple its "height" above ocean >} surface from the "height" of the ocean's surface? What scales >} are involved (+-10 meters)? A reference point? > >There is an altimeter on the geosat that is a follow-up to the seasat >one. I do the real-time processing of the data - you not only get >"height above ocean", but significant wave height, winds, and a measure >of roughness off the altimeter. (probably more, but that is all I lift). >This can be used to get current "edges", fronts, eddy locations, and all >kinds of neat stuff. I asked about satellite oceanography earlier, but >didn't hear about anyone else using altimeter data for oceanography. This is basically correct. Let me sort out some things. We have questions of scale and decoupling. Now, I didn't work on the Altimeter, (I worked on the SAR) but I had it as a grad school project and talked to most of the people since they were across the street. The Altimeter sent out a 1 ns chirp [square wave]. This gave an inherent resolution of 30 cm (one of GMH's nanoseconds). This made lots of assumptions: 1) the spacecraft was oriented perfectly vertically, the reality was at 800 KM a slight difference in angle is critical. The pulse (chirp) hits the earth in a spherical manner and it radiates it's point of contact. Now the footprint was designed to be 1 KM (if this seems gross, please make an other altimeter suggestion [exer. for reader: why can't use you a laser: answer: won't penetrate clouds]. Anyway, you send out this perfectly spherical chirp (pulse of 1 ns thinkness against a topography of unknown surface roughness, and you get a signal back which is distorted by troughs and peaks of various wave types or land forms. (Like plane cross-sections). Yes, you can get undersea features like canyons and seamounts, but all the instrument does is solve D=cT. The decoupling isn't done using ground stations in realtime, much too expensive and the real-time compute and relativistic effect is murder. Basically I have would have to summarize this book on Accuracy Assessment of Orbit and Height Measurement for Seasat. There are models for satellite orbit which take gravitational anomalies in account, these are plugged into the T data and the sea height and state are "solved." Remember this is all done in nano seconds precision. Also written: >The position of the satellite can be determined in three-space (X, Y >and Z co-ordinates, with no reference to the radius of the Earth), by >the use of radar data from several observers. Studies of the motion This was done infrequently as verification. I have the list of tracking station, but it was not radar, only radio. >derived mathematically from the parameters of the reference geoid, >which was derived from studies of satellite motion in three-space, not >satellite altitude. The expected mean sea level can then be compared >with the actual sea level observed by the radar altimeter, to >determine the variations caused by tides, waves, and meteorologic >phenomena. > >An aside on SeaSat 1 -- The satellite failed some time before the end >of its expected service life. A persistent rumor states that it was >intentionally disabled, possibly by aiming sensors at the Sun; the >purported explanation was that it was able to detect the wakes of >ballistic-missile submarines. > >Kevin Kenny UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny Also: >status. I've met one of the engineers in charge of building and >testing Seasat, and he is still bitter about what happened. It was >paul cooper I will be curious, who? Lee @ JPL wrote: >The investigation into the failure of Seasat assigned the probable >cause to a short across the slip rings that transfer the power >generated by the solar cells to the power buss where the solar panels >rotate. They attributed this to the poor design of the slip rings >that had the various voltages (48 rings) alternating plus and minus, >creating the maximun potential to catastrophic electical short. It >was shown that there was a galling problem (in the ring bearings I >believe) that created metal slivers. These slivers more than likely >shorted the main power buss at the rings. The telemetery showed large >voltage and current excursions in the milliseconds prior to loss of >signal from the spacecraft. > >I too have heard unconfirmed rumors of the possibility that SSBM wakes >could be seen in the radar imaging data. I was clear on the images >that I saw that surface wakes were very visible. > >The spacecraft lasted only 90 days in a planned life of one year. I >have had people tell me that they were not unhappy that the spacecraft >had shut down because of the enourmous quantity of data that was >pouring in. We called Seasat-A then -1 after launch (B's and C's were planned as exercises). The "slip ring" on the Agena bus was the cited case of failure by the Congressional Investigative Service. LMSC [Lockheed Sunnyvale] had the burden slapped on them. They had "gotten too lax in the quality control on Agena boosters. You have to understand this satellite was slapped together with parts of an existing booster, not designed from scratch. JPL's scientists were too lax in overseeing LMSC Corp. So said Congress. So how would you lose $90M of the People's money? Regarding FMB subs: shortly before I came on board the project, the Navy Department came by and the SAR group had discussions about resolution, visibility, etc. They didn't want this thing flying at all. Fortunately, other parts of the Navy like the Numerical Weather Central people did want it. Compromises were made. This is the SAR now, not the altimeter. [Oh, SAR== Synthetic Aperature Radar, aka Side-looking Radar, SLAR]. These fears were partially unfounded because the digital processing time for one image was 2 weeks. Partially because it could show where they had been rather than where they were. Optically processed images came out in about a week. Anyway, the project is over, reports are made, a few images were made, SIR [Shuttle Imaging Radar] is off the ground [having a few problems]. Most of the data sits unused. Time for other projects (in this case Magellan). Some reflections, the other day someone stopped me at PARC and noticed an old and faded Project sticker and expressed the conspiracy theory yet again [tired of this]. Launching money into orbit is a sticky thing. One senior engineer (who will go unnamed) was hoping the Atlas was blow up on the pad at VAFB because there were no indication his antenna would unfold in 0-G. I know others who felt the same way about the kludges they had installed and got flight certified. It's like saying, "Your next school project will make or break your future." No second chances. Anyway, we launched at 6:01 PDT. Into the fog, gone in 3 seconds. We went to Solvang for dinner (about 30 miles from where I went to college). Quite a birthday present, three of us (Vickie, myself, and Dave Drake [now at DEC]) -1,0,+2 days). BTW: Dave and I tried getting an early v6 Unix system running on a PDP-11/34 [without MMU]. We learned of Joe Ossanna's satellite tracker [azel] which was not distributed, too bad, we were the space program. Years later, I got "track" from Phil Karn [thanks Phil]. And I occasionally run track with seasat-1 and watch the numbers tick by. It reminds me a bit of the old film Robinson Crusoe on Mars knowing something up there is orbiting because of thing you did. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." Lee, if you want track, I don't think Phil would object. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jul 88 13:05:16 CDT From: Jonathan C. Sadow Subject: Re: A New Holiday? (awkward question) cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: >From article <3606@okstate.UUCP>, by richard@a.cs.okstate.edu (Richard Brown): >> Is my memory playing tricks on me? I had always thought the actual >> _landing_ took place on 19 July (Oklahoma time). The EVA was >> postponed until the crew had rested, &c. The "...giant leap for >> mankind" occurred after midnight. > >Yes, your memory is a day out - the landing was on 20 July at 2017:45 UT >which is 20 July at 1517:45 Oklahoma time (I think?); the EVA was something >like 0200-0300 UT on 21 July, or late evening 20 July US time. For the sake of future reference, the official time at which Neil Armstrong first stepped on the lunar surface is 02:56:20 UT on 21 July 1969, and the EVA lasted 2 hours and 31 minutes. Jonathan Sadow GEOS21@UHUPVM1.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jul 88 16:40:25 GMT From: ecsvax!dgary@mcnc.org (D Gary Grady) Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine In article <74700090@p.cs.uiuc.edu> carey@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >The ramscoop engine idea is used in larry Niven's books. I don't know if >he "invented" it. I believe the "interstellar ramjet" was first proposed in the 60s by Bussard. Someone has walked off with my reference, however. The first place I read about it was in an article by Ben Bova about 1965. >The advantage (especially plot-device-wise), is that with constant >acceleration, no need for fuel-storage, fusion-propulsion of some kind, >you could eventually build up speeds close to the speed of light, >and thus travel long distances in a short period of time (by the reference >of the ship) because of the relativistic effects of near-light speed. Assuming constant one-G acceleration to the halfway point and one-G deceleration to the destination, it turns out that one could reach the Andromeda Galaxy in something like 25 years of ship time. Of course, the trip would be one-way, since things back home would have changed a mite by the time you returned... Criticisms of the concept based on current technology are a little silly -- rather like a 17th-Century physicist pointing out the problems of sending a probe to Neptune. We can hypothesize that hundreds of years hence we'll be able to fuse protium, to create magnetic scoop fields as big as North America, and to blast any asteroids in our way. On the other hand, I have to admit that I wonder how the passengers would survive the incident radiation, all blue-shifted into very nasty X-rays. Maybe shielding made of degenerate matter? Who knows! There's a Poul Anderson novel published both as _Tau Zero_ and _To Outlive Eternity_ (I think) about passengers on a runaway Bussard ramjet that just keeps accelerating. Presumably they wind up at the restaurant at the end of the universe. -- D Gary Grady (919) 286-4296 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary BITNET: dgary@ecsvax.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jul 88 22:14:00 GMT From: silver!sl144003@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu Subject: LPS info request Hello everyone. I was wondering if anyone out in netland knows anything about, or can direct to me to information regarding the Shuttle Launch Process System, GOAL (I believe it stands for Ground Operations Aerospace Language) or the current state of contract affairs regarding the Launch Process System. Please send email - if there is enough feedback I will summarize the responses and post, since this information might be of interest to other sci.space and .shuttle followers. Thanks in advance, -John Copella sl144003@silver.bacs.indiana.edu ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!silver!sl144003 ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jul 88 17:38:32 GMT From: ubvax!unisv!vanpelt@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: OZONE cont. In article <2655@vice.TEK.COM> keithl@vice.UUCP (Keith Lofstrom) writes: >I'm sure to get flamed for this: No doubt. By your flagrant doubting of Conventional Wisdom, you are obviously guilty of ThoughtCrime. >Biologically Effective Ultraviolet Radiation: >Surface Measurements in the United States, 1974 to 1985 >J. Scotto et. al. [fascinating paper, the very first words I've yet seen on what ought to be the real issue -- how much UV is actually reaching the ground?] >The data in the paper actually show a 0.7% DECREASE [in UV-B] per year. >Perhaps, before we panic and replace clorinated fluorocarbons with something >that could be MORE dangerous, we should calm down and look at ALL the data. Now that's a fascinating statistic. It's always seemed to me that if somehow you were to get rid of the ozone in the upper atmosphere, you'd just get ozone production at a lower altitude. After all, short-wave UV does a pretty good job creating ozone from ordinary oxygen. I'm glad that someone has FINALLY measured the actual ground-level UV, instead of just assuming that upper atmospheric ozone is the only thing attenuating UV. -- "Dreams of flight are universal among space-faring | Mike Van Pelt races, and may form much of the motivation for | Unisys, Silicon Valley becoming space-faring." -- T'chaih Hrinach | vanpelt@unisv.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jul 88 22:07:10 GMT From: pioneer.arc.nasa.gov!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Comment about science was Re: Rocket engine In article <1207@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: I wrote: >> Designing and constructing rocket engines is largely an art. > >I'm not a rocket designer, but I think I can agree with this. > > . . . >Before castigating the "rocket scientists" for their computational >backwardness, however, consider what it would take to model a large >rocket engine like Ariane's Viking on a computer. Pressures in the order >of 50-60 atmospheres. Hypersonic hot gas flows, with extreme variations >in temperature and pressure over very short distances and times. Mass >flows on the order of tons/second. I don't know how much computational >modeling of rocket engines is going on now, but it has got to be one of >the most demanding CAD jobs around. There is a somewhat alarming thing about some computer people (I think Phil knows this, he's not one, but I want the net to understand this): There is a whole lot of this universe which we don't understand. Some people view the world as a place where we knows lots, in fact, some go so far to say, that all that needs inventing has been invented. That's none of you right? One of my favorite quotes (it's in the Unix fortunes someplace goes "there's a disturbing trend that there is a lot more unknown stuff out there than previosuly thought" or something like that, I buchered this. Anyway, that's why I'm into science. That's what distinguished science from engineering: engineering seeks to find answrs, but science seeks to understand the questions, and there are a lot of questions. The problem is you only here various people's ANSWERs here. Some one types a note (me included) and some people go off and take things as teh word of God. It's like the early laser printing systems (or Xeroxes), wow! if they went to the trouble of typesetting the stuff it must be correct! The truth is, we only have opinions. We don't understand very much about our world, and we haven't been on it very long. From: jbrown@jplpub1.jpl.nasa.gov (Jordan Brown) >Los Alamos simulates nuclear explosions using their Crays; I suspect that >the pressures and speeds are somewhat larger than in rocket engines. >(they like to make color 16mm films of the explosion in various axes - >temperature, pressure, etc.) Well, that's very interesting! I will have to tell my officemate George! Maybe the guys at Livermore (Livenomore) can use that method, too. Well, I'm being facietous. Well, see, we are in the business of building models (I keep telling myself this). Models get replaced with better models and the cycle should have some transference. The key is to model the right thing, maybe something isn't right about a model, maybe we don't understand ho ozone is formed (we don't). Some years ago, I was escorting a VIP around JPL. We stopped by the computer graphics lab, and Blinn gave one of his early flyby demos. As we were walking away, this VIP said, "Great! We can simulate this all on a computer! We don't have to fly to these outer planets! So expensive, this is much cheaper!" No: most airplanes don't have electronic computers in them. I had to tell this to a noted computer scientist. Our problem is differentiating reality from what we think we know and what we would like to exist. Science has this great way of pontificating (like networks), but we forgot what distinguishes science from philosophy and mathematics is testing, verification, rebuilding, etc. Anyways, I have pontificated myself too much as late, I should get back to my ETA-10. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #288 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Jul 88 02:36:39 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sun, 24 Jul 88 16:42:05 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 24 Jul 88 16:42:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 24 Jul 88 16:29:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 24 Jul 88 16:20:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sun, 24 Jul 88 14:18:04 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA24386; Fri, 22 Jul 88 19:06:06 PDT id AA24386; Fri, 22 Jul 88 19:06:06 PDT Date: Fri, 22 Jul 88 19:06:06 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807230206.AA24386@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #289 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 289 Today's Topics: Salyut 7 overflights in SpaceWeek ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Jul 88 05:39:00 GMT From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@ee.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Salyut 7 overflights in SpaceWeek City and state Azim Elev RA Decl Range Date and time Akron, OH 33.7 71.0 18:49 +55.7 485 Tue Jul 19 23:08:06 EDT Akron, OH 32.2 59.1 19:34 +63.0 530 Wed Jul 20 22:35:42 EDT Akron, OH 30.5 49.8 20:27 +67.1 589 Thu Jul 21 22:03:17 EDT Akron, OH 224.0 32.7 14:54 -5.8 793 Sat Jul 23 22:36:13 EDT Akron, OH 222.5 40.0 14:45 -0.1 686 Sun Jul 24 22:03:51 EDT Albany, NY 25.1 41.6 23:05 +71.4 666 Sun Jul 17 22:36:00 EDT Albany, NY 23.2 36.8 23:38 +71.3 726 Mon Jul 18 22:03:35 EDT Albany, NY 21.4 33.1 23:59 +70.7 785 Tue Jul 19 21:31:09 EDT Albany, NY 217.7 58.7 16:21 +16.1 533 Wed Jul 20 22:36:44 EDT Albany, NY 216.1 71.4 16:21 +26.9 485 Thu Jul 21 22:04:22 EDT Albany, NY 214.7 85.4 16:28 +38.8 462 Fri Jul 22 21:31:58 EDT Albuquerque, NM 223.4 81.8 16:47 +29.0 465 Sat Jul 23 22:11:00 MDT Albuquerque, NM 41.6 79.3 17:23 +42.7 468 Sun Jul 24 21:38:36 MDT Allentown, PA 34.7 88.7 17:35 +41.6 461 Wed Jul 20 22:36:48 EDT Allentown, PA 34.8 73.8 18:04 +53.0 478 Thu Jul 21 22:04:24 EDT Allentown, PA 33.2 61.2 18:47 +61.2 521 Fri Jul 22 21:31:59 EDT Altoona, PA 34.4 69.2 18:43 +56.1 490 Wed Jul 20 22:36:19 EDT Altoona, PA 32.8 57.4 19:31 +63.0 539 Thu Jul 21 22:03:55 EDT Altoona, PA 224.5 32.7 14:37 -6.1 794 Sun Jul 24 22:04:25 EDT Amarillo, TX 35.3 32.5 23:00 +60.7 794 Wed Jul 20 23:11:06 CDT Amarillo, TX 224.9 61.6 15:44 +13.4 519 Sun Jul 24 22:39:21 CDT Ann Arbor, MI 33.2 85.6 18:08 +45.9 462 Mon Jul 18 23:39:56 EDT Ann Arbor, MI 32.0 72.2 18:33 +56.3 482 Tue Jul 19 23:07:33 EDT Ann Arbor, MI 30.3 60.9 19:12 +64.0 521 Wed Jul 20 22:35:08 EDT Ann Arbor, MI 222.6 34.2 14:52 -4.1 768 Sat Jul 23 22:35:40 EDT Ann Arbor, MI 221.0 41.6 14:43 +1.7 667 Sun Jul 24 22:03:17 EDT Arlington, VA 35.6 59.7 19:46 +59.5 528 Wed Jul 20 22:36:48 EDT Arlington, VA 33.9 49.1 20:39 +63.8 595 Thu Jul 21 22:04:23 EDT Arlington, VA 32.2 41.1 21:25 +65.3 672 Fri Jul 22 21:31:57 EDT Arlington, VA 225.3 35.3 14:46 -4.8 751 Sun Jul 24 22:04:55 EDT Asheville, NC 223.4 74.5 16:29 +23.8 477 Sat Jul 23 22:37:05 EDT Asheville, NC 40.8 86.8 16:57 +38.0 462 Sun Jul 24 22:04:41 EDT Ashland, KY 33.3 43.1 22:05 +64.5 650 Tue Jul 19 23:08:18 EDT Ashland, KY 31.6 36.4 22:41 +64.9 733 Wed Jul 20 22:35:53 EDT Ashland, KY 29.9 31.2 23:03 +64.6 819 Thu Jul 21 22:03:26 EDT Ashland, KY 223.3 50.5 15:30 +6.8 585 Sat Jul 23 22:36:32 EDT Ashland, KY 221.7 63.8 15:34 +17.5 510 Sun Jul 24 22:04:08 EDT Atlanta, GA 42.2 71.2 18:21 +46.4 486 Sat Jul 23 22:37:07 EDT Atlanta, GA 40.9 55.7 19:16 +54.4 550 Sun Jul 24 22:04:42 EDT Atlantic City, NJ 37.1 81.2 18:06 +46.2 466 Wed Jul 20 22:37:11 EDT Atlantic City, NJ 35.6 66.5 18:46 +56.3 500 Thu Jul 21 22:04:46 EDT Atlantic City, NJ 34.1 54.6 19:38 +62.6 556 Fri Jul 22 21:32:21 EDT Augusta, GA 42.3 69.3 18:11 +47.2 492 Sun Jul 24 22:05:10 EDT Augusta, ME 27.9 70.0 18:59 +60.8 488 Sun Jul 17 22:36:30 EDT Augusta, ME 26.1 60.5 19:32 +67.5 523 Mon Jul 18 22:04:06 EDT Augusta, ME 24.4 52.9 20:18 +71.8 566 Tue Jul 19 21:31:42 EDT Augusta, ME 220.6 33.6 15:43 -3.8 778 Wed Jul 20 22:37:04 EDT Augusta, ME 219.0 40.2 15:31 +1.5 683 Thu Jul 21 22:04:42 EDT Augusta, ME 217.3 48.3 15:21 +8.3 601 Fri Jul 22 21:32:20 EDT Bakersfield, CA 38.3 48.3 20:52 +59.1 602 Thu Jul 21 22:13:43 PDT Bakersfield, CA 36.7 39.3 21:35 +60.8 695 Fri Jul 22 21:41:17 PDT Bakersfield, CA 35.1 32.6 22:02 +60.9 795 Sat Jul 23 21:08:50 PDT Baltimore, MD 35.7 66.6 19:05 +56.2 499 Wed Jul 20 22:36:49 EDT Baltimore, MD 34.3 54.7 19:57 +62.4 556 Thu Jul 21 22:04:24 EDT Baltimore, MD 32.6 45.5 20:48 +65.3 626 Fri Jul 22 21:31:59 EDT Baltimore, MD 225.7 32.1 14:40 -7.0 805 Sun Jul 24 22:04:54 EDT Bangor, ME 28.4 80.7 18:15 +52.7 466 Sun Jul 17 22:36:37 EDT Bangor, ME 26.8 70.0 18:33 +61.5 488 Mon Jul 18 22:04:13 EDT Bangor, ME 25.1 60.9 19:03 +68.1 521 Tue Jul 19 21:31:49 EDT Bangor, ME 219.7 34.9 15:23 -2.6 757 Thu Jul 21 22:04:46 EDT Bangor, ME 218.0 41.6 15:12 +2.9 666 Fri Jul 22 21:32:24 EDT Battle Creek, MI 32.5 77.5 18:32 +52.4 471 Mon Jul 18 23:39:42 EDT Battle Creek, MI 31.0 65.3 19:05 +61.2 503 Tue Jul 19 23:07:18 EDT Battle Creek, MI 29.4 55.4 19:52 +67.0 551 Wed Jul 20 22:34:53 EDT Battle Creek, MI 223.2 31.7 15:08 -6.1 812 Fri Jul 22 23:07:49 EDT Battle Creek, MI 221.6 38.4 14:57 -0.9 706 Sat Jul 23 22:35:27 EDT Bay City, MI 16.7 30.9 01:16 +71.7 824 Sun Jul 17 22:34:01 EDT Bay City, MI 214.3 79.2 17:23 +34.4 468 Mon Jul 18 23:39:43 EDT Bay City, MI 31.0 87.4 17:32 +45.8 461 Tue Jul 19 23:07:20 EDT Bay City, MI 30.1 74.9 17:50 +56.0 476 Wed Jul 20 22:34:56 EDT Bay City, MI 222.5 29.6 14:43 -7.1 853 Sat Jul 23 22:35:24 EDT Bellingham, WA 205.9 65.8 17:00 +26.3 501 Sat Jul 16 23:15:15 PDT Bellingham, WA 204.0 74.3 16:47 +34.1 477 Sun Jul 17 22:42:53 PDT Berkeley, CA 35.8 52.2 20:18 +61.3 572 Thu Jul 21 22:12:44 PDT Berkeley, CA 34.2 43.0 21:07 +63.7 651 Fri Jul 22 21:40:18 PDT Bethlehem, PA 31.2 89.6 17:33 +41.0 461 Wed Jul 20 22:36:49 EDT Bethlehem, PA 34.8 74.6 18:01 +52.5 477 Thu Jul 21 22:04:25 EDT Bethlehem, PA 33.2 61.8 18:43 +60.9 518 Fri Jul 22 21:32:00 EDT Billings, MT 16.0 42.9 23:13 +78.2 650 Sun Jul 17 22:07:34 MDT Billings, MT 213.1 59.3 16:40 +18.6 528 Mon Jul 18 23:13:08 MDT Billings, MT 211.4 70.0 16:33 +28.0 487 Tue Jul 19 22:40:46 MDT Billings, MT 209.6 81.4 16:29 +38.2 464 Wed Jul 20 22:08:23 MDT Binghamton, NY 23.4 34.1 00:20 +70.0 768 Sun Jul 17 22:35:40 EDT Binghamton, NY 21.5 30.6 00:35 +69.3 830 Mon Jul 18 22:03:14 EDT Binghamton, NY 216.3 76.6 16:52 +30.9 473 Wed Jul 20 22:36:29 EDT Binghamton, NY 32.8 88.9 17:04 +43.1 461 Thu Jul 21 22:04:06 EDT Binghamton, NY 32.7 75.0 17:27 +54.0 476 Fri Jul 22 21:31:41 EDT Birmingham, AL 40.9 53.4 19:49 +55.0 565 Sat Jul 23 21:36:45 CDT Birmingham, AL 39.4 42.4 20:38 +58.0 658 Sun Jul 24 21:04:19 CDT Bismarck, ND 22.1 71.5 18:12 +63.2 483 Sun Jul 17 23:08:51 CDT Bismarck, ND 217.1 34.6 15:52 -2.0 759 Tue Jul 19 23:41:48 CDT Bismarck, ND 215.4 40.7 15:38 +3.0 677 Wed Jul 20 23:09:27 CDT Bismarck, ND 213.7 47.8 15:26 +9.1 605 Thu Jul 21 22:37:05 CDT Bloomington, IL 30.1 43.6 22:20 +67.5 645 Mon Jul 18 22:39:18 CDT Bloomington, IL 28.4 37.5 22:57 +67.8 717 Tue Jul 19 22:06:52 CDT Bloomington, IL 26.6 32.7 23:21 +67.4 791 Wed Jul 20 21:34:26 CDT Bloomington, IL 220.7 56.5 15:49 +12.9 545 Fri Jul 22 22:07:34 CDT Bloomington, IL 219.0 70.1 15:53 +24.1 488 Sat Jul 23 21:35:11 CDT Boise, ID 28.9 67.7 19:15 +61.5 494 Sun Jul 17 23:44:33 MDT Boise, ID 27.3 58.1 19:55 +67.8 534 Mon Jul 18 23:12:09 MDT Boise, ID 25.5 50.5 20:45 +71.4 583 Tue Jul 19 22:39:44 MDT Boise, ID 219.9 39.9 15:31 +0.9 686 Thu Jul 21 23:12:45 MDT Boise, ID 218.2 48.2 15:22 +7.8 601 Fri Jul 22 22:40:22 MDT Boston, MA 27.2 46.4 22:12 +70.2 617 Sun Jul 17 22:36:32 EDT Boston, MA 25.4 40.5 22:56 +70.9 678 Mon Jul 18 22:04:07 EDT Boston, MA 23.6 35.9 23:27 +70.7 740 Tue Jul 19 21:31:41 EDT Boston, MA 219.7 48.5 16:08 +7.3 600 Wed Jul 20 22:37:13 EDT Boston, MA 218.0 59.4 16:04 +16.4 530 Thu Jul 21 22:04:50 EDT Boston, MA 216.4 72.3 16:05 +27.5 482 Fri Jul 22 21:32:27 EDT Bowling Green, KY 348.5 90.0 16:59 +37.0 461 Sat Jul 23 21:36:12 CDT Bowling Green, KY 39.2 72.8 17:37 +49.3 481 Sun Jul 24 21:03:47 CDT Brattleboro, VT 26.0 46.0 22:16 +71.3 621 Sun Jul 17 22:36:12 EDT Brattleboro, VT 24.2 40.4 23:00 +71.8 680 Mon Jul 18 22:03:47 EDT Brattleboro, VT 22.3 36.0 23:30 +71.5 738 Tue Jul 19 21:31:21 EDT Brattleboro, VT 218.7 51.4 16:10 +10.1 578 Wed Jul 20 22:36:54 EDT Brattleboro, VT 216.9 62.7 16:06 +19.6 514 Thu Jul 21 22:04:31 EDT Brattleboro, VT 215.3 75.8 16:08 +30.8 474 Fri Jul 22 21:32:08 EDT Bridgeport, CT 25.6 34.2 00:11 +68.6 767 Sun Jul 17 22:36:17 EDT Bridgeport, CT 23.8 30.3 00:27 +68.0 836 Mon Jul 18 22:03:51 EDT Bridgeport, CT 218.2 69.7 16:46 +24.4 489 Wed Jul 20 22:37:05 EDT Bridgeport, CT 216.5 84.7 16:56 +36.8 463 Thu Jul 21 22:04:41 EDT Bridgeport, CT 34.7 80.3 17:17 +48.9 467 Fri Jul 22 21:32:17 EDT Brockton, MA 27.3 44.5 22:32 +70.1 635 Sun Jul 17 22:36:34 EDT Brockton, MA 25.4 38.9 23:12 +70.5 699 Mon Jul 18 22:04:09 EDT Brockton, MA 23.6 34.5 23:39 +70.0 762 Tue Jul 19 21:31:43 EDT Brockton, MA 218.0 61.7 16:09 +18.2 519 Thu Jul 21 22:04:53 EDT Brockton, MA 216.5 75.2 16:12 +29.7 476 Fri Jul 22 21:32:30 EDT Buffalo, NY 20.9 33.5 00:35 +71.2 777 Sun Jul 17 22:35:02 EDT Buffalo, NY 19.0 30.5 00:47 +70.4 832 Mon Jul 18 22:02:36 EDT Buffalo, NY 215.8 71.7 16:58 +27.4 483 Tue Jul 19 23:08:16 EDT Buffalo, NY 215.5 85.6 17:03 +39.2 462 Wed Jul 20 22:35:53 EDT Buffalo, NY 32.1 80.7 17:19 +50.5 466 Thu Jul 21 22:03:29 EDT Burlington, VT 25.4 58.2 20:06 +69.3 535 Sun Jul 17 22:35:53 EDT Burlington, VT 23.5 51.1 20:54 +73.0 579 Mon Jul 18 22:03:29 EDT Burlington, VT 218.2 43.0 15:52 +3.8 652 Wed Jul 20 22:36:31 EDT Burlington, VT 216.5 51.6 15:43 +11.1 576 Thu Jul 21 22:04:09 EDT Butte, MT 211.8 64.6 17:03 +23.4 504 Sun Jul 17 23:44:50 MDT Butte, MT 210.1 75.6 16:57 +33.2 473 Mon Jul 18 23:12:27 MDT Butte, MT 208.9 87.0 16:55 +43.3 459 Tue Jul 19 22:40:04 MDT Cambridge, MA 27.2 46.4 22:13 +70.3 618 Sun Jul 17 22:36:31 EDT Cambridge, MA 25.4 40.5 22:56 +71.0 679 Mon Jul 18 22:04:06 EDT Cambridge, MA 23.5 35.8 23:27 +70.7 741 Tue Jul 19 21:31:40 EDT Cambridge, MA 219.7 48.6 16:08 +7.5 599 Wed Jul 20 22:37:12 EDT Cambridge, MA 218.0 59.5 16:05 +16.6 529 Thu Jul 21 22:04:50 EDT Cambridge, MA 216.4 72.5 16:06 +27.7 482 Fri Jul 22 21:32:26 EDT Camden, NJ 36.5 83.3 17:55 +45.2 464 Wed Jul 20 22:36:58 EDT Camden, NJ 35.1 68.7 18:31 +55.7 492 Thu Jul 21 22:04:34 EDT Camden, NJ 33.6 56.7 19:21 +62.5 544 Fri Jul 22 21:32:09 EDT Canton, OH 33.8 68.6 19:03 +56.9 492 Tue Jul 19 23:08:10 EDT Canton, OH 32.3 57.1 19:50 +63.7 541 Wed Jul 20 22:35:46 EDT Canton, OH 30.6 48.0 20:43 +67.1 603 Thu Jul 21 22:03:21 EDT Canton, OH 224.1 33.4 14:56 -5.4 781 Sat Jul 23 22:36:17 EDT Canton, OH 222.6 41.0 14:48 +0.5 674 Sun Jul 24 22:03:55 EDT Carson City, NV 37.2 79.2 17:53 +47.4 467 Thu Jul 21 22:12:57 PDT Carson City, NV 35.7 64.7 18:35 +57.1 505 Fri Jul 22 21:40:32 PDT Cedar Rapids, IA 29.7 53.9 21:03 +67.0 560 Sun Jul 17 23:11:01 CDT Cedar Rapids, IA 28.0 46.2 21:55 +69.6 619 Mon Jul 18 22:38:37 CDT Cedar Rapids, IA 26.2 40.2 22:38 +70.3 683 Tue Jul 19 22:06:11 CDT Cedar Rapids, IA 220.4 47.2 15:48 +6.1 611 Thu Jul 21 22:39:16 CDT Cedar Rapids, IA 218.7 58.0 15:44 +15.1 536 Fri Jul 22 22:06:54 CDT Cedar Rapids, IA 217.1 71.0 15:46 +26.1 485 Sat Jul 23 21:34:30 CDT Central Islip, NY 25.7 32.2 00:26 +67.8 801 Sun Jul 17 22:36:20 EDT Central Islip, NY 218.3 73.9 16:56 +27.6 479 Wed Jul 20 22:37:08 EDT Central Islip, NY 219.6 89.4 17:10 +40.3 461 Thu Jul 21 22:04:45 EDT Central Islip, NY 34.7 75.7 17:36 +51.9 475 Fri Jul 22 21:32:21 EDT Champaign, IL 30.7 43.4 22:22 +67.0 647 Mon Jul 18 22:39:29 CDT Champaign, IL 29.0 37.2 22:59 +67.3 721 Tue Jul 19 22:07:03 CDT Champaign, IL 27.2 32.4 23:22 +66.9 798 Wed Jul 20 21:34:37 CDT Champaign, IL 221.2 55.5 15:49 +11.8 551 Fri Jul 22 22:07:45 CDT Champaign, IL 219.5 69.1 15:53 +23.0 491 Sat Jul 23 21:35:22 CDT Charleston, SC 43.5 78.3 17:40 +40.8 471 Sun Jul 24 22:05:38 EDT Charleston, WV 34.1 45.8 21:44 +63.9 623 Tue Jul 19 23:08:30 EDT Charleston, WV 32.4 38.4 22:25 +64.8 706 Wed Jul 20 22:36:05 EDT Charleston, WV 30.7 32.7 22:51 +64.6 792 Thu Jul 21 22:03:38 EDT Charleston, WV 224.0 46.5 15:24 +3.5 618 Sat Jul 23 22:36:43 EDT Charleston, WV 222.5 58.7 15:25 +13.3 534 Sun Jul 24 22:04:19 EDT Charlotte, NC 223.2 83.2 16:32 +30.2 465 Sun Jul 24 22:05:01 EDT Chattanooga, TN 41.5 77.5 17:50 +43.9 472 Sat Jul 23 22:36:44 EDT Chattanooga, TN 40.1 61.2 18:41 +53.6 521 Sun Jul 24 22:04:19 EDT Cheyenne, WY 34.1 74.6 18:33 +53.1 475 Tue Jul 19 22:42:03 MDT Cheyenne, WY 32.5 62.1 19:14 +61.5 514 Wed Jul 20 22:09:39 MDT Cheyenne, WY 30.9 52.1 20:06 +66.4 570 Thu Jul 21 21:37:14 MDT Cheyenne, WY 224.4 31.0 14:51 -7.1 823 Sat Jul 23 22:10:09 MDT Cheyenne, WY 222.9 37.8 14:41 -1.9 712 Sun Jul 24 21:37:47 MDT Chicago, IL 31.0 60.1 20:00 +63.7 526 Mon Jul 18 22:39:20 CDT Chicago, IL 29.3 51.0 20:51 +68.0 580 Tue Jul 19 22:06:56 CDT Chicago, IL 27.5 43.8 21:41 +69.8 642 Wed Jul 20 21:34:30 CDT Chicago, IL 221.5 41.2 15:22 +1.1 672 Fri Jul 22 22:07:32 CDT Chicago, IL 220.0 50.5 15:15 +8.7 584 Sat Jul 23 21:35:09 CDT Cincinnatti, OH 31.9 41.2 22:22 +65.7 671 Tue Jul 19 23:07:53 EDT Cincinnatti, OH 30.2 35.1 22:53 +65.7 752 Wed Jul 20 22:35:27 EDT Cincinnatti, OH 28.4 30.4 23:12 +65.2 835 Thu Jul 21 22:03:00 EDT Cincinnatti, OH 223.6 44.5 15:37 +2.4 637 Fri Jul 22 23:08:31 EDT Cincinnatti, OH 222.1 55.8 15:36 +11.5 549 Sat Jul 23 22:36:08 EDT Cincinnatti, OH 220.5 70.0 15:42 +23.0 489 Sun Jul 24 22:03:44 EDT Cleveland, OH 33.5 74.6 18:31 +53.6 477 Tue Jul 19 23:08:01 EDT Cleveland, OH 31.9 62.4 19:11 +61.9 515 Wed Jul 20 22:35:36 EDT Cleveland, OH 30.3 52.5 20:02 +66.8 569 Thu Jul 21 22:03:11 EDT Cleveland, OH 223.9 31.7 14:52 -6.4 812 Sat Jul 23 22:36:07 EDT Cleveland, OH 222.4 38.6 14:42 -1.1 704 Sun Jul 24 22:03:44 EDT Colorado Springs, CO 34.5 51.9 20:55 +62.8 572 Tue Jul 19 22:42:25 MDT Colorado Springs, CO 32.8 43.2 21:45 +65.0 647 Wed Jul 20 22:10:00 MDT Colorado Springs, CO 31.1 36.6 22:21 +65.4 728 Thu Jul 21 21:37:33 MDT Colorado Springs, CO 224.4 40.9 15:12 -0.6 674 Sat Jul 23 22:10:35 MDT Colorado Springs, CO 222.9 51.3 15:09 +7.6 577 Sun Jul 24 21:38:12 MDT Columbia, MO 29.5 32.5 00:11 +65.3 796 Sun Jul 17 23:11:19 CDT Columbia, MO 220.0 77.6 16:55 +29.1 471 Thu Jul 21 22:39:42 CDT Columbia, MO 37.9 85.7 17:17 +42.3 462 Fri Jul 22 22:07:18 CDT Columbia, MO 36.6 70.1 17:54 +53.5 488 Sat Jul 23 21:34:53 CDT Columbia, SC 42.7 82.0 17:21 +39.7 466 Sun Jul 24 22:05:13 EDT Columbus, GA 42.1 55.7 19:40 +52.8 551 Sat Jul 23 22:37:15 EDT Columbus, GA 40.7 43.9 20:30 +56.5 644 Sun Jul 24 22:04:50 EDT Columbus, OH 32.9 52.7 20:46 +64.3 568 Tue Jul 19 23:08:01 EDT Columbus, OH 31.2 44.3 21:36 +66.6 638 Wed Jul 20 22:35:36 EDT Columbus, OH 29.5 37.8 22:15 +67.1 713 Thu Jul 21 22:03:10 EDT Columbus, OH 223.1 42.9 15:12 +1.6 653 Sat Jul 23 22:36:12 EDT Columbus, OH 221.6 53.5 15:09 +10.1 564 Sun Jul 24 22:03:49 EDT Concord, NH 26.8 51.8 21:14 +70.1 574 Sun Jul 17 22:36:20 EDT Concord, NH 25.0 45.2 22:05 +72.1 628 Mon Jul 18 22:03:55 EDT Concord, NH 23.1 40.0 22:48 +72.5 684 Tue Jul 19 21:31:30 EDT Concord, NH 219.4 44.8 16:00 +4.8 633 Wed Jul 20 22:36:59 EDT Concord, NH 217.6 54.5 15:53 +12.8 557 Thu Jul 21 22:04:37 EDT Concord, NH 216.0 66.1 15:50 +22.8 501 Fri Jul 22 21:32:14 EDT Davenport, IA 30.6 54.2 21:04 +66.2 558 Sun Jul 17 23:11:17 CDT Davenport, IA 28.8 46.2 21:56 +68.8 620 Mon Jul 18 22:38:52 CDT Davenport, IA 27.1 39.9 22:38 +69.5 686 Tue Jul 19 22:06:27 CDT Davenport, IA 25.2 35.0 23:08 +69.2 753 Wed Jul 20 21:34:01 CDT Davenport, IA 221.1 45.6 15:48 +4.5 626 Thu Jul 21 22:39:31 CDT Davenport, IA 219.5 56.2 15:44 +13.3 547 Fri Jul 22 22:07:08 CDT Davenport, IA 217.8 69.2 15:45 +24.1 491 Sat Jul 23 21:34:45 CDT Dayton, OH 32.1 46.6 21:36 +65.8 616 Tue Jul 19 23:07:50 EDT Dayton, OH 30.3 39.5 22:18 +66.8 691 Wed Jul 20 22:35:25 EDT Dayton, OH 28.6 34.0 22:47 +66.6 769 Thu Jul 21 22:02:58 EDT Dayton, OH 223.8 39.7 15:27 -1.0 690 Fri Jul 22 23:08:26 EDT Dayton, OH 222.3 49.4 15:23 +6.6 593 Sat Jul 23 22:36:03 EDT Dayton, OH 220.6 61.8 15:24 +16.7 518 Sun Jul 24 22:03:40 EDT Daytona Beach, FL 43.4 42.9 20:40 +52.8 655 Sun Jul 24 22:06:07 EDT Decatur, IL 30.2 39.7 22:55 +66.9 689 Mon Jul 18 22:39:23 CDT Decatur, IL 28.5 34.2 23:23 +66.7 766 Tue Jul 19 22:06:58 CDT Decatur, IL 26.7 29.9 23:40 +66.1 844 Wed Jul 20 21:34:31 CDT Decatur, IL 220.6 61.7 16:01 +16.7 519 Fri Jul 22 22:07:41 CDT Decatur, IL 219.1 76.6 16:09 +29.0 473 Sat Jul 23 21:35:18 CDT Denver, CO 34.3 59.1 20:01 +61.0 529 Tue Jul 19 22:42:14 MDT Denver, CO 32.6 49.1 20:55 +65.1 593 Wed Jul 20 22:09:50 MDT Denver, CO 30.9 41.4 21:41 +66.6 666 Thu Jul 21 21:37:24 MDT Denver, CO 224.3 37.1 15:03 -3.1 723 Sat Jul 23 22:10:23 MDT Denver, CO 222.8 46.0 14:57 +3.9 620 Sun Jul 24 21:38:00 MDT Des Moines, IA 28.3 44.5 22:31 +69.2 635 Sun Jul 17 23:10:44 CDT Des Moines, IA 26.5 38.6 23:11 +69.6 702 Mon Jul 18 22:38:18 CDT Des Moines, IA 24.6 34.0 23:37 +69.2 769 Tue Jul 19 22:05:52 CDT Des Moines, IA 218.9 59.4 16:07 +16.0 529 Thu Jul 21 22:39:02 CDT Des Moines, IA 217.4 72.9 16:10 +27.4 481 Fri Jul 22 22:06:39 CDT Detroit, MI 32.5 76.6 18:16 +53.1 473 Tue Jul 19 23:07:40 EDT Detroit, MI 30.8 64.6 18:50 +61.7 506 Wed Jul 20 22:35:15 EDT Detroit, MI 29.2 54.8 19:38 +67.3 554 Thu Jul 21 22:02:50 EDT Detroit, MI 223.0 32.1 14:50 -5.7 804 Sat Jul 23 22:35:45 EDT Detroit, MI 221.5 38.9 14:39 -0.4 699 Sun Jul 24 22:03:23 EDT Dodge City, KS 36.3 54.6 20:23 +60.2 556 Wed Jul 20 23:11:00 CDT Dodge City, KS 34.7 44.8 21:14 +63.2 633 Thu Jul 21 22:38:35 CDT Dodge City, KS 33.0 37.4 21:52 +64.0 718 Fri Jul 22 22:06:09 CDT Dodge City, KS 225.9 36.8 14:50 -4.2 729 Sun Jul 24 22:39:08 CDT Dubuque, IA 30.4 63.2 19:53 +62.8 512 Sun Jul 17 23:11:07 CDT Dubuque, IA 28.7 53.8 20:41 +68.0 561 Mon Jul 18 22:38:43 CDT Dubuque, IA 26.9 46.4 21:33 +70.5 617 Tue Jul 19 22:06:18 CDT Dubuque, IA 221.0 40.3 15:37 +0.7 682 Thu Jul 21 22:39:20 CDT Dubuque, IA 219.4 49.2 15:29 +8.0 595 Fri Jul 22 22:06:57 CDT Dubuque, IA 217.7 60.2 15:26 +17.2 526 Sat Jul 23 21:34:34 CDT Duluth, MN 209.3 71.7 17:06 +30.2 483 Sun Jul 17 23:10:18 CDT Duluth, MN 207.6 82.2 16:59 +39.8 464 Mon Jul 18 22:37:56 CDT Duluth, MN 24.7 87.3 16:56 +49.2 461 Tue Jul 19 22:05:32 CDT Duluth, MN 218.4 30.9 14:53 -5.0 826 Fri Jul 22 22:06:01 CDT Durham, NC 34.6 33.8 22:55 +61.7 774 Wed Jul 20 22:36:56 EDT Durham, NC 224.3 61.2 15:41 +13.7 522 Sun Jul 24 22:05:11 EDT Eau Claire, WI 28.7 86.5 17:59 +47.8 461 Sun Jul 17 23:10:40 CDT Eau Claire, WI 27.7 75.1 18:12 +57.4 475 Mon Jul 18 22:38:17 CDT Eau Claire, WI 25.9 65.2 18:36 +65.2 503 Tue Jul 19 22:05:53 CDT Eau Claire, WI 220.4 32.0 15:19 -4.8 804 Thu Jul 21 22:38:48 CDT Eau Claire, WI 218.8 38.2 15:07 +0.1 709 Fri Jul 22 22:06:26 CDT El Paso, TX 42.2 50.6 19:50 +53.8 584 Sun Jul 24 21:39:14 MDT Elizabeth, NJ 24.9 30.0 00:44 +67.2 843 Sun Jul 17 22:36:09 EDT Elizabeth, NJ 217.5 82.1 17:13 +34.3 465 Wed Jul 20 22:37:00 EDT Elizabeth, NJ 35.5 82.4 17:34 +46.7 465 Thu Jul 21 22:04:36 EDT Elizabeth, NJ 34.1 68.3 18:08 +56.9 493 Fri Jul 22 21:32:11 EDT Enid, OK 36.3 43.9 21:22 +61.5 642 Thu Jul 21 22:39:11 CDT Enid, OK 34.7 36.3 21:58 +62.2 734 Fri Jul 22 22:06:45 CDT Enid, OK 227.2 35.0 14:52 -6.2 757 Sun Jul 24 22:39:43 CDT Erie, PA 216.1 88.0 17:34 +40.5 461 Tue Jul 19 23:08:11 EDT Erie, PA 33.0 77.9 17:54 +51.9 470 Wed Jul 20 22:35:48 EDT Erie, PA 31.3 65.5 18:28 +60.8 503 Thu Jul 21 22:03:23 EDT Erie, PA 223.5 31.2 14:30 -6.5 820 Sun Jul 24 22:03:52 EDT Eugene, OR 25.5 54.5 20:59 +70.5 556 Sat Jul 16 23:15:42 PDT Eugene, OR 23.7 47.9 21:50 +73.2 604 Sun Jul 17 22:43:18 PDT Eugene, OR 21.8 42.6 22:38 +74.1 654 Mon Jul 18 22:10:53 PDT Eugene, OR 218.3 45.1 16:13 +5.4 630 Tue Jul 19 23:16:22 PDT Eugene, OR 216.5 54.4 16:05 +13.3 557 Wed Jul 20 22:44:00 PDT Eugene, OR 214.9 65.6 16:00 +22.9 503 Thu Jul 21 22:11:37 PDT Eureka, CA 24.9 30.7 00:56 +67.5 829 Sat Jul 16 23:15:53 PDT Eureka, CA 35.4 84.4 17:43 +45.2 463 Wed Jul 20 22:44:21 PDT Eureka, CA 34.1 70.2 18:15 +55.8 488 Thu Jul 21 22:11:57 PDT Eureka, CA 32.4 58.4 19:01 +63.1 534 Fri Jul 22 21:39:32 PDT Evansville, IN 31.4 33.2 23:42 +64.1 784 Mon Jul 18 22:39:54 CDT Evansville, IN 221.6 70.6 16:27 +22.6 487 Fri Jul 22 22:08:14 CDT Evansville, IN 220.7 87.6 16:46 +36.2 462 Sat Jul 23 21:35:50 CDT Evansville, IN 38.3 75.5 17:20 +48.7 475 Sun Jul 24 21:03:26 CDT Fall River, MA 27.2 41.6 23:02 +69.8 667 Sun Jul 17 22:36:36 EDT Fall River, MA 25.4 36.4 23:35 +69.7 733 Mon Jul 18 22:04:10 EDT Fall River, MA 23.5 32.3 23:55 +69.1 798 Tue Jul 19 21:31:44 EDT Fall River, MA 218.0 66.1 16:18 +21.7 501 Thu Jul 21 22:04:56 EDT Fall River, MA 216.4 80.4 16:25 +33.7 467 Fri Jul 22 21:32:32 EDT Fargo, ND 23.7 88.3 17:31 +48.4 460 Sun Jul 17 23:09:31 CDT Fargo, ND 23.3 78.7 17:31 +57.0 468 Mon Jul 18 22:37:08 CDT Fargo, ND 218.3 30.6 15:30 -5.1 831 Wed Jul 20 23:10:01 CDT Fargo, ND 216.7 35.9 15:15 -1.0 741 Thu Jul 21 22:37:40 CDT Flagstaff, AZ 39.9 61.3 18:58 +53.7 519 Sat Jul 23 21:10:09 MST Flagstaff, AZ 38.6 48.8 19:52 +58.7 596 Sun Jul 24 20:37:43 MST Flint, MI 214.4 85.1 17:40 +38.9 462 Mon Jul 18 23:39:50 EDT Flint, MI 31.8 81.2 17:54 +50.2 466 Tue Jul 19 23:07:27 EDT Flint, MI 30.3 69.0 18:21 +59.7 491 Wed Jul 20 22:35:03 EDT Flint, MI 222.6 31.2 14:46 -6.1 821 Sat Jul 23 22:35:32 EDT Fort Smith, AR 37.2 42.0 21:17 +60.5 663 Fri Jul 22 22:07:32 CDT Fort Smith, AR 35.6 34.6 21:50 +61.0 761 Sat Jul 23 21:35:05 CDT Fort Wayne, IN 32.9 63.8 19:44 +60.3 509 Mon Jul 18 22:39:53 EST Fort Wayne, IN 31.2 53.4 20:34 +65.7 563 Tue Jul 19 22:07:29 EST Fort Wayne, IN 29.5 45.4 21:26 +68.2 627 Wed Jul 20 21:35:04 EST Fort Wayne, IN 223.2 36.7 15:18 -2.8 730 Fri Jul 22 22:08:03 EST Fort Wayne, IN 221.7 45.1 15:11 +3.9 631 Sat Jul 23 21:35:41 EST Fort Wayne, IN 220.1 55.8 15:08 +12.7 549 Sun Jul 24 21:03:17 EST Fresno, CA 37.6 55.0 20:04 +58.7 554 Thu Jul 21 22:13:21 PDT Fresno, CA 36.0 44.7 20:55 +61.8 634 Fri Jul 22 21:40:55 PDT Fresno, CA 34.4 37.0 21:33 +62.6 725 Sat Jul 23 21:08:29 PDT Gadsden, AL 41.2 62.3 18:59 +51.8 517 Sat Jul 23 21:36:48 CDT Gadsden, AL 39.9 49.1 19:54 +57.1 596 Sun Jul 24 21:04:22 CDT Gainesville, FL 42.6 39.6 20:58 +53.9 693 Sun Jul 24 22:05:48 EDT Gallup, NM 41.4 85.9 17:18 +38.6 461 Sat Jul 23 22:10:35 MDT Gallup, NM 40.3 68.3 18:03 +50.3 492 Sun Jul 24 21:38:10 MDT Gary, IN 31.3 58.8 20:11 +64.0 532 Mon Jul 18 22:39:26 CDT Gary, IN 29.5 49.8 21:03 +68.0 589 Tue Jul 19 22:07:01 CDT Gary, IN 27.8 42.8 21:51 +69.5 653 Wed Jul 20 21:34:36 CDT Gary, IN 221.7 41.6 15:23 +1.3 667 Fri Jul 22 22:07:37 CDT Gary, IN 220.2 51.1 15:17 +9.1 580 Sat Jul 23 21:35:15 CDT Grand Junction, CO 31.7 40.3 22:28 +65.7 680 Tue Jul 19 22:41:43 MDT Grand Junction, CO 30.0 34.4 22:58 +65.6 762 Wed Jul 20 22:09:17 MDT Grand Junction, CO 28.2 29.8 23:15 +65.1 844 Thu Jul 21 21:36:50 MDT Grand Junction, CO 223.5 45.5 15:37 +3.2 625 Fri Jul 22 22:42:21 MDT Grand Junction, CO 222.0 57.2 15:37 +12.5 540 Sat Jul 23 22:09:58 MDT Grand Junction, CO 220.3 71.8 15:44 +24.4 483 Sun Jul 24 21:37:34 MDT Grand Rapids, MI 32.0 82.6 18:09 +49.1 464 Mon Jul 18 23:39:31 EDT Grand Rapids, MI 30.5 70.1 18:35 +58.8 487 Tue Jul 19 23:07:07 EDT Grand Rapids, MI 28.8 59.7 19:14 +65.8 527 Wed Jul 20 22:34:43 EDT Grand Rapids, MI 222.8 30.5 15:05 -6.7 834 Fri Jul 22 23:07:37 EDT Grand Rapids, MI 221.3 36.8 14:53 -1.8 728 Sat Jul 23 22:35:15 EDT Great Falls, MT 212.7 46.9 16:37 +8.6 612 Sun Jul 17 23:44:48 MDT Great Falls, MT 210.9 54.7 16:24 +15.4 554 Mon Jul 18 23:12:27 MDT Great Falls, MT 209.1 63.5 16:13 +23.4 509 Tue Jul 19 22:40:05 MDT Green Bay, WI 212.5 78.4 17:34 +34.5 469 Sun Jul 17 23:11:17 CDT Green Bay, WI 28.0 88.9 17:38 +45.5 460 Mon Jul 18 22:38:54 CDT Green Bay, WI 28.6 77.0 17:51 +55.5 472 Tue Jul 19 22:06:31 CDT Green Bay, WI 26.9 66.5 18:14 +63.7 499 Wed Jul 20 21:34:07 CDT Green Bay, WI 221.3 30.4 15:00 -6.1 835 Fri Jul 22 22:07:00 CDT Green Bay, WI 219.6 36.3 14:47 -1.6 735 Sat Jul 23 21:34:38 CDT Greensboro, NC 33.9 31.9 23:08 +61.7 806 Wed Jul 20 22:36:46 EDT Greensboro, NC 223.6 66.6 15:51 +18.0 500 Sun Jul 24 22:05:02 EDT Greenville, SC 223.6 81.0 16:48 +28.1 467 Sat Jul 23 22:37:15 EDT Greenville, SC 41.8 80.0 17:23 +42.0 468 Sun Jul 24 22:04:50 EDT Hamilton, OH 31.8 42.9 22:07 +65.9 652 Tue Jul 19 23:07:49 EDT Hamilton, OH 30.1 36.6 22:43 +66.2 731 Wed Jul 20 22:35:24 EDT Hamilton, OH 28.3 31.6 23:05 +65.8 811 Thu Jul 21 22:02:57 EDT Hamilton, OH 223.6 43.0 15:33 +1.4 652 Fri Jul 22 23:08:27 EDT Hamilton, OH 222.1 53.8 15:31 +10.0 562 Sat Jul 23 22:36:04 EDT Hamilton, OH 220.4 67.4 15:36 +21.1 497 Sun Jul 24 22:03:40 EDT Harrisburg, PA 35.4 75.5 18:19 +51.4 475 Wed Jul 20 22:36:37 EDT Harrisburg, PA 33.8 62.3 19:02 +60.1 516 Thu Jul 21 22:04:13 EDT Harrisburg, PA 32.3 51.8 19:54 +65.1 574 Fri Jul 22 21:31:47 EDT Hartford, CT 26.0 38.4 23:34 +69.9 705 Sun Jul 17 22:36:18 EDT Hartford, CT 24.2 34.0 23:59 +69.5 770 Mon Jul 18 22:03:53 EDT Hartford, CT 22.3 30.4 00:14 +68.8 835 Tue Jul 19 21:31:26 EDT Hartford, CT 218.5 61.0 16:29 +17.5 522 Wed Jul 20 22:37:03 EDT Hartford, CT 217.0 74.6 16:32 +28.9 477 Thu Jul 21 22:04:40 EDT Hartford, CT 220.2 89.4 16:43 +41.3 461 Fri Jul 22 21:32:17 EDT Helena, MT 212.1 56.8 16:51 +16.8 541 Sun Jul 17 23:44:49 MDT Helena, MT 210.4 66.6 16:42 +25.5 497 Mon Jul 18 23:12:27 MDT Helena, MT 208.6 77.2 16:35 +35.1 470 Tue Jul 19 22:40:05 MDT Holyoke, MA 26.0 41.3 23:06 +70.7 669 Sun Jul 17 22:36:16 EDT Holyoke, MA 24.2 36.4 23:38 +70.5 732 Mon Jul 18 22:03:51 EDT Holyoke, MA 22.3 32.6 23:59 +69.9 794 Tue Jul 19 21:31:24 EDT Holyoke, MA 218.6 56.8 16:20 +14.2 543 Wed Jul 20 22:37:00 EDT Holyoke, MA 217.0 69.4 16:20 +24.9 490 Thu Jul 21 22:04:37 EDT Holyoke, MA 215.5 83.6 16:27 +36.9 464 Fri Jul 22 21:32:13 EDT Huntington, WV 33.5 43.4 22:03 +64.4 647 Tue Jul 19 23:08:21 EDT Huntington, WV 31.8 36.6 22:39 +64.9 730 Wed Jul 20 22:35:55 EDT Huntington, WV 30.0 31.4 23:01 +64.5 816 Thu Jul 21 22:03:29 EDT Huntington, WV 223.5 49.9 15:29 +6.3 589 Sat Jul 23 22:36:34 EDT Huntington, WV 221.8 63.1 15:33 +16.8 513 Sun Jul 24 22:04:11 EDT Huntsville, AL 40.7 65.1 18:42 +51.2 505 Sat Jul 23 21:36:34 CDT Huntsville, AL 39.4 51.5 19:38 +57.3 578 Sun Jul 24 21:04:09 CDT Indianapolis, IN 32.3 47.9 21:44 +65.5 605 Mon Jul 18 22:39:54 EST Indianapolis, IN 30.6 40.5 22:28 +66.7 679 Tue Jul 19 22:07:29 EST Indianapolis, IN 28.8 34.8 22:59 +66.6 757 Wed Jul 20 21:35:03 EST Indianapolis, IN 222.5 47.7 15:39 +5.3 607 Fri Jul 22 22:08:08 EST Indianapolis, IN 221.0 59.6 15:39 +15.0 528 Sat Jul 23 21:35:45 EST Indianapolis, IN 219.4 74.2 15:46 +27.0 478 Sun Jul 24 21:03:21 EST Iowa City, IA 29.9 51.8 21:23 +67.4 574 Sun Jul 17 23:11:05 CDT Iowa City, IA 28.1 44.4 22:13 +69.4 637 Mon Jul 18 22:38:41 CDT Iowa City, IA 26.3 38.6 22:53 +69.7 703 Tue Jul 19 22:06:15 CDT Iowa City, IA 220.5 48.7 15:51 +7.2 598 Thu Jul 21 22:39:21 CDT Iowa City, IA 218.8 60.0 15:49 +16.5 526 Fri Jul 22 22:06:58 CDT Iowa City, IA 217.2 73.5 15:52 +28.0 479 Sat Jul 23 21:34:34 CDT Jackson, MI 33.0 81.1 18:21 +49.5 466 Mon Jul 18 23:39:50 EDT Jackson, MI 31.5 68.3 18:50 +59.1 493 Tue Jul 19 23:07:26 EDT Jackson, MI 30.0 57.7 19:35 +65.6 537 Wed Jul 20 22:35:02 EDT Jackson, MI 223.7 30.0 15:06 -7.3 844 Fri Jul 22 23:07:56 EDT Jackson, MI 222.1 36.3 14:55 -2.5 735 Sat Jul 23 22:35:34 EDT Jackson, MS 38.8 32.9 21:57 +57.5 791 Sat Jul 23 21:36:22 CDT Jacksonville, FL 42.9 46.3 20:19 +53.3 620 Sun Jul 24 22:05:48 EDT Jersey City, NJ 25.0 30.5 00:40 +67.4 832 Sun Jul 17 22:36:10 EDT Jersey City, NJ 217.8 80.3 17:09 +32.8 467 Wed Jul 20 22:37:01 EDT Jersey City, NJ 35.6 84.2 17:28 +45.4 463 Thu Jul 21 22:04:37 EDT Jersey City, NJ 34.2 69.9 18:00 +55.9 489 Fri Jul 22 21:32:12 EDT Johnstown, PA 34.0 64.4 19:09 +58.9 507 Wed Jul 20 22:36:16 EDT Johnstown, PA 32.5 53.5 20:00 +64.5 563 Thu Jul 21 22:03:51 EDT Johnstown, PA 224.2 34.9 14:41 -4.4 756 Sun Jul 24 22:04:22 EDT Joplin, MO 38.4 66.4 19:01 +53.4 500 Thu Jul 21 22:39:39 CDT Joplin, MO 37.0 53.5 19:55 +59.7 563 Fri Jul 22 22:07:14 CDT Joplin, MO 35.4 43.7 20:45 +62.5 644 Sat Jul 23 21:34:48 CDT Kalamazoo, MI 32.3 74.9 18:41 +54.4 476 Mon Jul 18 23:39:38 EDT Kalamazoo, MI 30.7 63.1 19:18 +62.6 512 Tue Jul 19 23:07:14 EDT Kalamazoo, MI 29.1 53.6 20:07 +67.7 562 Wed Jul 20 22:34:49 EDT Kalamazoo, MI 222.9 32.9 15:10 -5.2 791 Fri Jul 22 23:07:45 EDT Kalamazoo, MI 221.3 39.9 14:59 +0.3 687 Sat Jul 23 22:35:23 EDT Kansas City, KS 37.4 87.6 17:29 +41.0 461 Thu Jul 21 22:39:17 CDT Kansas City, KS 36.6 71.9 18:03 +52.5 483 Fri Jul 22 22:06:53 CDT Kansas City, KS 35.0 58.8 18:52 +60.3 532 Sat Jul 23 21:34:28 CDT Kansas City, MO 37.1 88.2 17:27 +40.6 461 Thu Jul 21 22:39:18 CDT Kansas City, MO 36.6 72.4 18:01 +52.2 482 Fri Jul 22 22:06:53 CDT Kansas City, MO 35.0 59.2 18:49 +60.2 530 Sat Jul 23 21:34:28 CDT Kenosha, WI 30.7 66.7 19:14 +60.7 498 Mon Jul 18 22:39:12 CDT Kenosha, WI 29.1 56.6 19:59 +66.8 543 Tue Jul 19 22:06:48 CDT Kenosha, WI 27.3 48.7 20:51 +70.1 598 Wed Jul 20 21:34:23 CDT Kenosha, WI 222.9 31.5 15:26 -6.1 815 Thu Jul 21 22:39:44 CDT Kenosha, WI 221.4 38.1 15:15 -1.0 710 Fri Jul 22 22:07:22 CDT Kenosha, WI 219.8 46.4 15:06 +5.7 618 Sat Jul 23 21:35:00 CDT Knoxville, TN 222.6 81.5 16:43 +29.5 466 Sat Jul 23 22:36:48 EDT Knoxville, TN 40.8 80.1 17:16 +43.1 468 Sun Jul 24 22:04:23 EDT Lafayette, IN 31.7 50.2 21:23 +65.9 586 Mon Jul 18 22:39:41 EST Lafayette, IN 30.0 42.6 22:11 +67.6 656 Tue Jul 19 22:07:16 EST Lafayette, IN 28.2 36.7 22:46 +67.7 729 Wed Jul 20 21:34:50 EST Lafayette, IN 222.0 46.8 15:35 +4.9 615 Fri Jul 22 22:07:54 EST Lafayette, IN 220.5 58.2 15:33 +14.2 536 Sat Jul 23 21:35:31 EST Lancaster, PA 35.8 76.6 18:17 +50.3 473 Wed Jul 20 22:36:45 EDT Lancaster, PA 34.3 63.1 18:59 +59.3 512 Thu Jul 21 22:04:21 EDT Lancaster, PA 32.7 52.3 19:52 +64.5 571 Fri Jul 22 21:31:55 EDT Lansing, MI 32.4 86.2 18:02 +45.9 461 Mon Jul 18 23:39:44 EDT Lansing, MI 31.4 73.1 18:25 +56.2 480 Tue Jul 19 23:07:21 EDT Lansing, MI 29.7 62.0 19:01 +64.0 517 Wed Jul 20 22:34:56 EDT Lansing, MI 222.0 34.6 14:51 -3.7 762 Sat Jul 23 22:35:28 EDT Las Vegas, NV 39.1 63.1 19:02 +54.1 512 Fri Jul 22 21:41:49 PDT Las Vegas, NV 37.7 50.6 19:57 +59.5 584 Sat Jul 23 21:09:24 PDT Lawrence, MA 27.1 48.8 21:47 +70.3 597 Sun Jul 17 22:36:28 EDT Lawrence, MA 25.3 42.6 22:35 +71.5 655 Mon Jul 18 22:04:03 EDT Lawrence, MA 23.4 37.7 23:11 +71.5 715 Tue Jul 19 21:31:37 EDT Lawrence, MA 219.6 46.6 16:04 +6.0 617 Wed Jul 20 22:37:08 EDT Lawrence, MA 217.9 56.9 15:59 +14.6 543 Thu Jul 21 22:04:46 EDT Lawrence, MA 216.3 69.3 15:58 +25.1 491 Fri Jul 22 21:32:22 EDT Lexington, KY 32.0 35.3 23:07 +64.3 749 Tue Jul 19 23:08:02 EDT Lexington, KY 30.3 30.3 23:27 +63.9 837 Wed Jul 20 22:35:36 EDT Lexington, KY 222.0 64.7 15:57 +17.9 506 Sat Jul 23 22:36:19 EDT Lexington, KY 220.6 81.1 16:11 +31.1 466 Sun Jul 24 22:03:55 EDT Lima, OH 32.0 54.8 20:26 +64.6 555 Tue Jul 19 23:07:43 EDT Lima, OH 30.3 46.2 21:18 +67.5 619 Wed Jul 20 22:35:17 EDT Lima, OH 28.5 39.6 22:01 +68.3 689 Thu Jul 21 22:02:52 EDT Lima, OH 223.9 34.9 15:17 -4.3 757 Fri Jul 22 23:08:16 EDT Lima, OH 222.3 42.9 15:09 +2.0 653 Sat Jul 23 22:35:54 EDT Lima, OH 220.8 53.1 15:05 +10.3 566 Sun Jul 24 22:03:30 EDT Lincoln, NE 25.9 32.9 00:19 +67.9 788 Sun Jul 17 23:10:15 CDT Lincoln, NE 218.5 71.5 16:50 +25.6 484 Wed Jul 20 23:11:03 CDT Lincoln, NE 217.8 86.8 17:02 +38.2 461 Thu Jul 21 22:38:40 CDT Lincoln, NE 35.0 78.1 17:26 +50.1 470 Fri Jul 22 22:06:16 CDT Little Rock, AR 38.7 46.6 20:47 +58.7 617 Fri Jul 22 22:08:01 CDT Little Rock, AR 37.2 37.9 21:27 +60.1 714 Sat Jul 23 21:35:35 CDT Long Beach, CA 37.5 34.0 22:09 +59.1 772 Fri Jul 22 21:41:42 PDT Lorain, OH 33.2 71.5 18:44 +55.8 484 Tue Jul 19 23:07:56 EDT Lorain, OH 31.6 59.8 19:27 +63.3 527 Wed Jul 20 22:35:32 EDT Lorain, OH 30.0 50.5 20:19 +67.5 583 Thu Jul 21 22:03:07 EDT Lorain, OH 223.6 33.1 14:54 -5.3 787 Sat Jul 23 22:36:03 EDT Lorain, OH 222.1 40.4 14:44 +0.3 681 Sun Jul 24 22:03:40 EDT Los Angeles, CA 37.4 35.1 22:02 +59.4 754 Fri Jul 22 21:41:38 PDT Louisville, KY 31.0 33.3 23:23 +64.5 781 Tue Jul 19 23:07:46 EDT Louisville, KY 222.8 56.6 16:00 +11.5 545 Fri Jul 22 23:08:28 EDT Louisville, KY 221.2 71.4 16:08 +23.5 485 Sat Jul 23 22:36:05 EDT Louisville, KY 220.4 88.3 16:27 +37.0 461 Sun Jul 24 22:03:41 EDT Lowell, MA 27.0 47.8 21:57 +70.4 605 Sun Jul 17 22:36:27 EDT Lowell, MA 25.2 41.8 22:43 +71.4 664 Mon Jul 18 22:04:02 EDT Lowell, MA 23.3 37.0 23:17 +71.3 724 Tue Jul 19 21:31:36 EDT Lowell, MA 219.5 47.7 16:06 +6.8 607 Wed Jul 20 22:37:07 EDT Lowell, MA 217.8 58.2 16:01 +15.6 536 Thu Jul 21 22:04:45 EDT Lowell, MA 216.2 70.8 16:01 +26.4 486 Fri Jul 22 21:32:22 EDT Lubbock, TX 224.9 76.7 16:24 +23.7 473 Sun Jul 24 22:39:39 CDT Macon, GA 41.5 53.0 19:35 +54.3 567 Sun Jul 24 22:05:00 EDT Madison, WI 31.1 76.1 18:48 +54.4 473 Sun Jul 17 23:11:16 CDT Madison, WI 29.5 64.7 19:20 +62.8 506 Mon Jul 18 22:38:52 CDT Madison, WI 27.9 55.3 20:05 +68.3 551 Tue Jul 19 22:06:28 CDT Madison, WI 26.1 47.9 20:57 +71.2 604 Wed Jul 20 21:34:03 CDT Madison, WI 221.9 33.7 15:27 -4.2 776 Thu Jul 21 22:39:25 CDT Madison, WI 220.3 40.7 15:16 +1.3 677 Fri Jul 22 22:07:03 CDT Madison, WI 218.7 49.4 15:08 +8.5 592 Sat Jul 23 21:34:41 CDT Manchester, NH 26.8 50.3 21:31 +70.3 585 Sun Jul 17 22:36:23 EDT Manchester, NH 25.0 43.9 22:21 +71.9 642 Mon Jul 18 22:03:58 EDT Manchester, NH 23.2 38.8 23:00 +72.1 699 Tue Jul 19 21:31:32 EDT Manchester, NH 219.4 45.9 16:02 +5.5 623 Wed Jul 20 22:37:02 EDT Manchester, NH 217.7 55.9 15:56 +13.9 548 Thu Jul 21 22:04:40 EDT Manchester, NH 216.1 67.9 15:54 +24.2 495 Fri Jul 22 21:32:17 EDT Memphis, TN 40.1 61.4 19:18 +53.6 520 Fri Jul 22 22:08:20 CDT Memphis, TN 38.6 48.9 20:12 +58.6 597 Sat Jul 23 21:35:55 CDT Memphis, TN 37.1 39.7 20:55 +60.4 690 Sun Jul 24 21:03:28 CDT Meriden, CT 25.9 36.8 23:48 +69.4 727 Sun Jul 17 22:36:19 EDT Meriden, CT 24.1 32.6 00:10 +68.9 794 Mon Jul 18 22:03:53 EDT Meriden, CT 218.5 63.8 16:34 +19.7 510 Wed Jul 20 22:37:05 EDT Meriden, CT 216.9 77.9 16:40 +31.6 471 Thu Jul 21 22:04:42 EDT Meriden, CT 34.6 87.1 16:54 +43.9 461 Fri Jul 22 21:32:18 EDT Milwaukee, WI 30.5 71.3 18:48 +58.0 484 Mon Jul 18 22:39:08 CDT Milwaukee, WI 28.9 60.7 19:25 +65.3 522 Tue Jul 19 22:06:44 CDT Milwaukee, WI 27.2 52.1 20:15 +69.7 571 Wed Jul 20 21:34:19 CDT Milwaukee, WI 222.9 30.1 15:23 -7.0 843 Thu Jul 21 22:39:38 CDT Milwaukee, WI 221.3 36.2 15:11 -2.3 737 Fri Jul 22 22:07:17 CDT Milwaukee, WI 219.7 43.9 15:01 +3.9 643 Sat Jul 23 21:34:54 CDT Minneapolis, MN 28.0 79.8 18:14 +53.7 467 Sun Jul 17 23:10:21 CDT Minneapolis, MN 26.3 69.4 18:32 +62.2 489 Mon Jul 18 22:37:57 CDT Minneapolis, MN 24.6 60.6 19:02 +68.7 523 Tue Jul 19 22:05:33 CDT Minneapolis, MN 220.8 30.1 15:36 -6.2 841 Wed Jul 20 23:10:52 CDT Minneapolis, MN 219.2 35.8 15:22 -1.8 743 Thu Jul 21 22:38:31 CDT Minneapolis, MN 217.6 42.7 15:11 +3.8 655 Fri Jul 22 22:06:09 CDT Minot, ND 19.7 88.7 17:11 +49.5 460 Sun Jul 17 23:08:37 CDT Minot, ND 216.7 29.7 15:43 -5.4 848 Tue Jul 19 23:41:30 CDT Minot, ND 215.0 34.4 15:28 -1.6 762 Wed Jul 20 23:09:09 CDT Mobile, AL 40.4 32.5 21:58 +55.7 798 Sat Jul 23 21:37:03 CDT Moline, IL 30.6 54.3 21:03 +66.1 558 Sun Jul 17 23:11:17 CDT Moline, IL 28.9 46.3 21:55 +68.8 619 Mon Jul 18 22:38:53 CDT Moline, IL 27.1 40.0 22:38 +69.5 685 Tue Jul 19 22:06:27 CDT Moline, IL 25.3 35.1 23:07 +69.2 752 Wed Jul 20 21:34:01 CDT Moline, IL 221.2 45.4 15:48 +4.4 627 Thu Jul 21 22:39:32 CDT Moline, IL 219.6 56.0 15:44 +13.1 548 Fri Jul 22 22:07:09 CDT Moline, IL 217.9 68.9 15:45 +23.9 492 Sat Jul 23 21:34:46 CDT Montgomery, AL 41.3 47.9 20:24 +55.4 606 Sat Jul 23 21:37:03 CDT Montgomery, AL 39.8 38.2 21:05 +57.2 710 Sun Jul 24 21:04:37 CDT Montpelier, VT 25.9 58.2 20:09 +68.9 535 Sun Jul 17 22:36:02 EDT Montpelier, VT 24.0 51.0 20:57 +72.6 580 Mon Jul 18 22:03:37 EDT Montpelier, VT 218.6 42.1 15:52 +3.0 661 Wed Jul 20 22:36:39 EDT Montpelier, VT 217.0 50.7 15:43 +10.2 583 Thu Jul 21 22:04:17 EDT Montpelier, VT 215.2 61.0 15:37 +19.1 521 Fri Jul 22 21:31:54 EDT Muncie, IN 32.8 54.3 20:51 +64.0 557 Mon Jul 18 22:39:58 EST Muncie, IN 31.1 45.6 21:43 +66.7 625 Tue Jul 19 22:07:34 EST Muncie, IN 29.4 38.9 22:24 +67.4 698 Wed Jul 20 21:35:08 EST Muncie, IN 27.6 33.8 22:51 +67.1 774 Thu Jul 21 21:02:42 EST Muncie, IN 223.0 41.9 15:29 +0.9 663 Fri Jul 22 22:08:10 EST Muncie, IN 221.5 52.1 15:25 +9.1 573 Sat Jul 23 21:35:48 EST Muncie, IN 219.8 65.0 15:27 +19.7 505 Sun Jul 24 21:03:24 EST Nashville, TN 40.5 78.1 17:41 +44.7 471 Sat Jul 23 21:36:17 CDT Nashville, TN 39.0 62.3 18:30 +54.5 517 Sun Jul 24 21:03:52 CDT New Bedford, MA 27.4 41.7 23:00 +69.6 665 Sun Jul 17 22:36:39 EDT New Bedford, MA 25.6 36.5 23:33 +69.6 731 Mon Jul 18 22:04:13 EDT New Bedford, MA 23.7 32.4 23:54 +69.0 798 Tue Jul 19 21:31:47 EDT New Bedford, MA 218.1 65.4 16:18 +21.1 504 Thu Jul 21 22:04:59 EDT New Bedford, MA 216.6 79.7 16:24 +33.1 468 Fri Jul 22 21:32:35 EDT New Britain, CT 25.9 37.6 23:41 +69.7 716 Sun Jul 17 22:36:18 EDT New Britain, CT 24.1 33.3 00:05 +69.2 782 Mon Jul 18 22:03:52 EDT New Britain, CT 22.2 29.8 00:18 +68.5 846 Tue Jul 19 21:31:26 EDT New Britain, CT 218.5 62.5 16:32 +18.6 515 Wed Jul 20 22:37:03 EDT New Britain, CT 216.9 76.4 16:36 +30.3 473 Thu Jul 21 22:04:40 EDT New Britain, CT 33.8 88.8 16:49 +42.7 461 Fri Jul 22 21:32:17 EDT New Haven, CT 25.8 35.3 00:01 +69.0 749 Sun Jul 17 22:36:19 EDT New Haven, CT 24.0 31.3 00:20 +68.3 817 Mon Jul 18 22:03:53 EDT New Haven, CT 218.4 66.8 16:41 +22.0 499 Wed Jul 20 22:37:06 EDT New Haven, CT 216.9 81.4 16:48 +34.3 466 Thu Jul 21 22:04:43 EDT New Haven, CT 34.8 83.5 17:06 +46.5 464 Fri Jul 22 21:32:18 EDT New York, NY 25.0 30.7 00:39 +67.5 828 Sun Jul 17 22:36:11 EDT New York, NY 217.8 79.6 17:07 +32.3 468 Wed Jul 20 22:37:01 EDT New York, NY 35.6 84.9 17:26 +44.8 463 Thu Jul 21 22:04:37 EDT New York, NY 34.2 70.6 17:57 +55.5 487 Fri Jul 22 21:32:13 EDT Newark, NJ 24.9 30.4 00:41 +67.4 835 Sun Jul 17 22:36:09 EDT Newark, NJ 217.3 81.0 17:10 +33.3 467 Wed Jul 20 22:36:59 EDT Newark, NJ 35.5 83.6 17:30 +45.9 464 Thu Jul 21 22:04:36 EDT Newark, NJ 34.1 69.4 18:03 +56.3 490 Fri Jul 22 21:32:11 EDT Niagara Falls, NY 20.8 34.4 00:29 +71.7 763 Sun Jul 17 22:34:58 EDT Niagara Falls, NY 18.9 31.3 00:43 +71.0 817 Mon Jul 18 22:02:32 EDT Niagara Falls, NY 215.6 70.5 16:54 +26.5 487 Tue Jul 19 23:08:12 EDT Niagara Falls, NY 214.6 84.1 16:59 +38.1 463 Wed Jul 20 22:35:49 EDT Niagara Falls, NY 31.9 82.3 17:13 +49.5 464 Thu Jul 21 22:03:25 EDT Norfolk, VA 34.7 39.0 21:59 +62.7 699 Thu Jul 21 22:04:50 EDT Norfolk, VA 33.0 32.7 22:26 +62.7 792 Fri Jul 22 21:32:24 EDT Norfolk, VA 225.9 41.5 15:02 -1.1 669 Sun Jul 24 22:05:26 EDT Oakland, CA 35.8 51.7 20:22 +61.4 576 Thu Jul 21 22:12:45 PDT Oakland, CA 34.2 42.6 21:10 +63.6 656 Fri Jul 22 21:40:19 PDT Ogden, UT 30.7 52.1 21:02 +66.5 571 Mon Jul 18 23:13:13 MDT Ogden, UT 29.0 44.4 21:53 +68.6 635 Tue Jul 19 22:40:48 MDT Ogden, UT 27.2 38.4 22:32 +69.0 704 Wed Jul 20 22:08:22 MDT Ogden, UT 221.2 46.9 15:31 +5.4 613 Fri Jul 22 22:41:26 MDT Ogden, UT 219.6 57.9 15:28 +14.5 536 Sat Jul 23 22:09:03 MDT Oklahoma City, OK 36.7 39.7 21:52 +60.8 689 Thu Jul 21 22:39:24 CDT Oklahoma City, OK 35.1 33.0 22:20 +61.0 788 Fri Jul 22 22:06:58 CDT Oklahoma City, OK 227.4 37.5 14:59 -4.8 720 Sun Jul 24 22:39:57 CDT Omaha, NE 26.5 36.7 23:46 +69.0 728 Sun Jul 17 23:10:21 CDT Omaha, NE 24.7 32.4 00:08 +68.5 796 Mon Jul 18 22:37:55 CDT Omaha, NE 219.0 62.4 16:33 +18.3 515 Wed Jul 20 23:11:06 CDT Omaha, NE 217.4 76.5 16:38 +30.1 473 Thu Jul 21 22:38:43 CDT Omaha, NE 34.7 88.3 16:52 +42.6 461 Fri Jul 22 22:06:19 CDT Orlando, FL 43.3 37.9 21:08 +53.0 714 Sun Jul 24 22:06:11 EDT Paducah, KY 220.7 86.4 17:08 +34.4 462 Fri Jul 22 22:08:16 CDT Paducah, KY 39.3 76.1 17:42 +47.2 474 Sat Jul 23 21:35:51 CDT Paducah, KY 37.9 61.0 18:31 +56.4 522 Sun Jul 24 21:03:26 CDT Pasadena, CA 37.4 35.8 21:58 +59.5 743 Fri Jul 22 21:41:39 PDT Pasadena, CA 35.9 29.7 22:18 +59.4 850 Sat Jul 23 21:09:12 PDT Paterson, NJ 24.9 31.2 00:36 +67.8 819 Sun Jul 17 22:36:08 EDT Paterson, NJ 217.7 78.9 17:05 +31.8 469 Wed Jul 20 22:36:58 EDT Paterson, NJ 35.3 85.7 17:22 +44.4 462 Thu Jul 21 22:04:34 EDT Paterson, NJ 34.1 71.4 17:52 +55.1 484 Fri Jul 22 21:32:10 EDT Pensacola, FL 40.9 33.9 21:50 +55.4 775 Sat Jul 23 21:37:14 CDT Peoria, IL 29.7 43.3 22:23 +67.9 648 Mon Jul 18 22:39:09 CDT Peoria, IL 27.9 37.3 23:00 +68.2 720 Tue Jul 19 22:06:44 CDT Peoria, IL 26.1 32.7 23:23 +67.7 792 Wed Jul 20 21:34:18 CDT Peoria, IL 221.8 46.7 15:53 +5.0 616 Thu Jul 21 22:39:49 CDT Peoria, IL 220.1 58.0 15:51 +14.2 537 Fri Jul 22 22:07:26 CDT Peoria, IL 218.6 71.7 15:55 +25.7 484 Sat Jul 23 21:35:03 CDT Philadelphia, PA 36.5 83.1 17:56 +45.3 464 Wed Jul 20 22:36:57 EDT Philadelphia, PA 35.1 68.5 18:32 +55.8 493 Thu Jul 21 22:04:33 EDT Philadelphia, PA 33.6 56.5 19:22 +62.6 545 Fri Jul 22 21:32:08 EDT Phoenix, AZ 40.0 45.9 20:34 +57.2 624 Sat Jul 23 21:10:23 MST Phoenix, AZ 38.5 37.0 21:12 +58.6 726 Sun Jul 24 20:37:57 MST Pierre, SD 22.7 47.7 21:53 +73.9 605 Sun Jul 17 23:09:11 CDT Pierre, SD 20.9 42.7 22:41 +74.8 653 Mon Jul 18 22:36:46 CDT Pierre, SD 217.5 47.1 16:15 +7.2 611 Tue Jul 19 23:42:16 CDT Pierre, SD 215.7 56.6 16:07 +15.4 543 Wed Jul 20 23:09:54 CDT Pierre, SD 214.0 67.9 16:03 +25.2 494 Thu Jul 21 22:37:31 CDT Pittsburgh, PA 34.8 73.1 18:45 +53.4 480 Tue Jul 19 23:08:27 EDT Pittsburgh, PA 33.4 60.5 19:30 +61.4 523 Wed Jul 20 22:36:03 EDT Pittsburgh, PA 31.7 50.6 20:22 +65.9 583 Thu Jul 21 22:03:38 EDT Pittsburgh, PA 225.0 30.8 14:54 -7.5 829 Sat Jul 23 22:36:33 EDT Pittsburgh, PA 223.5 37.7 14:44 -2.2 716 Sun Jul 24 22:04:11 EDT Pittsfield, MA 25.5 41.4 23:06 +71.1 668 Sun Jul 17 22:36:07 EDT Pittsfield, MA 23.6 36.6 23:39 +70.9 730 Mon Jul 18 22:03:42 EDT Pittsfield, MA 21.8 32.8 24:00 +70.3 790 Tue Jul 19 21:31:16 EDT Pittsfield, MA 218.1 57.9 16:21 +15.3 537 Wed Jul 20 22:36:51 EDT Pittsfield, MA 216.5 70.6 16:21 +26.1 486 Thu Jul 21 22:04:28 EDT Pittsfield, MA 215.0 84.8 16:28 +38.1 462 Fri Jul 22 21:32:05 EDT Pocatello, ID 31.7 77.7 18:43 +52.9 469 Sun Jul 17 23:45:18 MDT Pocatello, ID 30.1 65.9 19:14 +61.7 500 Mon Jul 18 23:12:54 MDT Pocatello, ID 28.5 56.1 19:59 +67.5 545 Tue Jul 19 22:40:30 MDT Pocatello, ID 26.7 48.4 20:51 +70.7 598 Wed Jul 20 22:08:04 MDT Pocatello, ID 222.4 32.4 15:25 -5.3 796 Thu Jul 21 23:13:26 MDT Pocatello, ID 220.9 39.2 15:14 +0.0 694 Fri Jul 22 22:41:04 MDT Pocatello, ID 219.3 47.6 15:06 +6.9 606 Sat Jul 23 22:08:42 MDT Portland, ME 27.7 60.7 19:58 +66.3 522 Sun Jul 17 22:36:30 EDT Portland, ME 25.9 52.6 20:45 +70.7 569 Mon Jul 18 22:04:06 EDT Portland, ME 24.1 46.1 21:37 +72.8 620 Tue Jul 19 21:31:41 EDT Portland, ME 220.3 38.0 15:50 -0.6 712 Wed Jul 20 22:37:06 EDT Portland, ME 218.6 45.8 15:40 +5.8 624 Thu Jul 21 22:04:44 EDT Portland, ME 216.9 55.4 15:33 +13.9 551 Fri Jul 22 21:32:22 EDT Portland, OR 25.5 71.9 18:50 +61.0 483 Sat Jul 16 23:15:36 PDT Portland, OR 23.7 63.1 19:13 +67.9 511 Sun Jul 17 22:43:13 PDT Portland, OR 21.9 55.9 19:49 +72.8 547 Mon Jul 18 22:10:48 PDT Portland, OR 218.5 35.8 15:57 -1.6 743 Tue Jul 19 23:16:11 PDT Portland, OR 216.9 42.5 15:45 +3.9 657 Wed Jul 20 22:43:50 PDT Portland, OR 215.2 50.5 15:34 +10.8 584 Thu Jul 21 22:11:28 PDT Portsmouth, NH 27.4 53.3 21:02 +69.3 564 Sun Jul 17 22:36:30 EDT Portsmouth, NH 25.6 46.3 21:54 +71.6 618 Mon Jul 18 22:04:05 EDT Portsmouth, NH 23.7 40.8 22:38 +72.3 675 Tue Jul 19 21:31:39 EDT Portsmouth, NH 219.9 42.8 15:58 +3.0 654 Wed Jul 20 22:37:08 EDT Portsmouth, NH 218.3 52.0 15:50 +10.6 574 Thu Jul 21 22:04:46 EDT Portsmouth, NH 216.6 63.2 15:47 +20.2 512 Fri Jul 22 21:32:23 EDT Portsmouth, VA 34.7 38.8 22:00 +62.7 701 Thu Jul 21 22:04:50 EDT Portsmouth, VA 33.0 32.6 22:27 +62.7 794 Fri Jul 22 21:32:24 EDT Portsmouth, VA 225.9 41.7 15:03 -1.0 667 Sun Jul 24 22:05:26 EDT Providence, RI 27.0 41.7 23:00 +70.0 665 Sun Jul 17 22:36:32 EDT Providence, RI 25.2 36.6 23:34 +69.9 730 Mon Jul 18 22:04:07 EDT Providence, RI 23.3 32.5 23:55 +69.3 795 Tue Jul 19 21:31:40 EDT Providence, RI 219.4 54.0 16:18 +11.6 560 Wed Jul 20 22:37:15 EDT Providence, RI 217.8 66.4 16:18 +22.0 500 Thu Jul 21 22:04:52 EDT Providence, RI 216.3 80.6 16:24 +34.0 467 Fri Jul 22 21:32:29 EDT Provo, UT 31.0 45.5 22:02 +66.8 624 Mon Jul 18 23:13:24 MDT Provo, UT 29.3 38.9 22:43 +67.5 698 Tue Jul 19 22:40:59 MDT Provo, UT 27.5 33.7 23:10 +67.2 773 Wed Jul 20 22:08:33 MDT Provo, UT 221.4 52.3 15:43 +9.2 570 Fri Jul 22 22:41:40 MDT Provo, UT 219.8 65.1 15:45 +19.8 503 Sat Jul 23 22:09:16 MDT Pueblo, CO 33.0 40.4 22:07 +64.5 679 Wed Jul 20 22:10:07 MDT Pueblo, CO 31.3 34.2 22:37 +64.6 765 Thu Jul 21 21:37:41 MDT Pueblo, CO 224.5 43.0 15:17 +0.8 651 Sat Jul 23 22:10:43 MDT Pueblo, CO 223.1 54.3 15:17 +9.7 557 Sun Jul 24 21:38:20 MDT Racine, WI 30.7 68.4 19:04 +59.7 493 Mon Jul 18 22:39:12 CDT Racine, WI 29.1 58.1 19:47 +66.2 535 Tue Jul 19 22:06:47 CDT Racine, WI 27.3 49.9 20:38 +69.9 588 Wed Jul 20 21:34:22 CDT Racine, WI 223.0 30.9 15:25 -6.5 826 Thu Jul 21 22:39:43 CDT Racine, WI 221.4 37.3 15:13 -1.5 721 Fri Jul 22 22:07:21 CDT Racine, WI 219.8 45.3 15:05 +4.9 628 Sat Jul 23 21:34:59 CDT Raleigh, NC 34.8 33.5 22:56 +61.4 780 Wed Jul 20 22:37:01 EDT Raleigh, NC 224.5 61.3 15:42 +13.6 521 Sun Jul 24 22:05:16 EDT Rapid City, SD 20.4 39.6 23:38 +74.2 688 Sun Jul 17 22:08:41 MDT Rapid City, SD 18.5 36.0 00:06 +73.7 737 Mon Jul 18 21:36:15 MDT Rapid City, SD 215.3 61.9 16:35 +19.8 516 Tue Jul 19 22:41:52 MDT Rapid City, SD 213.7 74.1 16:33 +30.4 477 Wed Jul 20 22:09:29 MDT Rapid City, SD 213.2 87.2 16:36 +41.7 460 Thu Jul 21 21:37:05 MDT Reading, PA 35.9 82.5 17:55 +46.2 465 Wed Jul 20 22:36:46 EDT Reading, PA 34.5 68.2 18:30 +56.5 494 Thu Jul 21 22:04:22 EDT Reading, PA 32.9 56.5 19:19 +63.3 545 Fri Jul 22 21:31:57 EDT Reno, NV 28.4 32.4 00:32 +66.0 795 Sat Jul 16 23:16:52 PDT Reno, NV 37.0 83.0 17:38 +44.9 463 Thu Jul 21 22:12:53 PDT Reno, NV 35.6 68.2 18:16 +55.5 493 Fri Jul 22 21:40:28 PDT Richmond, VA 35.5 47.4 21:15 +62.3 610 Wed Jul 20 22:36:57 EDT Richmond, VA 33.8 39.3 21:57 +63.6 694 Thu Jul 21 22:04:32 EDT Richmond, VA 32.1 33.2 22:25 +63.6 784 Fri Jul 22 21:32:05 EDT Richmond, VA 225.2 42.8 15:02 +0.2 655 Sun Jul 24 22:05:07 EDT Roanoke, VA 33.7 37.3 22:32 +63.3 721 Wed Jul 20 22:36:33 EDT Roanoke, VA 32.0 31.5 22:55 +63.1 813 Thu Jul 21 22:04:06 EDT Roanoke, VA 225.0 45.1 15:26 +1.9 631 Sat Jul 23 22:37:10 EDT Roanoke, VA 223.6 57.4 15:28 +11.5 541 Sun Jul 24 22:04:47 EDT Rochester, MN 28.7 71.8 18:53 +59.0 483 Sun Jul 17 23:10:37 CDT Rochester, MN 27.0 61.8 19:25 +66.2 517 Mon Jul 18 22:38:13 CDT Rochester, MN 25.4 53.7 20:11 +70.9 561 Tue Jul 19 22:05:48 CDT Rochester, MN 221.4 31.9 15:41 -5.2 808 Wed Jul 20 23:11:09 CDT Rochester, MN 219.8 38.2 15:29 -0.3 709 Thu Jul 21 22:38:48 CDT Rochester, MN 218.1 45.9 15:18 +6.1 622 Fri Jul 22 22:06:25 CDT Rochester, NY 21.9 37.1 24:00 +72.2 723 Sun Jul 17 22:35:14 EDT Rochester, NY 20.1 33.5 00:21 +71.6 778 Mon Jul 18 22:02:48 EDT Rochester, NY 216.6 61.9 16:41 +19.1 518 Tue Jul 19 23:08:25 EDT Rochester, NY 215.0 74.7 16:42 +30.1 476 Wed Jul 20 22:36:03 EDT Rochester, NY 217.0 88.4 16:48 +41.9 461 Thu Jul 21 22:03:39 EDT Rockford, IL 31.4 68.3 19:28 +59.2 493 Sun Jul 17 23:11:26 CDT Rockford, IL 29.9 57.7 20:12 +65.7 537 Mon Jul 18 22:39:02 CDT Rockford, IL 28.1 49.3 21:04 +69.3 593 Tue Jul 19 22:06:37 CDT Rockford, IL 26.3 42.7 21:53 +70.7 653 Wed Jul 20 21:34:12 CDT Rockford, IL 222.1 36.4 15:33 -2.5 734 Thu Jul 21 22:39:36 CDT Rockford, IL 220.5 44.3 15:24 +3.9 638 Fri Jul 22 22:07:14 CDT Rockford, IL 218.9 54.3 15:18 +12.1 558 Sat Jul 23 21:34:51 CDT Sacramento, CA 36.1 62.3 19:11 +57.7 516 Thu Jul 21 22:12:45 PDT Sacramento, CA 34.7 51.0 20:05 +62.8 580 Fri Jul 22 21:40:20 PDT Saginaw, MI 16.7 30.0 01:22 +71.1 841 Sun Jul 17 22:34:01 EDT Saginaw, MI 214.0 81.5 17:29 +36.2 465 Mon Jul 18 23:39:44 EDT Saginaw, MI 31.4 85.0 17:39 +47.6 462 Tue Jul 19 23:07:21 EDT Saginaw, MI 30.1 72.6 18:00 +57.5 481 Wed Jul 20 22:34:57 EDT Saginaw, MI 222.5 30.3 14:44 -6.7 839 Sat Jul 23 22:35:26 EDT Saint Cloud, MN 27.1 83.0 17:59 +51.7 463 Sun Jul 17 23:10:07 CDT Saint Cloud, MN 25.6 72.6 18:10 +60.5 480 Mon Jul 18 22:37:44 CDT Saint Cloud, MN 23.8 63.8 18:32 +67.5 509 Tue Jul 19 22:05:20 CDT Saint Cloud, MN 220.2 30.0 15:34 -6.1 844 Wed Jul 20 23:10:38 CDT Saint Cloud, MN 218.6 35.5 15:20 -1.8 747 Thu Jul 21 22:38:16 CDT Saint Cloud, MN 216.9 42.1 15:07 +3.6 661 Fri Jul 22 22:05:55 CDT Saint Joseph, MO 27.5 31.4 00:25 +66.2 816 Sun Jul 17 23:10:44 CDT Saint Joseph, MO 218.9 86.3 17:09 +36.9 462 Thu Jul 21 22:39:09 CDT Saint Joseph, MO 36.3 77.8 17:36 +49.1 471 Fri Jul 22 22:06:44 CDT Saint Louis, MO 29.4 30.7 00:04 +64.7 829 Mon Jul 18 22:39:19 CDT Saint Louis, MO 220.0 82.6 16:49 +32.8 465 Fri Jul 22 22:07:42 CDT Saint Louis, MO 38.0 80.6 17:16 +45.8 467 Sat Jul 23 21:35:18 CDT Saint Paul, MN 28.1 80.3 18:13 +53.3 466 Sun Jul 17 23:10:23 CDT Saint Paul, MN 26.5 69.7 18:31 +61.9 488 Mon Jul 18 22:37:59 CDT Saint Paul, MN 24.7 60.8 19:00 +68.5 521 Tue Jul 19 22:05:35 CDT Saint Paul, MN 220.9 29.9 15:36 -6.4 846 Wed Jul 20 23:10:53 CDT Saint Paul, MN 219.3 35.5 15:22 -2.0 747 Thu Jul 21 22:38:32 CDT Saint Paul, MN 217.7 42.3 15:10 +3.5 659 Fri Jul 22 22:06:10 CDT Saint Petersburg, FL 42.6 30.5 21:49 +52.9 836 Sun Jul 24 22:06:06 EDT Salem, OR 25.5 63.7 19:38 +66.4 509 Sat Jul 16 23:15:37 PDT Salem, OR 23.6 55.9 20:16 +71.5 547 Sun Jul 17 22:43:13 PDT Salem, OR 21.8 49.7 21:05 +74.6 590 Mon Jul 18 22:10:48 PDT Salem, OR 218.3 39.7 16:03 +1.4 689 Tue Jul 19 23:16:14 PDT Salem, OR 216.6 47.5 15:52 +7.8 609 Wed Jul 20 22:43:52 PDT Salem, OR 214.8 56.8 15:44 +15.8 543 Thu Jul 21 22:11:30 PDT Salina, KS 36.1 65.1 18:56 +56.5 504 Thu Jul 21 22:38:50 CDT Salina, KS 34.7 53.3 19:49 +62.3 564 Fri Jul 22 22:06:25 CDT Salt Lake City, UT 30.8 48.6 21:34 +66.9 597 Mon Jul 18 23:13:17 MDT Salt Lake City, UT 29.1 41.4 22:20 +68.2 666 Tue Jul 19 22:40:52 MDT Salt Lake City, UT 27.3 35.9 22:53 +68.1 738 Wed Jul 20 22:08:26 MDT Salt Lake City, UT 221.3 49.6 15:36 +7.4 590 Fri Jul 22 22:41:32 MDT Salt Lake City, UT 219.6 61.6 15:36 +17.3 518 Sat Jul 23 22:09:09 MDT San Bernardino, CA 38.0 38.3 21:41 +59.3 707 Fri Jul 22 21:41:48 PDT San Bernardino, CA 36.4 31.6 22:06 +59.4 813 Sat Jul 23 21:09:21 PDT San Diego, CA 38.3 32.3 22:18 +57.9 801 Fri Jul 22 21:42:04 PDT San Francisco, CA 35.7 50.8 20:28 +61.7 582 Thu Jul 21 22:12:43 PDT San Francisco, CA 34.1 42.0 21:15 +63.7 663 Fri Jul 22 21:40:17 PDT San Jose, CA 36.1 49.8 20:37 +61.4 590 Thu Jul 21 22:12:53 PDT San Jose, CA 34.5 41.0 21:23 +63.2 674 Fri Jul 22 21:40:27 PDT Santa Barbara, CA 37.9 39.7 21:51 +59.5 690 Thu Jul 21 22:13:45 PDT Santa Barbara, CA 36.3 32.7 22:19 +59.8 794 Fri Jul 22 21:41:19 PDT Santa Cruz, CA 36.1 46.6 21:00 +61.7 617 Thu Jul 21 22:12:55 PDT Santa Cruz, CA 34.4 38.5 21:41 +62.9 705 Fri Jul 22 21:40:29 PDT Santa Fe, NM 223.7 70.0 16:17 +20.3 487 Sat Jul 23 22:11:00 MDT Santa Fe, NM 223.0 88.4 16:42 +34.5 460 Sun Jul 24 21:38:36 MDT Savannah, GA 42.9 62.7 18:47 +49.2 515 Sun Jul 24 22:05:34 EDT Schenectady, NY 24.9 42.2 22:58 +71.7 659 Sun Jul 17 22:35:57 EDT Schenectady, NY 23.1 37.5 23:33 +71.6 718 Mon Jul 18 22:03:32 EDT Schenectady, NY 21.2 33.6 23:55 +71.1 775 Tue Jul 19 21:31:06 EDT Schenectady, NY 217.6 58.2 16:19 +15.7 536 Wed Jul 20 22:36:41 EDT Schenectady, NY 216.0 70.7 16:19 +26.4 486 Thu Jul 21 22:04:18 EDT Schenectady, NY 214.5 84.5 16:24 +38.2 463 Fri Jul 22 21:31:55 EDT Scranton, PA 23.6 31.1 00:41 +68.4 820 Sun Jul 17 22:35:47 EDT Scranton, PA 216.7 83.0 17:10 +35.7 464 Wed Jul 20 22:36:38 EDT Scranton, PA 34.5 82.1 17:29 +47.8 465 Thu Jul 21 22:04:14 EDT Scranton, PA 33.0 68.5 18:01 +57.8 492 Fri Jul 22 21:31:50 EDT Seattle, WA 206.1 79.3 17:23 +37.9 468 Sat Jul 16 23:15:25 PDT Seattle, WA 206.8 89.0 17:16 +46.7 460 Sun Jul 17 22:43:02 PDT Seattle, WA 217.1 31.3 15:26 -4.4 819 Wed Jul 20 22:43:32 PDT Seattle, WA 215.4 36.4 15:11 -0.2 733 Thu Jul 21 22:11:11 PDT Sheboygan, WI 213.4 86.1 17:54 +40.5 461 Sun Jul 17 23:11:27 CDT Sheboygan, WI 30.5 80.9 18:06 +51.4 466 Mon Jul 18 22:39:04 CDT Sheboygan, WI 28.9 69.3 18:30 +60.5 490 Tue Jul 19 22:06:40 CDT Sheboygan, WI 27.2 59.5 19:07 +67.2 528 Wed Jul 20 21:34:15 CDT Sheboygan, WI 221.5 32.6 15:05 -4.8 794 Fri Jul 22 22:07:11 CDT Sheboygan, WI 219.9 39.2 14:53 +0.4 695 Sat Jul 23 21:34:49 CDT Sheridan, WY 17.3 38.3 00:07 +75.6 704 Sun Jul 17 22:07:56 MDT Sheridan, WY 214.3 61.8 16:49 +20.1 516 Mon Jul 18 23:13:32 MDT Sheridan, WY 212.6 73.5 16:45 +30.4 478 Tue Jul 19 22:41:09 MDT Sheridan, WY 211.2 85.9 16:46 +41.3 460 Wed Jul 20 22:08:46 MDT Shreveport, LA 38.0 30.4 22:31 +57.7 837 Fri Jul 22 22:08:08 CDT Sioux City, IA 26.0 43.4 22:43 +71.0 646 Sun Jul 17 23:10:06 CDT Sioux City, IA 24.2 38.2 23:21 +71.1 707 Mon Jul 18 22:37:41 CDT Sioux City, IA 22.3 34.1 23:46 +70.6 768 Tue Jul 19 22:05:15 CDT Sioux City, IA 218.6 54.2 16:14 +12.1 559 Wed Jul 20 23:10:49 CDT Sioux City, IA 217.0 66.2 16:12 +22.3 500 Thu Jul 21 22:38:26 CDT Sioux City, IA 215.4 79.9 16:17 +34.0 467 Fri Jul 22 22:06:03 CDT Sioux Falls, SD 25.7 50.6 21:24 +71.3 582 Sun Jul 17 23:09:55 CDT Sioux Falls, SD 23.9 44.4 22:14 +72.9 635 Mon Jul 18 22:37:31 CDT Sioux Falls, SD 22.0 39.6 22:55 +73.1 689 Tue Jul 19 22:05:05 CDT Sioux Falls, SD 218.4 47.7 16:01 +7.4 606 Wed Jul 20 23:10:36 CDT Sioux Falls, SD 216.7 57.9 15:55 +15.9 537 Thu Jul 21 22:38:13 CDT Sioux Falls, SD 215.0 69.9 15:52 +26.3 488 Fri Jul 22 22:05:50 CDT Somerville, MA 27.2 46.5 22:11 +70.3 616 Sun Jul 17 22:36:31 EDT Somerville, MA 25.4 40.6 22:55 +71.0 677 Mon Jul 18 22:04:06 EDT Somerville, MA 23.5 36.0 23:26 +70.7 739 Tue Jul 19 21:31:40 EDT Somerville, MA 219.7 48.5 16:08 +7.3 601 Wed Jul 20 22:37:12 EDT Somerville, MA 218.0 59.3 16:04 +16.4 530 Thu Jul 21 22:04:49 EDT Somerville, MA 216.4 72.3 16:05 +27.5 482 Fri Jul 22 21:32:26 EDT South Bend, IN 32.1 64.5 19:35 +60.7 506 Mon Jul 18 22:39:36 CDT South Bend, IN 30.4 54.4 20:23 +66.3 557 Tue Jul 19 22:07:12 CDT South Bend, IN 28.6 46.4 21:15 +69.0 617 Wed Jul 20 21:34:47 CDT South Bend, IN 222.5 37.5 15:17 -1.9 719 Fri Jul 22 22:07:46 CDT South Bend, IN 220.9 45.9 15:10 +4.8 623 Sat Jul 23 21:35:24 CDT Spartanburg, SC 223.8 76.2 16:36 +24.5 475 Sat Jul 23 22:37:18 EDT Spartanburg, SC 42.0 84.8 17:07 +38.7 463 Sun Jul 24 22:04:54 EDT Spokane, WA 209.8 58.7 17:04 +19.1 532 Sat Jul 16 23:16:12 PDT Spokane, WA 207.9 67.8 16:53 +27.3 494 Sun Jul 17 22:43:50 PDT Spokane, WA 206.3 77.4 16:43 +36.2 470 Mon Jul 18 22:11:28 PDT Springfield, IL 29.7 37.6 23:13 +66.8 716 Mon Jul 18 22:39:16 CDT Springfield, IL 27.9 32.6 23:37 +66.5 794 Tue Jul 19 22:06:50 CDT Springfield, IL 220.1 66.4 16:09 +20.6 500 Fri Jul 22 22:07:35 CDT Springfield, IL 218.7 81.9 16:21 +33.3 465 Sat Jul 23 21:35:11 CDT Springfield, MA 26.0 40.7 23:12 +70.5 676 Sun Jul 17 22:36:17 EDT Springfield, MA 24.2 35.9 23:43 +70.3 740 Mon Jul 18 22:03:51 EDT Springfield, MA 22.3 32.1 00:02 +69.6 803 Tue Jul 19 21:31:25 EDT Springfield, MA 218.6 57.6 16:22 +14.8 539 Wed Jul 20 22:37:01 EDT Springfield, MA 217.0 70.4 16:23 +25.6 487 Thu Jul 21 22:04:38 EDT Springfield, MA 215.5 84.7 16:30 +37.8 463 Fri Jul 22 21:32:14 EDT Springfield, MO 39.1 75.9 18:20 +47.5 475 Thu Jul 21 22:39:50 CDT Springfield, MO 37.7 60.9 19:09 +56.6 522 Fri Jul 22 22:07:25 CDT Springfield, MO 36.2 49.4 20:03 +61.3 593 Sat Jul 23 21:35:00 CDT Springfield, OH 32.3 49.2 21:13 +65.4 594 Tue Jul 19 23:07:53 EDT Springfield, OH 30.6 41.6 22:00 +66.9 666 Wed Jul 20 22:35:27 EDT Springfield, OH 28.8 35.7 22:33 +66.9 743 Thu Jul 21 22:03:01 EDT Springfield, OH 224.1 37.5 15:24 -2.6 718 Fri Jul 22 23:08:28 EDT Springfield, OH 222.6 46.5 15:18 +4.4 617 Sat Jul 23 22:36:05 EDT Springfield, OH 221.0 58.1 15:17 +13.8 536 Sun Jul 24 22:03:42 EDT Stamford, CT 25.4 32.9 00:22 +68.2 789 Sun Jul 17 22:36:14 EDT Stamford, CT 218.0 73.3 16:53 +27.3 480 Wed Jul 20 22:37:02 EDT Stamford, CT 217.6 88.5 17:06 +39.9 461 Thu Jul 21 22:04:39 EDT Stamford, CT 34.5 76.7 17:31 +51.5 473 Fri Jul 22 21:32:15 EDT Steubenville, OH 34.4 68.2 19:08 +56.6 494 Tue Jul 19 23:08:22 EDT Steubenville, OH 32.9 56.5 19:57 +63.3 545 Wed Jul 20 22:35:58 EDT Steubenville, OH 31.2 47.4 20:50 +66.6 609 Thu Jul 21 22:03:32 EDT Steubenville, OH 224.6 32.9 14:57 -5.9 789 Sat Jul 23 22:36:29 EDT Steubenville, OH 223.1 40.5 14:48 -0.1 680 Sun Jul 24 22:04:07 EDT Stockton, CA 36.5 57.7 19:42 +59.2 539 Thu Jul 21 22:12:53 PDT Stockton, CA 34.9 47.2 20:35 +63.0 611 Fri Jul 22 21:40:28 PDT Superior, WI 209.3 72.4 17:07 +30.8 481 Sun Jul 17 23:10:19 CDT Superior, WI 207.6 83.0 17:01 +40.5 463 Mon Jul 18 22:37:56 CDT Superior, WI 24.9 86.5 16:59 +49.9 461 Tue Jul 19 22:05:33 CDT Superior, WI 218.4 31.1 14:53 -4.8 822 Fri Jul 22 22:06:02 CDT Syracuse, NY 23.1 39.1 23:36 +72.2 696 Sun Jul 17 22:35:31 EDT Syracuse, NY 21.2 35.0 00:02 +71.7 753 Mon Jul 18 22:03:05 EDT Syracuse, NY 216.0 67.6 16:31 +24.0 496 Wed Jul 20 22:36:18 EDT Syracuse, NY 214.5 81.1 16:35 +35.5 466 Thu Jul 21 22:03:54 EDT Tacoma, WA 206.4 84.5 17:34 +42.2 462 Sat Jul 16 23:15:26 PDT Tacoma, WA 23.3 85.7 17:29 +51.2 461 Sun Jul 17 22:43:04 PDT Tacoma, WA 21.9 76.8 17:28 +59.2 472 Mon Jul 18 22:10:40 PDT Tacoma, WA 217.0 33.0 15:29 -3.2 788 Wed Jul 20 22:43:35 PDT Tacoma, WA 215.3 38.5 15:15 +1.4 704 Thu Jul 21 22:11:14 PDT Tallahassee, FL 41.3 36.0 21:18 +55.2 741 Sun Jul 24 22:05:19 EDT Tampa, FL 42.7 31.7 21:42 +53.0 813 Sun Jul 24 22:06:06 EDT Terre Haute, IN 31.4 41.7 22:36 +66.2 665 Mon Jul 18 22:39:43 EST Terre Haute, IN 29.7 35.7 23:09 +66.3 744 Tue Jul 19 22:07:18 EST Terre Haute, IN 27.9 31.0 23:29 +65.8 824 Wed Jul 20 21:34:51 EST Terre Haute, IN 221.7 56.1 15:54 +11.9 548 Fri Jul 22 22:08:00 EST Terre Haute, IN 220.1 70.2 15:59 +23.5 488 Sat Jul 23 21:35:36 EST Texarkana, TX 37.7 33.3 22:14 +58.7 783 Fri Jul 22 22:07:56 CDT Toledo, OH 32.2 66.3 19:06 +59.6 500 Tue Jul 19 23:07:40 EDT Toledo, OH 30.7 55.7 19:54 +65.7 549 Wed Jul 20 22:35:16 EDT Toledo, OH 28.9 47.4 20:46 +68.7 608 Thu Jul 21 22:02:50 EDT Toledo, OH 224.2 29.9 15:08 -7.6 846 Fri Jul 22 23:08:10 EDT Toledo, OH 222.7 36.3 14:57 -2.8 735 Sat Jul 23 22:35:49 EDT Toledo, OH 221.2 44.5 14:49 +3.7 637 Sun Jul 24 22:03:26 EDT Topeka, KS 37.4 79.7 17:54 +46.9 468 Thu Jul 21 22:39:08 CDT Topeka, KS 35.9 65.1 18:36 +56.8 505 Fri Jul 22 22:06:43 CDT Toronto, ON 20.5 37.0 00:07 +73.1 724 Sun Jul 17 22:34:51 EDT Toronto, ON 18.6 33.7 00:27 +72.5 774 Mon Jul 18 22:02:26 EDT Toronto, ON 215.4 66.3 16:44 +23.3 500 Tue Jul 19 23:08:04 EDT Toronto, ON 213.8 79.2 16:46 +34.5 468 Wed Jul 20 22:35:41 EDT Toronto, ON 31.2 87.4 16:54 +45.9 461 Thu Jul 21 22:03:17 EDT Trenton, NJ 34.8 88.9 17:37 +41.1 461 Wed Jul 20 22:36:59 EDT Trenton, NJ 35.3 73.8 18:07 +52.6 479 Thu Jul 21 22:04:35 EDT Trenton, NJ 33.7 60.9 18:52 +60.8 522 Fri Jul 22 21:32:10 EDT Troy, NY 25.1 42.3 22:57 +71.5 659 Sun Jul 17 22:36:00 EDT Troy, NY 23.3 37.4 23:32 +71.5 718 Mon Jul 18 22:03:35 EDT Troy, NY 21.4 33.6 23:55 +70.9 777 Tue Jul 19 21:31:09 EDT Troy, NY 217.8 57.7 16:19 +15.2 538 Wed Jul 20 22:36:44 EDT Troy, NY 216.2 70.1 16:18 +25.9 488 Thu Jul 21 22:04:21 EDT Troy, NY 214.7 84.0 16:24 +37.7 463 Fri Jul 22 21:31:58 EDT Tucson, AZ 40.8 43.1 20:52 +56.3 650 Sat Jul 23 21:10:48 MST Tucson, AZ 39.3 34.7 21:26 +57.3 760 Sun Jul 24 20:38:21 MST Tulsa, OK 37.7 50.1 20:39 +59.6 587 Thu Jul 21 22:39:33 CDT Tulsa, OK 36.1 40.9 21:25 +61.6 675 Fri Jul 22 22:07:08 CDT Tulsa, OK 34.4 34.0 21:55 +61.9 770 Sat Jul 23 21:34:41 CDT Tulsa, OK 228.3 29.9 14:44 -9.9 847 Sun Jul 24 22:40:03 CDT Urbana, IL 30.8 43.5 22:21 +67.0 646 Mon Jul 18 22:39:29 CDT Urbana, IL 29.0 37.3 22:58 +67.3 720 Tue Jul 19 22:07:04 CDT Urbana, IL 27.2 32.4 23:21 +66.9 797 Wed Jul 20 21:34:37 CDT Urbana, IL 221.2 55.3 15:49 +11.6 552 Fri Jul 22 22:07:45 CDT Urbana, IL 219.5 68.8 15:53 +22.8 492 Sat Jul 23 21:35:22 CDT Utica, NY 23.9 41.3 23:10 +72.3 669 Sun Jul 17 22:35:41 EDT Utica, NY 22.0 36.8 23:43 +72.1 726 Mon Jul 18 22:03:16 EDT Utica, NY 216.7 62.1 16:23 +19.3 517 Wed Jul 20 22:36:26 EDT Utica, NY 215.1 74.9 16:24 +30.3 476 Thu Jul 21 22:04:03 EDT Walla Walla, WA 209.4 80.8 17:41 +37.9 466 Sat Jul 16 23:16:16 PDT Walla Walla, WA 25.8 88.0 17:41 +47.8 460 Sun Jul 17 22:43:53 PDT Walla Walla, WA 25.2 77.6 17:46 +57.0 470 Mon Jul 18 22:11:30 PDT Walla Walla, WA 218.3 34.0 15:15 -2.8 770 Thu Jul 21 22:12:02 PDT Washington, DC 35.6 60.5 19:41 +59.1 524 Wed Jul 20 22:36:49 EDT Washington, DC 34.0 49.8 20:34 +63.6 590 Thu Jul 21 22:04:24 EDT Washington, DC 32.3 41.6 21:21 +65.3 667 Fri Jul 22 21:31:58 EDT Washington, DC 225.4 34.8 14:45 -5.1 759 Sun Jul 24 22:04:55 EDT Waterbury, CT 25.7 36.4 23:53 +69.4 732 Sun Jul 17 22:36:16 EDT Waterbury, CT 23.9 32.3 00:13 +68.9 799 Mon Jul 18 22:03:50 EDT Waterbury, CT 218.3 65.1 16:36 +20.7 505 Wed Jul 20 22:37:02 EDT Waterbury, CT 216.8 79.3 16:42 +32.7 469 Thu Jul 21 22:04:39 EDT Waterbury, CT 34.6 85.7 16:58 +45.0 462 Fri Jul 22 21:32:15 EDT Waterloo, IA 29.2 56.1 20:41 +66.9 546 Sun Jul 17 23:10:50 CDT Waterloo, IA 27.4 48.2 21:33 +70.0 601 Mon Jul 18 22:38:26 CDT Waterloo, IA 25.6 42.0 22:20 +71.1 661 Tue Jul 19 22:06:00 CDT Waterloo, IA 219.9 46.5 15:45 +5.8 617 Thu Jul 21 22:39:05 CDT Waterloo, IA 218.2 56.9 15:40 +14.4 542 Fri Jul 22 22:06:42 CDT Wheeling, WV 34.4 64.5 19:29 +58.5 507 Tue Jul 19 23:08:24 EDT Wheeling, WV 32.9 53.4 20:21 +64.1 563 Wed Jul 20 22:35:59 EDT Wheeling, WV 31.2 44.9 21:12 +66.7 632 Thu Jul 21 22:03:34 EDT Wheeling, WV 224.5 34.4 15:00 -4.9 765 Sat Jul 23 22:36:31 EDT Wheeling, WV 223.1 42.5 14:52 +1.3 657 Sun Jul 24 22:04:09 EDT White Plains, NY 25.2 32.4 00:26 +68.1 797 Sun Jul 17 22:36:11 EDT White Plains, NY 217.9 74.9 16:56 +28.6 476 Wed Jul 20 22:37:00 EDT White Plains, NY 26.5 89.8 17:10 +41.2 461 Thu Jul 21 22:04:37 EDT White Plains, NY 34.3 75.1 17:37 +52.6 476 Fri Jul 22 21:32:13 EDT Wichita Falls, TX 36.2 29.8 22:56 +59.1 848 Thu Jul 21 22:39:29 CDT Wichita, KS 36.6 55.9 19:56 +59.6 548 Thu Jul 21 22:39:04 CDT Wichita, KS 35.0 45.7 20:48 +62.9 624 Fri Jul 22 22:06:39 CDT Wilkes-Barre, PA 23.5 30.0 00:49 +68.0 842 Sun Jul 17 22:35:46 EDT Wilkes-Barre, PA 216.9 86.5 17:19 +38.4 462 Wed Jul 20 22:36:38 EDT Wilkes-Barre, PA 34.4 78.7 17:41 +50.2 469 Thu Jul 21 22:04:14 EDT Wilkes-Barre, PA 32.8 65.6 18:17 +59.5 502 Fri Jul 22 21:31:49 EDT Wilmington, DE 36.3 78.2 18:14 +48.8 470 Wed Jul 20 22:36:56 EDT Wilmington, DE 34.8 64.2 18:55 +58.2 508 Thu Jul 21 22:04:31 EDT Wilmington, DE 33.3 53.0 19:48 +63.8 566 Fri Jul 22 21:32:06 EDT Wilmington, NC 224.8 70.0 16:07 +19.2 490 Sun Jul 24 22:05:40 EDT Winston-Salem, NC 33.6 31.0 23:14 +61.7 824 Wed Jul 20 22:36:40 EDT Winston-Salem, NC 223.3 69.7 15:57 +20.4 490 Sun Jul 24 22:04:57 EDT Worcester, MA 26.6 43.7 22:41 +70.5 644 Sun Jul 17 22:36:24 EDT Worcester, MA 24.8 38.3 23:19 +70.7 706 Mon Jul 18 22:03:59 EDT Worcester, MA 23.0 34.1 23:44 +70.3 768 Tue Jul 19 21:31:33 EDT Worcester, MA 219.2 52.5 16:14 +10.6 570 Wed Jul 20 22:37:07 EDT Worcester, MA 217.5 64.3 16:12 +20.6 508 Thu Jul 21 22:04:44 EDT Worcester, MA 215.9 78.0 16:16 +32.2 470 Fri Jul 22 21:32:21 EDT Yakima, WA 207.9 84.3 17:41 +41.5 462 Sat Jul 16 23:15:50 PDT Yakima, WA 24.9 85.2 17:39 +50.9 461 Sun Jul 17 22:43:27 PDT Yakima, WA 23.5 75.6 17:43 +59.4 474 Mon Jul 18 22:11:04 PDT Yakima, WA 218.4 31.4 15:30 -4.6 815 Wed Jul 20 22:43:58 PDT Yakima, WA 216.7 36.9 15:16 -0.2 726 Thu Jul 21 22:11:37 PDT Yonkers, NY 25.1 31.7 00:32 +67.9 810 Sun Jul 17 22:36:11 EDT Yonkers, NY 217.8 76.9 17:01 +30.2 473 Wed Jul 20 22:37:00 EDT Yonkers, NY 35.1 87.7 17:16 +42.8 461 Thu Jul 21 22:04:37 EDT Yonkers, NY 34.3 73.1 17:45 +53.9 480 Fri Jul 22 21:32:12 EDT York, PA 35.6 73.1 18:31 +52.8 480 Wed Jul 20 22:36:42 EDT York, PA 34.0 60.2 19:17 +60.8 525 Thu Jul 21 22:04:17 EDT York, PA 32.4 50.0 20:10 +65.2 588 Fri Jul 22 21:31:52 EDT York, PA 225.6 30.1 14:35 -8.2 843 Sun Jul 24 22:04:46 EDT Youngstown, OH 34.3 76.2 18:29 +51.9 473 Tue Jul 19 23:08:15 EDT Youngstown, OH 32.7 63.4 19:08 +60.7 511 Wed Jul 20 22:35:51 EDT Youngstown, OH 31.1 53.1 19:59 +65.9 565 Thu Jul 21 22:03:26 EDT Youngstown, OH 224.6 30.4 14:51 -7.5 837 Sat Jul 23 22:36:20 EDT Youngstown, OH 223.1 37.0 14:41 -2.5 725 Sun Jul 24 22:03:58 EDT Yuma, AZ 38.4 32.9 21:56 +57.9 790 Sat Jul 23 21:10:04 MST Zanesville, OH 33.6 56.8 20:16 +62.4 543 Tue Jul 19 23:08:12 EDT Zanesville, OH 31.9 47.4 21:09 +65.9 608 Wed Jul 20 22:35:47 EDT Zanesville, OH 30.2 40.2 21:53 +67.0 682 Thu Jul 21 22:03:21 EDT Zanesville, OH 223.7 39.3 15:07 -1.3 695 Sat Jul 23 22:36:21 EDT Zanesville, OH 222.2 48.8 15:02 +6.3 598 Sun Jul 24 22:03:58 EDT ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #289 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Jul 88 18:44:23 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sun, 24 Jul 88 16:39:24 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 24 Jul 88 16:39:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 24 Jul 88 16:28:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 24 Jul 88 16:19:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sun, 24 Jul 88 14:16:45 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA24490; Sat, 23 Jul 88 01:05:55 PDT id AA24490; Sat, 23 Jul 88 01:05:55 PDT Date: Sat, 23 Jul 88 01:05:55 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807230805.AA24490@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #290 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 290 Today's Topics: Upcoming Mir overflights ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Jul 88 19:01:00 GMT From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@ee.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Upcoming Mir overflights Upcoming overflights of Mir --------------------------- The following table gives, for the continental US (and a couple of Canadian locations) a list of the best opportunities to view Mir during the next cluster of overflights (late July - early August). For each overflight, the time given is that of the closest approach of the spacecraft to the location; the `Range' column gives the distance to the spacecraft, in kilometers. The `Azim' and `Elev' columns give the location of the object in the sky at the time of closest approach; `Azim' is in degrees, with North being 0, East 90, South 180, and West 270. `Elev' is in degrees above the horizon. `RA' and `Decl' give the right ascension and declination for those who are more comfortable with celestial co-ordinates. This cluster of overflights occurs on ascending orbits; therefore in all cases the spacecraft is rising in the SW and setting in the NE. EXCEPTION: For a few sites near the Canadian border, there are passes visible during the first week of August in which the spacecraft rises nearly due west, passes low in the North, and sets nearly due east. These passes have azimuths close to 0 or 360 at time of closest approach, (i.e., the spacecraft passes to the North), rather than close to 135 or 315 (SE or NW, respectively). City and state Azim Elev RA Decl Range Date and time ============================================================================ Abilene, TX 319.3 35.7 12:25 +56.3 554 Tue Jul 26 22:35:30 CDT Abilene, TX 319.2 36.1 11:47 +56.3 548 Thu Jul 28 21:46:49 CDT Akron, OH 324.5 83.9 17:05 +46.0 339 Wed Jul 27 22:28:02 EDT Akron, OH 333.0 28.9 10:31 +64.9 647 Thu Jul 28 22:51:19 EDT Akron, OH 332.9 29.2 09:53 +65.0 641 Sat Jul 30 22:02:25 EDT Albany, NY 330.2 53.2 14:33 +67.6 415 Wed Jul 27 22:29:33 EDT Albany, NY 330.1 53.9 13:58 +67.4 411 Fri Jul 29 21:40:45 EDT Albuquerque, NM 135.2 54.9 18:25 +7.9 407 Tue Jul 26 21:34:51 MDT Albuquerque, NM 322.6 32.7 11:41 +59.0 589 Wed Jul 27 21:58:06 MDT Albuquerque, NM 322.5 33.2 11:04 +59.1 582 Fri Jul 29 21:09:18 MDT Allentown, PA 328.8 40.8 12:34 +66.4 500 Wed Jul 27 22:28:58 EDT Allentown, PA 140.4 56.1 18:08 +12.4 402 Thu Jul 28 21:17:03 EDT Allentown, PA 328.7 41.3 11:58 +66.4 495 Fri Jul 29 21:40:11 EDT Altoona, PA 326.6 53.3 14:23 +64.2 414 Wed Jul 27 22:28:28 EDT Altoona, PA 326.5 54.1 13:48 +63.9 410 Fri Jul 29 21:39:40 EDT Amarillo, TX 318.2 77.9 16:24 +43.7 345 Tue Jul 26 22:35:38 CDT Amarillo, TX 318.2 79.1 15:48 +43.0 343 Thu Jul 28 21:46:57 CDT Ann Arbor, MI 142.8 60.0 18:30 +16.7 386 Wed Jul 27 22:27:52 EDT Ann Arbor, MI 331.4 43.0 12:31 +69.0 480 Thu Jul 28 22:51:04 EDT Ann Arbor, MI 331.2 43.5 11:56 +69.0 475 Sat Jul 30 22:02:10 EDT Arlington, VA 327.4 34.2 11:44 +63.5 571 Wed Jul 27 22:28:27 EDT Arlington, VA 327.3 34.6 11:06 +63.6 565 Fri Jul 29 21:39:39 EDT Asheville, NC 135.7 56.9 18:25 +9.7 399 Tue Jul 26 22:03:45 EDT Asheville, NC 323.2 32.6 11:41 +59.6 591 Wed Jul 27 22:27:00 EDT Asheville, NC 323.1 33.1 11:04 +59.6 585 Fri Jul 29 21:38:13 EDT Ashland, KY 135.7 34.7 19:15 -6.1 566 Tue Jul 26 22:04:16 EDT Ashland, KY 323.4 56.2 14:34 +60.1 401 Wed Jul 27 22:27:27 EDT Ashland, KY 323.3 57.2 14:00 +59.7 397 Fri Jul 29 21:38:39 EDT Atlanta, GA 134.5 60.5 18:09 +11.3 386 Tue Jul 26 22:03:07 EDT Atlanta, GA 321.8 29.2 11:23 +57.3 643 Wed Jul 27 22:26:23 EDT Atlanta, GA 321.7 29.6 10:45 +57.3 636 Fri Jul 29 21:37:35 EDT Atlantic City, NJ 329.4 29.7 11:09 +63.2 634 Wed Jul 27 22:28:59 EDT Atlantic City, NJ 140.9 81.2 17:13 +32.3 341 Thu Jul 28 21:17:00 EDT Atlantic City, NJ 329.3 30.0 10:30 +63.3 629 Fri Jul 29 21:40:12 EDT Augusta, GA 104.1 90.0 16:56 +33.5 339 Tue Jul 26 22:03:27 EDT Augusta, ME 333.4 54.6 14:57 +70.1 408 Wed Jul 27 22:30:26 EDT Augusta, ME 144.5 51.0 18:34 +10.1 427 Thu Jul 28 21:18:31 EDT Augusta, ME 333.3 55.2 14:22 +69.8 405 Fri Jul 29 21:41:38 EDT Austin, TX 133.2 84.2 16:35 +26.2 341 Wed Jul 27 21:23:33 CDT Bakersfield, CA 322.1 37.2 12:31 +59.6 536 Tue Jul 26 22:08:01 PDT Bakersfield, CA 134.7 46.6 18:21 +1.5 456 Wed Jul 27 20:56:10 PDT Bakersfield, CA 322.0 37.7 11:54 +59.6 531 Thu Jul 28 21:19:20 PDT Baltimore, MD 327.8 35.3 11:51 +64.2 557 Wed Jul 27 22:28:36 EDT Baltimore, MD 327.7 35.7 11:14 +64.3 552 Fri Jul 29 21:39:48 EDT Bangor, ME 334.2 56.3 15:18 +70.2 400 Wed Jul 27 22:30:39 EDT Bangor, ME 145.3 51.1 18:37 +10.5 426 Thu Jul 28 21:18:45 EDT Bangor, ME 334.1 56.9 14:43 +69.9 397 Fri Jul 29 21:41:52 EDT Bangor, ME 343.4 29.0 09:07 +69.4 644 Sat Jul 30 22:05:05 EDT Bangor, ME 343.3 29.2 08:28 +69.5 640 Mon Aug 1 21:15:58 EDT Baton Rouge, LA 130.8 37.6 18:46 -7.9 535 Tue Jul 26 21:01:27 CDT Baton Rouge, LA 317.2 38.0 12:19 +54.1 529 Wed Jul 27 21:24:39 CDT Battle Creek, MI 141.8 50.6 18:44 +8.7 429 Wed Jul 27 22:27:39 EDT Battle Creek, MI 330.3 49.0 13:31 +68.3 438 Thu Jul 28 22:50:50 EDT Battle Creek, MI 330.2 49.7 12:57 +68.2 433 Sat Jul 30 22:01:56 EDT Bay City, MI 142.7 45.5 18:57 +5.1 462 Wed Jul 27 22:28:03 EDT Bay City, MI 331.3 57.8 14:58 +67.3 394 Thu Jul 28 22:51:13 EDT Bay City, MI 331.2 58.6 14:24 +66.8 390 Sat Jul 30 22:02:19 EDT Beaumont, TX 315.5 53.9 13:51 +50.2 414 Wed Jul 27 21:24:06 CDT Bellingham, WA 148.7 34.7 19:28 -2.0 563 Wed Jul 27 22:32:41 PDT Bellingham, WA 157.8 79.6 18:34 +39.0 341 Thu Jul 28 22:55:46 PDT Bellingham, WA 347.3 58.3 16:28 +77.9 391 Fri Jul 29 23:18:56 PDT Bellingham, WA 157.6 78.8 17:55 +38.3 342 Sat Jul 30 22:06:51 PDT Bellingham, WA 357.1 45.1 09:07 +85.8 462 Sat Jul 30 23:42:07 PDT Bellingham, WA 347.2 58.7 15:51 +77.6 389 Sun Jul 31 22:29:54 PDT Bellingham, WA 356.9 45.2 08:34 +85.8 461 Mon Aug 1 22:52:58 PDT Bellingham, WA 6.7 47.8 01:31 +85.4 443 Tue Aug 2 23:16:00 PDT Bellingham, WA 356.6 45.3 08:05 +85.8 460 Wed Aug 3 22:03:36 PDT Berkeley, CA 320.7 88.6 17:15 +38.9 338 Tue Jul 26 22:07:54 PDT Berkeley, CA 325.6 89.8 16:38 +38.0 338 Thu Jul 28 21:19:12 PDT Bethlehem, PA 328.8 40.6 12:32 +66.5 501 Wed Jul 27 22:29:00 EDT Bethlehem, PA 140.4 56.6 18:08 +12.8 400 Thu Jul 28 21:17:04 EDT Bethlehem, PA 328.7 41.1 11:56 +66.5 497 Fri Jul 29 21:40:12 EDT Billings, MT 339.6 44.4 12:53 +75.6 467 Wed Jul 27 23:34:34 MDT Billings, MT 150.3 78.2 18:05 +35.3 342 Thu Jul 28 22:22:36 MDT Billings, MT 339.5 44.8 12:18 +75.6 464 Fri Jul 29 22:45:46 MDT Billings, MT 339.4 45.3 11:44 +75.6 460 Sun Jul 31 21:56:45 MDT Biloxi, MS 132.0 53.8 18:11 +3.9 415 Tue Jul 26 21:01:47 CDT Binghamton, NY 328.5 58.0 15:08 +64.7 393 Wed Jul 27 22:29:06 EDT Binghamton, NY 328.4 58.8 14:34 +64.3 390 Fri Jul 29 21:40:19 EDT Birmingham, AL 133.2 44.1 18:42 -1.5 475 Tue Jul 26 21:02:43 CDT Birmingham, AL 320.2 36.7 12:11 +57.5 542 Wed Jul 27 21:25:55 CDT Bismarck, ND 147.5 44.6 19:12 +5.8 467 Wed Jul 27 23:00:50 CDT Bismarck, ND 336.5 73.0 17:12 +61.7 350 Thu Jul 28 23:23:58 CDT Bismarck, ND 346.0 38.9 10:26 +77.1 514 Fri Jul 29 23:47:12 CDT Bismarck, ND 336.4 73.8 16:35 +61.0 348 Sat Jul 30 22:35:04 CDT Bismarck, ND 355.8 29.8 07:53 +72.6 630 Sun Jul 31 00:10:28 CDT Bismarck, ND 345.8 39.2 09:50 +77.2 511 Sun Jul 31 22:58:11 CDT Bismarck, ND 355.6 29.8 07:14 +72.7 628 Mon Aug 1 23:21:20 CDT Bismarck, ND 5.4 30.2 05:45 +72.9 621 Tue Aug 2 23:44:27 CDT Bismarck, ND 355.3 29.9 06:36 +72.7 627 Wed Aug 3 22:31:58 CDT Bismarck, ND 5.1 30.1 05:07 +72.8 623 Thu Aug 4 22:54:59 CDT Bloomington, IL 139.1 45.9 18:43 +3.8 459 Wed Jul 27 21:26:46 CDT Bloomington, IL 327.3 48.0 13:18 +65.6 444 Thu Jul 28 21:49:56 CDT Boise, ID 333.3 46.7 13:27 +71.1 452 Wed Jul 27 23:33:01 MDT Boise, ID 144.5 58.8 18:18 +16.6 389 Thu Jul 28 22:21:04 MDT Boise, ID 333.2 47.2 12:52 +71.0 448 Fri Jul 29 22:44:13 MDT Boston, MA 332.2 39.8 12:19 +69.0 508 Wed Jul 27 22:29:58 EDT Boston, MA 143.5 66.3 18:01 +22.2 366 Thu Jul 28 21:18:01 EDT Boston, MA 332.1 40.2 11:43 +69.1 504 Fri Jul 29 21:41:11 EDT Bowling Green, KY 320.7 66.9 15:28 +52.7 365 Wed Jul 27 21:26:34 CDT Brattleboro, VT 331.1 50.0 14:03 +69.0 432 Wed Jul 27 22:29:46 EDT Brattleboro, VT 142.5 50.7 18:27 +9.1 429 Thu Jul 28 21:17:52 EDT Brattleboro, VT 331.0 50.6 13:28 +68.9 428 Fri Jul 29 21:40:59 EDT Bridgeport, CT 330.5 37.5 12:02 +67.0 532 Wed Jul 27 22:29:27 EDT Bridgeport, CT 142.0 65.9 17:55 +21.0 368 Thu Jul 28 21:17:30 EDT Bridgeport, CT 330.4 37.9 11:26 +67.1 527 Fri Jul 29 21:40:39 EDT Brockton, MA 332.3 37.6 11:59 +68.3 530 Wed Jul 27 22:29:56 EDT Brockton, MA 143.5 70.4 17:53 +25.5 357 Thu Jul 28 21:17:59 EDT Brockton, MA 332.2 38.0 11:22 +68.4 526 Fri Jul 29 21:41:09 EDT Brownsville, TX 313.3 44.6 12:53 +48.2 471 Wed Jul 27 21:22:45 CDT Buffalo, NY 145.9 88.9 17:40 +42.0 337 Wed Jul 27 22:28:44 EDT Buffalo, NY 335.2 33.8 10:57 +68.6 574 Thu Jul 28 22:52:00 EDT Buffalo, NY 145.9 87.8 17:03 +41.0 337 Fri Jul 29 21:39:57 EDT Buffalo, NY 335.1 34.1 10:19 +68.7 569 Sat Jul 30 22:03:05 EDT Burlington, VT 330.7 75.9 17:11 +56.2 347 Wed Jul 27 22:29:52 EDT Burlington, VT 339.9 33.1 10:31 +70.7 583 Thu Jul 28 22:53:10 EDT Burlington, VT 330.7 76.8 16:34 +55.5 345 Fri Jul 29 21:41:05 EDT Burlington, VT 339.8 33.4 09:53 +70.8 579 Sat Jul 30 22:04:16 EDT Butte, MT 336.4 60.9 16:11 +69.7 380 Wed Jul 27 23:33:54 MDT Butte, MT 147.3 51.4 18:41 +11.4 422 Thu Jul 28 22:22:00 MDT Butte, MT 345.9 32.9 09:54 +73.0 582 Thu Jul 28 23:57:13 MDT Butte, MT 336.3 61.5 15:35 +69.3 378 Fri Jul 29 22:45:06 MDT Butte, MT 345.7 33.1 09:15 +73.1 579 Sat Jul 30 23:08:18 MDT Butte, MT 345.6 33.4 08:37 +73.2 575 Mon Aug 1 22:19:10 MDT Cambridge, MA 332.2 40.1 12:22 +69.1 506 Wed Jul 27 22:29:58 EDT Cambridge, MA 143.5 65.8 18:02 +21.8 368 Thu Jul 28 21:18:01 EDT Cambridge, MA 332.1 40.5 11:45 +69.1 502 Fri Jul 29 21:41:10 EDT Camden, NJ 329.0 34.9 11:46 +65.0 561 Wed Jul 27 22:28:57 EDT Camden, NJ 140.6 66.7 17:47 +20.8 366 Thu Jul 28 21:16:59 EDT Camden, NJ 328.9 35.3 11:08 +65.0 556 Fri Jul 29 21:40:09 EDT Canton, OH 324.5 78.2 16:44 +50.0 344 Wed Jul 27 22:28:01 EDT Carson City, NV 322.0 84.1 17:10 +43.7 338 Tue Jul 26 22:08:31 PDT Carson City, NV 322.0 85.2 16:33 +42.9 337 Thu Jul 28 21:19:49 PDT Cedar Rapids, IA 334.3 30.6 10:57 +66.5 619 Wed Jul 27 23:01:43 CDT Cedar Rapids, IA 325.6 86.3 16:59 +45.0 338 Thu Jul 28 21:49:42 CDT Cedar Rapids, IA 334.2 30.9 10:19 +66.6 615 Fri Jul 29 22:12:55 CDT Cedar Rapids, IA 334.0 31.2 09:41 +66.7 608 Sun Jul 31 21:23:54 CDT Central Islip, NY 330.5 34.8 11:41 +66.1 562 Wed Jul 27 22:29:24 EDT Central Islip, NY 141.9 71.2 17:43 +25.2 355 Thu Jul 28 21:17:26 EDT Central Islip, NY 330.4 35.2 11:04 +66.1 557 Fri Jul 29 21:40:36 EDT Champaign, IL 139.6 53.8 18:29 +10.1 413 Wed Jul 27 21:26:49 CDT Champaign, IL 327.8 41.5 12:20 +65.7 493 Thu Jul 28 21:50:00 CDT Charleston, SC 317.2 59.7 14:51 +51.1 389 Tue Jul 26 22:03:39 EDT Charleston, SC 317.1 60.6 14:16 +50.7 385 Thu Jul 28 21:14:58 EDT Charleston, WV 136.3 39.9 19:06 -2.1 509 Tue Jul 26 22:04:23 EDT Charleston, WV 324.1 48.8 13:40 +62.3 440 Wed Jul 27 22:27:35 EDT Charleston, WV 324.0 49.6 13:06 +62.1 435 Fri Jul 29 21:38:48 EDT Charlotte, NC 136.7 77.6 17:38 +25.8 346 Tue Jul 26 22:03:57 EDT Chattanooga, TN 134.0 42.5 18:50 -1.8 487 Tue Jul 26 22:03:14 EDT Chattanooga, TN 321.3 40.1 12:33 +59.2 507 Wed Jul 27 22:26:26 EDT Chattanooga, TN 321.2 40.7 11:57 +59.1 501 Fri Jul 29 21:37:39 EDT Cheyenne, WY 324.4 85.4 17:09 +44.8 336 Wed Jul 27 21:59:22 MDT Cheyenne, WY 332.9 29.2 10:32 +65.0 639 Thu Jul 28 22:22:38 MDT Cheyenne, WY 332.8 29.5 09:54 +65.1 633 Sat Jul 30 21:33:43 MDT Chicago, IL 140.1 41.8 18:55 +1.1 491 Wed Jul 27 21:27:12 CDT Chicago, IL 328.4 56.2 14:32 +65.1 401 Thu Jul 28 21:50:21 CDT Cincinnatti, OH 322.2 79.7 16:36 +46.9 343 Wed Jul 27 22:27:14 EDT Cleveland, OH 143.9 87.8 17:32 +39.7 337 Wed Jul 27 22:28:04 EDT Cleveland, OH 332.9 31.5 10:49 +66.2 605 Thu Jul 28 22:51:20 EDT Cleveland, OH 332.8 31.9 10:11 +66.3 600 Sat Jul 30 22:02:26 EDT Colorado Springs, CO 136.4 36.9 19:11 -4.2 537 Tue Jul 26 21:35:49 MDT Colorado Springs, CO 324.2 53.5 14:15 +61.6 412 Wed Jul 27 21:59:00 MDT Colorado Springs, CO 324.1 54.3 13:41 +61.3 408 Fri Jul 29 21:10:13 MDT Columbia, MO 136.9 40.1 18:47 -1.7 507 Wed Jul 27 21:26:00 CDT Columbia, MO 324.8 50.0 13:30 +62.8 432 Thu Jul 28 21:49:08 CDT Columbia, SC 316.9 87.0 16:49 +36.2 339 Tue Jul 26 22:03:42 EDT Columbus, GA 134.1 69.4 17:44 +17.2 361 Tue Jul 26 22:02:47 EDT Columbus, OH 323.3 79.3 16:41 +48.2 343 Wed Jul 27 22:27:37 EDT Concord, NH 331.9 49.4 13:59 +69.8 435 Wed Jul 27 22:29:59 EDT Concord, NH 143.2 52.8 18:26 +11.1 417 Thu Jul 28 21:18:04 EDT Concord, NH 331.8 50.0 13:24 +69.6 432 Fri Jul 29 21:41:12 EDT Corpus Christi, TX 313.5 60.5 14:16 +44.9 387 Wed Jul 27 21:23:08 CDT Dallas, TX 134.0 63.2 17:39 +12.7 377 Wed Jul 27 21:24:11 CDT Davenport, IA 138.1 32.3 19:07 -6.7 596 Wed Jul 27 21:26:43 CDT Davenport, IA 326.2 70.6 15:57 +56.3 356 Thu Jul 28 21:49:49 CDT Dayton, OH 322.6 87.0 17:05 +42.1 338 Wed Jul 27 22:27:24 EDT Daytona Beach, FL 316.2 37.4 12:37 +52.9 536 Tue Jul 26 22:02:49 EDT Daytona Beach, FL 316.2 38.0 11:59 +52.8 529 Thu Jul 28 21:14:09 EDT Decatur, IL 139.1 51.9 18:31 +8.4 422 Wed Jul 27 21:26:40 CDT Decatur, IL 327.3 42.1 12:26 +65.3 488 Thu Jul 28 21:49:51 CDT Denver, CO 136.3 31.5 19:22 -8.1 607 Tue Jul 26 21:35:58 MDT Denver, CO 324.1 65.9 15:39 +57.0 366 Wed Jul 27 21:59:07 MDT Des Moines, IA 332.7 32.6 11:17 +66.6 590 Wed Jul 27 23:01:19 CDT Des Moines, IA 143.9 83.2 17:23 +36.0 339 Thu Jul 28 21:49:20 CDT Des Moines, IA 332.6 32.9 10:39 +66.7 585 Fri Jul 29 22:12:32 CDT Detroit, MI 143.3 64.3 18:24 +20.5 372 Wed Jul 27 22:27:59 EDT Detroit, MI 331.9 41.0 12:10 +69.1 497 Thu Jul 28 22:51:12 EDT Detroit, MI 331.8 41.5 11:35 +69.1 492 Sat Jul 30 22:02:18 EDT Dodge City, KS 139.3 83.3 17:37 +32.5 340 Tue Jul 26 22:36:22 CDT Dodge City, KS 139.2 82.1 17:00 +31.6 340 Thu Jul 28 21:47:41 CDT Dubuque, IA 335.1 31.7 11:01 +67.5 603 Wed Jul 27 23:01:57 CDT Dubuque, IA 326.4 86.8 17:05 +45.2 337 Thu Jul 28 21:49:57 CDT Dubuque, IA 335.0 31.9 10:23 +67.6 599 Fri Jul 29 22:13:09 CDT Dubuque, IA 334.8 32.3 09:46 +67.7 593 Sun Jul 31 21:24:08 CDT Duluth, MN 334.2 88.4 18:14 +48.2 336 Wed Jul 27 23:02:12 CDT Duluth, MN 343.6 43.6 12:08 +78.0 474 Thu Jul 28 23:25:27 CDT Duluth, MN 334.7 89.3 17:35 +47.4 336 Fri Jul 29 22:13:24 CDT Duluth, MN 353.3 30.8 08:33 +73.2 614 Fri Jul 29 23:48:46 CDT Duluth, MN 343.4 43.9 11:33 +78.1 471 Sat Jul 30 22:36:33 CDT Duluth, MN 353.2 30.9 07:54 +73.2 613 Sun Jul 31 22:59:44 CDT Duluth, MN 343.2 44.4 11:01 +78.0 467 Mon Aug 1 21:47:25 CDT Duluth, MN 3.0 29.3 06:23 +72.3 638 Mon Aug 1 23:22:55 CDT Duluth, MN 353.0 31.0 07:16 +73.3 611 Tue Aug 2 22:10:29 CDT Duluth, MN 2.8 29.2 05:45 +72.3 638 Wed Aug 3 22:33:34 CDT Duluth, MN 12.5 36.4 03:39 +76.1 540 Thu Aug 4 22:56:33 CDT Durham, NC 137.6 87.3 17:18 +34.0 339 Tue Jul 26 22:04:23 EDT Durham, NC 137.6 86.1 16:40 +33.1 339 Thu Jul 28 21:15:43 EDT Eau Claire, WI 334.6 54.2 14:56 +71.2 409 Wed Jul 27 23:02:04 CDT Eau Claire, WI 145.6 53.6 18:32 +12.7 412 Thu Jul 28 21:50:09 CDT Eau Claire, WI 334.5 54.8 14:22 +70.9 406 Fri Jul 29 22:13:17 CDT El Paso, TX 315.3 81.0 16:16 +37.9 342 Tue Jul 26 21:34:16 MDT Elizabeth, NJ 329.7 37.0 12:00 +66.2 537 Wed Jul 27 22:29:12 EDT Elizabeth, NJ 141.2 64.6 17:54 +19.6 371 Thu Jul 28 21:17:15 EDT Elizabeth, NJ 329.6 37.4 11:23 +66.3 532 Fri Jul 29 21:40:25 EDT Enid, OK 320.8 57.7 14:54 +56.6 395 Tue Jul 26 22:36:29 CDT Enid, OK 320.8 58.6 14:19 +56.2 392 Thu Jul 28 21:47:48 CDT Erie, PA 325.8 88.5 17:27 +43.3 337 Wed Jul 27 22:28:25 EDT Erie, PA 334.2 31.7 10:45 +67.0 603 Thu Jul 28 22:51:42 EDT Erie, PA 334.1 32.0 10:07 +67.1 598 Sat Jul 30 22:02:47 EDT Eugene, OR 148.0 86.7 17:53 +41.2 337 Wed Jul 27 22:31:56 PDT Eugene, OR 337.1 37.0 11:14 +71.3 536 Thu Jul 28 22:55:11 PDT Eugene, OR 147.8 85.6 17:15 +40.3 337 Fri Jul 29 21:43:08 PDT Eugene, OR 336.9 37.3 10:37 +71.4 532 Sat Jul 30 22:06:16 PDT Eureka, CA 138.9 42.0 19:09 +0.7 490 Tue Jul 26 22:08:06 PDT Eureka, CA 327.1 52.8 14:17 +64.8 417 Wed Jul 27 22:31:18 PDT Eureka, CA 327.0 53.5 13:43 +64.5 413 Fri Jul 29 21:42:30 PDT Evansville, IN 139.5 87.9 17:07 +36.4 338 Wed Jul 27 21:26:33 CDT Fall River, MA 332.1 35.3 11:40 +67.4 556 Wed Jul 27 22:29:52 EDT Fall River, MA 143.4 74.9 17:42 +29.1 349 Thu Jul 28 21:17:54 EDT Fall River, MA 332.0 35.6 11:03 +67.4 552 Fri Jul 29 21:41:05 EDT Fargo, ND 150.5 62.4 18:55 +21.8 377 Wed Jul 27 23:01:28 CDT Fargo, ND 339.7 57.2 15:34 +73.9 396 Thu Jul 28 23:24:39 CDT Fargo, ND 150.4 61.7 18:16 +21.1 379 Fri Jul 29 22:12:40 CDT Fargo, ND 349.3 34.7 09:22 +75.5 561 Fri Jul 29 23:47:55 CDT Fargo, ND 339.6 57.7 15:00 +73.6 393 Sat Jul 30 22:35:45 CDT Fargo, ND 359.2 29.5 07:30 +72.6 635 Sun Jul 31 00:11:12 CDT Fargo, ND 349.2 34.9 08:44 +75.5 558 Sun Jul 31 22:58:54 CDT Fargo, ND 359.0 29.5 06:50 +72.6 634 Mon Aug 1 23:22:04 CDT Fargo, ND 348.9 35.1 08:07 +75.6 555 Tue Aug 2 22:09:39 CDT Fargo, ND 8.9 32.9 05:10 +74.5 583 Tue Aug 2 23:45:11 CDT Fargo, ND 358.7 29.5 06:12 +72.6 634 Wed Aug 3 22:32:42 CDT Fargo, ND 8.5 32.7 04:34 +74.4 586 Thu Aug 4 22:55:42 CDT Flagstaff, AZ 319.3 61.2 14:47 +53.5 381 Wed Jul 27 20:57:16 MST Flint, MI 142.9 52.1 18:46 +10.4 421 Wed Jul 27 22:27:59 EDT Flint, MI 331.5 49.9 13:42 +69.3 432 Thu Jul 28 22:51:10 EDT Flint, MI 331.3 50.6 13:08 +69.1 428 Sat Jul 30 22:02:16 EDT Fort Smith, AR 135.5 56.5 18:04 +9.3 401 Wed Jul 27 21:25:02 CDT Fort Smith, AR 323.0 32.6 11:21 +59.3 592 Thu Jul 28 21:48:13 CDT Fort Wayne, IN 141.8 65.1 18:15 +20.3 370 Wed Jul 27 21:27:27 EST Fort Wayne, IN 330.2 37.9 11:46 +66.9 527 Thu Jul 28 21:50:40 EST Fort Wayne, IN 330.1 38.4 11:10 +67.0 521 Sat Jul 30 21:01:46 EST Fort Worth, TX 133.7 58.6 17:48 +9.1 393 Wed Jul 27 21:24:05 CDT Fresno, CA 321.7 52.3 14:19 +59.1 421 Tue Jul 26 22:08:07 PDT Fresno, CA 321.7 53.0 13:44 +58.8 417 Thu Jul 28 21:19:25 PDT Gadsden, AL 133.6 45.5 18:41 -0.1 464 Tue Jul 26 21:02:55 CDT Gadsden, AL 320.7 36.4 12:09 +58.1 545 Wed Jul 27 21:26:09 CDT Gadsden, AL 320.7 36.9 11:32 +58.1 539 Fri Jul 29 20:37:21 CDT Gainesville, FL 315.6 48.3 13:40 +51.4 445 Tue Jul 26 22:02:41 EDT Gainesville, FL 315.5 49.1 13:04 +51.2 440 Thu Jul 28 21:14:01 EDT Gallup, NM 133.9 38.1 18:58 -4.9 525 Tue Jul 26 21:34:37 MDT Gallup, NM 321.2 44.7 13:04 +59.3 466 Wed Jul 27 21:57:49 MDT Galveston, TX 315.0 52.2 13:39 +49.9 423 Wed Jul 27 21:23:50 CDT Gary, IN 140.3 45.4 18:49 +3.9 463 Wed Jul 27 21:27:12 CDT Gary, IN 328.6 51.5 13:52 +66.5 423 Thu Jul 28 21:50:22 CDT Grand Junction, CO 321.8 87.0 16:58 +41.4 337 Wed Jul 27 21:58:26 MDT Grand Rapids, MI 141.5 42.5 18:58 +2.2 485 Wed Jul 27 22:27:41 EDT Grand Rapids, MI 329.9 59.0 15:02 +65.5 389 Thu Jul 28 22:50:50 EDT Great Falls, MT 337.4 79.1 18:03 +57.4 341 Wed Jul 27 23:34:16 MDT Great Falls, MT 148.3 42.4 18:57 +4.2 484 Thu Jul 28 22:22:23 MDT Great Falls, MT 347.0 43.5 11:45 +80.0 474 Thu Jul 28 23:57:32 MDT Great Falls, MT 337.4 79.8 17:24 +56.7 340 Fri Jul 29 22:45:28 MDT Great Falls, MT 346.8 43.7 11:09 +80.1 472 Sat Jul 30 23:08:37 MDT Great Falls, MT 356.6 33.9 07:34 +76.2 569 Sun Jul 31 23:31:48 MDT Great Falls, MT 346.6 44.0 10:36 +80.1 469 Mon Aug 1 22:19:29 MDT Great Falls, MT 6.5 35.5 05:37 +77.1 549 Mon Aug 1 23:54:57 MDT Great Falls, MT 356.4 34.0 06:56 +76.2 568 Tue Aug 2 22:42:33 MDT Great Falls, MT 6.2 35.3 05:00 +77.0 551 Wed Aug 3 23:05:35 MDT Green Bay, WI 337.4 39.9 12:04 +72.7 507 Wed Jul 27 23:02:38 CDT Green Bay, WI 148.2 80.3 17:52 +36.1 341 Thu Jul 28 21:50:39 CDT Green Bay, WI 337.2 40.2 11:28 +72.7 503 Fri Jul 29 22:13:51 CDT Green Bay, WI 337.1 40.7 10:53 +72.8 499 Sun Jul 31 21:24:50 CDT Greensboro, NC 137.4 76.9 17:44 +26.1 347 Tue Jul 26 22:04:16 EDT Greenville, SC 135.7 66.7 18:01 +17.0 367 Tue Jul 26 22:03:38 EDT Gulfport, MS 131.9 52.2 18:14 +2.7 423 Tue Jul 26 21:01:45 CDT Hamilton, OH 322.3 84.8 16:55 +43.4 339 Wed Jul 27 22:27:16 EDT Harrisburg, PA 327.7 43.5 12:59 +65.9 477 Wed Jul 27 22:28:41 EDT Harrisburg, PA 327.6 44.0 12:23 +65.8 472 Fri Jul 29 21:39:54 EDT Hartford, CT 331.0 40.3 12:27 +68.2 503 Wed Jul 27 22:29:37 EDT Hartford, CT 142.3 62.1 18:05 +18.2 379 Thu Jul 28 21:17:40 EDT Hartford, CT 330.9 40.8 11:51 +68.2 499 Fri Jul 29 21:40:49 EDT Helena, MT 336.8 67.4 17:03 +66.0 361 Wed Jul 27 23:34:03 MDT Helena, MT 147.7 47.7 18:47 +8.5 444 Thu Jul 28 22:22:09 MDT Helena, MT 346.3 36.5 10:19 +75.7 539 Thu Jul 28 23:57:21 MDT Helena, MT 336.7 68.0 16:26 +65.5 360 Fri Jul 29 22:45:15 MDT Helena, MT 346.2 36.7 09:41 +75.8 536 Sat Jul 30 23:08:26 MDT Helena, MT 346.0 37.0 09:04 +75.9 532 Mon Aug 1 22:19:18 MDT Helena, MT 5.9 29.1 06:04 +71.9 639 Mon Aug 1 23:54:50 MDT Helena, MT 5.6 29.0 05:25 +71.8 640 Wed Aug 3 23:05:28 MDT Holyoke, MA 331.0 43.8 13:00 +68.9 474 Wed Jul 27 22:29:41 EDT Holyoke, MA 142.4 57.3 18:15 +14.4 397 Thu Jul 28 21:17:45 EDT Holyoke, MA 330.9 44.3 12:25 +68.8 470 Fri Jul 29 21:40:54 EDT Houston, TX 314.8 61.7 14:29 +46.6 382 Wed Jul 27 21:23:50 CDT Huntington, WV 135.8 35.8 19:13 -5.3 552 Tue Jul 26 22:04:17 EDT Huntington, WV 323.5 54.3 14:21 +60.7 410 Wed Jul 27 22:27:28 EDT Huntington, WV 323.5 55.2 13:47 +60.4 406 Fri Jul 29 21:38:41 EDT Huntsville, AL 133.3 37.5 18:58 -5.7 534 Tue Jul 26 21:02:59 CDT Huntsville, AL 320.4 44.2 13:02 +58.4 472 Wed Jul 27 21:26:10 CDT Indianapolis, IN 141.0 74.6 17:50 +27.3 349 Wed Jul 27 21:27:05 EST Indianapolis, IN 329.3 32.4 11:06 +64.3 594 Thu Jul 28 21:50:19 EST Indianapolis, IN 329.2 32.8 10:28 +64.4 587 Sat Jul 30 21:01:25 EST Iowa City, IA 325.6 80.2 16:37 +49.5 342 Thu Jul 28 21:49:41 CDT Iowa City, IA 334.2 28.9 10:06 +65.6 646 Fri Jul 29 22:12:54 CDT Iowa City, IA 334.1 29.3 09:28 +65.7 639 Sun Jul 31 21:23:53 CDT Jackson, MI 142.3 56.1 18:36 +13.3 402 Wed Jul 27 22:27:46 EDT Jackson, MI 330.9 45.1 12:52 +68.8 464 Thu Jul 28 22:50:57 EDT Jackson, MI 330.7 45.7 12:18 +68.8 459 Sat Jul 30 22:02:03 EDT Jackson, MS 131.3 33.2 19:00 -10.0 587 Tue Jul 26 21:01:58 CDT Jackson, MS 318.0 45.5 13:07 +55.2 463 Wed Jul 27 21:25:09 CDT Jacksonville, FL 316.0 49.4 13:47 +52.0 439 Tue Jul 26 22:02:55 EDT Jacksonville, FL 315.9 50.1 13:11 +51.7 434 Thu Jul 28 21:14:15 EDT Jersey City, NJ 329.8 37.0 12:00 +66.3 537 Wed Jul 27 22:29:14 EDT Jersey City, NJ 141.3 64.9 17:54 +19.9 370 Thu Jul 28 21:17:17 EDT Jersey City, NJ 329.7 37.4 11:23 +66.4 532 Fri Jul 29 21:40:27 EDT Johnstown, PA 138.1 39.6 19:13 -1.4 511 Tue Jul 26 22:05:09 EDT Johnstown, PA 326.2 54.1 14:28 +63.6 410 Wed Jul 27 22:28:21 EDT Johnstown, PA 326.1 54.9 13:54 +63.3 406 Fri Jul 29 21:39:34 EDT Joplin, MO 135.5 41.6 18:38 -1.4 493 Wed Jul 27 21:25:20 CDT Joplin, MO 323.1 44.4 12:44 +61.4 470 Thu Jul 28 21:48:29 CDT Kalamazoo, MI 141.5 48.6 18:47 +7.0 441 Wed Jul 27 22:27:35 EDT Kalamazoo, MI 330.0 50.6 13:46 +67.9 429 Thu Jul 28 22:50:45 EDT Kalamazoo, MI 329.8 51.3 13:12 +67.7 424 Sat Jul 30 22:01:51 EDT Kansas City, KS 323.2 67.6 15:24 +55.1 363 Thu Jul 28 21:48:47 CDT Kansas City, MO 323.2 67.4 15:23 +55.2 364 Thu Jul 28 21:48:47 CDT Kenosha, WI 140.0 36.1 19:05 -3.2 547 Wed Jul 27 21:27:18 CDT Kenosha, WI 328.3 67.1 15:50 +60.2 364 Thu Jul 28 21:50:25 CDT Knoxville, TN 134.9 44.1 18:50 -0.1 474 Tue Jul 26 22:03:36 EDT Knoxville, TN 322.3 40.2 12:34 +60.3 505 Wed Jul 27 22:26:49 EDT Knoxville, TN 322.2 40.8 11:58 +60.2 499 Fri Jul 29 21:38:02 EDT Lafayette, IN 140.5 60.0 18:21 +15.5 387 Wed Jul 27 21:27:04 EST Lafayette, IN 328.8 38.9 11:57 +66.1 517 Thu Jul 28 21:50:17 EST Lafayette, IN 328.7 39.5 11:21 +66.1 511 Sat Jul 30 21:01:23 EST Lancaster, PA 328.1 39.5 12:24 +65.6 512 Wed Jul 27 22:28:45 EDT Lancaster, PA 328.0 39.9 11:47 +65.6 507 Fri Jul 29 21:39:58 EDT Lansing, MI 142.2 50.1 18:47 +8.5 432 Wed Jul 27 22:27:49 EDT Lansing, MI 330.8 50.6 13:48 +68.6 428 Thu Jul 28 22:50:59 EDT Lansing, MI 330.7 51.4 13:15 +68.4 424 Sat Jul 30 22:02:05 EDT Laredo, TX 312.5 81.1 15:37 +33.3 343 Wed Jul 27 21:22:44 CDT Las Vegas, NV 137.0 69.8 17:39 +20.5 358 Wed Jul 27 20:56:54 PDT Las Vegas, NV 324.8 29.0 10:54 +59.6 646 Thu Jul 28 21:20:08 PDT Lawrence, MA 332.2 43.1 12:52 +69.7 479 Wed Jul 27 22:30:00 EDT Lawrence, MA 143.5 61.0 18:12 +17.8 383 Thu Jul 28 21:18:03 EDT Lawrence, MA 332.1 43.6 12:16 +69.7 475 Fri Jul 29 21:41:12 EDT Lexington, KY 134.6 29.9 19:21 -9.9 634 Tue Jul 26 22:03:55 EDT Lexington, KY 322.1 64.6 15:22 +55.4 372 Wed Jul 27 22:27:04 EDT Lima, OH 142.4 78.5 17:48 +31.3 344 Wed Jul 27 22:27:34 EDT Lima, OH 331.0 32.8 11:04 +65.6 588 Thu Jul 28 22:50:49 EDT Lima, OH 330.8 33.2 10:27 +65.6 582 Sat Jul 30 22:01:54 EDT Lincoln, NE 330.3 35.8 11:48 +66.3 550 Wed Jul 27 23:00:41 CDT Lincoln, NE 141.7 68.4 17:47 +22.9 361 Thu Jul 28 21:48:43 CDT Lincoln, NE 330.2 36.2 11:11 +66.3 545 Fri Jul 29 22:11:53 CDT Little Rock, AR 136.5 85.9 16:53 +31.7 339 Wed Jul 27 21:25:15 CDT Long Beach, CA 135.1 69.9 17:27 +18.7 359 Wed Jul 27 20:56:00 PDT Lorain, OH 143.8 84.1 17:41 +36.6 339 Wed Jul 27 22:27:59 EDT Lorain, OH 332.5 32.5 10:57 +66.4 592 Thu Jul 28 22:51:15 EDT Lorain, OH 332.4 32.8 10:19 +66.5 586 Sat Jul 30 22:02:20 EDT Los Angeles, CA 135.1 65.9 17:37 +15.8 369 Wed Jul 27 20:56:02 PDT Louisville, KY 321.3 78.5 16:26 +46.8 344 Wed Jul 27 22:26:54 EDT Lowell, MA 332.1 43.1 12:52 +69.6 480 Wed Jul 27 22:29:57 EDT Lowell, MA 143.3 60.7 18:12 +17.6 383 Thu Jul 28 21:18:01 EDT Lowell, MA 332.0 43.5 12:16 +69.6 476 Fri Jul 29 21:41:10 EDT Lubbock, TX 318.1 57.5 14:41 +53.1 396 Tue Jul 26 22:35:21 CDT Lubbock, TX 318.0 58.4 14:06 +52.7 392 Thu Jul 28 21:46:40 CDT Macon, GA 134.9 79.7 17:21 +25.3 344 Tue Jul 26 22:03:04 EDT Madison, WI 336.2 32.5 11:03 +68.5 591 Wed Jul 27 23:02:15 CDT Madison, WI 327.3 86.0 17:08 +46.4 337 Thu Jul 28 21:50:14 CDT Madison, WI 336.0 32.8 10:25 +68.6 587 Fri Jul 29 22:13:27 CDT Madison, WI 335.9 33.2 09:48 +68.7 581 Sun Jul 31 21:24:26 CDT Manchester, NH 332.0 46.9 13:32 +69.9 451 Wed Jul 27 22:29:59 EDT Manchester, NH 143.3 55.7 18:21 +13.4 404 Thu Jul 28 21:18:03 EDT Manchester, NH 331.9 47.4 12:57 +69.8 448 Fri Jul 29 21:41:11 EDT Marshall, TX 315.9 86.9 16:20 +34.8 339 Wed Jul 27 21:24:30 CDT Memphis, TN 318.3 75.8 15:56 +45.0 348 Wed Jul 27 21:25:40 CDT Meriden, CT 330.8 38.9 12:14 +67.7 517 Wed Jul 27 22:29:34 EDT Meriden, CT 142.3 64.3 18:00 +19.9 372 Thu Jul 28 21:17:37 EDT Meriden, CT 330.8 39.3 11:37 +67.7 513 Fri Jul 29 21:40:46 EDT Milwaukee, WI 139.9 33.4 19:10 -5.3 581 Wed Jul 27 21:27:22 CDT Milwaukee, WI 337.3 29.6 10:39 +67.5 635 Wed Jul 27 23:02:31 CDT Milwaukee, WI 328.3 74.3 16:28 +55.6 349 Thu Jul 28 21:50:28 CDT Milwaukee, WI 337.2 29.8 10:00 +67.5 630 Fri Jul 29 22:13:43 CDT Milwaukee, WI 337.1 30.1 09:22 +67.6 625 Sun Jul 31 21:24:42 CDT Minneapolis, MN 333.2 64.9 16:25 +65.2 369 Wed Jul 27 23:01:48 CDT Minneapolis, MN 144.4 43.5 18:45 +4.0 476 Thu Jul 28 21:49:55 CDT Minneapolis, MN 342.5 31.4 10:05 +70.8 606 Thu Jul 28 23:25:07 CDT Minneapolis, MN 333.1 65.7 15:48 +64.7 367 Fri Jul 29 22:13:00 CDT Minneapolis, MN 342.4 31.6 09:26 +70.9 602 Sat Jul 30 22:36:12 CDT Minneapolis, MN 342.2 31.9 08:49 +71.0 597 Mon Aug 1 21:47:04 CDT Minot, ND 147.1 32.7 19:29 -3.9 588 Wed Jul 27 23:00:58 CDT Minot, ND 156.1 78.7 18:30 +37.8 342 Thu Jul 28 23:24:03 CDT Minot, ND 345.6 55.4 15:32 +78.6 402 Fri Jul 29 23:47:13 CDT Minot, ND 156.0 77.8 17:51 +36.9 343 Sat Jul 30 22:35:08 CDT Minot, ND 355.3 40.7 08:43 +81.8 497 Sun Jul 31 00:10:25 CDT Minot, ND 345.4 55.9 14:57 +78.3 400 Sun Jul 31 22:58:11 CDT Minot, ND 355.2 40.8 08:07 +81.8 496 Mon Aug 1 23:21:16 CDT Minot, ND 5.0 40.9 04:57 +81.8 495 Tue Aug 2 23:44:20 CDT Minot, ND 354.8 40.9 07:32 +81.8 494 Wed Aug 3 22:31:55 CDT Minot, ND 4.6 40.7 04:24 +81.8 496 Thu Aug 4 22:54:52 CDT Mobile, AL 132.4 58.5 18:01 +7.6 394 Tue Jul 26 21:01:59 CDT Moline, IL 138.1 32.6 19:06 -6.5 592 Wed Jul 27 21:26:43 CDT Moline, IL 326.3 69.9 15:54 +56.8 358 Thu Jul 28 21:49:49 CDT Montgomery, AL 133.4 57.5 18:10 +8.1 398 Tue Jul 26 21:02:34 CDT Montgomery, AL 320.3 29.3 10:46 +56.0 642 Fri Jul 29 20:37:02 CDT Montpelier, VT 331.2 68.4 16:36 +61.6 361 Wed Jul 27 22:29:57 EDT Montpelier, VT 340.4 30.7 10:12 +69.5 616 Thu Jul 28 22:53:16 EDT Montpelier, VT 331.1 69.2 16:00 +61.0 358 Fri Jul 29 21:41:10 EDT Montpelier, VT 340.3 31.0 09:34 +69.6 612 Sat Jul 30 22:04:21 EDT Montpelier, VT 340.0 31.3 08:57 +69.7 607 Mon Aug 1 21:15:14 EDT Muncie, IN 141.5 75.4 17:51 +28.2 348 Wed Jul 27 21:27:16 EST Muncie, IN 329.9 32.8 11:07 +64.9 587 Thu Jul 28 21:50:31 EST Muncie, IN 329.8 33.2 10:30 +65.0 581 Sat Jul 30 21:01:36 EST Nashville, TN 133.2 29.9 19:16 -10.7 635 Tue Jul 26 21:03:13 CDT Nashville, TN 320.4 59.4 14:43 +55.6 389 Wed Jul 27 21:26:23 CDT Natchez, MS 130.7 31.3 19:02 -11.7 614 Tue Jul 26 21:01:39 CDT Natchez, MS 317.2 47.2 13:16 +54.0 452 Wed Jul 27 21:24:49 CDT New Bedford, MA 332.3 34.3 11:32 +67.1 569 Wed Jul 27 22:29:54 EDT New Bedford, MA 143.5 77.8 17:36 +31.5 345 Thu Jul 28 21:17:55 EDT New Bedford, MA 332.2 34.6 10:54 +67.1 564 Fri Jul 29 21:41:07 EDT New Britain, CT 330.9 39.9 12:23 +68.0 508 Wed Jul 27 22:29:35 EDT New Britain, CT 142.3 62.6 18:03 +18.6 377 Thu Jul 28 21:17:38 EDT New Britain, CT 330.8 40.3 11:46 +68.0 503 Fri Jul 29 21:40:48 EDT New Haven, CT 330.7 37.6 12:03 +67.2 531 Wed Jul 27 22:29:31 EDT New Haven, CT 142.1 66.3 17:55 +21.4 367 Thu Jul 28 21:17:33 EDT New Haven, CT 330.6 38.0 11:26 +67.3 526 Fri Jul 29 21:40:43 EDT New Orleans, LA 131.3 47.9 18:22 -0.7 448 Tue Jul 26 21:01:31 CDT New Orleans, LA 317.8 30.6 11:36 +53.8 623 Wed Jul 27 21:24:45 CDT New York, NY 329.9 36.9 11:59 +66.3 538 Wed Jul 27 22:29:15 EDT New York, NY 141.4 65.2 17:54 +20.2 370 Thu Jul 28 21:17:18 EDT New York, NY 329.8 37.3 11:22 +66.4 533 Fri Jul 29 21:40:28 EDT Newark, NJ 329.7 37.4 12:03 +66.4 533 Wed Jul 27 22:29:13 EDT Newark, NJ 141.3 64.0 17:56 +19.1 373 Thu Jul 28 21:17:16 EDT Newark, NJ 329.6 37.8 11:26 +66.4 528 Fri Jul 29 21:40:26 EDT Niagara Falls, NY 146.2 83.9 17:54 +38.0 339 Wed Jul 27 22:28:44 EDT Niagara Falls, NY 335.1 35.6 11:12 +69.4 552 Thu Jul 28 22:51:59 EDT Niagara Falls, NY 146.0 82.8 17:15 +37.0 339 Fri Jul 29 21:39:57 EDT Niagara Falls, NY 335.0 36.0 10:35 +69.5 547 Sat Jul 30 22:03:05 EDT Norfolk, VA 319.8 78.1 16:36 +45.5 345 Tue Jul 26 22:04:57 EDT Norfolk, VA 319.8 79.2 15:59 +44.7 344 Thu Jul 28 21:16:17 EDT Oakland, CA 320.4 87.5 17:11 +39.7 338 Tue Jul 26 22:07:53 PDT Oakland, CA 320.9 88.7 16:34 +38.8 338 Thu Jul 28 21:19:12 PDT Ogden, UT 139.3 41.3 18:52 +0.4 494 Wed Jul 27 21:58:16 MDT Ogden, UT 327.5 54.6 14:14 +64.8 407 Thu Jul 28 22:21:24 MDT Oklahoma City, OK 321.0 46.3 13:36 +59.0 457 Tue Jul 26 22:36:23 CDT Oklahoma City, OK 320.9 46.9 13:00 +58.8 453 Thu Jul 28 21:47:42 CDT Omaha, NE 330.9 36.6 11:53 +67.0 541 Wed Jul 27 23:00:52 CDT Omaha, NE 142.3 68.5 17:50 +23.3 361 Thu Jul 28 21:48:55 CDT Omaha, NE 330.8 37.0 11:16 +67.1 536 Fri Jul 29 22:12:05 CDT Orlando, FL 316.0 35.4 12:25 +52.3 559 Tue Jul 26 22:02:38 EDT Orlando, FL 315.9 35.9 11:47 +52.3 553 Thu Jul 28 21:13:58 EDT Paducah, KY 319.8 87.4 16:48 +39.0 338 Wed Jul 27 21:26:16 CDT Pasadena, CA 135.1 65.8 17:38 +15.7 369 Wed Jul 27 20:56:04 PDT Paterson, NJ 329.8 38.7 12:14 +66.8 519 Wed Jul 27 22:29:14 EDT Paterson, NJ 141.3 61.8 18:01 +17.3 380 Thu Jul 28 21:17:18 EDT Paterson, NJ 329.7 39.1 11:38 +66.8 515 Fri Jul 29 21:40:27 EDT Pensacola, FL 132.8 70.1 17:33 +16.1 360 Tue Jul 26 21:02:03 CDT Peoria, IL 138.7 41.2 18:51 +0.1 497 Wed Jul 27 21:26:43 CDT Peoria, IL 326.9 53.3 14:03 +64.4 414 Thu Jul 28 21:49:51 CDT Philadelphia, PA 328.9 35.0 11:47 +65.0 560 Wed Jul 27 22:28:56 EDT Philadelphia, PA 140.5 66.3 17:47 +20.5 367 Thu Jul 28 21:16:59 EDT Philadelphia, PA 328.8 35.4 11:09 +65.1 554 Fri Jul 29 21:40:09 EDT Phoenix, AZ 132.0 33.7 19:01 -9.2 580 Tue Jul 26 20:33:44 MST Phoenix, AZ 318.9 46.8 13:16 +56.3 454 Wed Jul 27 20:56:54 MST Pierre, SD 147.7 77.8 18:14 +33.8 344 Wed Jul 27 23:00:33 CDT Pierre, SD 336.7 40.7 11:54 +72.5 499 Thu Jul 28 23:23:48 CDT Pierre, SD 147.6 76.8 17:36 +32.9 345 Fri Jul 29 22:11:46 CDT Pierre, SD 336.6 41.1 11:19 +72.5 495 Sat Jul 30 22:34:53 CDT Pittsburgh, PA 137.4 34.2 19:22 -5.6 571 Tue Jul 26 22:05:01 EDT Pittsburgh, PA 325.4 63.0 15:30 +59.6 376 Wed Jul 27 22:28:11 EDT Pittsburgh, PA 325.3 64.0 14:55 +59.1 372 Fri Jul 29 21:39:24 EDT Pittsfield, MA 330.6 48.7 13:49 +68.6 440 Wed Jul 27 22:29:36 EDT Pittsfield, MA 142.0 50.8 18:25 +8.9 428 Thu Jul 28 21:17:41 EDT Pittsfield, MA 330.5 49.3 13:14 +68.5 436 Fri Jul 29 21:40:49 EDT Pocatello, ID 139.0 30.0 19:13 -8.0 628 Wed Jul 27 21:58:28 MDT Pocatello, ID 336.3 30.9 10:50 +67.7 613 Wed Jul 27 23:33:35 MDT Pocatello, ID 327.3 81.2 16:51 +50.0 339 Thu Jul 28 22:21:34 MDT Pocatello, ID 336.2 31.1 10:11 +67.7 609 Fri Jul 29 22:44:47 MDT Pocatello, ID 336.0 31.5 09:34 +67.9 603 Sun Jul 31 21:55:45 MDT Port Arthur, TX 315.5 50.6 13:32 +51.0 431 Wed Jul 27 21:24:05 CDT Portland, ME 333.0 49.1 13:56 +70.7 437 Wed Jul 27 22:30:16 EDT Portland, ME 144.1 55.4 18:25 +13.6 405 Thu Jul 28 21:18:21 EDT Portland, ME 332.9 49.6 13:21 +70.6 434 Fri Jul 29 21:41:29 EDT Portland, OR 148.4 66.3 18:39 +24.4 366 Wed Jul 27 22:32:12 PDT Portland, OR 337.5 49.3 13:42 +74.4 435 Thu Jul 28 22:55:25 PDT Portland, OR 337.4 49.9 13:09 +74.2 432 Sat Jul 30 22:06:30 PDT Portland, OR 346.6 28.9 07:46 +70.3 644 Tue Aug 2 21:40:25 PDT Portsmouth, NH 332.5 45.1 13:12 +70.3 464 Wed Jul 27 22:30:07 EDT Portsmouth, NH 143.8 59.1 18:17 +16.5 389 Thu Jul 28 21:18:11 EDT Portsmouth, NH 332.4 45.6 12:37 +70.2 460 Fri Jul 29 21:41:19 EDT Portsmouth, VA 319.8 78.0 16:35 +45.5 345 Tue Jul 26 22:04:57 EDT Portsmouth, VA 319.8 79.0 15:59 +44.8 344 Thu Jul 28 21:16:17 EDT Providence, RI 331.9 36.9 11:54 +67.8 538 Wed Jul 27 22:29:50 EDT Providence, RI 143.2 71.0 17:50 +25.9 356 Thu Jul 28 21:17:53 EDT Providence, RI 331.8 37.2 11:17 +67.9 534 Fri Jul 29 21:41:03 EDT Provo, UT 139.5 51.3 18:33 +8.1 424 Wed Jul 27 21:58:08 MDT Provo, UT 327.7 43.2 12:33 +65.8 477 Thu Jul 28 22:21:19 MDT Pueblo, CO 136.5 41.6 19:01 -0.9 492 Tue Jul 26 21:35:45 MDT Pueblo, CO 324.3 46.7 13:22 +62.6 452 Wed Jul 27 21:58:57 MDT Pueblo, CO 324.2 47.4 12:47 +62.5 447 Fri Jul 29 21:10:09 MDT Racine, WI 140.0 35.5 19:07 -3.7 555 Wed Jul 27 21:27:20 CDT Racine, WI 328.3 68.7 16:00 +59.2 360 Thu Jul 28 21:50:27 CDT Raleigh, NC 318.4 86.5 16:58 +38.4 339 Tue Jul 26 22:04:23 EDT Raleigh, NC 318.6 87.7 16:21 +37.5 338 Thu Jul 28 21:15:43 EDT Rapid City, SD 145.6 62.1 18:37 +19.8 378 Wed Jul 27 22:00:04 MDT Rapid City, SD 334.4 46.7 13:07 +71.9 451 Thu Jul 28 22:23:16 MDT Rapid City, SD 334.3 47.2 12:34 +71.8 447 Sat Jul 30 21:34:21 MDT Reading, PA 328.4 40.4 12:31 +66.0 504 Wed Jul 27 22:28:51 EDT Reading, PA 328.3 40.8 11:55 +66.0 499 Fri Jul 29 21:40:04 EDT Reno, NV 137.8 89.8 17:30 +39.4 336 Tue Jul 26 22:08:34 PDT Reno, NV 141.0 88.7 16:53 +38.5 336 Thu Jul 28 21:19:52 PDT Richmond, VA 138.9 80.1 17:45 +29.8 343 Tue Jul 26 22:04:53 EDT Richmond, VA 138.9 78.9 17:07 +28.9 344 Thu Jul 28 21:16:13 EDT Roanoke, VA 137.4 60.3 18:25 +13.6 386 Tue Jul 26 22:04:27 EDT Roanoke, VA 325.2 33.5 11:44 +61.5 579 Wed Jul 27 22:27:43 EDT Roanoke, VA 325.1 33.9 11:06 +61.6 573 Fri Jul 29 21:38:55 EDT Rochester, MN 333.8 49.0 13:55 +71.4 437 Wed Jul 27 23:01:49 CDT Rochester, MN 144.9 57.2 18:23 +15.4 397 Thu Jul 28 21:49:53 CDT Rochester, MN 333.7 49.5 13:21 +71.3 434 Fri Jul 29 22:13:01 CDT Rochester, NY 327.4 85.7 17:29 +46.8 338 Wed Jul 27 22:28:58 EDT Rochester, NY 336.2 32.9 10:46 +68.8 586 Thu Jul 28 22:52:15 EDT Rochester, NY 327.5 86.8 16:51 +45.9 337 Fri Jul 29 21:40:11 EDT Rochester, NY 336.1 33.2 10:08 +68.9 581 Sat Jul 30 22:03:21 EDT Rockford, IL 139.1 33.5 19:08 -5.5 580 Wed Jul 27 21:27:03 CDT Rockford, IL 327.3 70.9 16:06 +57.1 355 Thu Jul 28 21:50:10 CDT Sacramento, CA 140.2 88.2 17:28 +37.2 338 Tue Jul 26 22:08:08 PDT Sacramento, CA 140.2 87.0 16:51 +36.3 338 Thu Jul 28 21:19:27 PDT Saginaw, MI 142.7 46.8 18:55 +6.1 453 Wed Jul 27 22:28:01 EDT Saginaw, MI 331.3 55.9 14:40 +67.9 402 Thu Jul 28 22:51:11 EDT Saginaw, MI 331.2 56.7 14:07 +67.5 398 Sat Jul 30 22:02:17 EDT Saint Cloud, MN 332.5 79.7 17:36 +54.5 342 Wed Jul 27 23:01:43 CDT Saint Cloud, MN 341.8 36.9 10:52 +73.9 536 Thu Jul 28 23:25:00 CDT Saint Cloud, MN 332.5 80.5 16:59 +53.8 340 Fri Jul 29 22:12:55 CDT Saint Cloud, MN 341.7 37.2 10:15 +73.9 533 Sat Jul 30 22:36:05 CDT Saint Cloud, MN 341.4 37.6 09:40 +74.0 528 Mon Aug 1 21:46:57 CDT Saint Joseph, MO 323.1 78.9 16:17 +48.2 343 Thu Jul 28 21:48:51 CDT Saint Louis, MO 138.3 55.6 18:19 +10.7 405 Wed Jul 27 21:26:15 CDT Saint Louis, MO 326.2 37.7 11:52 +63.6 529 Thu Jul 28 21:49:27 CDT Saint Paul, MN 333.3 63.7 16:16 +66.0 373 Wed Jul 27 23:01:49 CDT Saint Paul, MN 144.5 44.4 18:44 +4.8 469 Thu Jul 28 21:49:56 CDT Saint Paul, MN 342.7 31.0 10:02 +70.6 611 Thu Jul 28 23:25:08 CDT Saint Paul, MN 333.2 64.4 15:40 +65.5 371 Fri Jul 29 22:13:01 CDT Saint Paul, MN 342.5 31.2 09:23 +70.7 608 Sat Jul 30 22:36:13 CDT Saint Paul, MN 342.3 31.5 08:45 +70.8 603 Mon Aug 1 21:47:06 CDT Saint Petersburg, FL 315.2 37.2 12:35 +51.4 539 Tue Jul 26 22:02:17 EDT Saint Petersburg, FL 315.1 37.7 11:57 +51.4 533 Thu Jul 28 21:13:37 EDT Salem, OR 148.1 72.6 18:26 +29.7 352 Wed Jul 27 22:32:04 PDT Salem, OR 337.2 44.4 12:36 +73.8 469 Thu Jul 28 22:55:18 PDT Salem, OR 337.0 44.9 12:02 +73.8 465 Sat Jul 30 22:06:23 PDT Salina, KS 139.0 89.5 16:47 +38.5 337 Thu Jul 28 21:48:15 CDT Salt Lake City, UT 139.4 45.3 18:44 +3.4 462 Wed Jul 27 21:58:12 MDT Salt Lake City, UT 327.5 49.1 13:26 +65.8 436 Thu Jul 28 22:21:21 MDT San Angelo, TX 318.7 33.1 12:09 +55.3 586 Tue Jul 26 22:35:12 CDT San Angelo, TX 318.7 33.5 11:31 +55.3 580 Thu Jul 28 21:46:31 CDT San Antonio, TX 132.6 86.3 16:25 +26.9 340 Wed Jul 27 21:23:16 CDT San Bernardino, CA 135.6 75.0 17:16 +22.9 349 Wed Jul 27 20:56:12 PDT San Diego, CA 315.9 84.0 16:10 +36.9 340 Wed Jul 27 20:55:58 PDT San Francisco, CA 320.6 88.7 17:14 +38.8 338 Tue Jul 26 22:07:51 PDT San Francisco, CA 325.8 89.8 16:37 +37.9 338 Thu Jul 28 21:19:10 PDT San Jose, CA 320.4 76.9 16:32 +46.9 347 Tue Jul 26 22:07:52 PDT San Jose, CA 320.4 78.0 15:56 +46.1 345 Thu Jul 28 21:19:11 PDT Santa Barbara, CA 321.6 34.1 12:11 +58.4 573 Tue Jul 26 22:07:45 PDT Santa Barbara, CA 134.3 49.8 18:12 +3.5 436 Wed Jul 27 20:55:53 PDT Santa Barbara, CA 321.5 34.5 11:34 +58.5 568 Thu Jul 28 21:19:03 PDT Santa Cruz, CA 320.3 72.9 16:13 +49.1 353 Tue Jul 26 22:07:47 PDT Santa Cruz, CA 320.2 74.0 15:37 +48.4 351 Thu Jul 28 21:19:06 PDT Santa Fe, NM 135.6 54.6 18:28 +8.0 408 Tue Jul 26 21:35:05 MDT Santa Fe, NM 323.1 33.5 11:46 +59.7 576 Wed Jul 27 21:58:19 MDT Santa Fe, NM 323.0 34.0 11:09 +59.8 570 Fri Jul 29 21:09:31 MDT Sarasota, FL 315.2 34.3 12:19 +51.2 573 Tue Jul 26 22:02:13 EDT Sarasota, FL 315.2 34.8 11:41 +51.2 566 Thu Jul 28 21:13:33 EDT Savannah, GA 316.5 62.2 15:01 +49.1 380 Tue Jul 26 22:03:20 EDT Savannah, GA 316.4 63.2 14:26 +48.6 377 Thu Jul 28 21:14:40 EDT Schenectady, NY 330.1 56.0 14:58 +66.8 402 Wed Jul 27 22:29:32 EDT Schenectady, NY 330.0 56.7 14:23 +66.4 398 Fri Jul 29 21:40:45 EDT Scranton, PA 328.7 48.9 13:48 +66.9 439 Wed Jul 27 22:29:03 EDT Scranton, PA 328.6 49.5 13:13 +66.7 435 Fri Jul 29 21:40:16 EDT Seattle, WA 148.8 43.8 19:16 +5.5 474 Wed Jul 27 22:32:33 PDT Seattle, WA 337.9 78.6 17:43 +57.9 343 Thu Jul 28 22:55:41 PDT Seattle, WA 347.4 43.9 11:30 +80.5 471 Fri Jul 29 23:18:53 PDT Seattle, WA 337.8 79.5 17:04 +57.2 341 Sat Jul 30 22:06:46 PDT Seattle, WA 357.2 34.7 07:50 +76.9 561 Sat Jul 30 23:42:08 PDT Seattle, WA 347.2 44.2 10:56 +80.5 469 Sun Jul 31 22:29:52 PDT Seattle, WA 357.0 34.7 07:12 +76.9 560 Mon Aug 1 22:52:59 PDT Seattle, WA 6.8 36.8 05:05 +78.1 536 Tue Aug 2 23:16:04 PDT Seattle, WA 356.7 34.8 06:34 +77.0 559 Wed Aug 3 22:03:37 PDT Sheboygan, WI 140.1 30.4 19:16 -7.4 625 Wed Jul 27 21:27:31 CDT Sheboygan, WI 337.5 33.6 11:05 +69.8 577 Wed Jul 27 23:02:37 CDT Sheboygan, WI 328.5 84.6 17:11 +48.3 338 Thu Jul 28 21:50:36 CDT Sheboygan, WI 337.4 33.8 10:27 +69.9 573 Fri Jul 29 22:13:49 CDT Sheboygan, WI 337.3 34.2 09:50 +70.0 568 Sun Jul 31 21:24:48 CDT Sheridan, WY 142.9 37.1 19:11 -1.5 535 Wed Jul 27 21:59:36 MDT Sheridan, WY 331.6 74.5 16:48 +57.8 347 Thu Jul 28 22:22:43 MDT Sheridan, WY 340.7 33.4 10:07 +71.3 576 Fri Jul 29 22:45:57 MDT Sheridan, WY 340.6 33.7 09:30 +71.4 572 Sun Jul 31 21:56:56 MDT Shreveport, LA 315.9 79.0 15:54 +40.0 345 Wed Jul 27 21:24:36 CDT Sioux City, IA 330.6 48.9 13:50 +68.7 438 Wed Jul 27 23:00:57 CDT Sioux City, IA 142.0 50.7 18:24 +8.9 428 Thu Jul 28 21:49:02 CDT Sioux City, IA 330.5 49.5 13:15 +68.5 434 Fri Jul 29 22:12:09 CDT Sioux Falls, SD 330.4 63.3 15:57 +64.0 374 Wed Jul 27 23:01:02 CDT Sioux Falls, SD 330.4 64.1 15:22 +63.5 371 Fri Jul 29 22:12:14 CDT Somerville, MA 332.2 40.2 12:23 +69.1 505 Wed Jul 27 22:29:58 EDT Somerville, MA 143.5 65.6 18:03 +21.6 368 Thu Jul 28 21:18:01 EDT Somerville, MA 332.1 40.6 11:47 +69.1 500 Fri Jul 29 21:41:11 EDT South Bend, IN 141.0 50.7 18:41 +8.4 429 Wed Jul 27 21:27:23 CDT South Bend, IN 329.4 47.2 13:12 +67.6 449 Thu Jul 28 21:50:34 CDT South Bend, IN 329.3 47.9 12:38 +67.5 444 Sat Jul 30 21:01:40 CDT Spartanburg, SC 136.0 70.0 17:54 +19.7 359 Tue Jul 26 22:03:43 EDT Spokane, WA 152.6 64.8 18:58 +24.4 369 Wed Jul 27 22:33:19 PDT Spokane, WA 341.9 59.6 16:15 +74.1 386 Thu Jul 28 22:56:30 PDT Spokane, WA 152.5 64.0 18:18 +23.8 371 Fri Jul 29 21:44:31 PDT Spokane, WA 351.6 38.6 09:31 +79.1 517 Fri Jul 29 23:19:46 PDT Spokane, WA 341.8 60.1 15:39 +73.7 383 Sat Jul 30 22:07:35 PDT Spokane, WA 351.4 38.7 08:54 +79.1 515 Sun Jul 31 22:30:44 PDT Spokane, WA 1.2 34.7 06:30 +77.0 560 Mon Aug 1 22:53:52 PDT Spokane, WA 351.1 38.9 08:19 +79.2 513 Tue Aug 2 21:41:29 PDT Spokane, WA 0.9 34.6 05:53 +77.0 560 Wed Aug 3 22:04:30 PDT Springfield, IL 138.7 48.0 18:37 +5.2 445 Wed Jul 27 21:26:33 CDT Springfield, IL 326.7 44.7 12:48 +65.1 467 Thu Jul 28 21:49:43 CDT Springfield, MA 331.0 42.9 12:51 +68.7 482 Wed Jul 27 22:29:40 EDT Springfield, MA 142.4 58.6 18:12 +15.4 391 Thu Jul 28 21:17:44 EDT Springfield, MA 330.9 43.3 12:15 +68.7 477 Fri Jul 29 21:40:53 EDT Springfield, MO 136.3 47.7 18:27 +3.5 447 Wed Jul 27 21:25:32 CDT Springfield, MO 323.9 39.8 12:10 +61.8 509 Thu Jul 28 21:48:42 CDT Springfield, OH 322.9 86.0 17:03 +43.0 338 Wed Jul 27 22:27:29 EDT Stamford, CT 330.2 37.6 12:04 +66.9 530 Wed Jul 27 22:29:22 EDT Stamford, CT 141.7 64.8 17:56 +20.1 371 Thu Jul 28 21:17:25 EDT Stamford, CT 330.1 38.1 11:28 +66.9 525 Fri Jul 29 21:40:35 EDT Steubenville, OH 137.0 32.6 19:24 -6.9 592 Tue Jul 26 22:04:54 EDT Steubenville, OH 325.0 65.7 15:44 +57.9 368 Wed Jul 27 22:28:04 EDT Steubenville, OH 324.9 66.7 15:09 +57.3 365 Fri Jul 29 21:39:17 EDT Stockton, CA 320.9 80.3 16:48 +45.2 343 Tue Jul 26 22:08:04 PDT Stockton, CA 320.8 81.4 16:12 +44.4 341 Thu Jul 28 21:19:23 PDT Superior, WI 334.2 87.3 18:11 +49.1 337 Wed Jul 27 23:02:11 CDT Superior, WI 145.2 35.1 19:01 -2.4 558 Thu Jul 28 21:50:21 CDT Superior, WI 343.6 43.0 11:58 +77.8 479 Thu Jul 28 23:25:27 CDT Superior, WI 334.3 88.1 17:32 +48.4 336 Fri Jul 29 22:13:24 CDT Superior, WI 353.3 30.4 08:32 +72.9 620 Fri Jul 29 23:48:46 CDT Superior, WI 343.4 43.3 11:23 +77.8 476 Sat Jul 30 22:36:32 CDT Superior, WI 353.2 30.5 07:53 +72.9 619 Sun Jul 31 22:59:44 CDT Superior, WI 343.2 43.8 10:51 +77.8 472 Mon Aug 1 21:47:25 CDT Superior, WI 3.0 28.9 06:24 +72.0 644 Mon Aug 1 23:22:55 CDT Superior, WI 353.0 30.6 07:14 +73.0 616 Tue Aug 2 22:10:29 CDT Superior, WI 2.8 28.8 05:45 +72.0 644 Wed Aug 3 22:33:34 CDT Superior, WI 12.6 35.9 03:42 +75.7 545 Thu Aug 4 22:56:33 CDT Syracuse, NY 328.4 73.0 16:44 +56.6 351 Wed Jul 27 22:29:12 EDT Syracuse, NY 337.4 29.6 10:18 +67.5 635 Thu Jul 28 22:52:30 EDT Syracuse, NY 328.3 74.0 16:08 +55.9 349 Fri Jul 29 21:40:25 EDT Syracuse, NY 337.3 29.8 09:40 +67.5 631 Sat Jul 30 22:03:36 EDT Tacoma, WA 148.7 46.7 19:11 +7.9 453 Wed Jul 27 22:32:29 PDT Tacoma, WA 337.8 72.9 17:18 +62.5 351 Thu Jul 28 22:55:38 PDT Tacoma, WA 347.3 40.6 10:36 +78.7 499 Fri Jul 29 23:18:51 PDT Tacoma, WA 337.7 73.6 16:41 +61.8 349 Sat Jul 30 22:06:43 PDT Tacoma, WA 357.1 32.2 07:46 +74.8 594 Sat Jul 30 23:42:06 PDT Tacoma, WA 347.1 40.9 10:00 +78.8 496 Sun Jul 31 22:29:49 PDT Tacoma, WA 356.9 32.2 07:07 +74.8 593 Mon Aug 1 22:52:57 PDT Tacoma, WA 6.8 34.0 05:21 +75.8 569 Tue Aug 2 23:16:03 PDT Tacoma, WA 356.6 32.3 06:30 +74.8 592 Wed Aug 3 22:03:35 PDT Tallahassee, FL 314.6 75.1 15:50 +40.2 350 Tue Jul 26 22:02:31 EDT Tampa, FL 315.3 37.3 12:35 +51.6 538 Tue Jul 26 22:02:21 EDT Tampa, FL 315.3 37.8 11:58 +51.5 532 Thu Jul 28 21:13:40 EDT Terre Haute, IN 140.1 67.8 18:01 +21.4 363 Wed Jul 27 21:26:50 EST Terre Haute, IN 328.4 34.1 11:20 +64.2 571 Thu Jul 28 21:50:03 EST Terre Haute, IN 328.3 34.5 10:43 +64.3 565 Sat Jul 30 21:01:09 EST Texarkana, TX 135.4 84.7 16:50 +29.6 340 Wed Jul 27 21:24:43 CDT Toledo, OH 142.9 69.8 18:11 +24.7 358 Wed Jul 27 22:27:48 EDT Toledo, OH 331.5 37.3 11:38 +67.7 533 Thu Jul 28 22:51:02 EDT Toledo, OH 331.3 37.8 11:01 +67.7 528 Sat Jul 30 22:02:07 EDT Topeka, KS 322.5 75.5 15:59 +49.8 348 Thu Jul 28 21:48:36 CDT Toronto, ON 146.0 72.5 18:19 +28.6 352 Wed Jul 27 22:28:46 EDT Toronto, ON 334.9 40.8 12:02 +71.2 498 Thu Jul 28 22:51:59 EDT Toronto, ON 334.7 41.3 11:27 +71.3 494 Sat Jul 30 22:03:05 EDT Trenton, NJ 329.2 35.7 11:51 +65.4 552 Wed Jul 27 22:29:03 EDT Trenton, NJ 140.8 65.9 17:49 +20.4 368 Thu Jul 28 21:17:05 EDT Trenton, NJ 329.1 36.1 11:14 +65.5 547 Fri Jul 29 21:40:15 EDT Troy, NY 330.3 53.8 14:38 +67.5 412 Wed Jul 27 22:29:34 EDT Troy, NY 330.2 54.5 14:04 +67.3 408 Fri Jul 29 21:40:47 EDT Tucson, AZ 132.6 47.4 18:29 +0.3 451 Tue Jul 26 20:33:39 MST Tucson, AZ 319.5 33.1 11:48 +56.1 586 Wed Jul 27 20:56:53 MST Tulsa, OK 322.1 43.7 13:19 +60.2 476 Tue Jul 26 22:36:45 CDT Tulsa, OK 134.6 40.0 18:37 -3.2 509 Wed Jul 27 21:24:56 CDT Tulsa, OK 322.0 44.3 12:43 +60.1 471 Thu Jul 28 21:48:04 CDT Urbana, IL 139.6 54.2 18:29 +10.4 411 Wed Jul 27 21:26:49 CDT Urbana, IL 327.8 41.3 12:19 +65.7 495 Thu Jul 28 21:50:01 CDT Utica, NY 329.1 67.6 16:18 +60.5 363 Wed Jul 27 22:29:21 EDT Utica, NY 329.0 68.4 15:43 +59.9 360 Fri Jul 29 21:40:34 EDT Waco, TX 133.7 74.5 17:07 +20.3 351 Wed Jul 27 21:23:53 CDT Walla Walla, WA 151.8 85.5 18:16 +42.0 337 Wed Jul 27 22:32:58 PDT Walla Walla, WA 341.1 43.1 12:09 +76.2 478 Thu Jul 28 22:56:13 PDT Walla Walla, WA 151.6 84.5 17:37 +41.2 337 Fri Jul 29 21:44:10 PDT Walla Walla, WA 340.9 43.5 11:35 +76.3 474 Sat Jul 30 22:07:18 PDT Washington, DC 327.5 34.0 11:43 +63.5 573 Wed Jul 27 22:28:28 EDT Washington, DC 327.4 34.4 11:05 +63.6 567 Fri Jul 29 21:39:41 EDT Waterbury, CT 330.7 39.8 12:23 +67.8 508 Wed Jul 27 22:29:31 EDT Waterbury, CT 142.1 62.2 18:03 +18.1 379 Thu Jul 28 21:17:35 EDT Waterbury, CT 330.6 40.3 11:46 +67.8 504 Fri Jul 29 21:40:44 EDT Waterloo, IA 333.8 35.4 11:34 +68.5 554 Wed Jul 27 23:01:39 CDT Waterloo, IA 144.9 79.5 17:37 +33.7 342 Thu Jul 28 21:49:40 CDT Waterloo, IA 333.7 35.7 10:57 +68.6 550 Fri Jul 29 22:12:52 CDT Wheeling, WV 137.0 33.8 19:21 -6.2 577 Tue Jul 26 22:04:50 EDT Wheeling, WV 324.9 62.6 15:24 +59.3 377 Wed Jul 27 22:28:00 EDT Wheeling, WV 324.8 63.5 14:49 +58.8 374 Fri Jul 29 21:39:13 EDT White Plains, NY 330.1 38.2 12:10 +66.9 524 Wed Jul 27 22:29:20 EDT White Plains, NY 141.6 63.4 17:58 +18.8 375 Thu Jul 28 21:17:23 EDT White Plains, NY 330.0 38.6 11:33 +66.9 519 Fri Jul 29 21:40:32 EDT Wichita Falls, TX 320.2 39.3 12:48 +57.9 515 Tue Jul 26 22:35:58 CDT Wichita Falls, TX 320.1 39.8 12:11 +57.8 509 Thu Jul 28 21:47:17 CDT Wichita, KS 321.3 69.7 16:05 +52.0 359 Tue Jul 26 22:36:47 CDT Wichita, KS 321.2 70.7 15:29 +51.4 356 Thu Jul 28 21:48:06 CDT Wilkes-Barre, PA 328.5 48.2 13:42 +66.7 443 Wed Jul 27 22:28:59 EDT Wilkes-Barre, PA 328.4 48.8 13:07 +66.6 439 Fri Jul 29 21:40:12 EDT Wilmington, DE 328.6 34.9 11:47 +64.7 561 Wed Jul 27 22:28:50 EDT Wilmington, DE 140.3 65.8 17:47 +19.9 368 Thu Jul 28 21:16:53 EDT Wilmington, DE 328.5 35.3 11:09 +64.8 556 Fri Jul 29 21:40:03 EDT Wilmington, NC 318.5 59.3 14:55 +53.2 390 Tue Jul 26 22:04:14 EDT Wilmington, NC 318.5 60.2 14:19 +52.7 387 Thu Jul 28 21:15:33 EDT Winston-Salem, NC 137.1 72.0 17:56 +22.2 355 Tue Jul 26 22:04:12 EDT Worcester, MA 331.7 41.4 12:36 +69.0 493 Wed Jul 27 22:29:50 EDT Worcester, MA 143.0 62.1 18:07 +18.6 379 Thu Jul 28 21:17:53 EDT Worcester, MA 331.6 41.9 12:00 +69.0 489 Fri Jul 29 21:41:02 EDT Yakima, WA 150.1 63.5 18:51 +22.6 374 Wed Jul 27 22:32:42 PDT Yakima, WA 339.3 55.2 15:07 +74.5 404 Thu Jul 28 22:55:53 PDT Yakima, WA 150.0 62.7 18:11 +21.9 376 Fri Jul 29 21:43:54 PDT Yakima, WA 348.9 33.3 09:15 +74.2 579 Fri Jul 29 23:19:10 PDT Yakima, WA 339.2 55.8 14:33 +74.1 401 Sat Jul 30 22:06:58 PDT Yakima, WA 348.7 33.4 08:36 +74.3 577 Sun Jul 31 22:30:08 PDT Yakima, WA 348.5 33.6 07:59 +74.4 573 Tue Aug 2 21:40:53 PDT Yakima, WA 8.4 30.8 05:21 +72.9 613 Tue Aug 2 23:16:26 PDT Yonkers, NY 330.0 37.9 12:07 +66.7 527 Wed Jul 27 22:29:17 EDT Yonkers, NY 141.5 63.6 17:57 +18.9 374 Thu Jul 28 21:17:21 EDT Yonkers, NY 329.9 38.3 11:31 +66.8 523 Fri Jul 29 21:40:30 EDT York, PA 327.8 40.4 12:32 +65.5 503 Wed Jul 27 22:28:40 EDT York, PA 327.7 40.9 11:56 +65.5 498 Fri Jul 29 21:39:53 EDT Youngstown, OH 137.0 29.1 19:31 -9.3 645 Tue Jul 26 22:05:02 EDT Youngstown, OH 325.0 76.8 16:41 +51.3 346 Wed Jul 27 22:28:11 EDT Youngstown, OH 325.0 78.0 16:05 +50.5 344 Fri Jul 29 21:39:23 EDT Yuma, AZ 317.3 58.2 14:21 +51.7 394 Wed Jul 27 20:56:21 MST Zanesville, OH 136.1 29.9 19:26 -9.1 633 Tue Jul 26 22:04:37 EDT Zanesville, OH 324.0 70.5 16:05 +54.3 357 Wed Jul 27 22:27:47 EDT ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #290 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Jul 88 19:23:17 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sun, 24 Jul 88 16:34:06 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 24 Jul 88 16:33:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 24 Jul 88 16:28:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 24 Jul 88 16:16:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sun, 24 Jul 88 14:13:14 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA25121; Sat, 23 Jul 88 19:06:28 PDT id AA25121; Sat, 23 Jul 88 19:06:28 PDT Date: Sat, 23 Jul 88 19:06:28 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807240206.AA25121@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #291 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 291 Today's Topics: Space station elements Re: Rocket engine Re: Mir and solar flares Re: Re: Rocket engine Re: Space Cities Re: Ramscoop engine Re: Space Cities Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update RE: SPACE Digest V8 #261 Re: Comment about science was Re: Rocket engine ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Jul 88 18:25:00 GMT From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@ee.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Space station elements Two-line elements for Salyut 7 1 13138U 88195.72059195 0.00003607 12264-3 0 1563 2 13138 51.6097 161.5347 0000460 189.9869 170.1893 15.33053410356157 Object: Salyut 7 NORAD catalog number: 13138 Element set: 156 Epoch revolution: 35615 Epoch time: 88195.72059195 (Wed Jul 13 17:17:39 UTC) Inclination: 51.6097 degrees RA of node: 161.5347 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0000460 Argument of periapsis: 189.9869 degrees Mean anomaly: 170.1893 degrees Mean motion: 15.33053410 revs / day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00003607 * 2 revs / day**2 B* drag term: 1.2264e-04 Derived figures: Semimajor axis: 6844.55 km. Perifocal radius: 6844.23 km. Apogee height: 466.72 km. Perigee height: 466.09 km. Mean longitude at the epoch: 2.8224 degrees. Magnitudes of short-period perturbations of the second harmonic: Radius vector magnitude: +/-0.99 km. True anomaly: +/-0.0114 degrees. RA of node: +/-0.0251 degrees. Inclination: +/-0.0197 degrees. Secular perturbations of the second harmonic: Argument of perigee: 3.6123 degrees/day RA of node: -4.8331 degrees/day Mean anomaly: included in published mean motion. Long-period perturbation of the third harmonic: X=-1.613e-03, Y=-8.564e-04 Two-line elements for Mir 1 16609U 88195.75450030 0.00029876 20257-3 0 3069 2 16609 51.6163 290.8517 0002993 137.6327 222.4454 15.74713290138015 Object: Mir NORAD catalog number: 16609 Element set: 306 Epoch revolution: 13801 Epoch time: 88195.75450030 (Wed Jul 13 18:06:28 UTC) Inclination: 51.6163 degrees RA of node: 290.8517 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0002993 Argument of periapsis: 137.6327 degrees Mean anomaly: 222.4454 degrees Mean motion: 15.74713290 revs / day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00029876 * 2 revs / day**2 B* drag term: 2.0257e-04 Derived figures: Semimajor axis: 6723.29 km. Perifocal radius: 6721.27 km. Apogee height: 347.153 km. Perigee height: 343.128 km. Mean longitude at the epoch: 5.0777 degrees. Magnitudes of short-period perturbations of the second harmonic: Radius vector magnitude: +/-1.01 km. True anomaly: +/-0.0119 degrees. RA of node: +/-0.0260 degrees. Inclination: +/-0.0204 degrees. Secular perturbations of the second harmonic: Argument of perigee: 3.8432 degrees/day RA of node: -5.1444 degrees/day Mean anomaly: included in published mean motion. Long-period perturbation of the third harmonic: X=-1.642e-03, Y=-8.719e-04 Source: NASA Goddard via TS Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' NOTE: Apogee and perigee heights are referred to a mean equatorial radius of 6378.145 km, and not to the local radius of the geoid. All derived quantities are calculated using the NORAD SGP model of Hilton and Kuhlman. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jul 88 23:48:39 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Rocket engine > Los Alamos simulates nuclear explosions using their Crays; I suspect that > the pressures and speeds are somewhat larger than in rocket engines. Good point. But I would say that rockets are a bit more controlled, and require tighter performance tolerances, than your average thermonuclear device. The components also have to operate a bit longer... It's probably safe to say that bomb design, like rocket design, is more art than science. Otherwise the comprehensive test-ban treaty wouldn't be such a big issue. The whole point of a test ban is to inhibit the development of new weapons. If computer simulation were all that is needed, I'd think we'd find the hawks on the American side strongly supporting a ban because of our considerable computational advantage over the Soviets. But it's the hawks on our side that oppose it most vigorously. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 88 13:50:44 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net (B Gray) Subject: Re: Mir and solar flares In article <8807051941.AA00877@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes: > Speaking of the EVA, Titov and Manarov on board Mir went out this morning >(June 30th) for 5 hours to try and fix the British/Dutch X-ray telescope on the >Kvant module. The current information I have is either the repair did not work, >or was not finished. They plan another EVA in a few days. Their screwdriver broke when they were trying to lever off a fixing ring. The tip of the screwdriver was left stuck behind the ring. The telescope was never designed to be worked on in orbit by people in spacesuits. They are to decide whether it will be possible to fix the problem on a later EVA. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jul 88 21:23:27 GMT From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpsel1!campbelr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bob Campbell) Subject: Re: Re: Rocket engine > Los Alamos simulates nuclear explosions using their Crays; I suspect that > the pressures and speeds are somewhat larger than in rocket engines. ---------- But then a nuclear device does not have to maintain an equilibrium state. It also has fewer parts. I would have expand that both rocket engines and motors are not as understood as the general public might think. Bob Campbell Some times I wish that I could stop you from campbelr@hpda.hp.com talking, when I hear the silly things you say. Hewlett Packard - Elvis Costello ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Jul 88 06:03:15 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Re: Space Cities To: uflorida!novavax!maddoxt@umd5.umd.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov, sf-lovers@rutgers.edu > From: uflorida!novavax!maddoxt@umd5.umd.edu (Thomas Maddox) > So far as I know, the accepted general designs fall into > rotating torus, sphere, or cylinder, all providing spin-induced > forces approximating gravity. People might come to prefer weightlessness. > I am currently using the "Stanford torus" model, as outlined > in T. A. Heppenheimer's _Colonies in Space_. (Slightly over a > mile in diameter, with a 1 rpm spin rate, central hub 400 feet > in diameter, six spokes 50 feet wide going to an outer rim.) Too fast! That will give you about 3 Gs. > the city will occupy a "2:1 resonant orbit" that is 200,000 miles > from Earth at farthest point, 100,000 miles at closest. You'd better have good radiation shielding. > What vistas can you see opening up in a space city, what unique > possibilities that one cannot expect life on Earth to provide? Freedom from earth governments. Immunity to earth's diseases (if colonists and imports are tested for them). Much higher population than earth (if you have enough space cities) which allows vast economies of scale, vast diversity of cultures and mores, and a "Newton" or a "Mozart" born every day instead of every few centuries. Physical decentralization, providing immunity from disease, war, and ecological collapse (whether natural or manmade). Self-contained environments suitable for eventual multi-generation travel to the stars (why leave home if you can take it with you?) leading to eventual colonization of the galaxy and the universe and/or contact with aliens if there are any, and leading to probable survival of mankind or our descendants until the end of time (if any). > I want to have my city dwellers snag a metal-rich asteroid. > I'm almost totally unclear on a few essentials. How big can it > reasonably be? (I want it to have enough size to sustain tunnels > in which a few a characters are going to have Amazing Adventures; > I want it to be transportable.) Why not have the people go to the asteroids, instead of vice versa? Have your adventures in the asteroid belt. Still plenty of light, much more available mass, much less dangerous radiation, and much easier to hide from enemies. 100k miles from earth is a little too close - you might get raided by earth governments or targeted in earth's wars. And who can blame earth governments for getting nervous when a huge asteroid is aimed almost straight at earth? A big impact could really rearrange the continents a bit. > my sf is new school (no Heinleinian digressions on the nature of the > good life, high-tech (in the cyberpunk mode, I reckon), ... I hope it isn't ultra-cynical and gutter-bound like Gibson's. I prefer optimism and light, as in Heinlein, Busby, Bear, Hogan, Varley, and Vernor Vinge. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jul 88 11:41:35 GMT From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine In article <74700090@p.cs.uiuc.edu>, carey@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: }One more question I can think of off the top of my head -- what happens }to heat dissipation as time slows down? As the fusion reactor approaches }light-speed, would its heat dissipation also slow down, thus causing }a meltdown? No, it wouldn't melt down because the heat generation would also be slowed down. From the frame of reference of the reactor, neither the fusion nor heat dissipation have slowed down, since they are moving together with the reactor. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Jul 88 06:06:06 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Re: Space Cities To: uflorida!novavax!maddoxt@umd5.umd.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov, sf-lovers@rutgers.edu > From: uflorida!novavax!maddoxt@umd5.umd.edu (Thomas Maddox) > So far as I know, the accepted general designs fall into > rotating torus, sphere, or cylinder, all providing spin-induced > forces approximating gravity. People might come to prefer weightlessness. > the city will occupy a "2:1 resonant orbit" that is 200,000 miles > from Earth at farthest point, 100,000 miles at closest. You'd better have good radiation shielding. > What vistas can you see opening up in a space city, what unique > possibilities that one cannot expect life on Earth to provide? Freedom from earth governments. Immunity to earth's diseases (if colonists and imports are tested for them). Much higher population than earth (if you have enough space cities) which allows vast economies of scale, vast diversity of cultures and mores, and a "Newton" or a "Mozart" born every day instead of every few centuries. Physical decentralization, providing immunity from disease, war, and ecological collapse (whether natural or manmade). Self-contained environments suitable for eventual multi-generation travel to the stars (why leave home if you can take it with you?) leading to eventual colonization of the galaxy and the universe and/or contact with aliens if there are any, and leading to probable survival of mankind or our descendants until the end of time (if any). > I want to have my city dwellers snag a metal-rich asteroid. > I'm almost totally unclear on a few essentials. How big can it > reasonably be? (I want it to have enough size to sustain tunnels > in which a few a characters are going to have Amazing Adventures; > I want it to be transportable.) Why not have the people go to the asteroids, instead of vice versa? Have your adventures in the asteroid belt. Still plenty of light, much more available mass, much less dangerous radiation, and much easier to hide from enemies. 100k miles from earth is a little too close - you might get raided by earth governments or targeted in earth's wars. And who can blame earth governments for getting nervous when a huge asteroid is aimed almost straight at earth? A big impact could really rearrange the continents a bit. > my sf is new school (no Heinleinian digressions on the nature of the > good life, high-tech (in the cyberpunk mode, I reckon), ... I hope it isn't ultra-cynical and gutter-bound like Gibson's. I prefer optimism and light, as in Heinlein, Busby, Bear, Hogan, Varley, and Vernor Vinge. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Jul 88 15:28:16 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update The Soviet Union successfully launched the first of the Phobos/Mars probes from the Baikonur cosmodrome today (July 7th). The exact launch time was not given but the it was listed on the 5:00 pm EDT news of Radio Moscow. The launch was shown live on Soviet TV and taped versions were seen on several of the nightly news broadcasts here. All that is said so far is that the orbital insertion was correct. There is no statement of when the on orbit burn to shape the interplanetary orbit to Mars will occur (probably sometime July 8th). These pictures of the Proton launch vehicle were excellent even if it was a night launch (they retained a spot light on the vehicle for a considerable distance). There have been several excellent descriptions of this probe recently, and I am working on a summary of those for posting in a few days. For those that are interested I suggest you get the current issues of Sky and Telescope, plus Spaceflight (the British Interplanetary Society magazine), and the March 3rd issue of New Scientist. The Russians were holding a news conference just prior to this launch where they laid out more plans for future Mars missions. They are now talking of manned flights in 2010 to 2017, about a decade after their previous discussions of a late 1990's manned mission to Mars orbit. More information has come out about the Mir station space walk held on June 30th. Titov and Manarov tried to repair the British/Dutch X-ray telescope during a 5 hour space walk, but ran into problems when some of the tools they were using broke in the "cold of outer space". This suggests that they employed their standard tools from inside for park of this work (ie. not EVA rated). They are preparing for another space walk, though no date is set. At the Soviet Party Congress last week there were two people who attacked their space program. As here the two lines of arguments were that it is (a) expensive and the money could best be spent helping the people or (b) it is a big science project which eliminates smaller, more worthwhile science programs. In spite of that it appears that the space program still has the support of the leadership there. However now those doubts are being expressed publicly, so maybe this is what will finally slow them down. On the other hand it may drive the Russians towards faster implementation of space processing on an industrial scale. That would return materials both to their economy and provide high tech, high value exports. Unfortunately for the time being there is little chance that such space processing will be done by this country on an industrial scale. We should work towards changing that. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Jul 88 17:27:26 -0900 Reply-To: Sender: From: WARRIOR Subject: RE: SPACE Digest V8 #261 w; zkOJd 5t ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 88 18:03:01 GMT From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpsel1!campbelr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bob Campbell) Subject: Re: Comment about science was Re: Rocket engine If you are looking for a book that covers theory down to the operation of a metal lathe, I think you will be looking for a while. If you want a book that covers the math and thoery, you could try and find a copy of _Rocket Propulsion Elements_. The title page lists the following information. Sutton, George Paul Rocket propulsion elements. "A Wiley-Interscience publication." Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Rocket engines. I. Ross, Donald M., 1916- joint author. II. Title. TL728.S8 1976 629.134'354 75-29197 ISBN 0-471-83836-5 Hopefully a librarian or bookseller will know what that means, and yes it was (is???) being used to teach AAE 439 at Purdue although it was first published in 1949 and last updated in 1976. Bob Campbell Some times I wish that I could stop you from campbelr@hpda.hp.com talking, when I hear the silly things you say. Hewlett Packard - Elvis Costello ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #291 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Jul 88 18:26:36 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sun, 24 Jul 88 16:31:52 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 24 Jul 88 16:31:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 24 Jul 88 16:27:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 24 Jul 88 16:14:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sun, 24 Jul 88 14:12:08 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA25259; Sun, 24 Jul 88 01:06:17 PDT id AA25259; Sun, 24 Jul 88 01:06:17 PDT Date: Sun, 24 Jul 88 01:06:17 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807240806.AA25259@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #292 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 292 Today's Topics: Re: OZONE cont. Re: Ramscoop engine Re: Ramscoop engine Re: Space cities--replies Moon landing (used to be RE: New Holiday ?) Hubble Space Telescope Re: Ramscoop engine Resolution regarding unethical National Space Society election Re: Ramscoop engine Re: Elements for Soviet space stations Elements for Soviet space stations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Jul 88 17:35:23 GMT From: vrdxhq!daitc!csed-1!zweig@umd5.umd.edu (Jonathan Zweig) Subject: Re: OZONE cont. Wanna know a place where ozone isn't a problem? SoCal! Just try to get a suntan in Pasadena and you'll find out what I mean. It can't be done -- the smog is a terrific absorber of UV with all those nitrogren compounds and ozone in it. So it seems to me that the polution destroying the UV protection in the upper atmosphere is providing even better UV attenuation in the lower atmosphere. Plus, if you die young because of the smog or crime in the big city, you won't live long enough to suffer from the skin cancer you might get on your trips to the country. (WINK!) Johnny Zweig ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 88 23:17:39 GMT From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine Whenever ramscoops come up, somebody always mentions that you could get to the Andromeda Galaxy in 25 years, ship time. This has always struck me as nonsense. Where are you supposed to find the fuel between the two galaxies to continue that 1G acceleration? -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding) ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 88 13:24:07 GMT From: mcvax!kunivv1!hobbit!ge@uunet.uu.net (Ge' Weijers) Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine In article <74700090@p.cs.uiuc.edu>, carey@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > One more question I can think of off the top of my head -- what happens > to heat dissipation as time slows down? As the fusion reactor approaches > light-speed, would its heat dissipation also slow down, thus causing > a meltdown? Fusion would be slower too. Time is only observed to slow down in the spacecraft by a 'stationary' observer. In the spacecraft nothing is noticed. -- Ge' Weijers, Informatics dept., Nijmegen University, the Netherlands UUCP: {uunet!,}mcvax!kunivv1!hobbit!ge ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 88 10:18:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk!william@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Space cities--replies Very interesting. Only one quibble ... In reply to John Turner's contribution, is it true that spin gravity is not similar to real gravity? This city would have to be some miles in diameter (I assume - I didn't get the original posting) so I would have thought the variation in the effective gravity would be minute over small movements. As (I think!) the effective gravity is proportional to the distance from the centre, a 10cm head-nod on a 5km radius ring would cause a force variation of 2e-5. Could a human detect this change? Of course, if you had a small radius and used a long cylinder then you would definitely get some effect. ... Bill ************************************************************************ Bill Witts, CS Dept. * UCL, London, Errrp * Don't believe everything you hear, william@uk.ac.ucl.cs(UK) * or anything you say. william@cs.ucl.ac.uk(US) *********************************************** ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 88 07:35:41 GMT From: aplcen!jhunix!ins_ackg@mimsy.umd.edu (Choon Kiat Goh) Subject: Moon landing (used to be RE: New Holiday ?) In article <8807071447.AA04166@angband.s1.gov> GEOS21@UHUPVM1.BITNET (Jonathan C. Sadow) writes: > >For the sake of future reference, the official time at which Neil Armstrong >first stepped on the lunar surface is 02:56:20 UT on 21 July 1969, and the >EVA lasted 2 hours and 31 minutes. > Just a fast query...whose chronometer were they using? I suppose Neil had the final say in the matter because he was there. Mission Control would have a slightly off time because of the delay between Earth and the Moon in radio communications. Is it true that Michael Collins didn't hear Neil's moon address? --- Ian --- (ins_ackg@jhunix) ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 88 07:22:11 GMT From: aplcen!jhunix!ins_ackg@mimsy.umd.edu (Choon Kiat Goh) Subject: Hubble Space Telescope On Nova, there was a show on spy machines and their development and so forth. One thing they said was that the next generation of spy satellites will be like the Hubble Space Telescope (their graphics showed a stunning look-alike) except that it'd be pointed downwards instead of up. How feasible would it be for the current HST to be turned around and pointed downward, just for a quick scan to test out the optics? Is the HST the next step in reconnaisance technology? Is it possible for the HST in its existing form to be used as a "spy" satellite? --- Ian --- (ins_ackg@jhunix) <== no mention of ironic situations please! ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 88 18:36:05 GMT From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine In article <5362@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) writes: >In article <74700090@p.cs.uiuc.edu> carey@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >> >>The ramscoop engine idea is used in larry Niven's books. I don't know if >>he "invented" it. > >I believe the "interstellar ramjet" was first proposed in the 60s by >Bussard. Someone has walked off with my reference, however. The first >place I read about it was in an article by Ben Bova about 1965. > If I'm not mistaken, Niven even referred to it as a "Bussard ramjet". >There's a Poul Anderson novel published both as _Tau Zero_ and _To >Outlive Eternity_ (I think) about passengers on a runaway Bussard ramjet >that just keeps accelerating. Presumably they wind up at the restaurant >at the end of the universe. Good book! --Rod ------------------------------ Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!trout.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim Date: Sat, 9 Jul 88 10:52:34 PDT From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Resolution regarding unethical National Space Society election Please obtain access to a copy of the National Space Society's ballot for the board of directors election and look for two things: 1) An endorsement of some of the candidates by the Nominations Committee which is placed in a position of prominence outside the space reserved for other such endorsements for each candidate. 2) The lack of "NO" vote boxes. The bylaws of the Naitonal Space Society allow for the publication of endorsements of candidates and these endorsements could even include one made by the Nominations Committee itself. There is a place reserved for each candidate in the ballot mailing for statements of such endorsements and these statements are limited to 400 words. It is not appropriate for endorsements to appear outside of these statements -- and it is particularly unethical for the Nominations Committee to use its position of trust and authority to place its own endorsements. Also, the bylaws provide for negative votes as well as positive votes. There is no preference given to positive votes over negative votes in the bylaws. Given the exceptionally controversial situation during this election it is particularly important that negative voting be placed on an equal par with positive voting. It is not appropriate that negative voting be treated exceptionally on this, or any, year's ballot. If you find that the Nominations Committee has acted inappropriately in this situation, please consider mailing the following resolution in to National Space Society headquarters. ====================================================================== WHEREAS Mark Chartrand, the co-chairman of the Nominations Committee of the National Space Society, has expressed his opposition to the National Space Society bylaw that gives members of the society the right to vote in the election of directors; and WHEREAS Mark Chartrand has expressed his preference for the old National Space Society governance system (a system underwhich the directors had the sole power to elect directors); and WHEREAS Mark Chartrand has participated in the formulation and implementation of a plan to use corporate funds to advance the candidacy of some candidates to the Society's board of directors, to the disadvantage of other candidates; and WHEREAS the Nominations Committee authorized the implementation of the aforementioned plan; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that _________________ does hereby find and declare: 1) That Mark Chartrand, because he is opposed to the democratic election of National Space Society directors, should not be and should not have been put in charge of the democratic election of directors; and 2) That the use of corporate funds to advance the candidacy of some candidates to the society's board of directors, to the disadvantage of other candidates, consititutes an undemocratic and unethical use of coroprate funds. RESOLVED further that _________________ does hereby condemn Mark Chartrand for having participated in the formulation and implementation of an antidemocratic and unethical plan to use corporate funds to advance the candidacy of some candidates to the Society's board of directors, to the disadvantage of other candidates. RESOLVED further that _________________ does hereby call on the Nominations Committee to accept its responsibility to disapprove of undemocratic and unethical plans in the future. RESOLVED further that _________________ does hereby recommend that the bylaws of the National Space Society be ammended to expressly prohibit the use of corporate funds to selectively advance the candidacy of some candidates to the Society's board of directors. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 88 01:12:34 GMT From: killer!tness7!tness1!nuchat!sugar!peter@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine In article <5407@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: > Whenever ramscoops come up, somebody always mentions that you could get > to the Andromeda Galaxy in 25 years, ship time. This has always struck > me as nonsense. Where are you supposed to find the fuel between the two > galaxies to continue that 1G acceleration? Overdesign? Let X be the ratio of the density of the Intersteller medium to that of the Intergalactic medium (multiplied by fudge factors). Design the thing so that it can generate up to X gees in the ISM, and 1 gee in the IGM. Then run it at (100/X)% in the ISM, and crank it up as you leave the galaxy... Remember that your efficiency goes up as you speed up (more swept volume per unit time), so a system that can generate 1 gee at 1% of light will be able to generate lots more gees at 90% of light, so you're going to have to throttle down as you get up to speed in the galaxy anyway. So, what's the value of X? -- -- `-_-' Peter (have you hugged your wolf today?) da Silva. -- U Mail to ...!uunet!sugar!peter, flames to /dev/null. -- "Running DOS on a '386 is like driving an Indy car to the Stop-N-Go" ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 88 22:18:00 GMT From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@ee.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Re: Elements for Soviet space stations Those who are planning Spaceweek activities should note that there are very fine passes of Salyut 7 over most of the continental US during that period, and the Spaceweek people may want to publicize the fact. I hope to have a table of apparitions over US cities shortly (one line per apparition), and will post it once I have it together. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 88 22:16:00 GMT From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@ee.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Elements for Soviet space stations Two-line elements for Salyut 7 1 13138U 88187.83286141 0.00002889 10066-3 0 1489 2 13138 51.6105 199.6452 0000799 174.7263 185.3648 15.33011317354942 Object: Salyut 7 NORAD catalog number: 13138 Element set: 148 Epoch revolution: 35494 Epoch time: 88187.83286141 (Tue Jul 5 19:59:19 UTC) Inclination: 51.6105 degrees RA of node: 199.6452 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0000799 Argument of periapsis: 174.7263 degrees Mean anomaly: 185.3648 degrees Mean motion: 15.33011317 revs / day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00002889 * 2 revs / day**2 B* drag term: 1.0066e-04 Derived figures: Semimajor axis: 6844.68 km. Perifocal radius: 6844.13 km. Apogee height: 467.077 km. Perigee height: 465.983 km. Mean longitude at the epoch: 3.4861 degrees. Magnitudes of short-period perturbations of the second harmonic: Radius vector magnitude: +/-0.99 km. True anomaly: +/-0.0114 degrees. RA of node: +/-0.0251 degrees. Inclination: +/-0.0197 degrees. Secular perturbations of the second harmonic: Argument of perigee: 3.6118 degrees/day RA of node: -4.8327 degrees/day Mean anomaly: included in published mean motion. Long-period perturbation of the third harmonic: X=-1.613e-03, Y=-8.564e-04 Two-line elements for Mir 1 16609U 88187.82011286 0.00025402 17818-3 0 2939 2 16609 51.6163 331.6369 0003340 114.9553 245.1661 15.74022174136766 Object: Mir NORAD catalog number: 16609 Element set: 293 Epoch revolution: 13676 Epoch time: 88187.82011286 (Tue Jul 5 19:40:57 UTC) Inclination: 51.6163 degrees RA of node: 331.6369 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0003340 Argument of periapsis: 114.9553 degrees Mean anomaly: 245.1661 degrees Mean motion: 15.74022174 revs / day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00025402 * 2 revs / day**2 B* drag term: 1.7818e-04 Derived figures: Semimajor axis: 6725.25 km. Perifocal radius: 6723.01 km. Apogee height: 349.355 km. Perigee height: 344.862 km. Mean longitude at the epoch: 5.7903 degrees. Magnitudes of short-period perturbations of the second harmonic: Radius vector magnitude: +/-1.01 km. True anomaly: +/-0.0118 degrees. RA of node: +/-0.0260 degrees. Inclination: +/-0.0204 degrees. Secular perturbations of the second harmonic: Argument of perigee: 3.8392 degrees/day RA of node: -5.1391 degrees/day Mean anomaly: included in published mean motion. Long-period perturbation of the third harmonic: X=-1.641e-03, Y=-8.717e-04 Source: NASA Goddard via TS Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M' NOTE: Apogee and perigee heights are referred to a mean equatorial radius of 6378.145 km, and not to the local radius of the geoid. All derived quantities are calculated using the NORAD SGP model of Hilton and Kuhlman. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #292 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Jul 88 23:53:32 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sun, 24 Jul 88 22:24:50 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 24 Jul 88 22:24:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 24 Jul 88 22:11:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 24 Jul 88 22:07:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sun, 24 Jul 88 22:05:57 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00398; Sun, 24 Jul 88 19:04:53 PDT id AA00398; Sun, 24 Jul 88 19:04:53 PDT Date: Sun, 24 Jul 88 19:04:53 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807250204.AA00398@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #293 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 293 Today's Topics: Ron Paul's Libertarian Party Space Policy Re: Space Shuttle Differences Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! Re: Rocket engine Von Braun quote Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!trout.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim Date: Sat, 9 Jul 88 12:55:47 PDT From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Ron Paul's Libertarian Party Space Policy Dale Amon presented me with a copy of Ron Paul's space policy and I felt it appropriate to post on the net, especially since Dale claims to have contributed to this policy and is available for discussion of it on the network. Here it is: ====================================================================== Ron Paul's Space Policy Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Time after time NASA has developed capabilities at great expense then discarded them: a space station larger than the Soviet MIR, a heavy lift vehicle competitive with the new Soviet Energia, a nuclear engine twice as efficient as the space shuttle main engine, and a well-tested Earth-Moon transport system. The fate of the Saturn V heavy lift launch vehicle is one of the saddest examples of this folly. Production was intentionally halted and portions of its tooling were "lost." This bridge burning ensured support for the next aerospace welfare program: the space shuttle. Now we have a grounded government shuttle that can lift only a third as much as the Saturn V for the same cost per pound. That's progress, government style. Even worse, this failed state monopoly is now wrecking businesses to avoid well-deserved embarrassment. American companies desparately need to get their satellites into space. But they have been blocked from using the cheapest, most reliable launcher in the world which unfortunately happens to be the Soviet Proton. NASA has cost our nation a full twenty years in space development, twenty years that has seen the Soviet union surpass us to such an extent that may well be irreparable. It is inconceivable that a private firm could have committed such follies and survived. NASA deserves no better. Our only hope now lies in the power of free individuals risking their own resources for their own dreams. We must recognize the government- led space program is dead and the corpse must be buried as soon as possible. Any defense functions should be put under the military, and the rest of NASA should be sold to private operators. The receipts would be applied to the national debt. Then, all government roadblocks to commercial development of space must be removed. It is not the business of the Defense Department of a free society to veto business decisions of remote sensing or launch companies. The interests of liberty would be well served by a bevy of mediasats that put any future Iran-Contra affair under the full glare of live television coverage. Maybe, besides the competition, that's what our government is afraid of. There's really only one proper role for the military in space or on Earth: the protection of America. Otherwise, the new frontier of Space should opened to all. Space pioneers will generate knowlege and wealth that will improve the lot of all people on earth. We should not let government get in their way. SPACE -- INTERNATIONAL POLICY Our government is not only short-sighted in its negotiations on space issues, it's downright antiAmerican. Sometimes it's hard to decide whose principles the State Department is defending. They certainly aren't those of the Founding Fathers. About the only anti-property treaty this country hasn't ratified is the odious "Moon Treaty" written by our own Satate Department. If not for an alert group of citizens (L5 Society), the United States would have ratified this treaty under President Carter and embraced control of all of the rest of creation by a World Government. Under "the common heritage of mankind" space would be the heritage of no one. The vast wealth of resources and energy in our solar system would remain untapped instead of being explored by entrepreneurs who would improve the condition of all humanity. It's time this sick treaty is repudiated once and for all. We must also demand a revision or understanding to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty so individual property rights are recognized. If there are no implementing protocols for property rights within a specified time limit we should withdraw from the treaty entirely. In any case, we should immediately open a land office and accept claims of Americans to specific pieces of land, subject to occupancy within fifteen years. Back in the late 1950's a project called Orion seriously considered using small nuclear explosions to power a spacecraft. The lifting capacity would have been vast, measured in thousands of tons instead of the miniscule abilities of today's mightiest rockets. This brute- force approach was simple enough to be considered feasible 30 years ago. Unfortunately, the idea was shelved by the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. If we truly wish to see the opening of the space frontier, we must not prevent businesses from working on futuristic ideas like fusion drives or matter-antimatter engines. Such technologies will one day open the solar system to commerce the way the clipper ship opened the oceans in the 19th century. A time may also come when industrial nuclear explosives are needed in deep space for extraction of the vast wealth of resources inside comets and asteroids. Modification of the 1963 Test Ban Treaty and other understandings to clearly allow such non-military use of nuclear technology is in the best interest of all space-faring peoples. But perhaps most basic of all, we should question why governments of the 20th century Earth assume they have the right to make laws for unknown environments, at distances of millions of miles and a time decades or centuries in the future. If the arm of government can reach that far, freedom on Earth is precarious at best. ====================================================================== End of policy statement by Ron Paul. ====================================================================== I've heard only one justification from Dale for his vocal and impassioned arguments for full NASA funding under its business-as-usual approach of "wrecking businesses to avoid well-deserved embarrassment" in the words of Dale's own candidate. This explanation is that he is speaking as an official of the National Space Society and is, thus, under an obligation to argue and promote the official views of the Society as determined by the Legislative Committee. Others, such as Henry Spencer, have offered their uninvited justification for Dale's actions in terms of political pragmatism of some kind, although Dale has yet to offer these justifications himself. Given the fact that Dale is under no obligation to speak on behalf of the National Space Society, that the policy which he claims to have contributed to is clearly an impassioned plea to put an end to NASA's anticompetitive and wasteful practices, that Dale signs his own name to his impassioned pleas for full NASA funding and that he has yet to offer any believable political strategy in which identifying full NASA funding with the most viable political strategy for opening the space frontier is more than a thinly veiled attempt to mask his own hypocrisy, I call on Dale to now present such a justification or offer the honest truth about why he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 88 01:08:41 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Differences > Are all the operational shuttles the same, ie. in terms of lifting > capability, weight, etc. ? Or are there functional differences? There are no major functional differences, but the later orbiters are lighter and hence can carry heavier payloads. -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 88 23:41:43 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! > Private development is not new-- Space Services Inc. of Houston has > designed, built and *flown* the Conestoga using private funds... No they haven't. They built and flew what amounted to a big sounding rocket. The various Conestoga satellite-launchers are still paper designs. And do remember that that one launch was something like five years ago. > And they > are offering their launchers to DARPA on a strictly commercial basis. Precisely what OSC+Hercules are doing with Pegasus, I believe. > If DARPA commits to buying launches on a vehicle which is still in the > development stage, how is that significantly different from them paying > for development? Having the government as a customer is very different from having it as a partner. Unless I am much mistaken, DARPA will pay only for launches, not for promises. That's a BIG difference. > What happens when there are cost overruns and production delays? Presumably, existing contracts would have to be renegotiated (unless there were provisions for such already present), leading to possible loss of business. Same as what happens when Boeing hits delays or overruns on a new airliner. > The article also raises questions about possible > hidden subsidies: How much are OSC and Hercules paying for use of the > NASA B52? How much are they paying for computing at Ames? This I don't know. I would speculate that the B-52 is being provided on a basis of "until we have our own carrier aircraft, the customer has to supply it". Ames is presumably involved in this for its own reasons, and may consider free computing time justified. Remember that NASA *is* charged with advancing aerospace technology for use by private industry. > Hercules and OSC claim that they will develop, build and certify not > one, not two, but three new motors with $45M, and in one year... I confess that the motor development sounded a bit ambitious to me too. However, the standard rule of thumb is that doing things privately and accepting some risk is an order of magnitude cheaper than having the job done by the government. $450M for government development of three small solid motors, by an experienced company, doesn't sound too bad. Likewise a time of two years (not one -- this project is already well underway, remember) doesn't sound too bad for motors that don't involve new technology. They should represent a fairly routine engineering job. That, actually, deserves some expansion. Although I wish OSC+Hercules success, and gobs of money, their most important contribution will be their first successful launch. If they go broke despite technical success, that will still establish the crucial point: getting into orbit is routine engineering now, and does not require a billion dollars, ten years, thousands of people, or government funding. If they can pull it off technically, and I suspect they can, that will be an enormous contribution to convincing investors that private spaceflight is realistic. There are two problems with investors: convincing them that you can do it, and convincing them that you can make a profit on it. The first problem is the hard one, especially since NASA is all too eager to assure the investors that billions of dollars and thousands of engineers are absolutely necessary. Proving that assertion a lie is very important; so far it hasn't been done. The problem with Space Services is that they've taken so long to deliver; the problems with Amroc and Pacific are that they insist on developing new technology, and that they too are showing signs of having trouble delivering soon (I for one consider it a bad sign when the design of the vehicle changes repeatedly, over a period of years, before anything actually flies). If Pegasus works, it will demonstrate that a short development program using existing technology is sufficient. That would make a vast difference to getting funding for private-spaceflight projects. > One of the more important aspects of this article is the tense... > Hercules and OSC have far to go before this project amounts to much more > than the inflated claims of a marketing campaign... One of the more important aspects of this article is the timing: after the project is well underway, not before it gets started. I doubt very much that an official announcement could possibly have been postponed any longer, actually. Given the way the aerospace industry usually ballyhoos its back-of-the-envelope design sketches, OSC and Hercules have actually shown remarkable restraint. -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 88 01:12:31 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Rocket engine > ... I could be wrong, but I got the *very* strong impression that > the process was one of "diddle with it until it works". Well, one can sometimes get hints from knowing how similar problems were solved in the past, but I believe that's basically correct. Even the definition of "works" is rather ad-hoc; testing includes things like exploding small bombs inside the engine to try to stimulate any instabilities that might be lurking. -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 88 00:36:11 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Von Braun quote > > Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft. --Von Braun > > Last week's successful Ariane-4 launch put AMSAT Phase 3-C and two other > satellites into [a very precise] orbit... I'd like to see some fighter > jock/astronaut do as well by flying a launch manually... "The Lord has delivered him into my hands." -Huxley Yup, the computer did a fine and very precise job. Now, Phil, cast your mind back a little ways, to the Ariane launch of AO-10 (I think it was). Much the same computer, running much the same software, controlling much the same booster, put AO-10 into a nice precise orbit. After which the same computer, mindlessly following orders, proceeded with a venting procedure that caused the third stage to catch up with and collide with AO-10, damaging it seriously and causing a lot of headaches for you and the rest of the Amsat crew. The greenest student pilot could have prevented that, if he'd been there. You, of all people, should not be lauding the unmanned nature of Ariane as an unmixed blessing. I think we all agree that machines are generally superior for boring jobs that have to be done exactly right, especially when there are tight response-time requirements. Even Von Braun, after all, built computer- controlled launchers. And I think we would all agree that humans are generally superior for adapting orders to situations and coping with the unforeseen. Both the Solar Max repair and the Palapa/Westar retrieval succeeded (despite one or two false steps along the way) even though the original carefully-built equipment simply didn't work. The debate centers on the extent to which unexpected situations and unforeseen problems can be removed by advance planning. NASA, Arianespace, etc. have been insisting for a long time that nothing is left to chance and everything is foreseen. They have consistently been proven wrong. Sometimes the equipment can be convinced to cope, and this is trumpeted as further proof that humans are unnecessary in space. Sometimes the equipment just isn't up to handling a new situation, and this is written off as Just One Of Those Failures One Has To Expect -- even if it wouldn't have been a failure with a human on hand. Do I detect a small inconsistency here? Automatic equipment is the appropriate response to a well-understood, simple, repetitive job like relaying communications, taking pictures, or guiding a launcher. Humans are the appropriate response to complex, variable, unforeseen, one-of-a-kind situations like equipment failures, unexpected changes in environment, and exploration of planetary surfaces. To pick a close-to-home example, the success of satellite repair/retrieval procedures has been inversely proportional to the reliance placed on automatic equipment rather than humans -- compare the equipment-intensive Solar Max repair, a near-disaster, with the human-intensive Leasat repair, which worked so well that it was boring. > Perhaps you should limit the scope of this statement somewhat. If we're being pedantic, note that Von Braun did: he said "spacecraft", not "launcher", so Ariane isn't relevant. -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 88 12:24:25 GMT From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! In article <1988Jul9.234143.15997@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Remember that NASA *is* >charged with advancing aerospace technology for use by private industry. Has anyone told them this? While I've seen evidence of an interest in airplanes, they don't seem to have done much to help with launchers. Or are they helping while the rest of the government works against them? John Carr "When they turn the pages of history, jfc@Athena.mit.edu When these days have passed long ago, Will they read of us with sadness For the seeds that we let grow?" --Neil Peart ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #293 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Jul 88 05:18:05 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Mon, 25 Jul 88 04:30:10 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 25 Jul 88 04:30:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 25 Jul 88 04:26:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 25 Jul 88 04:07:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 25 Jul 88 04:06:38 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00553; Mon, 25 Jul 88 01:05:53 PDT id AA00553; Mon, 25 Jul 88 01:05:53 PDT Date: Mon, 25 Jul 88 01:05:53 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807250805.AA00553@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #294 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 294 Today's Topics: Re: Ron Paul's Libertarian Party Space Policy Re: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update Soviet space commitment (was: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update) Re: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update Re: Von Braun quote Re: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update Re: Ramscoop engine Re: Hubble Space Telescope Re: Pegasus and other space projects Unethical National Space Society election ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Jul 88 13:36:47 GMT From: l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@k.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) Subject: Re: Ron Paul's Libertarian Party Space Policy In article <8807091956.AA22362@crash.cts.com>, jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) writes: [Long quote of the libertarian space policy.] Let me say that I support the libertarian space policy and I will probably vote libertarian. However, I do not expect the country to even adopt very many libertarian policies in the near future (alas). Does that mean that I should not support those policies which I think will have good ends, and possibly even make libertarian societies possible in the future? Jim complains that because Dale Amon is a libertarian, he cannot reasonably support any NASA space activities. I believe that Szilard's prognostications about the bad effect of the present type of government support of researcn in general have already occurred, and that steps should be taken to reverse the process. However, merely cutting the federal research funding will not, by itself, do anything good for the problem. For a good researcher, who appreciates the problem, to refuse to accept government funds will also not help the problem. Libertarians believe that those who wish to fund exploration of space should be allowed to do so, and that, except for military purposes, the government should get out. Thus a libertarian will support the elimination of NASAs activities in space exploration together with the government removing its controls on private space activities. However, this does not prevent the support of NASA if the government still exercises control. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP) ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 88 18:04:36 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Re: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update In article <8807081928.AA23848@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes: >On the >other hand it may drive the Russians towards faster implementation of space >processing on an industrial scale. That would return materials both to their >economy and provide high tech, high value exports. I find this utterly unbelievable. It's clear NASA doesn't have a single product that could be made profitably in the space station, and little reason to expect any such product exists. Why should the Soviets, with their awful record at developing and marketing high tech products, expect success? It seems incredible to me that, faced with the evidence of what bureaucracy did to the US space program, people can still think the Soviet space program is some paragon of good planning. I don't see what they're getting that's worth the investment. And, Glenn's exhorations notwithstanding, I don't see why the US should follow their lead. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 88 18:24:55 GMT From: att!lzaz!lznv!psc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Subject: Soviet space commitment (was: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update) < "Would you buy a used operating system from these guys?" > In article <8807081928.AA23848@ll-vlsi.arpa>, glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes a whole lot of useful information about the Phobos probes. Thanks! But another comment got me to thinking. > At the Soviet Party Congress last week there were two people who attacked > their space program. As here the two lines of arguments were that it is > (a) expensive and the money could best be spent helping the people or (b) it > is a big science project which eliminates smaller, more worthwhile science > programs. In spite of that it appears that the space program still has the > support of the leadership there. However now those doubts are being expressed > publicly, so maybe this is what will finally slow them down. Color me skeptical about the "spontaneous" outbursts at the Party Congress. They might be staged opportunities for the Powers Who Be to chastise opponents, and to repeat the USSR's commitment to space exploration and development. >Glenn Chapman, MIT Lincoln Lab -Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet psc@lznv.att.com I'm not speaking for my employer, I'm just speaking my mind. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 88 19:14:08 GMT From: thomson@cs.utah.edu (Rich Thomson) Subject: Re: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update In article 19086@cornell.UUCP, dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) writes: :In article <8807081928.AA23848@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes: :>On the :>other hand it may drive the Russians towards faster implementation of space :>processing on an industrial scale. That would return materials both to their :>economy and provide high tech, high value exports. : :I find this utterly unbelievable. It's clear NASA doesn't have a single :product that could be made profitably in the space station, and little :reason to expect any such product exists. Why should the Soviets, with :their awful record at developing and marketing high tech products, expect :success? I thought the soviets were using the space station to make very high quality silicon wafers and chips. Is this incorrect? I remember some talk a while back about chips/wafers that were made on the space station. Compared to the US, the soviets are far behind in the capabilities of producing high quality (low amounts of impurities) wafers and corresponding chips. I would think that very pure silicon crystals could be grown in the zero-g environment of space. Comments? -- Rich -- Rich Thomson, Oasis Technologies, 3190 MEB, U of U, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 (801) 355-5146 thomson@cs.utah.edu {bellcore,ut-sally}!utah-cs!thomson Alcohol: the drug of availability ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 88 20:04:29 GMT From: Portia!Jessica!paulf@labrea.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) Subject: Re: Von Braun quote In article <1988Jul10.003611.16575@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >-- >Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ^ | \------ A curious comment, since the dairy industry supported the Republican candidate in the last election... -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | One Internet to rule them all, -- Tome Computer Systems Laboratory | One Internet to find them; of Stanford University | One Internet to bring them all, Internet ->paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU | And in the Ether bind them. Hacking ------------------------------ Date: 07/10/88 20:10:00 EST From: #JFDOBB%WMMVS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu Subject: I was wondering if anybody knows why there are never any replies from any of the machines at larc.nasa.gov, it seems like there are at least a few frome ames, but none from langley, are there just no langley people who read this or do they have nothing to say. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 88 00:22:54 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Re: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update In article <5593@utah-cs.UUCP> thomson@cs.utah.edu.UUCP (Rich Thomson) writes: >I thought the soviets were using the space station to make very high quality >silicon wafers and chips. Is this incorrect? I remember some talk a while >back about chips/wafers that were made on the space station. > >Compared to the US, the soviets are far behind in the capabilities of producing >high quality (low amounts of impurities) wafers and corresponding chips. I >would think that very pure silicon crystals could be grown in the zero-g >environment of space. Comments? It would pretty silly for the Soviets to grow silicon crystals in space. The cost would be very high. It would less technically risky just to steal (or buy on the black market) and copy crystal growing machines. It would be doubly absurd to make chips or wafers on a space station, since microgravity is worthless after the crystal is grown, and the cost of operating any manufacturing facility in orbit is enormous. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 88 18:26:24 GMT From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine In article <2284@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > > Remember that your efficiency goes up as you speed up (more swept volume > per unit time), so a system that can generate 1 gee at 1% of light will be > able to generate lots more gees at 90% of light, so you're going to have to > throttle down as you get up to speed in the galaxy anyway. > I beg to differ. A ramscoop engine suffers from the same ram drag as any other ramjet type engine. This apparent force is caused by temporarily bringing the interstellar matter up to your speed so you hold on to it long enough to fuse it. It then expands out the back at it's characteristic exhaust velocity, which is about 0.04c. This then is the upper speed limit for an interstellar 'ramjet'. If you attempt an interstellar 'scramjet' where the interstellar matter is compressed mostly sideways, and not accelerated axially up to your speed, then you ship has to be long enough for the fusion reaction to complete before the ship has gone by. With 'conventional' fusion reactor designs, the burn times are measured in many seconds (like 100) , which makes for very long ships. If you had a laser fusion 'supercompressor' you could probably get the burn time down,but no one I know of has even 'back of the enveloped' that concept (magnetic scoop feeding laser inertial confinement). -- Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder (205)461-2606(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, AL 35824 34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 88 18:04:57 GMT From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope In article <6651@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>, ins_ackg@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Choon Kiat Goh) writes: > > On Nova, there was a show on spy machines and their development > and so forth. One thing they said was that the next generation of > spy satellites will be like the Hubble Space Telescope (their graphics > showed a stunning look-alike) except that it'd be pointed downwards > instead of up. How feasible would it be for the current HST to be > turned around and pointed downward, just for a quick scan to test > out the optics? Is the HST the next step in reconnaisance technology? > Is it possible for the HST in its existing form to be used as a > "spy" satellite? > > --- Ian --- > (ins_ackg@jhunix) <== no mention of ironic situations please! No, you've got it backwards, the HST is derived from the previous generation of satellites. As I was told by a co-worker who worked on the Space Telescope structure "It seemed like they had done all this before", referring to Lockheed (spacecraft systems on HST) and Perkin-Elmer (optics on ditto). Note: Boeing made the carbon-epoxy structure that holds the optics under subcontract to Perkin-Elmer. As for the feasibility of pointing it downwards, in short "No way, Jose!". The science instruments are sensitive enough to be damaged by looking at a bright planet (Venus, Jupiter), much less a brighter object. There is a parallel story about a spy satellite being damaged by looking at a natural gas flare in Saudia Arabia. When you design for looking at 26th magniude objects, one 10^14 times as bright is liable to hurt (ouch!) -- Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder (205)461-2606(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, AL 35824 34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 88 18:59:49 GMT From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Pegasus and other space projects In article <1988Jul9.234143.15997@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > > > What happens when there are cost overruns and production delays? > > Presumably, existing contracts would have to be renegotiated (unless there > were provisions for such already present), leading to possible loss of > business. Same as what happens when Boeing hits delays or overruns on > a new airliner. Just because we delivered a few airplanes a few days late this year is no reason to pick on Boeing. Usually, for us, delivery dates are sacred, and are met at all costs. There have been some problems this year because the high rate of airplane production worldwide is straining the supplier chain. We just make damn sure before we commit to a customer that the date is reasonable (a few days out of 2-3 years from order to delivery is not that bad, really)... As far as development or manufacturing costs, if they overrun, Boeing eats the loss. The price on the contract is what we deliver the airplane for. Please check out you facts in the future before using my employer as a bad example. > However, the standard rule of thumb is that doing things privately and > accepting some risk is an order of magnitude cheaper than having the job > done by the government. $450M for government development of three small > solid motors, by an experienced company, doesn't sound too bad. Likewise > a time of two years (not one -- this project is already well underway, > remember) doesn't sound too bad for motors that don't involve new technology. > They should represent a fairly routine engineering job. > I agree. We (Space Research Associates, the small space company I own 20% of) have been working on a similar design, the main difference being using existing solids. Our cost estimate through first flight is about $15 million. Given that solids typically cost about ten times first unit cost for set up of a production line, the 45 million number for Pegasus seems quite reasonable. Solids are not so much 'designed and developed' as 'built to order'. The filament wound case/carbon nozzle technology is well in hand for Hercules after all the governemnt motors they have built. Our design stays with existing solids because its hard enough trying to raise $15 million in venture money as a startup. OSC/Hercules have more money to play with, and can afford better performance motor designs. If OSC/Hercules are as smart as they seem to have been so far then I will go out on a limb and predict that they will be buying a used 707 cargo plane to convert to their first stage. Compare sizes and Costs: Airplane Cost with Modifications Takeoff Wt (lb) new 747-400 $145 million 890,000 old 707-320C $8-20 million 333,600 So you get a smaller max weight, who cares. The 707 can lift up to twice the initial Pegasus launch weight. When that gets too small, they will be able to afford a 747 for even bigger launches. -- Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder (205)461-2606(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, AL 35824 34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 88 02:58:03 GMT From: ubvax!unisv!vanpelt@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Unethical National Space Society election I just got a letter about the ballot for the upcoming NSS Board Elections. It looks like the Nominating Committee has yet another slimy trick up its collective sleeve -- In direct violation of agreements that seemed to have been reached at the Denver conference, the ballots are going to go out with a cover letter recommending a "straight ticket" vote for the candidates placed on the ballot by the Nominating Committee, there is no indication of which candidates were placed on the ballot by petition, and there is no mention of the fact that you can, indeed, vote AGAINST a candidate by marking NO on the line in front of the candidate's name. It is my intention to mark a big, red NO! in front of every name which came from the Nominating Committee. I will make exceptions for candidates that I have some good reason to vote in favor of, but for Nominating Committee candidates, the presumption is of guilt as far as I'm concerned. The time is running out for wrenching control of this organization from the bureaucratic thumb-twiddling empire builders, and if we don't do it this board election, it will probably never happen. We were unable to have a board meeting at the Denver convention, because a quorum of board members did not condescend to put in an apperance!! I very strongly recommend looking at the list of which board members attended, and if they weren't there but they're on the ballot, vote NO! unless there are VERY good extenuating circumstances. (I'm aware that in several cases, there were.) I had let my NSS membership lapse, and renewed it for the Denver conference. I'm hoping that wasn't a mistake. Sorry about the angry, cynical tone of this. I'm very sincerely PO'd. -- "... Local prohibitions cannot block advances in military | Mike Van Pelt and commercial technology.... democratic movements for | Unisys, local restraint can only restrain the world's democracies, | Silicon Valley not the world as a whole. -- K. Eric Drexler | vanpelt@unisv.UUCP -- "... Local prohibitions cannot block advances in military | Mike Van Pelt and commercial technology.... democratic movements for | Unisys, local restraint can only restrain the world's democracies, | Silicon Valley not the world as a whole. -- K. Eric Drexler | vanpelt@unisv.UUCP ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #294 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Jul 88 00:09:17 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Mon, 25 Jul 88 22:26:34 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 25 Jul 88 22:26:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 25 Jul 88 22:23:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 25 Jul 88 22:14:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 25 Jul 88 22:09:07 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01664; Mon, 25 Jul 88 19:06:31 PDT id AA01664; Mon, 25 Jul 88 19:06:31 PDT Date: Mon, 25 Jul 88 19:06:31 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807260206.AA01664@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #295 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 295 Today's Topics: Re: NASA news - Seasat Re: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update Electromagnetic Launchers Mars Face (again) Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! NASA support for industry Re: Von Braun quote Naming the Space Station Re: postings from LARC (was none BITNET eh?) Re: Space Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Jul 88 16:55:23 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: NASA news - Seasat In article <21900022@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: }An arbitrary `mean sea level' can be defined in terms of an }equipotential surface, that is, a surface chosen so that any two }points on the surface have the same gravitational potential. To a }fairly good approximation, the surface so described is nearly }spherical, flattened slightly at the poles and heavier in the southern }hemisphere. The surface so described is the `reference geoid.' You can also get some interesting bottom contour data from the geoid structure. Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 88 15:58:02 GMT From: ubvax!unisv!vanpelt@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update In article <5593@utah-cs.UUCP> thomson@cs.utah.edu.UUCP (Rich Thomson) writes: >I thought the soviets were using the space station to make very high quality >silicon wafers and chips. Is this incorrect? I don't know about silicon, but the third solar panel that was installed on MIR contains some germanium arsenide solar cells made from GeAs crystals that were grown on MIR. -- "When you strip all the technospeak away, they're claiming that it can't be done because it hasn't been done yet, and therefore, we ought not even try doing it, because it can't be done. That's Luddite Logic if I ever heard it." -- Tom Clancy on SDI. Mike Van Pelt vanpelt@unisv.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jul 88 13:35:09 EDT From: dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) To: dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu, space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Electromagnetic Launchers I was thinking some more about the perennial problem of cheaply lifting mass into orbit; specifically, using electromagnetic launchers. Under the assumption that we can launch high ballistic coefficient vehicles out of the atmosphere at around escape velocity, what orbits should the vehicles be launched into? How much change in velocity would onboard rockets have to supply? The purpose of the system would be to launch acceleration insensitive materials into space. This could be very useful in supporting (for example) manned Mars exploration. Rocket fuel, water and radiation shielding make up a significant fraction of the Mars vehicle's mass. The vehicles could not just be unguided projectiles, like bags of lunar material launched using a mass driver, since vehicles are placed onto elliptical orbits with perigee beneath the Earth's surface. Onboard rockets must lift the perigee above the atmosphere and guide the vehicle to a space station. Where to put the space station? LEO is one idea, but LEO is hard to get to. Simply firing the vehicle to an orbit with an apogee several hundred km up doesn't work, since the delta-V needed to circularize the orbit would be huge. One might reduce the delta-V by depressing the trajectory, but atmospheric heating kills you . A more complicated procedure is called for: 1. Launch vehicles into a highly eccentric orbit with apogee well beyond GEO. The orbit must pass through the plane of the LEO space station's orbit at a point distant from the earth. 2. When the vehicle intersects the station's orbital plane, use the engine to put the vehicle into that plane with perigee in the upper fringes of the atmosphere. 3. Lower the apogee using aerobraking, perhaps over many orbits to avoid overheating. This should reuse the heat shield used during the vehicle's initial ascent. 4. Aerobraking should be managed so that the vehicle ends up near the space station in a phase matching orbit. Rendezvous. Assuming the requirement in step 1 can be met, the kick motor need only supply a delta-V of less than 1 km/sec, and perhaps only a few hundred m/sec. Step 1 can be satisfied if the station is in near equatorial orbit and the launcher's latitude is not too high, or if the station is in polar orbit and the launcher fires payloads to orbits with apogees above the north pole. It seems wasteful to dissipate so much energy in aerobraking. Better to put the station itself in higher orbit. A particularly attractive target is highly eccentric earth orbit (HEEO). There's a problem, however: the payloads end up in orbits with major axes pointing in different directions, depending on the time of launch. To avoid this, launch the vehicles into polar HEEO. Kind of a strange orbit, but it might avoid the worst of the radiation belts. Perhaps Alaska would be a good place for the launcher. HEEO is ideal for the launch and recovery of interplanetary spacecraft. It is nearly out of Earth's gravity well, but allows spacecraft to change their velocities near the Earth, where the use of a rocket is most efficient. For example, a delta-V of only about 1.5 km/sec at perigee in the proper HEEO will take you to Mars. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jul 88 16:10 CDT From: Kerry Stevenson Subject: Mars Face (again) I hate to bring this stuff up again, but .... This morning, while chowing down some breakfast, I listened to an interview taking place on "Canada AM" (the True North's version of Good Morning America) with a spokesman from an organization known as the "Mars Project". The spokesman explained that he represented an "unofficial group of scientists", which has apparently been doing work on the data gathered by the Viking missions back in 1976. Their thinking is that NASA has not given enough thought to some of the more unusual data, in particular the "face on mars". The spokesman explained that they had obtained the original transmission data from Viking and had applied more up to date image enhancement software, thus giving a more detailed look at this feature. Several photos were shown during the interview. The first showed a wide angle view of the "face" area, with the face in the upper right corner and a suspicous bunch of hills in the lower left. The spokesman suggested that these "structures" (which were much larger than the face) were also of great interest because of their tremendous symmetry. (note- I didn't think they were that symmetrical, but one could imagine large pyramids if you closed one eye and had a few of your favorite brews first) The next two pictures were closeups of the face itself, and seemed quite a bit more detailed than the previously available photos. The photo showed a right eye, nose, cheek, a faint hairline and a sort of built-up ring around the whole mess. The other "facial-closeup" was taken at a different sun angle, some 35 degrees different than the other closeup. It showed remarkably similar features to the low angle photo, supposedly demonstrating that there is actually a structure with these features, and that it is not entirely due to lighting effects. The final shot was the most interesting of the bunch. It showed a 3-D computer analysis of the face, based on the two views previously shown. There were 16 views of the structure, and they were quite amazing. It really looks like someone carved a face out of a hill. I thought that the nose was interesting, since it did not "stick out", and was rather flat against the rest of the face - exactly what one might expect if you had carved out a face. The whole structure appeared to be close to a square in shape, with rounded corners - again, very symmetrical. Of course, some of the left side of the face was in darkness in both shots and could not be shown in the 3-D views. The spokesman explained that they had sent a representative (a Dr. Brian O'Leary?) to Moscow last week to see if they could convince the Soviets to have the Phobos probe take some pictures of the region containing the face. He expressed some doubt that the Soviets would be able to accomodate them, as interplanetary schedules are usually difficult to change with a week's notice. However, he then said that they would definitely be able to get a closer look at the face with the american Mars Observer, which he said would be launched in 1992. It's my understanding that the Mars Observer may be delayed until sometime after that. Contrary to what one may see in a newspaper from a grocery checkout line, this guy seemed to be for real. He didn't draw any conclusions about this, other than that "these photos are extremely provocative, and should be investigated further." Can someone explain what the "Mars Project" is? What other projects are they working on? Are they as real as they seem? I also thought that the Mars Face was a bunch of hooey, however, when you see these new enhanced pictures you may want to reconsider your opinion. I don't believe that it is really a face, but I now think that I'd at least like to see a couple of hi-res pictures of this "structure" taken by new spacecraft. Kerry. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 88 21:36:46 GMT From: pioneer.arc.nasa.gov!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! In article <1988Jul9.234143.15997@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >> hidden subsidies: How much are OSC and Hercules paying for use of the >> NASA B52? How much are they paying for computing at Ames? > >This I don't know. I would speculate that the B-52 is being provided on >a basis of "until we have our own carrier aircraft, the customer has to >supply it". Ames is presumably involved in this for its own reasons, and >may consider free computing time justified. Actually, I brought this up, off the cuff. There is some confusion here. This project isn't doing any computing at Ames. There is a name collision here, and this is the source of some confusion. The B52 is also ours (down at Dryden), but I don't know how reimbursement is done for this. You were just lucky on this one. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 88 04:07:40 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: NASA support for industry > >Remember that NASA *is* > >charged with advancing aerospace technology for use by private industry. > > Has anyone told them this? While I've seen evidence of an interest in > airplanes, they don't seem to have done much to help with launchers. > Or are they helping while the rest of the government works against them? No, unfortunately. NASA *is* officially supposed to help industry, in much the same way that its predecessor NACA did. (NACA's enormous contributions to aviation are the single best argument *against* abolishing -- as opposed to reorganizing -- NASA. Yes, Virginia, governments can be helpful.) The aeronautics people at NASA have not forgotten this. Unfortunately the space people mostly have. Note that the NASA people helping with Pegasus are basically the aeronautics people. -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle |uunet!mnetor!utzoo! henry @zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 88 19:05:17 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Von Braun quote In article <3071@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, paulf@Jessica.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) writes: > In article <1988Jul10.003611.16575@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >-- > >Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > >a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry > ^ > | > \------ A curious comment, since the dairy industry supported the > Republican candidate in the last election... This will make moe sense when you consider who is/was for a long time the senior senator from Wisconsin... ------------------------------ Subject: Naming the Space Station Date: Mon, 11 Jul 88 18:47:15 -0400 From: Fred Baube Another vote for "Space Station Fred" ! ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 88 22:05:30 GMT From: pioneer.arc.nasa.gov!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: postings from LARC (was none BITNET eh?) I expect Mike Fischbein might answer this. He's from LARC. Let me suppliment what he can tell you. There are people at Langley who read the news (sci.space or space-digest depending on your interface). You probbaly will see an occasional posting from JPL, Ames, etc. Several years ago, when I was with the Research Branch, I was given a charter to spend time reading net news (up to 10% time). So I had "official word" and I forwarded things like when the Challenger blew up, etc. Now, I sort of read for "fun." You know, like the NSA guys. Why? Several reasons: we wanted to hire some good people (network savvy, would you hire a computer person who's never heard of the ARPAnet, Usenet, or BITNET? there's lots out there), we frequently have needs for device drivers, etc. There are several reasons for answers to your questions. First, NASA is not very well connected as far as networks go. The guys who are doing some of these are located in my old building. I did some of this when I was working at JPL (got their first LHDH as an example). You were probably searching a host table. You may see a few GSFC hosts as well. Getting from one machine to another is not a guarantee, additionally, lots of machines are intentionally kept isolated. There are other cultural factors which keeps lots of NASA in the dark: lots of machines aren't networking stock: know of a TCP/IP for a Varian 620/f now Unisys V73 or V76s?). NASA has hundreds of these as well as Modcomp IVs, etc. NASA as a civilian spinoff of the military also has some paranoia about computers and computer networks. Recent computer/plane combination disasters, breakins, etc. don't help this. There's lots of managers who have great fear of this stuff. Who has the computers? Not the Public Information Office people, usually researchers. Did you think they have time for all the drivel on this net? If you are insulted by the term drivel, tough cookies, more than one person has pointed this out. I usually hit either the "n"ext or "r"eply rather than follow up. I can't answer every question, and I just skip notes now after I get back from vacation. You guys need a moderator, to some extent, but it shouldn't be a NASA person. Ted's also swamped. Anyways, good researchers will tend to have their own lines of communication. There is some HEPnet and SPAN gatewaying, but recent events are going to hurt a lot of this. These guys are trying to do work, but if they have to answer every question which gets fielded to them about ozone layers, LA the Movie, etc. then you have just killed a goose. Anyway, my IRIS is down for the moment, so I can say this. "Hope you can adjust," as Joan Baez once said. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Jul 88 18:14:09 CDT From: bruce@diamond.tamu.edu (Bruce D. Wright) Subject: Re: Space Suits The important issue here may be that it takes about 3 psi (160 mm Hg) oxygen partial pressure to maintain about 100 mm Hg oxygen partial pressure in the alveoli of the lungs. Below this partial pressure the blood does not saturate with oxygen while passing through the lungs. Trying to hold 3 psi pressure in your lungs reletive to the pressure outside of your body would probably cause an embolism to occur, not to mention that breathing extreme possitive pressures like this would be REALLY exhausting. Also, breathing pure oxygen at such low total pressure causes atelectasis to occur. This is alveoli collapse caused by the oxygen in the alveoli being absorbed into the blood. The carbon dioxide remaining in the alveoli doesn't have enough pressure to withstand the blood pressure outside of the alveoli, thus, they collapse. Coughing can reinflate them, but this seems like a really stressing environment, not to mention the constant worry about the vacuum causing boils to raise in your skin in all those hard to cover places and the hassle (and health risks) of necessary decompression for every EVA. Adding good old inert nitrogen will alleviate these health risks, although it adds its own problems. There is always a measure of trade-offs in any engineering design. Loss of mobility is a drag, but maybe the health risks are worse in a 'skin suit'. If it was me up there, I would want a full pressure suit that was engineered for whatever mobility was possible, then make up the difference with good tools. Bruce Wright Agricultural Engineering Texas A&M University ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #295 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Jul 88 05:45:40 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Tue, 26 Jul 88 04:31:00 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 26 Jul 88 04:30:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 26 Jul 88 04:28:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 26 Jul 88 04:13:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 26 Jul 88 04:07:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Tue, 26 Jul 88 04:07:21 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01819; Tue, 26 Jul 88 01:05:47 PDT id AA01819; Tue, 26 Jul 88 01:05:47 PDT Date: Tue, 26 Jul 88 01:05:47 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807260805.AA01819@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #296 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 296 Today's Topics: Re: Ramscoop engine US/USSR delegations to meet on space cooperation (Forwarded) Re: Electromagnetic Launchers Re: Von Braun quote Re: Rocket engine Re: Hubble Space Telescope Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! Re: Electromagnetic Launchers Re: Hubble Space Telescope ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Jul 88 12:30:09 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!warper.jhuapl.edu!trn@mimsy.umd.edu (Tony Nardo) Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine In article <5407@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >Whenever ramscoops come up, somebody always mentions that you could get >to the Andromeda Galaxy in 25 years, ship time. This has always struck >me as nonsense. Where are you supposed to find the fuel between the two >galaxies to continue that 1G acceleration? If you kick your speed up to that close to 'C' while you're in the galaxy, then you don't need to continue accelerating once you leave. By the time the interstellar hydrogen runs too thin to use, you should be out of the galaxy's gravity well. I have a different concern. With relativistic effects, will the reaction time of your navigation computer slow down? How you avoid collisions with unanticipated objects (gee, we never *did* chart that rather dim protosun now, did we?...) at such speeds, if so? ============================================================================== ARPA: trn@warper@aplvax.jhuapl.edu \ one of these should work, aplcen!isl!trn@aplvax.jhuapl.edu } but you may have to route nardo%str.decnet@capsrv.jhuapl.edu / thru ucbvax.berkeley.edu UUCP: aplvax!trn@warper USnail: c/o Johns Hopkins University/APL, Room 7-53 Johns Hopkins Road Laurel, Md. 20707 "You can't win, you can't break even, you can't even quit the game." ============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 88 00:13:02 GMT From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: US/USSR delegations to meet on space cooperation (Forwarded) Debra J. Rahn Headquarters, Washington, D.C. July 11, 1988 RELEASE: 88-95 US/USSR DELEGATIONS TO MEET ON SPACE COOPERATION A U.S. delegation headed by Samuel Keller, deputy associate administrator for space science and applications, will meet with Soviet counterparts in Moscow, July 14 and l5, to discuss implementation of the enhanced US/USSR space cooperation agreed to at the US/USSR Summit. Discussions will focus on planning for the exchange of flight opportunities to fly scientific instruments on each other's spacecraft and how to coordinate exchanging results of independent national studies of future unmanned solar system exploration missions. The two sides are expected to present preliminary information on the types of scientific instruments for which cooperative flights might be of interest and summary lists of solar system exploration mission studies underway. They will discuss guidelines for selection of experiments for flight opportunities identified by either side, respecting normal selection practices and administrative procedures for contacts with their respective scientific communities. Finally, they plan to outline formats and mechanisms for reporting results of unmanned solar system mission studies. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 88 22:17:02 GMT From: cat.cmu.edu!dep@pt.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) Subject: Re: Electromagnetic Launchers In article <8807111735.AA06532@gvax.cs.cornell.edu> dietz@GVAX.CS.CORNELL.EDU (Paul F. Dietz) writes: >... >The vehicles could not just be unguided projectiles, like bags of >lunar material launched using a mass driver, since vehicles are >placed onto elliptical orbits with perigee beneath the Earth's surface. >... Why? If the package managed to _hit_ the station at apogee (and sticks), it wouldn't need any rockets at all. Of course, the station would have to be rather sturdy.... Seriously, this might not be such a bad delivery method for raw materials. Just have an armored, high-Isp "catcher" which catches several bundles and reboosts itself to the station. By making the catcher unmanned and launching the packages such that their apogee is << the station's altitude, it should be safe and cheap. -- "Good ol' JT." "On the QT, I hear it was David Pugh EDB..." "Gee! Just like DB and the PCB's..." ....!seismo!cmucspt!cat!dep "Yep, DOA." "And the FDA said it was OK?" "Well the EPA put out an SOS ASAP." "Poor SOB." "RIP." ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 88 08:08:39 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Von Braun quote Henry, I'm impressed. You *have* been reading up on us, haven't you! But since you like to quote anecdotes, let's pick the Solar Max rescue mission. Remember how George ("Pinky") Nelson grabbed one of the solar arrays in an attempt to stop the satellite from spinning? Not only did he not stop the spin, but he precessed it so much that the solar arrays were shadowed and the spacecraft was nearly lost when the batteries almost ran down. And I won't even mention the strong likelihood that the rescue mission cost more than a simple replacement would have. I've never understood why it's so necessary to put humans into space in order to benefit from their ability to react to unforseen circumstances. In many situations, it makes far more sense to keep such people on the ground instead of sending them along with the payload, especially since the state of the communications art has gotten so good. Keeping your human "crew" on the ground has many advantages. The payload is enormously simpler, because it doesn't have to provide man-rated life support and a means to return the crew. Your human "crew" can be much bigger, and you can easily change them after launch. They need not be prime physical specimens; they can be chosen solely for their technical skills and perhaps even their understanding of the basic physics of rotating bodies (unlike Pinky Nelson). Your arguments represent a convincing case for versatile remote control, not for manned spaceflight. In the case of Oscar-10, those of us on the ground had plenty of opportunity to exercise our ability to react to unforseen circumstances. With the help of a versatile on-board computer that can be completely reprogrammed from the ground, we were able to save the mission. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 88 08:37:50 GMT From: mcvax!enea!kth!draken!d85-per@uunet.uu.net (Per Hammarlund) Subject: Re: Rocket engine In article <1209@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: >It's probably safe to say that bomb design, like rocket design, is more >art than science. Otherwise the comprehensive test-ban treaty wouldn't >be such a big issue. The whole point of a test ban is to inhibit the >development of new weapons. If computer simulation were all that is >needed, I'd think we'd find the hawks on the American side strongly >supporting a ban because of our considerable computational advantage >over the Soviets. But it's the hawks on our side that oppose it most >vigorously. Does anybody have a ratio between "testing of new weapons" and "just checking the old stuff"? I don't think that the whole point of a test-ban treaty is to inhibit the development of new weapons, though it IS one aspect! Another point is that a test-ban would add insecurity about whether the hardware you have in stock actually works, and that this would make "traditional warfare" more desirable or at least more reliable. I gather the hawks you mention are politicians!? I think every engineer likes to make a prototype of his/hers work and then test it, no matter how sure he/she is that it will work!?! (If you are constructing something like the space shuttle you will at least make prototypes of the subsystems and then test them.) Even if computers is all it takes to construct a bomb you would still like to test it, if nothing else to see how it performs. When the x-ray laser was developed, read "Aviation - or Defense leek", the theory was "right" and it had most likely been heavily simulated but it was tested anyhow. Even if computer simulations come close to reality, reality is reality is.. /Per Hammarlund ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 88 23:03:27 GMT From: sco!allanh@uunet.uu.net (Allan J. Heim) Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope It's true, turning the HST downwards would fry the instruments aboard it. But the KH-12 (the reconnaissance satellite based on the HST) doesn't use the same instruments. The optics and overall structure are similar to the Hubble instrument, but the equipment aboard is designed for a reconnaissance role. al ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 88 10:55:31 GMT From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! >>William Baxter >Henry Spencer >Having the government as a customer is very different from having it >as a partner. Unless I am much mistaken, DARPA will pay only for launches, >not for promises. That's a BIG difference. There is a lot of room for wonder when the contract is signed so far in advance of full development. It seems that DARPA is going for two in the bush when, after two and a half years without a shuttle launche, they purchase a launch from a company that promises a cheap launch on an undeveloped booster rather than buying them from another company which uses proven equipment. Someone remarked that the Conestogas use motors that the Delta uses. This argues in their favor, not against them. I have heard that Hercules is having problems with cost overruns and production delays on their other motor development projects. If true, this would raise more serious questions about the wisdom of DARPA in signing on at this stage. Please correct me if you know otherwise. > I would speculate that the B-52 is being provided on >a basis of "until we have our own carrier aircraft, the customer has to >supply it". And a company with a ground launched vehicle should be able to launch from Cape Canaveral for free so long as the government is the customer? This rather artificially alters the price of the launch. >The problem with Space Services is that they've taken so long to deliver; I beg to differ. The problem with Space Services is that they got into the game a bit too early, and ran into ridiculous government resistance to development of private launch services. Their chances for success increased dramatically with the explosion of Challenger. But in the two and one half years since then, how many launches has the government purchased from the private sector? And how many companies are going to risk their satellite on a private vehicle that the government does not trust enough to use? >the problems with Amroc and Pacific are that they insist on developing >new technology, and that they too are showing signs of having trouble >delivering soon (I for one consider it a bad sign when the design of the >vehicle changes repeatedly, over a period of years, before anything actually >flies). The fact that a vehicle design changes repeatedly "before anything actually flies" is not a problem--that is simply development. Amroc is conducted so many tests that they may well understand the motor they have *before* they use it in a launch. In contrast, the Pegasus will be flown without verification launch or booster calibration (AW&ST June 27). >> What happens when there are cost overruns and production delays? >Presumably, existing contracts would have to be renegotiated (unless there >were provisions for such already present), leading to possible loss of >business. If they end up with long delays or lose the contract after a couple of years they will hurt the whole industry, by degrading further the reputation of launch companies for investment, and in delay of contracts for other companies. OSC and Hercules are risking a lot on Pegasus, and they will probably deserve whatever they get. I too am glad to see someone attempting this approach to building as launch vehicle. But it is not *the* correct way. William Baxter ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!{garnet,brahms,math}!web ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 88 14:13:42 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Re: Electromagnetic Launchers In article <2243@pt.cs.cmu.edu> dep@cat.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes: >>The vehicles could not just be unguided projectiles, like bags of >>lunar material launched using a mass driver, since vehicles are >>placed onto elliptical orbits with perigee beneath the Earth's surface. > >Why? If the package managed to _hit_ the station at apogee (and sticks), >it wouldn't need any rockets at all. Of course, the station would have >to be rather sturdy.... The catcher would have to be pretty massive. The requirement that the catcher be at the package's apogee would restrict the orbits the system could launch to. GEO would work, but I don't see how to launch to HEEO. Their is a guidance problem. In O'Neill's scheme, the lunar soil packets are very carefully tweaked after launch, so the velocity error is something like 1 meter per *hour*. There is no way you can achieve that kind of accuracy firing through the atmosphere. Also, in the orbits I mentioned, apogee position is a sensitive function of the initial velocity. I was imagining each vehicle would have maneuvering rockets for course corrections as well as to raise the apogee. Given that complexity, it would be a shame to smash the carrier after each use. On the other hand, there's no reason why the vehicle would have to get smashed. It could carefully release its payload, say, ten minutes before hitting the station, and gently move aside. I would then reenter, having never gone into orbit. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 88 15:33:57 GMT From: ncar!noao!stsci!berry@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Jim Berry) Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope >From article <334@scolex>, by allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim): > It's true, turning the HST downwards would fry the instruments > aboard it. But the KH-12 (the reconnaissance satellite based > on the HST) doesn't use the same instruments. The optics and > overall structure are similar to the Hubble instrument, but > the equipment aboard is designed for a reconnaissance role. > > al No, pointing HST 'downwards' will not fry the instruments. At least one of the instruments, the Wide Field/Planetary Camera, requires that the telescope be pointed at the sunlit Earth in order to approximate a flat field (several 'smears' are taken at different angles resulting in a uniform gray field). In addition, since HST will be in a low-Earth orbit, it will not be unusual for a target to be 'eclipsed' by the Earth. Rather than slewing around so as not to point 'down', the telescope will typically maintain its attitude. On the other hand, it is quite possible to damage some of the instruments by leaving their detectors active while slewing through a bright Earth, but simply pointing HST at the Earth won't necessarily do it. There is a bit of folklore around here that tells how the first HST objective mirror 'got lost', and another had to be made. Cute story, regardless whether it's true or not. ====================================================================== Jim Berry | UUCP:{arizona,decvax,hao}!noao!stsci!berry Space Telescope Science Institute | ARPA: berry@stsci.edu Baltimore, Md. 21218 | SPAM: SCIVAX::BERRY, KEPLER::BERRY ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #296 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Jul 88 01:38:11 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Tue, 26 Jul 88 22:32:52 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 26 Jul 88 22:32:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 26 Jul 88 22:26:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 26 Jul 88 22:13:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Tue, 26 Jul 88 22:08:18 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02861; Tue, 26 Jul 88 19:05:20 PDT id AA02861; Tue, 26 Jul 88 19:05:20 PDT Date: Tue, 26 Jul 88 19:05:20 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807270205.AA02861@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #297 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 297 Today's Topics: Are these postings useful? 1988 SEDS International Conference space news from May 16 AW&ST space news from May 23 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Jul 88 20:41:00 GMT From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@ee.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Are these postings useful? I'm curious whether anyone is actually using my postings about orbital elements and the like. More to the point, my recent posting of upcoming overflights has raised some eyebrows -- there is a question as to whether such a posting is worth the net bandwidth it consumes. I'd like to take an informal poll. Do you think that the posting of elements is: - useful - useful to others, but I have another source for them - useful to others but I don't know how to use them - useless because it's duplicated in rec.ham-radio - useless altogether? Do you think that the posting of a timetable for upcoming overflights is - useful and should be continued - useful but should be stopped because it's too much data - useless? Please reply by email only; no need to clutter the newsgroup with responses. Kevin Kenny UUCP: {uunet,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny Illini Space Development Society ARPA Internet or CSNet: kenny@CS.UIUC.EDU P.O. Box 2255 BITNET: kenny@UIUCDCS.BITNET Station A Champaign, Illinois, 61820 Voice: (217) 333-6680 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jul 88 18:01:58 CDT From: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Abrams) Posted-Date: Sat, 16 Jul 88 18:01:58 CDT Subject: 1988 SEDS International Conference Cc: PEREZ%uhcl.csnet@relay.cs.net * * * * * A N N O U N C E M E N T * * * * * "S P A C E F O R A L L N A T I O N S" The 1988 International Conference of the Students for the Exploration and Development of Space will be held August 25-28th in Houston, Texas at the Nassau Bay Hilton across from Johnson Space Center SEDS, the Students for the Exploration and Development of Space, is an international organization founded in 1980 on the campuses of M.I.T. and Princeton by students for those highly-motivated students expressing an interest in space and space issues. The primary emphasis is space *education* as education is the key to exploration and development. There are now nearly 40 chapters in the U.S. and Canada and there is every indication of continued growth in the national and international arena. SEDS members come from a diverse educational background encompassing high school and college students in diverse major fields. They write papers for publication in SEDS' Space Topics in Education Program (STEP). They increase public awareness of space and space-related issue on a local level. They design Get-Away-Specials (in the expectation of a revitalization of that program) and carry out their own research. They compete in design projects, like Space Calendar's current Jupiter Mission Design Contest. They comprise some of the most highly motivated students in the country. The theme of the conference is centered around International Space Year 1992 and, while emphasizing student involvement in space, it will also be attended by professionals in the space industry from the Houston-Clear Lake area. Concurrent with the conference will be a Space Career Expo with personnel representatives from area aerospace employers. Social events will include a Texas Barbecue with members of the Astronaut Corps and the Arthur C. Clarke Award Banquet. The Arthur C. Clarke Award is given annually to one person whose efforts in space education merits recognition. Students will make presentations on a wide variety of topics including the following topics (titles are subject to change -- topics aren't): "Solar Sails: The Concept That Wouldn't Die" "The Commercial Remote Sensing Market: Current Assessment, Baseline Forecast and Baseline Alternatives" "Laser Atmospheric Wind Sounder, An Earth Observing System" "SEDS-University of New Mexico Satellite Tracking Station" "Processes Governing the Profitability of Protein Crystal Growth in a Micro-Gravity Environment" "The Effects of Microgravity on Fertilization and Early Genetic Development" "Human Factors in Space: Models from Terrestrial Experience" Presentations will be made by students from high schools to doctoral candidates. Tours planned will include: SpaceLab Training Facilities Weightless Environment Training Facility JSC's Space Museum Mission Control (this should be exciting as they'll probably be running simulations in preparation for the Sept. 4th Discovery launch) Space Station MockUp 1-g Shuttle Trainers (outside) JSC's Rocket Park In addition, two panel discussions are planned ('?' means that the participant has expressed interest, but is unable to commit to date): "Orbital Political Science" with Nathan Goldman, James Oberg, Bonnie Dunbar (?), and Art Dula (?) "Future of Commercial Space Activities" with Dr. David Webb, Dr. Peter O. Bishop, Dr. Joseph Allen (?), Larry Griffin (?), David Hannah (?) In addition to the student presentations, there will be several workshops and discussion groups during the conference. Currently planned topics include: Space Biomedicine, Space Technology, Future Concepts in Space, Human Factors in Space, and Space Science. If you are interested in finding out more about SEDS, starting a new chapter, getting in touch with an existing chapter, helping an existing chapter, or participating in the 1988 conference, please contact us by one of the means below: Steve Abrams, Member Carlos Perez, Co-Chairman SEDS National Executive Board SEDS 1988 Internat'l Conference 2721 Hemphill Park c/o University of Houston - Apt. C Clear Lake Austin, TX 78705 2700 Bay Area Blvd., Box 198 (512)480-0895 Houston, TX 77058 OR OR c/o Graduate Office c/o Nassau Bay Hilton Dept. of Physics NASA Road 1 University of Texas at Austin Houston, TX Austin, TX 78705 (713)333-9300 ARPANET: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu & PEREZ%uhcl.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET CompuServe: [70376,1025] SEDS is affiliated with the National Space Society, Society of Satellite Professionals, Space Studies Institute, and the Young Astronaut Council. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 88 03:47:41 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from May 16 AW&ST Heads up -- another Soviet nuclear radarsat is in trouble overhead. Cosmos 1900, launched Dec 12, apparently has had some sort of major failure. It has performed neither its boost maneuver (to put its reactor section into long-lived high orbit) nor its backup separation maneuver (to separate the reactor core so that, unprotected, it will burn up on reentry). An uncontrolled reentry with radioactive debris reaching the ground is possible. DoT Secretary Burnley says DoC was wrong to allow Payload Systems Inc. to fly a scientific experiment on Mir, on the grounds that such international ventures hurt the US launch industry. And you thought the US was a free country. Ho ho. Oxidizer shortage looms... Planned production of ammonium perchlorate this year was 50Mlb. The capacity of the surviving Kerr-McGee plant is nominally 36Mlbs/yr, and it can probably be boosted to 40 fairly quickly, but a year down the road -- when existing stockpiles empty out -- the gap will be felt. Most solid fuels are circa 70% AP by weight; the shuttle uses 1.7Mlbs per mission. In addition to the gap between requirements and supply, not all solid motors are cleared to use Kerr-McGee AP, since there are minor differences between it and the product of the defunct Pacific Engineering plant. It will probably take two years or more to rebuild the PE plant, probably at a more remote site. (Kerr-McGee is already running into local opposition to resuming production at its plant.) Expanding the Kerr-McGee plant wouldn't be quick either. Cause of the explosion is not clear; one possibility is that a natural-gas leak started a fire. AP by itself is not particularly explosive, and this is the first major AP accident on record. Federal grand jury subpoenas records from Ford Aerospace and Hughes in an investigation of kickbacks within Intelsat. NASA shortens pre-STS-26 flight readiness firing from 22 to 9 seconds to avoid repeated high loads on the aft skirts of the SRBs. Dates already obsolete now hoped for are July 17 for the FRF and Aug 29 for launch. Small schedule slips continue; repair of minor insulation debonds, misthreaded leak-test ports, and installation of large numbers of test sensors are slowing SRB stacking, although the left SRB is done. Congressional Budget Office predicts severe budget problems for NASA in 1990s due to increasing interdependence of NASA programs. If the deficit requires holding NASA's budget at the current $9G level, this will demand either postponement of the space station well into the 21st century or a "complete restructuring" amounting to gutting the manned space program. CBO warns that the US space program is becoming an "all-or-nothing proposition" because large-scale projects like the shuttle and the space station are crucial to so many other plans. Postponing the space station could have the same sort of ripple effect on space science and applications as the Challenger accident. The interdependence carries potential for lower overall costs, but it also increases cost and schedule risks for individual missions. Now here comes a REAL weirdie... SDIO tried unsuccessfully for two months to get Administration blessing for a manned US/Soviet space demonstration in August involving astronauts, cosmonauts, Mir, an SDI satellite, and astronaut maneuvering backpacks. A Soviet booster would have carried US hardware to Mir, possibly including US astronauts, to retrieve a package from an SDI satellite and return it to Mir. NASA vetoed the idea as an unnecessary distraction from the shuttle's problems, and many people saw it as a political stunt rather than a useful mission. Some practical problems too: the US MMU won't fit through Mir's hatches. The only reason the idea got as far as it did was that it came direct from Abrahamson. "The concept's got a wooden stake driven through its heart now, but you never know what's going to come out of SDI during the next full moon", says one unnamed official. I swear I did not make this up. Europe urges US to soften its objections to launching NATO comsats on Ariane, an idea the US has vowed to block. The *official* US reason, as readers may recall, is that such NATO-infrastructure contracts are supposed to be restricted to full NATO members. France, the largest partner in Ariane, isn't a full member any more. House Appropriations subcommittee approves $10.7G appropriation bill for NASA, a cut of $0.8G, mostly *not* from the space station. -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle |uunet!mnetor!utzoo! henry @zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 88 05:29:30 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from May 23 AW&ST SDI's Delta Star space signature-observation experiment delayed to next year; budget problems. TDRS-C, STS-26's payload, arrives at KSC. 10th anniversary of launch of the Pioneer Venus orbiter, which is still returning data. It has about 2 kg of fuel left, enough for another four years or so. House caps FY89 space-nuclear-power funding at FY88 level, instead of the 55% increase requested. A major reason is that SDI is the biggest potential customer, yet the programs get no military funding. Soviets gear up for intensive space activity: launch of the Phobos probes in July, a Soviet/Bulgarian mission to Mir in June, possible launch of the Soviet shuttle in August (with continuing confusion over whether the first launch will be manned), an imminent Mir EVA to repair the failed British/Dutch X-ray telescope on Kvant, and the usual steady stream of satellite launches. Soviet manned space experience, in man-hours, is now triple that of the US. Titov and Manarov are unloading Progress 36. NASA finishing major overhaul of shuttle launch-decision process, most notably making one person responsible for each milestone decision. Bob Crippen, now deputy director of shuttle operations, makes the final decision. He says that if there is a foulup "it will be my fault". [Maybe the Philips review accomplished something after all -- this is uncharacteristic of NASA.] Community political pressure shuts down the Kerr-McGee oxidizer plant pending completion of an independent study of plant safety. This plant is adjacent to parts of Henderson, Nevada; the Pacific Engineering plant that blew up was two miles away and the explosions still caused extensive damage in Henderson. The shutdown will slightly increase the serious shortfall in ammonium perchlorate production that will be felt in a year or so. Cause of the PE blast is still unclear; PE says it started with a leaking gas main, while the gas company claims its main was broken by the explosion. PE plans to rebuild in a remote area; K-M plans to stay where it is if the safety review results are positive. Ariane launches Intelsat 5 successfully on May 17, after a brief delay due to lightning warnings. Arianespace is gearing up for intensive activity; its backlog is 43 payloads with total order value circa $2.4G. 7-8 new payloads are expected this year. First flight of Ariane 4 is next on the agenda. [It went fine.] SDIO partially accepts review panel's recommendation to shift attention away from weapons and towards sensors, communications, and processing. Panel says these are the toughest parts, and will be needed regardless. Panel recommends early deployment of new-generation missile warning and tracking satellites plus 100 long-range ground-based interceptors to provide a thin defense for most of the US; all this could be done within the ABM treaty. Space-based interceptors would be added later, with lasers still later. However, more funding for surveillance and tracking will mean less for something else; the probable victims are the Army's neutral particle beam program and the Zenith Star space laser test. Observers suggest that one factor in all this is growing doubt about SDI's future under a new President. Inmarsat orders another Delta launch (it already has one contracted). This is the sixth commercial Delta sale. Short-duration SRB-seal test appears to have shown that SRBs will function normally with defects in all but one seal in a joint. USAF Titan 34D launch from Canaveral is imminent; payload is officially unidentified. There are four 34Ds in inventory, all for use in the near future; the only payload that has been officially identified is a pair of DSCS military comsats to be launched from Canaveral in 89. First Delta 2 to fly from the Cape in October. USAF has 23 Titan 4s on order, with another 25 expected through 1995, when launch rate will be 8/yr; an increase to 10/yr is expected then. This does not include NASA use of Titan 4, or conceivable commercial use. USAF expects that both Canaveral and Vandenberg will eventually need two launch sites for Titan 4. There are 8 Scouts in inventory. The Navy will use 4 for Transit navsats. The other 4 were earmarked for Asat tests, and the USAF now wants to sell them (possibly to other government agencies). The USAF would also like to sell up to 6 Atlas Es (inventory of 9, 2 reserved for NOAA and one for the USAF). Finally, there are 55 Titan 2 ex-ICBMs in inventory. 14 are being refurbished as launchers, with first flight probably July. The others are available if demand materializes. NASA asks industry to fund parts of the testing planned with the Advanced Communications Technology Satellite. After years of defending it against Administration opposition, Congress has turned hostile because of large cost overruns. ACTS is slated for shuttle launch in May 1992. -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle |uunet!mnetor!utzoo! henry @zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #297 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Jul 88 05:50:58 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Wed, 27 Jul 88 04:42:03 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 27 Jul 88 04:42:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 27 Jul 88 04:34:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 27 Jul 88 04:10:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 27 Jul 88 04:08:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 27 Jul 88 04:07:57 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03049; Wed, 27 Jul 88 01:06:19 PDT id AA03049; Wed, 27 Jul 88 01:06:19 PDT Date: Wed, 27 Jul 88 01:06:19 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807270806.AA03049@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #298 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 298 Today's Topics: Re: Solar Max Re: Von Braun quote humans vs. remote control (was Von Braun quote) SPACE Digest V8 #269 Re: Ramscoop engine Re: Electromagnetic Launchers Re: Unethical National Space Society election Re: Mir and solar flares Re: New Ideas Re: Von Braun quote Re: Getting Nuked Re: Rocket engine ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Jul 88 16:32:48 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Solar Max In article <1219@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: >Remember how George ("Pinky") Nelson grabbed one of the solar >arrays in an attempt to stop the satellite from spinning? A interesting further note on this event. I know a woman at Lockheed who was the chief Rockwell saftey officer on this mission. She produced the procedures for the crew, and set at a console during the EVA. One of the rules in BIG BLACK LETTERS was "DON'T GRAB THE ^&&%$& SOLAR PANELS WITH YOUR HANDS!!!". The arrays had sharp edges on them and could have easily sliced open a glove. So she passed on the the CapCom, "Don't let him touch the panels!!". The Crippen comes on the air i think saying "Pinky, why don't you grab the panels". Needless to say whe was weirded out by the whole thing. Oh, by the way. The solar max mission was a demonstration flight among other things. If we didn't have a real satillite to repair, surely a dummy would have been flown to practice with. And wrt Phil's comment about the mission costing more than a replacment satillite. I believe that the SMM cost around $150 million. A replacement would likely cost more due to inflation and take years to get on line, not to mention a dedicated shuttle mission just to launch it. So with the experience gained, the time saved, I think it was worth it. (not to mention the neato TV that was returned). -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "Due to the Writer's Guild of Amierica strike, this signature is temporarily cancelled". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 88 17:09:19 GMT From: killer!robertl@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Robert Lord) Subject: Re: Von Braun quote In article <1219@thumper.bellcore.com>, karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > > I've never understood why it's so necessary to put humans into space in > order to benefit from their ability to react to unforseen circumstances. > In many situations, it makes far more sense to keep such people on the > ground instead of sending them along with the payload, especially since > the state of the communications art has gotten so good. Keeping your The state of communications has not gotten so good as to defy phyics, now has it? The non-manned approach works fine when in earth orbit, but what happens when you get up there to around the moon? By the time the person on the ground has reacted to a problem, six seconds will have passed in transmission time! In a critical situation, this could mean the destruction of the craft. Also, the computers these days are not nearly advanced to do the sort of problem manegement that you describe. Show me an unmanned launch vehical which can do as much as the shuttle can! The most advanced computer in the world is that 10 pound ball of grey matter resting on your neck... Just a few thoughts, Robert ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 88 18:15:06 GMT From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org (James Symon) Subject: humans vs. remote control (was Von Braun quote) In article <1219@thumper.bellcore.com>, karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > > Your arguments represent a convincing case for versatile remote control, > not for manned spaceflight. The reason for putting humans in space now is to do research on humans in space. Forget any other arguments. This one settles it once and for all. Part of that research involves letting them do things that might better be handled by remote control. Why do research on humans in space? Humans WILL spread out from the earth. If you don't believe this then you are right, the issue of telepresence vs. human bodies is debatable. If, however, you grant that we will not ALL stay forever on the face of the earth, your only reasonable argument is to say that the current human guinea- pigs-in-space should not be allowed to mess with things they might damage. But then we will need to provide them with dummy jobs to do as part of the research because when we do spread out from earth we will be doing some jobs ourselves rather than having everything done for us from back home. Of course, as humans, the current research animals will know that the tasks are dummies so the research results will be questionable. Therefore we need to let them do at least SOME important stuff regardless of whether good remote control might do it better. In the case of other planets, telepresence does not provide real time control. Then your only argument is that you can build semi-independent robots that will perform better than humans. Not yet I bet. No, this is not circular. I mean that we will spread out from the earth for reasons other than doing research on humans in space or taking care of jobs that might better be handled by remote control. Jim Symon Rt 4 Box 443 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 at school: Jim Symon Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175 "Better get Helms on the UUCP: uunet!mcnc!unc!symon scrambler, we got incoming UUCP: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon treaties all over the screen" Internet:symon@cs.unc.edu - MacNelly ***Don't use "r" or my header line address*** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 88 22:09 CDT From: Christopher Maeda Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #269 Our virtual space program is on the verge of great accomplishments. Perhaps we could have a virtual manned mission to Mars. The program would cost so much less. Virtual dollars are almost unlimited if we DO need to spend anything on it. The program would only be limited by the imagination. Our virtual space program has a severe thrashing problem. :-) ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 88 17:59:20 GMT From: killer!tness7!tness1!sugar!peter@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine In article <2075@ssc-vax.UUCP>, eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: > I beg to differ. A ramscoop engine suffers from the same ram drag > as any other ramjet type engine. This apparent force is caused by > temporarily bringing the interstellar matter up to your speed so > you hold on to it long enough to fuse it. It then expands out the > back at it's characteristic exhaust velocity, which is about 0.04c. Niven brought this objection up, and handwaved his way out of it by havng the "ramjet" fuel a laser. The ship was accelerated by light pressure from this super laser. Is this even theoretically possible (assuming some magic 100% efficient laser)? -- -- `-_-' Peter (have you hugged your wolf today?) da Silva. -- U Mail to ...!uunet!sugar!peter, flames to alt.dev.null. -- "Running OS/2 on a '386 is like pulling your camper with an Indy car" ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 88 15:49:56 GMT From: att!oucsace!mstuard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Stuard) Subject: Re: Electromagnetic Launchers I am a student trying to get smarter so this might not be a good question What about linear electric motors? It seems that the magnetic launchers that are being talked about here are high impulse, short duration. Could a linear electric motor be used? I am talking about the Magnetic Levitation Train technology. If a magnetic track was long enough the extended period of acceleration would reduce the G-forces enough for more sensitive equipment that is needed in orbit. This idea is much better than the Launch Loop (which is a mechanical version of this idea). Are the magnetic launchers being talked about here long duration or short duration? Maybe superconductors could be used to supply power across the magnetic track. This would reduce (eliminate?) the loss of power due to electrical resistance. It would be applicable since little to no flexibility is needed. Well that is my $0.nn. -- Deviant disclaimer: OOP! ACK! DON'T PANIC, It's not that important anyhow. /-> mstuard @ ace.cs.oucs.edu Michael J. Stuard--> cs614 @ ouaccvmb.BITNET \-> 73100,3646 @ Compuserve(checked every blue moon or two) ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 88 19:27:29 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Unethical National Space Society election Am I the only one who is getting increasingly weary of NSS airing its dirty laundry on the net? Phil ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 88 01:37:37 GMT From: al@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Al Globus) Subject: Re: Mir and solar flares >From article <8807051941.AA00877@ll-vlsi.arpa>, by glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman): > >> what do the Mir & Salyut >> cosmonauts do when there's a solar flare? > Does anyone out there know what NASA does during similar flares for high > inclination shuttle orbits? There have been no high inclination shuttle flights, and in all probablility there will never be any. The Air Force has mothballed the Vandenberg launch site (Kennedy cannot launch into polar orbit). It would take many years to resurrect and I doubt it will ever be done. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 88 23:28:08 GMT From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) Subject: Re: New Ideas In article <506@etive.ed.ac.uk> bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (B Gray) writes: }TSS-1 will deploy a satellite at the end of a 20km conducting }wire with an insulating coating, upwards from the shuttle. }This is to demonstrate current flow and observe the resulting }interactions with the Earth's magnetic field. Wasn't there a proposal that this could be used as a low-thrust orbit reboost? The current would flow through the wire, generating a magnetic field which interacts with the earth's, and then back via ions in the incomplete vacuum of LEO. -- {harvard,uunet,ucbvax}!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=- AT&T: (412)268-3053 (school) ARPA: RALF@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU |"Tolerance means excusing the mistakes others make. FIDO: Ralf Brown at 129/31 | Tact means not noticing them." --Arthur Schnitzler BITnet: RALF%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA -=-=- DISCLAIMER? I claimed something? ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 88 20:23:37 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Von Braun quote > The state of communications has not gotten so good as to defy phyics, now > has it? The non-manned approach works fine when in earth orbit, but what > happens when you get up there to around the moon? By the time the person > on the ground has reacted to a problem, six seconds will have passed in > transmission time! In a critical situation, this could mean the destruction > of the craft. Good point. But how many applications really require six second response time? Voyager seems to have been highly successful without humans on board, despite round trip times measured in hours. There may well be "deep space" applications which require short human response times and therefore humans in space, but this is a tiny fraction. > Also, the computers these days are not nearly advanced to do the sort of > problem manegement that you describe. Show me an unmanned launch vehical > which can do as much as the shuttle can! Let's try comparing the "versatile" shuttle against those old, outdated, unmanned launchers. 1. Unmanned launchers such as Delta, Ariane and Atlas-Centaur routinely put payloads into geostationary transfer orbit. With the Transtage, Titan can put them directly into their final geostationary orbit. But shuttle sticks you with this silly 296km circular orbit, and you need ANOTHER kick motor (in addition to the one you've already got for circularizing orbit at geostationary altitude) to pick up where the shuttle leaves off. 2. You can get Atlas, Delta and Ariane launches into polar, sun- synchronous orbit. But shuttle is restricted to low inclination orbits because the Vandenburg launch complex has been essentially abandoned. 3. In unmanned launches, the customer calls the shots. But when the shuttle was carrying commercial payloads, there was considerable friction between the payload people and the shuttle people. The reason? Trying to do too many different things on a single flight with an extremely expensive vehicle that NASA is counting on getting back. If the customer of an unmanned launch wants to fly a "risky" payload (i.e., one that could cause the destruction of the launcher or the failure of the mission should the payload fail in certain ways) why shouldn't he? After all, it's his money, and there aren't any astronaut lives at stake. (Of course, this wouldn't include external risks, e.g., people or facilities on the ground.) But not on the shuttle. As I've repeatedly commented before: if you want to get depressed, go read the GAS payload safety manual. And my copy was printed long BEFORE Challenger. > The most advanced computer in > the world is that 10 pound ball of grey matter resting on your neck... This is meaningless hyperbole. What does "advanced" mean? The ability to solve differential equations in real time? The ability to withstand thousands of rads of radiation? The ability to monitor hundreds of voltages, currents and pressures 24 hours per day, for years at a time, without making any mistakes? (By the way, *you* may be from Talos IV, but my brain weight is probably about 3 pounds, the average for Homo Sapiens). Most people know that there are some things computers do much better than humans, and there are other things that humans do much better than computers. An intelligently designed system will apply each resource where it is best suited. There is certainly room for discussion and disagreement as to exactly how to do this in any project. But in the realm of space travel, emotional romanticism has gotten the upper hand over rational design as in almost no other area of technology. The result? Expensive turkeys like the Shuttle that have sucked away almost all money from other, far more cost-effective projects and have nearly wrecked our space program in the process. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jul 88 01:54:49 CDT From: Jonathan C. Sadow Subject: Re: Getting Nuked In response to Paul Dietz's (dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu) queries about the role of radioactive isotopes in early solar-system formation, the available evidence shows that their contribution was minimal. The main problem has to do with planetesimal size. Most asteriods (and meteorites) formed on bodies probably <500 km in diameter, most very much smaller. On such small bodies the surface-area-to-volume ratio becomes quite large, meaning that the heat generated by radioactive decay can radiate much more easily into the surrounding space, making the process rather inefficient. From what is known about the abundance of isotope parent and daughter abundances in meteorites, there doesn't appear to have been anywhere near enough long-lived radioactive isotopes to overcome this loss of heat into space to cause the differentiation seen in meteorites in the time observed (about 100 Ma). More likely heat sources for the planetesimals are short-lived radioactive isotopes, like the much more abundant Al-26 (half-life of about 720,000 years); or the solar wind. As for xenon on the Moon, off the top of my head I don't think it's cold enough there to freeze xenon, even at the poles, and there isn't much there anyway. Most of what does exist on the Moon comes from the solar wind, not from radioisotopes. Jonathan Sadow GEOS21@UHUPVM1.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 88 19:30:08 GMT From: ulysses!gamma!pyuxp!nvuxj!nvuxr!deej@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (David Lewis) Subject: Re: Rocket engine In article <7345@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, jbrown@jplpub1.jpl.nasa.gov (Jordan Brown) writes: > In article <1207@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > >... consider what it would take to model a large rocket engine like > >Ariane's Viking on a computer. Pressures in the order of 50-60 > >atmospheres. Hypersonic hot gas flows, with extreme variations in > >temperature and pressure over very short distances and times. Mass flows > >on the order of tons/second. > > Los Alamos simulates nuclear explosions using their Crays; I suspect that > the pressures and speeds are somewhat larger than in rocket engines. Yes, but a rocket motor fires for a somewhat longer time than a nuclear explosion lasts. I suspect this would make the modeling job somewhat more difficult. * Disclaimer: I am not an expert on large-scale system modeling, supercomputers, rocket motors, or nuclear fission. Dammit, Jim, I'm an EE, not a doctor... -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= David G Lewis "This Tango Atlantico isn't over yet." Bellcore 201-758-4099 Navesink Research and Engineering Center ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #298 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Jul 88 07:12:01 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 28 Jul 88 04:43:12 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 28 Jul 88 04:43:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 28 Jul 88 04:31:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 28 Jul 88 04:10:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 28 Jul 88 04:02:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Thu, 28 Jul 88 04:00:46 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04072; Wed, 27 Jul 88 19:05:30 PDT id AA04072; Wed, 27 Jul 88 19:05:30 PDT Date: Wed, 27 Jul 88 19:05:30 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807280205.AA04072@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #299 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 299 Today's Topics: Re: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update Tethered Satellite System Voyager success NASA News NASA News Re: Tethered Satellite System Re: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update Re: Skintight spacesuit Re: Electromagnetic Launchers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Jul 88 08:35:53 GMT From: xanth!kent@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Kent Paul Dolan) Subject: Re: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update In article <19086@cornell.UUCP> dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) writes: >In article <8807081928.AA23848@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes: >>On the >>other hand it may drive the Russians towards faster implementation of space >>processing on an industrial scale. That would return materials both to their >>economy and provide high tech, high value exports. > >I find this utterly unbelievable. It's clear NASA doesn't have a single >product that could be made profitably in the space station, and little >reason to expect any such product exists. Why should the Soviets, with >their awful record at developing and marketing high tech products, expect >success? > >It seems incredible to me that, faced with the evidence of what >bureaucracy did to the US space program, people can still think the >Soviet space program is some paragon of good planning. I don't >see what they're getting that's worth the investment. And, Glenn's >exhorations notwithstanding, I don't see why the US should follow >their lead. > > Paul F. Dietz > dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu The error in this thinking seems to be in the phrase "high tech"; I'd be quite happy with steel billets and industrial chemical feedstocks. The greatest existing, easy to see how to exploit, space stuff is the abundant raw materials within reasonable energy costs of earth orbit. Kent, the man from xanth. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 88 09:50:59 GMT From: agate!garnet!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: Tethered Satellite System In article <506@etive.ed.ac.uk>, bob@etive (B Gray) writes: >TSS-1 is manifested for launch on Discovery as STS-46 >on January 17th 1991. A popular science article on tethered satellites and the US-Italian project can be found in the 4/87 S&T. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 88 09:45:29 GMT From: agate!garnet!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: Voyager success In article <1222@thumper.bellcore.com>, karn@thumper (Phil R. Karn) writes: >Good point. But how many applications really require six second response >time? Voyager seems to have been highly successful without humans on >board, despite round trip times measured in hours. Yes, it has been highly successful. But not without some extreme diffi- culties. [The following is based on the 10/86 S&T account.] The first major nasty for Voyager 2 was the radio receiver short-circuited eight months after launch. The backup proved incapable of changing fre- quencies. All this time mission control has had to estimate, within 100 Hz, the effective receiving frequency (the instrument is very sensitive to temperature). This is not easy, and a misguess as V2 nears Neptune could prevent any essential last-minute corrections from taking place. The second major nasty for V2 was the gearing that controlled the optical istruments went berserk and then jammed to a halt shortly after reaching the far side of Saturn. Numerous photo-opportunies were lost. The prob- lem took several years for JPL to diagnose. It was rather fortunate that simply heating and cooling got the gears unjammed. For once, the long time scales proved a boon. The third major nasty for V2 was related to the reprogramming of the error correcting code from a wasteful Golay code to a bit-spartan Reed-Solomon code. Six days before U-day the JPL monitor pictures began to go blooey. Two days were wasted trying to find the problem in JPL software, before it was generally realized that it was V2. A bit-by-bit check showed that a single 0 had flipped to 1, and it couldn't flip back. A JPL hacker figured out--overnight--how to program around this. There were other problems, and only a combination of good luck and ex- cellent talent has made V2 a success. I've got my fingers crossed for Neptune. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 88 00:44:31 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!embudo!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (markf) Subject: NASA News NASA News - Solid Propulsion Integrity Program Contractor Selected NASA announced ... that it will negotiate a contract with the Hercules Aerospace Co., Magna, Utah, to improve the nozzles of solid fueled rocket motors. The work is part of the agency's Solid Propulsion Integrity Program. The objective of the program is to increase the success rate of solid fueled rocket motors by improving basic engineering in such areas as material characteristics, design analysis, fabrication and assembly processes and production evaluation and verification. The value of the contract is expected to be approximately $12.5 million, according to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., which announced the selection. The program originated from joint NASA-Department of Defense-industry studies which identified critical shortfalls in the U.S. engineering technology base for solid-fueled rocket motors. Proposals for a Solid Propulsion Integrity Program bondline work package are being evaluated for award later this summer. This represents NASA's contribution to the tripartite effort. NASA engineers managing the program expect to improve confidence in solid rocket motor launch systems by establishing urgently needed engineering tools, techniques and data bases specifically applicable to the current civil and military family of solid-fueled rocket motors. ====================================================================== NASA News Release 88-82 June 21, 1988 By James Cast Headquarters, Washington, D.C. and Bob Lessels Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 88 00:41:57 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!embudo!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (markf) Subject: NASA News NASA News - Space Station Negotiations with Partners Successfully Completed Negotiations among the United States, Canada, Europe and Japan on the framework for the international cooperation in the Space Station program have been completed. Completion of talks among the negotiators marks the end of more than 2 years of complex negotiations on the design, development, operation and utilization of the permanently manned civil Space Station. Spanning decades, the Space Station will be the largest international scientific and technological venture ever undertaken. Cooperation in the Space Station program is the result of President Ronald Reagan's January 1984 invitation to friends and allies of the United States to join in the development of the versatile facility and to share in the benefits of its use. Subsequently, the President has addressed Space Station cooperation at four intervening economic summits and at numerous bilateral meetings with the partners' heads of government. The Congress has also endorsed Space Station cooperation. The NASA Authorization Act of 1988 directs NASA to "promote international cooperation in the Space Station program by undertaking the development, construction, and operation of the Space Station in conjunction with... the Governments of Europe, Japan and Canada. The international Space Station complex includes a manned base which will be operated by an international crew beginning in the mid 1990's. It also includes elements separate from the manned base. The entire complex with its diverse capabilities, will be the focal point for free world space operations into the next century. As an orbiting research laboratory, the Station will increase scientific knowledge, stimulate the development of new technology and enable commercial research. Looking to the future, the Space Station also is required as teh stepping stone for the eventual expansion of human presence into the solar system, for example, a manned mission to Mars. The elements comprising the Station will be provided by the United States and its partners. The U.S. will provide the overall Space Station framework, operating subsystems including life support and 75 kilowatts of power, laboratory and habitat modules and an unmanned free-flying platform that will be placed in polar orbit for Earth observation. Canada will provide a Mobile Servicing System which will be used in conjunction with the assembly, maintenance and servicing of Space Station elements. Japan will provide the Japanese Experiment Module, which is a permanently attached pressurized laboratory module, including an exposed facility and an experiment logistics module. The European Space Agency will provide a pressurized laboratory module which is permanently attached to the manned base; an unmanned free-flying polar platform to work together with the U.S. polar platform; and a man-tended free flyer to be serviced at the manned base. NASA has been cooperating since 1985 with its Canadian, European and Japanese partners in the definition of preliminary design phase of the project. Such cooperation has resulted in program-level agreement on the above hardware. The U.S. anticipates spending approximately $16.0 billion (FY '89 dollars) to develop Space Station hardware. The total foreign commitment to the Space Station is in excess of $7.0 billion. The European hardware development program will amount to approximately $4.2 billion; the Japanese, $2.0 billion; and the Canadian, $1.0 billion. Furthermore, the partners will cover more than 25 percent of the Space Station's expected annual operating costs throughout the 20-30 year life of the program. The document on which negotiations have been completed are a multilateral intergovernmental agreement (IGA) and three bilateral memoranda of understanding (MOUs). The IGA contains the broad principles and the government-level commitments for the cooperative Space Station program. The three separate MOU's which are between NASA and its counterparts, provide the technical and programmatic details for the implementation of the program. Although substantive agreement among the partners had been reached earlier, today's announcement reflects the significant stage of achieving agreement among the negotiators on the actual texts of the IGA and the MOUs. Negotiations from all four partners have submitted the IGA and MOU texts to their respective governments for consideration in accordance with their internal procedures. Signature of the agreements is expected later this summer. ----------------------------------------------------------------- NASA News Release 88-74 June 8, 1988 By Mark Hess Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 88 14:23:55 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Re: Tethered Satellite System In article <12027@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >In article <506@etive.ed.ac.uk>, bob@etive (B Gray) writes: >>TSS-1 is manifested for launch on Discovery as STS-46 >>on January 17th 1991. > >A popular science article on tethered satellites and the US-Italian >project can be found in the 4/87 S&T. See also Rivista del Nuovo Cimento vol 10, no. 3, 1987 (I hope I spelled that right). This issue is a survey of the TSS project and the physics involved, including the use of tethers for propulsion and energy generation. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 88 14:13:39 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Re: Soviet launch 1st Phobos mission & Spacewalk update In article <5831@xanth.cs.odu.edu> kent@cs.odu.edu (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > >The error in this thinking seems to be in the phrase "high tech"; I'd >be quite happy with steel billets and industrial chemical feedstocks. >The greatest existing, easy to see how to exploit, space stuff is the >abundant raw materials within reasonable energy costs of earth orbit. Glenn was refering, I believe, to microgravity manufacturing in LEO. No ET sources of materials involved. Given the rate at which the Soviet program is moving, I don't think exploitation of ET resources is around the corner. The country I'd worry about most in space is Japan. They'll have their own heavy booster in six years or so. They will no doubt target the most lucrative space market: information handling satellites. Which we will have frittered away due to inane export restrictions, concentration on microgravity PR stunts, and the continuing dependence on inadequate launchers. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1988 13:49-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Skintight spacesuit If the suit is holed or ripped, the result is not going to be fatal as it would be in a hard suit. You will not lose breathing air unless you smash your face plate or damage your tanks. Nasty 'burns' on exposed areas seem much more preferable to me than turning purple. I don't think I micro strike is necessarily fatal either. The smaller particles vaporized on contact and would probably only cause nasty surface wounds. Larger particles would be like being getting shot by a gun: possibly fatal, but even Reagan survived getting hit. Lets compare the results with a hard suit. In most cases a simple adhesive patch should cover the damage until the victim can get back inside. The patch probably needs to be placed within minutes, and probably will hold for many minutes, if not hours or days if such were necessary. 1) The escaping gases fling you into a random tumble while you have seconds to do something. 2) You loose skin pressure AND breathing air simultaneously. 3) The decompression may be explosive rather than rapid. Explosive decompression can cause internal organs to self destruct. 4) Assuming survival of the first instants, you will have only seconds to patch it while spinning wildly. 5) It may be difficult to apply an external patch capable of of holding 15 PSI presssure (a hard suit). I suspect even the shuttle suit (4 PSI O2?) might be difficult to patch effectively under emergency conditions. 6) The survivor will probably have sustained considerable physical damage not directly related to the actual cause of suit failure. Skintights have other safety advantages. They could be worn at all times on space vehicles/stations. An onboard depress accident due to micrometeor strike or system fault would be far less likely to be fatal if all you had to do is grab a helmet and seal it down. Even children could be trained to respond to such an alert. This is a necessary safety consideration because I hope we have intentions of raising families off planet. Otherwise what is the purpose of it all? Since the suits 'breathe' they should be reasonably comfortable in a controlled environment. Additionally, they could be designed in very colorful and personal patterns such that even in vacuum individuals could identify each other by their personallized color patterns. :-) I suspect wearing such suits all the time will lead to a strong desire to keep in good shape. Everyone will show see exactly what shape your tummy is in. But then, I there is no reason why 'normal' earthworm garments could not be worn over top of the suit. Imagine running into a longhaired techy servicing your external electronics dressed in bluejeans and t-shirt... One thing can be said for the hard suit. They are a double use technology: space suit and coffin. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 88 05:33:41 GMT From: pyramid!pyrnj!dasys1!tneff@decwrl.dec.com (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Electromagnetic Launchers In article <8807111735.AA06532@gvax.cs.cornell.edu> dietz@GVAX.CS.CORNELL.EDU (Paul F. Dietz) writes: >I was thinking some more about the perennial problem of cheaply lifting >mass into orbit; specifically, using electromagnetic launchers. ... >The vehicles could not just be unguided projectiles, like bags of >lunar material launched using a mass driver, since vehicles are >placed onto elliptical orbits with perigee beneath the Earth's surface. >Onboard rockets must lift the perigee above the atmosphere and guide >the vehicle to a space station. No, you are forgetting the concept of the "catcher." I see you have been thinking hard about this subject, but not reading up on the prior literature. I'm sorry I don't have references at hand (I'm at a friend's place for a bit), but basically you put a catchment net of some kind into a parking orbit, and target the launched mass at the net. Each capture adds momentum to the orbiting net assembly of course, which must be compensated for eventually; but not right away. (You can rail launch reaction mass for a subsequent retrofire after every N captures, for instance.) -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #299 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Jul 88 07:26:46 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 28 Jul 88 05:36:39 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 28 Jul 88 05:36:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 28 Jul 88 05:25:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 28 Jul 88 05:21:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 28 Jul 88 04:08:11 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04201; Thu, 28 Jul 88 01:05:24 PDT id AA04201; Thu, 28 Jul 88 01:05:24 PDT Date: Thu, 28 Jul 88 01:05:24 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807280805.AA04201@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #300 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 300 Today's Topics: Re: Space Suits Re: Electromagnetic Launchers the Space Program Re: Von Braun quote Re: Von Braun quote RE: Lithium cells for use on Space Shuttle Spy Satellites ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Jul 88 17:40:34 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) Subject: Re: Space Suits >From article <8807112314.AA12967@diamond.tamu.edu>, by bruce@DIAMOND.TAMU.EDU (Bruce D. Wright): > Trying to hold 3 psi pressure in your lungs reletive to the > pressure outside of your body would probably cause an embolism to > occur, not to mention that breathing extreme possitive pressures > like this would be REALLY exhausting. >From personal experience, I can say that pressure breathing at even a fraction of a psi is extremely uncomfortable and tiring. This is NOT a viable option for normal EVA, and a whole psi is probably not even an option for emergencies. > Also, breathing pure oxygen at such low total pressure causes > atelectasis to occur. This is alveoli collapse caused by the > oxygen in the alveoli being absorbed into the blood. Breathing pure oxygen in a pressure chamber at pressure altitude of 40,000 feet (less than 3.5 psi) is acceptably comfortable at least up to a half hour or so. (I have not tried it longer than that.) The biggest discomfort is wearing the oxygen mask itself. (The second biggest is expansion of trapped gases in the digestive tract, but this is an effect of the pressure decrease from atmospheric, not of the low pressure itself.) Does atelectasis require more time to develop, or does it just not affect most people? -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 88 16:23:20 GMT From: ns!logajan@umn-cs.arpa (John Logajan x3118) Subject: Re: Electromagnetic Launchers In article <217@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU>, mstuard@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Mike Stuard) writes: > If a magnetic track was long enough the extended period of > acceleration would reduce the G-forces enough for more sensitive equipment Here is a rule of thumb for launcher lengths: To reach escape velocity you need to accelerate at: 1g for 4000 miles. 2g for 2000 miles. 4g for 1000 miles. 8g for 500 miles 16g for 250 miles. 32g for 125 miles. etc ............. - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - {...rutgers!umn-cs, ...amdahl!bungia, ...uunet!rosevax!bungia} !ns!logajan - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jul 88 16:57:55 MDT From: dbirnbau%nmsu.csnet@relay.cs.net Subject: the Space Program This being my inaugeral message on the SPACE digest, I decided to attack two points of concern to me, one very important, the other not so. I recently returned from Washington, DC, where I spent six weeks working for a senator. Naturally, I was working in the space/technology pod, where I was intent on doing everything in my power to sway any of my senator's votes that had anything to do with space. There were, however, a few major problems. Nobody gives a damn. To be more precise, in the six weeks I was there, the office received only ONE PIECE OF MAIL asking the the space program be fully funded. ONE PIECE!!! Compare this with well over 450 in just a couple of weeks concerning the INF treaty, or the dozens that came in with great regularity concerning waste and fraud in our defence department (prior to the FBI investigation, that is!). A senator will not listen to just one piece of mail; he can't afford to. If everyone out there who is serious about the space program were to send two letters to each of their senators, and a letter to each of their represen- tatives, we might see some more discussion among the senators about money for the space program. The space program is difficult for a senator to justify politically. Tangible benefits are difficult to clarify, and "manifest destiny" just don't cut a 10.8 billion dollar budget, no matter what. When I went to Washington, I was very gung-ho about the space program, especially the MANNED space program, but now I'm not so sure. The money for the space program has to come from somewhere, be it Vet's benefits, defense, social programs or wherever. Unless those who support the space program are able to instill their own long-range vision upon those who are responsible for dividing the money, we are going to be trapped on this planet for a long time. Right now the space program is more of a political tool then a scientific one. Very important decisions are being made by managers and administrators instead of scientists. These trends must change, or the people who understand space so well will dig their own graves...on earth. You will notice that I have not mentioned NASA once in this digression. I hes- itate to discuss NASA's predicament because the issue is so clouded that I find myself unable to divine what course we should take. NASA's mission is to explore and take advantage of the resources space offers us. Is manned space flight, a very significant portion of the NASA budget, important enough to consume the money it does? These are important questions that every one of us on this net should be asking ourselves. Talk is talk, and talk is cheap. I find the discussion of launch loops and skintight spacesuits fascinating, but I was forced to experience the real world for a few weeks, and I regret it. Space is indeed the place, and it is the responsibility of those who understand that to see that it happens, be it for my generation or my children's. Less then 400 human beings (as I recall) have escaped this planet's atmosphere... .and I want to join the list :). And now, to switch from the somber, depressive note, will the moderator of this list please explain to me what damn order these messages come in!!? I get the digest, and I often fail to get all the messages in a series. For example, I never saw the original message about the launch loop. What's the deal? David Birnbaum VTIS001@NMSUVM1.BITNET Programmer, Small Systems dbirnbau@nmsu.edu New Mexico State University <-- they pay my bills, but they don't Las Cruces, New Mexico USA write my opinions.... ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 88 06:10:53 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Re: Von Braun quote >> [ whoever is @killer; sorry I lost your attribution ] In article <1222@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: >Good point. But how many applications really require six second response >time? Voyager seems to have been highly successful without humans on >board, despite round trip times measured in hours. There may well be >"deep space" applications which require short human response times and >therefore humans in space, but this is a tiny fraction. Most of the craft sent out so far are designed to have limited human interaction, more on the order of "policy & managerial" rather than the detailed work. To make this more concrete, for the interplanetary craft, there is no way to put a human pilot into the loop, therefore the only interaction humans have are the navigational work on the ground, done weeks(?) in advance. The detailed work which would require human (tele)presence is left to the specialized instrument hardware and software. >> Also, the computers these days are not nearly advanced to do the sort of >> problem manegement that you describe. Show me an unmanned launch vehical >> which can do as much as the shuttle can! Minor match-lighting: what shuttle? (Blow out spark. :-) >> The most advanced computer in >> the world is that 10 pound ball of grey matter resting on your neck... Ten-pound heads are great computers.... but for what purpose in particular? It is the lousiest for some applications (like calculating interplanetary orbits) and the best for others (like writing doggerel-- no computer poetry program can get as bad as some human poetry! :-) >Most people know that there are some things computers do much better >than humans, and there are other things that humans do much better than >computers. An intelligently designed system will apply each resource >where it is best suited. There is certainly room for discussion and >disagreement as to exactly how to do this in any project. >Phil What he said. Joe Beckenbach -- beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu | Mars Observer Camera Project Live fast. Die young. | Caltech Planetary Sciences Division Convince people you're a tiny Mars-bound graphite-epoxy blob from Pasadena. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 88 06:12:36 GMT From: ucsdhub!jack!sdeggo!dave@ucsd.edu (David L. Smith) Subject: Re: Von Braun quote In article <1222@thumper.bellcore.com>, karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > > The state of communications has not gotten so good as to defy phyics, now > > has it? The non-manned approach works fine when in earth orbit, but what > > happens when you get up there to around the moon? By the time the person > > on the ground has reacted to a problem, six seconds will have passed in > > transmission time! In a critical situation, this could mean the destruction > > of the craft. > > Good point. But how many applications really require six second response > time? Voyager seems to have been highly successful without humans on > board, despite round trip times measured in hours. There may well be > "deep space" applications which require short human response times and > therefore humans in space, but this is a tiny fraction. Voyager is a wonderful tool, but it's not a very useful tool in general. It has a camera, a spectograph, and some other instruments. It does not have the ability to land on a moon of Jupiter and pick up a sample, or to mine an asteroid. If something comes up for which it does not have the tools to deal with it does not have the ability to fabricate something from the materials at hand. > Most people know that there are some things computers do much better > than humans, and there are other things that humans do much better than > computers. An intelligently designed system will apply each resource > where it is best suited. There is certainly room for discussion and > disagreement as to exactly how to do this in any project. But in the > realm of space travel, emotional romanticism has gotten the upper hand > over rational design as in almost no other area of technology. The > result? Expensive turkeys like the Shuttle that have sucked away almost > all money from other, far more cost-effective projects and have nearly > wrecked our space program in the process. What is our space program? To go out and take snapshots? Hell NO! The reason we have a space program is to get mankind living, working and exploiting the resources in space. "Emotional romanticism" is a basic part of human make-up. Why do we fly to Paris when we could watch it on videotape? Why do we climb mountains when we could send a camera on a balloon? The arguments about the cost-effectiveness of unmanned probes only make sense when the only purpose of the space program is to feed data to a bunch of researchers sitting on their duffs. If we're not going out there, why should we _care_ about what's on Jupiter, the makeup of the Oort cloud or whether there's planets around Barnard's Star? If the only reason we have a space program is to satisfy the curiousity of a bunch of scientists whose work will probably be of little value to the rest of the race if we stay at home here on Earth, they can bloody well pay for the program out of their own pockets! -- David L. Smith {sdcsvax!jack,ihnp4!jack, hp-sdd!crash, pyramid, uport}!sdeggo!dave sdeggo!dave@amos.ling.edu Sinners can repent but stupid is forever. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jul 88 13:19 EDT From: Subject: RE: Lithium cells for use on Space Shuttle >>>The reason NASA bans them from the Shuttle is because they have been >>>known to explode when shorted. [...] Well, they can explode, or as we preferred to say, "rapidly out-gas", but to my knowledge as an eight year design engineer at NASA JSC, they are still approved for use. Most credit for demonstrating the explosive power of Lithium cells to NASA must be given to an ILC technician who placed a bare Lithium D cell assembly on steel lab shelf overnight and returned the next morning to find a 1/2 inch crater in its place. This incident was well publicized within JSC as we were, at the time, trying to qualify an 8 cell Lithium battery for use in the Shuttle crew module. After a two year qualifying process we finally flew 25 packs on STS-5 for use with the Wireless Communication System. We were required to design and install a small PC board in each battery with 1/4 amp load fuses and reverse protection diodes for each cell. Although our milled aluminum housing was not explosion proof it was designed to contain most of the solid electrolyte that could leak out under deep discharge. At the end of my term with Lockheed/EMSCO at NASA Johnson Space Center last August Lithium batteries were still approved for use in the Shuttle. Both the Spacesuit headlight assembly and EMU television assembly use Lithium Bromide complex (LI-BCX) cells from Electrochem Industries. The battery lab at JSC has over 6 years experience at devising evil ways to treat the cells and have blown up quite a few. The main thrust for new crew module applications seems to a Zinc-Air battery that has comparable energy density. Unfortunately this cell requires Oxygen for electron transport and cannot be used in Payload/EVA applications. The search goes on................... >Now you can tell me what is wrong with my scheme: build a fuse in series >with each cell.....This should work to prevent a battery from exploding >due to external shorts. Recessed-pin battery connectors are the simple answer to external shorts that we used in the 8 cell Lithium pack previously mentioned. The real problem is reverse charging. If one string of a two string parallel configured Lithium battery pack has diminished capacity it can be reverse charged by the stronger string. This condition sounds contrived but is fairly common after a days use. We were required to use germainium diodes to protect each individual cell from voltage reversal. Each diode was individually screened for forward turn-on voltage and the inspectors were meticulous about slowing down our production schedule. The approval and design process was a two year struggle of negotiation with NASA QA. I would hope to see some future use for these high energy density cells to recoup our research work and all of our tax money. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 88 19:33:06 GMT From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard the Nerd) Subject: Spy Satellites Hello space enthusiasts, There has been some talk on the net lately about spy satellites. It might be of interest to you that our amateur satellite group (based in Toronto) has tracked down a few of these. NASA is not too cooperative in this respect since they keep the orbits of these things classified, so we find them on our own. Presently, the best object we are tracking is one of the two KH-11's (Big Birds). These are huge and low, and hence bright to see; about 0th magnitude on a good pass. Since I have software which can distribute satellite predictions automatically (I do this for about 130 people for MIR), I figured that any of you who are interested in seeing KH-11 can also get on that list. If interested, please email your location (name of town, latitude and longitude to at least 2 decimal places, elevation above sea level, time zone, and whether daylight savings time is in effect in your area). You can also request any other satellites you would like to see. I will put you on the list and send you predictions weekly. Better hurry for KH-11, though: The observing window ends by August and the next one isn't till next April! -Rich Brezina (Kevin Renner, really ;-) snowdog@athena.mit.edu (works from most nets) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #300 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Jul 88 00:05:20 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 28 Jul 88 22:31:43 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 28 Jul 88 22:31:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 28 Jul 88 22:15:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 28 Jul 88 22:07:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Thu, 28 Jul 88 22:06:28 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05149; Thu, 28 Jul 88 19:05:36 PDT id AA05149; Thu, 28 Jul 88 19:05:36 PDT Date: Thu, 28 Jul 88 19:05:36 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807290205.AA05149@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #301 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 301 Today's Topics: Re: Von Braun quote Re: Hubble Space Telescope Re: Von Braun quote Re: Von Braun quote Re: Orbital Launch Methods crescent moon: first visibility Re: What's going on here? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Jul 88 21:14:21 GMT From: pioneer.arc.nasa.gov!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Von Braun quote We are getting away from shuttle news, so I removed it from newsgroups. Anyway, I should come to Phil's defense and also make a note for someone else. First, Rick Johnson was wondering if everybody read his note about soliciting future and past accomplishments on space (what would be a good and worthly goal or were past goals). Rick is on BITNET and it appears were are forwarding problems. Now, Phil and others have made some good points. I think a lot of people know my personal is toward unmanned (un-person'ed) space research. One thing which distinguishes my views from many on the net is where I place myself on this continuum of discussion. Most net correspondents really want to got out there, to experience Zero-G. I wouldn't mind, but it seems terribly tame. I would go into space if I felt I were the best person for the job. I wear glasses now (1st year), and I would rather sacrifice my spot for a sighted person. A lighter person for a heavier person in order to say take more instruments, and so forth. There's a lot of competitiveness, but I would rather We get the best data. I think that's part of Phil's point. Machines are good for somethings not others. My reply to Rick in order of significance was 1) make contact with an ET civilization [justification: such an event would dwarf any space mission and fully change the nature of our civilization], 2) unmanned missions have given us more "Science" than any of the manned missions, and 3 last, but not least, the manned missions. We are talking an order of magnitude cost here. Emotional aspects: there are admittedly exciting aspects to this. We should not let our emotions get the best of us, let's we get into political races again (and I don't mean electoral). Regarding who should pay for it, we all should. If I could set up two societies in the US one which takes responsibility for its scientific endeavors and the other which doesn't, let the latter not have weather into, etc. They will survive, it's kind of a riduclous comparison, we do this now, the institutions are called Universities. Just remember the long-term benefit comes from the science, and not the emotion. Remember, this is just an opinion, right? Not policy. Remember the line in ET: "Why doesn't he just 'beam up?'" "This is reality stupid!" Especially made funny since it's said in a movie. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 88 20:45:08 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope In article <2074@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: }As for the feasibility of pointing it downwards, in short "No way, Jose!". }The science instruments are sensitive enough to be damaged by looking }at a bright planet (Venus, Jupiter), much less a brighter object. } }There is a parallel story about a spy satellite being damaged by looking }at a natural gas flare in Saudia Arabia. } }When you design for looking at 26th magniude objects, one 10^14 times }as bright is liable to hurt (ouch!) Or more (sort of) to the topic & painfully demonstrated, remember that moon landing where they cleverely (& accidently) aimed the tv camera at the sun, effectively eleminating coverage? Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 88 00:30:06 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: Von Braun quote One should be careful while griping about those pitiful deep space probes: "They can't do much. Think what a MAN could do there!" After a LONG trip with no air, no food, little power, die. Instead of a little camera and radio you would have the fastest ice cube in the solar system. Big deal. Let's see if we could manage even a poor little probe now before cutting the past. Say, something more than 1 Clarke orbit up.... Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 88 00:26:00 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: Von Braun quote In article <7276@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> beckenba@cit-vax.UUCP (Joe Beckenbach) writes: } }>> The most advanced computer in }>> the world is that 10 pound ball of grey matter resting on your neck... } } Ten-pound heads are great computers.... but for what purpose in particular? }It is the lousiest for some applications (like calculating interplanetary orbits) }and the best for others (like writing doggerel-- no computer poetry program }can get as bad as some human poetry! :-) Unfortunately, that 10 lb computer requires absurd support - it just will not go very long on a solar panel & a thermal radiator... Maybe with a redesign of the support mechanism....... Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 88 18:56:10 GMT From: ns!logajan@umn-cs.arpa (John Logajan x3118) Subject: Re: Orbital Launch Methods In article <6153@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes: > In article <56700006@hcx3> gwp@hcx3.SSD.HARRIS.COM writes: > >a pair of solid boosters on it [a YF-11]. Then you > >take the thing up as high as it will go under normal power, tilt its > >nose up and fire the boosters. > it would be going nearly 1 km/sec > The mass ratio needed > is still about 6 or 7 (depends on fuel). This means close to 300000 kg > of fuel (about 200 m^3, or a 4 m^2 cross section if the booster(s) could > be made 50 m long). Yeah, the problem is not one of altitude, the problem is speed. Orbital speed is about 17000 mph (near earth). While your jet is maybe going 2000 mph tops. So you've only got 10 percent of the speed needed. Getting the other 90 percent is the problem. As Mr. Carr points out you would need "large" boosters. It is a whole lot easier to get something to a very high altitude than it is to get it to that altitude with orbital velocity. I've never worked out the math, but I always wondered if one might be able to get into orbit more cheaply by first going straight up and then going horizontal at an altitude where the orbital speed would be much lower. (I forget, does the moon go 2000mph or 4000mph?) - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - {...rutgers!umn-cs, ...amdahl!bungia, ...uunet!rosevax!bungia} !ns!logajan - ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 88 16:32:55 GMT From: cunixc!dcl@columbia.edu (Don Lanini) Subject: crescent moon: first visibility [This is being posted for a local user, please do not reply to dcl] We are conducting research/survey on the recorded first sighting of the "CRESCENT MOON, FIRST VISIBILITY" in the evenings. We would very much like to hear from you and will also keep you posted on the answers. Photographs/Slides are most welcome. Please respond either by email or by letter. Please also pass on the request to your friends who are interested in astronomy and to your local amateur astronomy associations. Indicate: Place, Date, Time of sighting (naked eye/binocular/telescope); (and, if possible, Temperature, Pressure, Relative Humidity, Cloud/Haze, and Your Age) Email to: mnd@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu (Mohib.N.Durrani) Mail: Dr.Mohib.N.Durrani Islamic Amateur Astronomers Association (Research Division) 601 West 113 Street, Suite 11-K Columbia University NEW YORK, N.Y. 10025 United States of America -- inet: mnd@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu bitnet: mnd@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu usenet: ...{rutgers,seismo,topaz}!columbia!cunixc!mnd -- Don Lanini User Services ------------------------------ Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!trout.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim Date: Wed, 13 Jul 88 21:27:20 PDT From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: What's going on here? H. Alan Montgomery writes: > Somewhere along here I have lost track of what we are trying to do. I > thought maybe if I displayed my train of logic someone could show me > where the flaw in my thinking is. I don't mean to be snide, but I didn't find a train of logic displayed in your message. > In the Seventies, a great many mistakes were made by the NASA, space > activists, and other involved individuals. We cannot change those > mistakes. We cannot do anything to make those mistakes go away by > attacking the people who made them. Plenty can be accomplished by holding authorities accountable for their actions. Plenty can be destroyed by NOT holding authorities accountable for their actions. We seem to be bent on the latter rather than the former if the RESULTS of all this "scapegoating" are examined rather than getting mushy-brained about the situation. > Do you think that the people who made > the mistakes are feeling great about the mistakes? Do you think the > administrators at NASA is saying, "Wow, we sure did make a good choice in > making the Shuttle the only access to space"? Come on, get real! We live > in an imperfect world, a good choice now sometimes becomes a disasterous > choice later. Excuse me, but I don't give a r*t's a** about how these people are "feeling" since they blew off about $100 billion, 15 years and demoralized the American pioneering spirit through their "imperfection". They can feel good, bad or indifferent about it and it makes absolutely no difference to me or to anyone concerned with promoting a rational space program. They posessed a position of authority and privilege and are thus to be held accountable for their actions regardless of their motives. I might not call for them all to be immediately drawn and quartered (although a rational argument could be made for such). I'll simply call for them to be replaced and to be forever barred from holding positions of trust and authority in government-funded aerospace again. > It may turn out that NASA was in league with the tooth fairy to > deny us access to space on purpose. I doubt it though. I would believe > in stupidity, short sightedness, and just plain ignorance before I > would believe malice. NASA was, and is, "in league" with government aerospace contractors to continue business as usual: Do everything possible to get very large programs started which require exponentially increasing budgets if they are to be successful and which inevitably fail to reach the requested budget levels and can thus have an excuse to stretch out ad nauseum without producing real results all the while bemoaning our inability to make Congress see the light. This isn't malice, it is simply "good business" given the way government contracting happens. > So what does all this mean. To me it means that the bickering and witch > hunting have got to stop. Everyone pull together with NASA and its contractors who are making a lot of money while driving our space program into the bridge abuttment. > It means that we have got to start looking to > lower the capital risk to getting to space. Agreed, and you do that by increasing knowlege through research to the point that profitable applications become aparent to private entities. > It means that we cannot > depend on THEM (whoever they are) to get us to space. Oh? What are YOU doing to get us to space these days besides injecting pink-noise into the net and hoping it will cause a viable mutant idea to arise in someone's brain? > Something has to > done to make each step into space profitable. Not twenty years in the > future, but six months in the future. It means that we need to keep NASA > plugging ahead, so that at least some door is open, some option > available. Right, and we do that by spreading NASA's cashflow out to thousands of researchers who are dying to try experiments that will give us the knowlege companies need to start profitable businesses -- and we let those researchers buy launch services and use of space facilities on the open market thus making an IMMEDIATE market for space related businesses. This, as opposed to giving 90% of NASA's cashflow to a few contractors for huge projects that serve no one well. > > If you truely want to go to space, stop bitching > about the people who are working toward the same goal you are, no matter > how flawed you think they are, because they at least agree with you in > principle. NASA management and the aerospace corporations that are involved in this bureaucratic nightmare have no principles so how could they agree with us in principle? The goals they are working for have little or nothing to do with the goal of establishing a space-faring civilization -- they are simply doing what corrupt bureaucracies and businesses do when the people are not vigilant. You want us to stop being vigilant. We want you to wake up. > Somehow or another the space movement has gotten sidetracked > into looking at the causes of our failures and stopped searching > for answers to our problems. If you truly want to go to space, start engaging in rational thought processes instead of limbic writhings. The "space movement", if it really is looking at the causes of our failures, is taking the first necessary step tword searching for answers to our problems. You, on the other hand, are attempting to avoid facing reality simply because it is painful to you. Worse yet, you are calling on others to exhibit your shallowness of character so that you can be spared some cognitive dissonance. > You best also stop feeling hopeless and helpless, because both > of those emotions cause you to do stupid, self-destructive things. I don't feel hopeless at all. In fact, it looks likely that NASA and the contractors will soon fail to continue business as usual and the whole house of cards will fall down, making way for a productive space program which is focused on appropriate research AND/OR private space enterprise, which is currently being strangled by aerospace business-as-usual. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #301 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Jul 88 04:18:40 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Fri, 29 Jul 88 04:32:37 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Fri, 29 Jul 88 04:32:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 29 Jul 88 04:22:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 29 Jul 88 04:08:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ANDREW.CMU.EDU (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Fri, 29 Jul 88 04:07:15 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05276; Fri, 29 Jul 88 01:05:39 PDT id AA05276; Fri, 29 Jul 88 01:05:39 PDT Date: Fri, 29 Jul 88 01:05:39 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807290805.AA05276@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #302 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 302 Today's Topics: Re: Rocket engine Re: Von Braun quote Re: Spy Satellites Re: Nuclear Fantasma Re: Spy Satellites Re: Orbital Launch Methods Re: Lithium cells for use on Space Shuttle Recent Gender Discussion Re: Orbital Launch Methods Re: Electromagnetic Launchers Microgravity recent gender discussion KH-11 Orbital Elements ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Jul 88 15:45:10 GMT From: vrdxhq!daitc!csed-1!zweig@umd5.umd.edu (Jonathan Zweig) Subject: Re: Rocket engine Simulating a nuclear EXPLOSION is totally different than simulating a nuclear BOMB. In the former case you have hot gases, plasma, drag, and typically at least one axis of symmetry -- in the latter you need millimeter (or micron) resolution in space, complex systems of wires and IC's and stuff (Yes! The radio emission from transmissions from the power leads into your detonator MIGHT MATTER!) to model, probably femto- second resolution in time, and what your interested in is moving at relativistic velocities. I'll eat this VT240 if anybody -- even the big boys at LANL -- is simulating nuclear bombs going off with intent to circumvent testing. If you are interested in blast-effects and stuff like that, you can do a reasonable simulation, but it's fifty orders of magnitude simpler than taking some CAD information about a bomb and simulating to see if it'll go off and calculate megatonnage and whatnot. If any University on the planet has the horsepower to simulate a real live rocket engine in 3-D taking into account drag, the viscosity of the propellants, turbulence-effects around all the manifolds and nozzle effects at every pipe-junction -- the intent being to figure out if a design works without prototyping it and burning up some test equipment, then they are keeping very quiet, and I know some DoD and KGB foklks who might like to have a heart-to-heart chat with them. (Try simulating a network of 1024 80386-based PC's (a much simpler problem) and then we'll discuss rocket engines.) Here's a thought on rocket engine design: fuels rush in where angels fear to tread. -Johnny Zweig (generic type NEWSGROUP is limited private; package DISCLAIMER is with TEXT_IO.......; end DISCLAIMER;) ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 88 00:02:22 GMT From: unmvax!charon!geinah.unm.edu!ee2131ac@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (SEDS-UNM) Subject: Re: Von Braun quote Hmmmm. I wonder if that Phil is really a computer... Phil <-> Hal ??? Hmmmm. (just kidding Phil) ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 88 12:56:26 GMT From: linus!marsh@gatech.edu (Ralph Marshall) Subject: Re: Spy Satellites In article <6201@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard the Nerd) writes: > > >Hello space enthusiasts, > >There has been some talk on the net lately about spy satellites. It >might be of interest to you that our amateur satellite group (based in >Toronto) has tracked down a few of these. NASA is not too cooperative >in this respect since they keep the orbits of these things classified, >so we find them on our own. Presently, the best object we are >-Rich Brezina > (Kevin Renner, really ;-) > snowdog@athena.mit.edu (works from most nets) I don't know whether or not the orbits are really considered classified, and I seriously doubt that the Russians don't know where they are, but if in fact the orbits _ARE_ classified the fact that you discovered them on your own still does not give you permission to distribute the information. It is still classified. Personally, I don't much care. As I said, if you can find them I'm sure The Other Side can too, so I doubt you're compromising national security. I'm merely commenting on the fact that guys from the NSA with absolutely NO sense of humor might not view it with quite the same liberal viewpoint, making your venture costly in terms of the harassment you could get. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jul 88 15:45 O From: Subject: Re: Nuclear Fantasma Excuse me for interjecting again my probably outdated rad-lib-pacifist (since peace is out, war must be in?) worldview into the digest, but I'll keep it short this time. It's just that reading the conversation about nuking the surface of Mars to get rid of inconvenient boulders brings to my mind a quote from the late Finnish writer and cartoonist Henrik Tikkanen, which I can't resist quoting: "Of course we have our problems, but can't they be destroyed, like everything else?" Disclaimer: These opinions don't reflect anything; they refract. Teemu "M-14" Leisti U of Helsinki, Dept. of CS leisti@finuh.bitnet Finland ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 88 14:18:51 GMT From: agate!garnet!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: Re: Spy Satellites In article <36178@linus.UUCP>, marsh@linus (Ralph Marshall) writes: > I don't know whether or not the orbits are really considered >classified, and I seriously doubt that the Russians don't know where >they are, but if in fact the orbits _ARE_ classified the fact that you >discovered them on your own still does not give you permission to >distribute the information. It is still classified. This reminds me of a letter sequence in SCIENCE this past February or so. Someone wrote in to complain nastily about some space museum or other that had been mentioned. It seems this museum was giving out these maps/guides to satellites in space, and the complainer was horrified when he noticed that several TOP SECRET satellites were on the list. The person responsible for the maps/guides replied that when he tried to get satellite information from NASA--innocently unaware of security problems--he was given some kind of hassle, so he then wrote to the Soviets for the information, and used that as his source. Some of the details may be wrong, but you get the gist. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 88 13:28:18 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Re: Orbital Launch Methods In article <455@ns.UUCP> logajan@ns.UUCP (John Logajan x3118) writes: > >I've never worked out the math, but I always wondered if one might be able to >get into orbit more cheaply by first going straight up and then going >horizontal at an altitude where the orbital speed would be much lower. >(I forget, does the moon go 2000mph or 4000mph?) As I mentioned when talking about electromagnetic launchers, this is indeed the case, especially if you go into an eccentric rather than a circular orbit. Consider an eccentric orbit with perigee distance r1 from the center of the earth, apogee distance r2. If v1 and v2 are the speeds of the spacecraft at perigee and apogee, respectively, then v1 r1 = v2 r2, by conservation of angular momentum. So, if r2 / r1 = 20 (say), then v2 < 600 meters per second (since v1 is less than escape speed). Depressing the trajectory 30 degrees from vertical increases the distance through the atmosphere by 15%, but supplies about 1/2 the needed angular momentum. The kick at apogee in this case would be 300 meters per second. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 88 18:43:33 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Lithium cells for use on Space Shuttle > >>>The reason NASA bans them from the Shuttle is because they have been > >>>known to explode when shorted. [...] > > Well, they can explode, or as we preferred to say, "rapidly out-gas", > but to my knowledge as an eight year design engineer at NASA JSC, they are > still approved for use. Okay, the rule is probably applicable only to GAS payloads. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 1988 From: DR9021%UCSFVM.UCSF.EDU@cunyvm.cuny.edu Date: Fri, 15 Jul 88 14:01:12 PDT From: Donna Reynolds (University of California, San Francisco) To: Subject: Recent Gender Discussion I am not convinced that this newsgroup is the best possible venue for a discussion of the pros and cons of "sexist" language. As the newsgroup name implies, most sci.space readers (women included) are here to talk/read about space. (No flames, please. I am a woman.) -DR ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 88 19:16:55 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Orbital Launch Methods > I've never worked out the math, but I always wondered if one might be able to > get into orbit more cheaply by first going straight up and then going > horizontal at an altitude where the orbital speed would be much lower. This once occurred to me too, and a friend dubbed it the "tennis ball serve" launch. The answer is no. If it weren't for the earth's atmosphere, and if you could accelerate fast enough, the most efficient launch trajectory into orbit would be nearly horizontal. Think of a launch as a Hohmann transfer and it should make sense. Here's another way to think of it: any thrust component that is directed toward the center of the earth instead of perpendicular to the vertical is spent merely overcoming gravity. Ideally you want all your thrust going into increasing your tangential velocity. Real launch trajectories are planned with a complex nonlinear optimization process that takes into account aerodynamic loads, any special tracking requirements, and the capabilities (restartability, throttability) of the various stages. For example, you want to jettison the fairing as quickly as possible to get rid of its substantial mass, but you can't do this until the aerodynamic heating is less than some amount (typically 1Kw/m^2). Doing this quickly requires a more lofted trajectory, which is less efficient. Launchers typically follow a preprogrammed flight path for the early part of the flight low in the atmosphere, and then switch to closed-loop guidance when aerodynamic forces are no longer a factor. One aspect of Pegasus that hasn't gotten much comment here is that the majority of the expected savings in launcher mass come not from the initial altitude and velocity of the carrier aircraft but rather because the thinner atmosphere at the launch altitude allows the use of a flatter trajectory and a less rugged aerodynamical design. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 88 15:48:17 GMT From: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!johng@uunet.uu.net (John Gregor) Subject: Re: Electromagnetic Launchers In article <217@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU> mstuard@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Mike Stuard) writes: > Could a linear electric motor be used? > If a magnetic track was long enough the extended period of > acceleration would reduce the G-forces enough for more sensitive equipment > that is needed in orbit. You still have the problem of the atmosphere. It will cause no end of troubles with heating and drag. > This idea is much better than the Launch Loop (which is a mechanical > version of this idea). If you mean that there is a mechanical link between the payload and the reaction mass (earth-loop system), you are wrong. The payload hovers above and is accelerated by the ribbon via eddy current repulsion. The somewhat unique architecture of the loop and the linear motor -> ribbon -> payload indirection is a result of the need to get things out of the atmosphere. But each subsystem is magnetically coupled, not mechanically. The only mechanical link is that the linear induction motors would be rather firmly attached to the planet. Have you read the paper? -- John Gregor johng%ecrcvax.UUCP@pyramid.COM ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 88 20:18:23 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Microgravity I am a bit surprised space advocates have not used the following argument (at least, I haven't seen it): Microgravity lets one grow larger protein crystals, so one can determine atomic positions using x-ray diffraction with better accuracy. (As has been pointed out to me, private firms are interested in this for drug design.) Knowledge of the precise structure of proteins is necessary when designing new proteins, even earth-grown ones. The ability to custom design enzymes is the first step to nanotechnology. Developing nanotechnology will require the ability to debug nanomachines, which means determining the position of atoms to high accuracy. So: Microgravity will be useful and possibly essential to the development of nanotechnology. Comments? Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu "Our steak prepared to your likeness!" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jul 88 19:29:36 EDT From: Marvin Minsky Subject: recent gender discussion To: MINSKY@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov Cc: ACS1R%UHUPVM1.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu In reply to "k.c. powell": When I was writing "The Society of Mind" (Simon and Schuster, 1988) I became more and more conscious of the unconscious gender implications, particularly since the opening portrays a child building structures with building-blocks. My own identification was partly with my own infancy but also partly with impressions of my first child who happened to be a girl and, eventually, mathematician and engineer. The use of "he" irritated me enough, but I didn't do anything about it until I read (and heard from) Robin Lakoff. At first it seemed impossible to write sexually neutral English but, after what I recollect as a really extensive skill-acquisition experience, it became second nature. If you want to see how it can be done, there are examples in virtually every paragraph. The trouble is, of course, that you can't see them - I hope. In Chapter 3 you'll find traces of some parts I found hard, and they show a little when I talk about "the child's mind" - instead of "his/her mind". And once in a while I tried referring to the child as "it" - just for fun. A few parents then complained that I *didn't* specify the child's sex, and this annoyed them, presumably because they couldn't invoke a handy stereotype. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 88 22:54:38 GMT From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard the Nerd) Subject: KH-11 Orbital Elements A few of you asked for the Keplerian elements for the KH-11 spy satellite we have tracked down. All right, here is our best set. I know, I know, this says the perigee is inside the atmosphere, but it works fine for moderate latitudes. Can't be perfect all the time! Satellite: KH-11 Norad: 15423 Epoch: 88189.10268819 Ndot/2: 0 B*: 0 Inclination: 97 RA of Node: 250.4 Eccentricity: 0.038 Arg. of Perigee: 235 Mean Anomaly at Epoch: 125 Mean Motion: 15.765 The drag coefficients were intentionally left at zero since whoever controls this thing does a very good job of boosting it up (I dunno where they get all that fuel.) Last time I saw it (2 days ago) it was 6 minutes early compared to the prediction. Expect _big_ errors! But it's really bright. -Rich ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #302 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Jul 88 23:06:37 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Fri, 29 Jul 88 22:23:35 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Fri, 29 Jul 88 22:23:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 29 Jul 88 22:14:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 29 Jul 88 22:06:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Fri, 29 Jul 88 22:05:53 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06277; Fri, 29 Jul 88 19:05:29 PDT id AA06277; Fri, 29 Jul 88 19:05:29 PDT Date: Fri, 29 Jul 88 19:05:29 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807300205.AA06277@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #303 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 303 Today's Topics: Phobos missions leave Earth's Gravity Progress 37 docks to Soviet Mir space station space news from May 30 AW&ST space news from June 6 AW&ST Announcing New Mailing List ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 88 13:14:01 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Phobos missions leave Earth's Gravity The USSR has now announced that both the Phobos 1 probe (launched July 7, and Phobos 2 (launched July 12) have now left "the earth's gravity". By this they probably mean that the probes have all made their burns out of earth orbit into a Hohmann orbit aimed at Mars (the lowest energy orbit to get you from one planet to another). There were several interesting things about these Phobos probes. First they allowed a number of foreign visitors to observe the launch and to see the Phobos 2 Proton launcher while it was in the vehicle assembly building. Also extensive photos of the vehicle and the launch were released, or taken by journalists. Secondly at a conference held in conjunction with the launch they laid out more of their future plans. The 1992 Mars mission is now cancelled in favour of a much larger 1994 mission. The 1994 will be launched either on a Proton or an Energiya - there is a "competition" for the launcher currently. Third manned Mars missions are now not planed until 2014-2017 and will "require" international cooperation. Finally Academician Roald Sagdeev of the USSR's IKI Space Research Institute will be retiring as its director this year, because he feels that directors should only serve 10 year terms (he has held the job for 15 years). This is in line with the new Soviet perestroika reforms of major scientific and industrial posts. Lastly the Phobos missions achieved another first, now in a commercial area. The Russians sold advertising space on the second stage of the vehicle to Italy's Danieli and Austria's Voest-Alpine steel firms. Both companies sell a lot of steel to the Soviets and were happy to purchase the space on such a major launch. The irony of this is that for years some people have been pushing the idea of selling adds on the shuttle main tank and solids as a way for NASA to pay for the launch. Who is the first to open this new commercial field of "billboards into orbit"? Why those who hate capitalism, the Russians! Furthermore they did it on a vehicle which, until 4 years ago, the Soviets kept so secret that in 20 years only one partial photograph had been released of the booster. We live in interesting times where the USSR is doing more to commercialize space that the USA. How about some efforts to change that? Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jul 88 17:26:37 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Progress 37 docks to Soviet Mir space station The Soviet's successfully docked the Progress 37 tanker to the Mir/Kvant complex July 22, bringing up the typical 2.3 Tonnes of cargo. This makes the 13th cargo ship to Mir (more than the 12 each sent to the previous stations of Salyut 6 & 7). It is also the 20th vehicle to dock to Mir (in addition to 6 Soyuz's and Kvant). It will probably be the last cargo craft before the Afghan/Soviet Soyuz TM-6 mission in late August. The Soviet's long duration Mir crew of Vladimir Titov and Musahi Manarov have been up now for more than 7 months of their one year mission. They are preparing to do another space walk to continue the repair of the Dutch/British telescope on Kvant. They are probably getting new tools with the Progress to help in that EVA. The Russians space station work seems to be fully routine now (repairs by crews that have not done that work on earth based simulators is common). Meanwhile they are talking about rolling the shuttle back into the vehicle assembly building due to an OMS leak. They may not have high tech, but at least the Soviets are in space. This country does, and has a high tech hanger queen. It is the efforts and results that matter, not the technology used to do it. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 88 04:42:55 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from May 30 AW&ST New DoC commercial-space assessment says DoD will need 119 shuttle- equivalent launches and 10 launches/year of smaller expendables between now and 2000. Commercial and foreign customers will want 15-25 big ones per year and 10 smaller per year. NASA will want 48-60 large expendables before 2000. Strong growth in Navsat services like Geostar is forecast. Satellite imaging may be $1G/yr by 1997, most of it in value-added image analysis. Moscow summit expected to lead to agreement to launch space science instruments on each other's missions. Reagan expected to avoid endorsing Gorbachev's joint-manned-Mars idea, since the US is still trying to figure out what its priorities are. Likely results of the instrument exchange are a NASA ozone mapper on a Meteor metsat in 1990, a Soviet radio-relay system on Mars Observer (relaying data from the Soviet Mars balloon mission in 1994), a US-Danish X-ray telescope on a Soviet satellite in the mid-1990s, and possibly more. DoD, as usual, is squawking about technology transfer. Reagan will propose that the two countries study cooperation in solar-system exploration. He will refrain from endorsing missions involving extensive hardware cooperation (e.g. Apollo-Soyuz), major manned projects, or specific unmanned Mars missions. [Has it occurred to any of the brain-damaged bozos who put together this wonderful list of non-promises that maybe the Soviets are tired of studying the notion endlessly and would like to *do* something?!?] The ozone mapper tentatively earmarked for the Meteor flight, a spare from Nimbus 7, has been quietly pulled out of storage and is now being overhauled to make it flight-ready. Soviets give ICAO technical details on their Glonass navsat system, offering it for international civil-aviation use. The Leeds University people who have been studying Glonass for several years say the data is accurate and comprehensive. NASA and DoC award General Dynamics a $200M contract to launch the next three US Clarke-orbit metsats, the first in 1990. This is the first actual final contract for commercial launch services from the US government. First Ariane 4 readied for launch. Ariane 4 is actually a family of launchers, sharing a stretched and beefed-up Ariane core and adding two or four strap-ons, those being small solids, big liquids, or two of each. The first launch will be the AR44LP variant, with two of each strap-on, to get the most mileage out of one test launch. Arianespace has made firm commitments to order 50 Ariane 4s, in hopes that volume production will cut costs and simplify management. Work begins on the ELA-3 launch complex at Kourou, for use with Ariane 5 in the mid-1990s. Included are an adjacent vertical test stand for the Ariane 5 SRBs, and a factory for solid-propellant manufacturing. House, Senate, White House quarrel over how to limit liability for commercial third-party launches. House and Senate bills are broadly similar, setting fixed limits on third-party damage and government property damage (with limits lowered if coverage to the limits is not available at reasonable cost), with the DoT assuming responsibility beyond the limits. By comparison, the Chinese and the Soviets assume all responsibility, while Arianespace requires $70M of third-party coverage and the French government covers the rest. The space-insurance business is in bad shape and agrees that limits are needed. USAF, NASA, and DoT do not like the idea; they think goverment indemnification is overly drastic and the $100M gov't-property limit is too low (USAF estimate is that a Titan failure could cause $300M damage). The Reagan alternative would cap liability instead of shifting it to the government. [Congress does not like the radical change to liability law that this implies.] The USAF also takes a dim view of the clause compensating commercial satellite customers bumped from the shuttle, saying that this is a "direct federal subsidy". [Now I've heard everything -- compensating the victims when you renege on your promises is a "subsidy"?!?] It's not yet clear whether Reagan dislikes the House/Senate bill enough to veto it; minor adjustments have already been made to try to keep him happy. USAF is seriously beefing up security for space-launch sites, in response to post-Challenger studies showing serious vulnerability to man-portable weapons before and just after launch. The USAF now deploys AC-130 gunships with specialized sensors to both Vandenberg and the Cape when launches are imminent, but AC-130s are in short supply and the increasing launch rates dictate dedicated aircraft. Each site could get at least three specially- equipped helicopters, probably similar to a recent demonstration model shown at Vandenberg by ERA Aviation (which does things like Alaska-pipeline inspection). The ERA demonstrator had an imaging infrared system, a low- light TV system, night-vision goggles for the crew, a full set of IFR [night/bad-weather] flight instruments, a loudspeaker system, and a high-power searchlight with a retractable infrared filter. Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle |uunet!mnetor!utzoo! henry @zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 88 21:59:00 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from June 6 AW&ST [The cover story this month is Pegasus, which I reported on earlier.] Japan declines to bid on launch services for Intelsat 7 series, citing prior commitments for the H-2 launcher in 1992-3. Congress attempts to trim the fat at NASA HQ a bit; HQ has had 28% staff growth in the last five years. DoC report on international commercial space says commercial projects face major obstacles, notably inhospitable government policy and actions. It says there is definite potential for materials work and a definite need for US facilities for it. Report notes that the Soviets are giving this priority, with over 1500 experiments done to date and probably a total of 2500 by 1991; the US total is under 100 and this won't increase significantly in the next few years. US/Soviet space agreement mumbles about improving cooperation, the major tangible signs being the expected flight of instruments on the other side's satellites. The US ozone mapper will fly on a Meteor metsat, and the Soviet radio-relay system will fly on Mars Observer. Soviet experiments will probably fly on the SLS-1 Spacelab Life Sciences mission, set to go up in early 1990, and probably also SLS-2 in mid-91. Pictures of the Soviet launch facilities at Baikonur Cosmodrome, in the wake of the US press visit. The Soviets have *three* launch pads for Energia already, over and above leftover pads from their old big-booster project. There is an isolated pad that was used for the first test flight, and a complex that includes at least two more (one still being built). At least one old-big-booster pad may be converted for Energia as well. [Lest we forget, KSC had a grand total of two Saturn V pads, with provision for a total of four. (If you've ever wondered why there's a seemingly- purposeless bend in the crawlerway to pad 39B, that's where the route to the hypothetical pads 39C and 39D would have branched off.)] The space station is in deep trouble in Congress, with Proxmire in particular gunning for it. Some are interpreting Fletcher's threat to cancel the space station if it's not adequately funded as a veiled hint that that's where cuts should be made if needed. So far the station has survived, at the expense of major cuts to CSTI, Pathfinder, NASA expendables, and the Commercially Developed Space Facility. [Those are lousy places for cuts.] US and European commercial-launch people are pressuring governments to outlaw use of Long March for satellites built in US or Europe. One reason for the sudden fuss is that Australia is ordering satellites for in-orbit delivery and has indicated that it likes the idea of using Long March. The official reason for the pressure is the detrimental effects on the free-world launch industry of government-subsidized competition. [Isn't it wonderful when the interests of the free world happen to coincide so neatly with getting rid of a low-cost competitor?] NASA to run major launch simulation June 7, to exercise entire launch team and all facilities. Final preparations underway for the first Ariane 4 launch. [Went fine.] Large story on Magellan, slated to go up next spring, the first US planetary mission in 11 years. It will be the first interplanetary launch from the shuttle. Magellan is also the first of the Solar System Exploration Committee's recommended projects; originally it was the first of four projects, carefully timed to meet launch windows, to do a lot of useful science at a modest and essentially constant funding level of FY84$300M/yr. The plan hasn't worked out very well so far. Even Magellan is still at risk, because it slips 25 months if it misses its May launch window. It is currently scheduled for STS-30 on April 28, right at the beginning of the window, but STS-29 may trade places with STS-30 if shuttle timing slips [as it has]. STS-29 is another TDRS, which NASA would probably be happy to postpone to get Magellan off on time. Magellan is a dedicated radar satellite, with essentially no other science, although this still involves several different experiments. The primary mission is synthetic-aperture radar mapping of 90% of the planet to less than 500m resolution. (An extended mission will probably get the leftover 10%; the omission is due to Venus and the Sun getting in the way of data return, and viewing-angle problems at the South Pole.) There is also a wide-beam altimeter for absolute surface elevation (the extended mission may include some stereo mapping work for more precise elevations), a passive radiometer using only the radar's receiver for information about surface temperature and emissivity, a radar-occultation experiment to measure properties of the atmosphere, and a gravity-mapping experiment using Earth-based radar interferometry to measure Magellan's orbit very precisely. The gravity-mapping work will be done in the extended mission only, since it requires transmission from the low part of the orbit, and in the primary mission that period is dedicated to mapping. The primary mission should take about 8 months, and there should be enough propellant left for 3-4 years of extended mission. The rest of the SSEC's plan is in serious trouble. The four get-things- going-again missions were Magellan, Mars Observer, Comet Rendezvous Asteroid Flyby (CRAF), and Cassini (Saturn orbiter, Titan probe). "Celestial mechanics are now beginning to catch up with us. When we published the SSEC plan back in 1982, it looked like there were an awful lot of opportunities to get off to comets and to Saturn and Titan. But six years later a lot of opportunities are behind us now, and in the case of Saturn in particular, you really have to use a Jupiter flyby to get there in a reasonable amount of time. The last chance to do that is going to be launches in 1996 and 1997, and if we don't get ahead and get started now two things will happen -- one is that the Europeans [who want to build the Titan probe] will probably go off somewhere else, and the second thing is that Jupiter will go off and be in the wrong place." NASA is trying to get Cassini and CRAF approved as a package in FY90. They are also hoping to get a Titan 4 in 1991 as a planetary backup -- first as a May 1991 backup for Galileo's late 1989 launch, then (if Galileo is off on schedule) as a backup for Ulysses's late-90 launch, and then, if not needed for either backup role, as prime launcher for CRAF. NASA says that future deep-space missions definitely will not use the shuttle, since shuttle safety politics and budget problems make launch dates too uncertain. NASA would like a bigger launcher than Titan 4, though, and the shuttle will probably continue to be used for inner-solar-system missions with more frequent launch windows. NASA is also partly re-introducing the idea of backup spacecraft. "We had adopted too risky a policy given the number of failures that suddenly started popping up and a greater sense of realism that started pervading our thinking." The current idea is to build and launch only one, but to be prepared with spare parts to launch another one in the next window. [Still not as good as real backups, especially given funding problems. People make much of there having been two Vikings and two Voyagers, for example, but they miss the fact that there were actually *three* of each: two that *flew* and one spare. Sigh; for both Viking and Voyager there were plans afoot to *launch* the spare as well. The third Voyager would have gone out on a Jupiter-Pluto (!) mission; the third Viking lander would have been landed near the North polar cap, where there is liquid water at times. Think of it when you see them in the Smithsonian.] Soviet disclosure of the Glonass navsat signal format is considered a major boost to international acceptance of navsats; it helps to overcome concerns about being dependent on a satellite system run by the US military. The Soviets intend to have an operational system comparable to Navstar by 1995, with a limited network up by 1990, about the same time scale as Navstar. Accuracies are also comparable. A remaining problem is that neither system provides for prompt detection and user warning about failure or serious degradation of accuracy; this is felt to be quite important for aviation use. The Soviet Glonass documents made no mention of a military mission for the satellites, but here too Glonass is similar to Navstar, with a separate high-precision signal. Pratt&Whitney is rebuilding its space-propulsion test facilities in Florida, partly to support its NASA contract to develop an alternate turbopump system for the SSME (although NASA might opt to stick with improved versions of the current Rocketdyne hardware, in the end), and partly to support more work on the RL-10 engine for the Centaur. [The RL-10 has also attracted attention for other projects, since it is cheap and reliable (although small) compared to the SSME and is the only other oxyhydrogen engine still in production in the US.] Soviet Academy of Sciences and the Federation of American Scientists jointly propose a ban on nuclear reactors in Earth orbit. This would hamper SDI and shut down the Soviet nuclear radarsats. Nuclear power for deep-space missions would be allowed, as would limited Earth-orbit testing of reactors for such missions, and some types of isotope power sources for civilian missions. [I think the "for civilian missions" part is a tactical error; if they're pushing this on the safety issue, they should stay out of the political side. If isotope packs are safe for civilian missions, they're safe for military missions.] Canada, France, US, and USSR, the founding countries of the COSPAS/SARSAT search-and-rescue satellite system, reach agreement on long-term support of the system. COSPAS/SARSAT is credited with saving over 1000 lives since 1982. MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 88 14:37:17 GMT From: imagine!turing.cs.rpi.edu!weltyc@itsgw.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty) Subject: Announcing New Mailing List I would like to announce the availability of Space Activists Digest. This is a moderated mailing digest of news and information for space activists. The digest has been in place for a few months now, I am announcing it now that it is stable. I encourage anyone who feels that space should be a government priority to join. One of the main goals of the digest is to report on government activity related to space, including congressional hearings and votes. To join, send a message to space-activists-request@turing.cs.rpi.edu, or to me. Christopher Welty --- Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!njin!nyser!weltyc ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #303 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Jul 88 05:21:29 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sat, 30 Jul 88 04:35:53 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat, 30 Jul 88 04:35:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 30 Jul 88 04:15:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 30 Jul 88 04:06:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sat, 30 Jul 88 04:05:46 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06405; Sat, 30 Jul 88 01:05:25 PDT id AA06405; Sat, 30 Jul 88 01:05:25 PDT Date: Sat, 30 Jul 88 01:05:25 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807300805.AA06405@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #304 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 304 Today's Topics: Annother British space first Re: Ramscoop engine Spy satellites flames Space Station Alternatives Required Re: Unethical National Space Society election Re: Von Braun quote Re: Space Suits Delta launch complex transferred to Air Force (Forwarded) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Jul 88 16:57:46 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net (B Gray) Subject: Annother British space first Continuing a long line of similar scientific firsts for this and previous Governments, the British Government yesterday announced they were ending funding for research on HOTOL. This makes them the first Government to scrap all research on spaceplane type launch vehicles, an area which other countries are showing increasing interest in. After having spent the magnificent sum of one and a half million pounds supporting research by British Aerospace and Rolls Royce, the Government decided that it was too costly, and that there were no prospects of any immediate profits. BAe and RR, it suggested, should find international partners to help fund any further research. They now face the prospect of trying to sell the idea to other countries which have already been offended by the attitude expressed by the Minister for science and technology at the ESA meeting at the end of last year. (No manned spaceflight, no new rockets, no more research, no more money: no profits). The problem is further complicated by the research being classified under the official secrets act. This present Government is paranoid about breaches of the Official secrets act. (They have already spent over 3 million pounds, by one estimate, trying to stop publication of "Spycatcher"). Would you put money into an idea which the British Government won't give ANY sort of backing to, and which you can't find out anything about? Oh, sorry, not quite true. They will back it to the extent that they say they would like it to be developed by private companies. Notice also, the announcement was made at the same time as a major surprise re-organisation of the department responsible for more than half of Government spending. This will help to keep any debate to a minimum. In its desire to re-introduce "Victorian Values" to Britain, the Government first seems to be trying to bring back Victorian Technology. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 88 18:13:10 GMT From: pyrnj!dasys1!tneff@rutgers.edu (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine (Re: ramscooping at 1G clear to Andromeda in 25 years shiptime) Several people have pointed out that you would accelerate most of the way to "c" while you were still inside this galaxy... so that lots of intergalactic gas for continued acceleration would be unnecessary. There are two problems with this objection. First, one of the "neat" aspects of the 1G acceleration was that you would get normal "gravity" on ship for the whole trip. If you stop accelerating at 1G past the galactic boundary, what do you do for gravity? You certainly lose the luxury of building a non-spin ship. Second, 'most of the way to c' isn't good enough for time dilatation purposes. You need ALL of that 12-13 ship years' acceleration in order to avpurposes. You need ALL of that 12-13 ship years acceleration in order to get there quickly. If you try to coast between galaxies you are going to be at it for a LONG time from the ship's standpoint. I did receive some encouraging numbers about intergalactic density though, which I'll pass along in a summary next week. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 88 02:50:13 GMT From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard the Nerd) Subject: Spy satellites Ralph Marshall (marsh@linus.uucp) writes (a few articles back): > I don't know whether or not the orbits are really considered >classified, and I seriously doubt that the Russians don't know where >they are, but if in fact the orbits _ARE_ classified the fact that you >discovered them on your own still does not give you permission to >distribute the information. It is still classified. Oh, I am pretty sure the Soviets are following it. It is a little difficult not to notice a thing as bright as Sirius crossing the sky! That's why I can't really understand why NORAD keeps them classified...which at least to my best knowledge they do. >I'm merely commenting on the fact that guys from the NSA with >absolutely NO sense of humor might not view it with quite the same >liberal viewpoint, making your venture costly in terms of the >harassment you could get. Well, thanks for the warning. To tell you the truth, I had no idea that such a relatively idle thing had the potential for causing so much commotion. I dunno...among amateur satellite observers the orbits of most US spy satellites are pretty common knowledge, and no one has bothered us yet... -Rich ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jul 88 11:30:29 MDT From: dbirnbau%nmsu.csnet@relay.cs.net Subject: flames Any comments that you wish a reply to will be have to sent directly to me as well as to the newsgroup, as I don't see the digest until it is almost a month out of date. Oh, the magic of electronic mail as it trickles through the networks.... This is in reference to the editorial placed several days ago. David Birnbaum VTIS001@NMSUVM1.BITNET Programmer, Small Systems dbirnbau@nmsu.edu New Mexico State University <-- they pay my bills, but they don't Las Cruces, New Mexico USA write my opinions.... ------------------------------ Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!trout.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim Date: Fri, 15 Jul 88 19:55:59 PDT From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Space Station Alternatives Required In recent talks with a very pro-space congressman the local chapter of the National Space Society has voiced its concern that if the space station is cancelled there won't be any U. S. space facilities available. This congressman, who has supported full funding for the space station every time it came up, is certain that, for political reasons, the space station WILL BE CANCELLED. He shares our concern. We ask the help of all pro-space people in ensuring that there are alternatives to the space station just in case. Jim Bowery PHONE: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 La Jolla, CA 92038 UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 88 22:49:28 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!orchid!gmwalma@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Michael Walma) Subject: Re: Unethical National Space Society election In article <1221@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: >Am I the only one who is getting increasingly weary of NSS airing its >dirty laundry on the net? > >Phil No. Michael Walma gmwalma@orchid.waterloo.edu ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 88 08:00:06 GMT From: voder!apple!winter@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Patty Winter) Subject: Re: Von Braun quote In article <3330@charon.unm.edu> ee2131ac@geinah.unm.edu.UUCP (SEDS-UNM) writes: > >Hmmmm. I wonder if that Phil is really a computer... Phil <-> Hal ??? I'll vouch for Phil. He is definitely human. Not a computer. Not even an android. (I don't care *what* Tasha said about Data. Besides, that was hundreds of years from now; androids aren't nearly that good yet.) Trust me. :-) :-) Patty ------- Patty Winter N6BIS [44.4.0.44] DOMAIN: winter@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl,nsc,sun,dual}!apple!winter ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 88 21:21:33 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!db.toronto.edu!hogg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Hogg) Subject: Re: Space Suits In article <8807112314.AA12967@diamond.tamu.edu> bruce@DIAMOND.TAMU.EDU (Bruce D. Wright) writes: >The important issue here may be that it takes about 3 psi (160 mm Hg) >oxygen partial pressure to maintain about 100 mm Hg oxygen partial >pressure in the alveoli of the lungs. Below this partial pressure the >blood does not saturate with oxygen while passing through the lungs. >Trying to hold 3 psi pressure in your lungs relative to the pressure >outside of your body would probably cause an embolism to occur, not to >mention that breathing extreme positive pressures like this would be >REALLY exhausting. > >Also, breathing pure oxygen at such low total pressure causes >atelectasis to occur. This is alveoli collapse caused by the oxygen in >the alveoli being absorbed into the blood. The carbon dioxide >remaining in the alveoli doesn't have enough pressure to withstand the >blood pressure outside of the alveoli, thus, they collapse. Coughing >can reinflate them, but this seems like a really stressing environment, >not to mention the constant worry about the vacuum causing boils to >raise in your skin in all those hard to cover places and the hassle >(and health risks) of necessary decompression for every EVA. Adding >good old inert nitrogen will alleviate these health risks, although it >adds its own problems. These are certainly problems that have to be addressed in an SAS design, but they also crop up in traditional ``airtight bag'' designs. Current suits are run at about 4 psi, and the pressures for an SAS would be similar. Thus, the problems with atelectasis would be no greater than at present. With respect to embolisms, remember that there *is* a pressure vessel in the system: it's the user's skin, backed up by the fabric. Inside the skin the pressure stays at a comfy .25 atm. The SAS system doesn't involve positive pressure breathing. The crudest design involves the chest being squeezed by fabric in the same way as the rest of the body. This means that neither inhalation nor exhalation intrinsically involve working against a pressure differential, although various departures from the ideal mean that this won't be true in practice. The developed SASs had a ``breathing bag'' wrapped around the chest within a non-elastic Nomex torso portion of the suit. When the user breathed in, the bag collapsed just as much as the chest expanded, and the reverse occurred on exhalation. Thus, no work had to be done against the material. (I oversimplify a bit, but not much.) >There is always a measure of trade-offs in any engineering design. Loss of >mobility is a drag, but maybe the health risks are worse in a 'skin suit'. If >it was me up there, I would want a full pressure suit that was engineered for >whatever mobility was possible, then make up the difference with good tools. If somebody told me, ``You have two weeks to build a suit which you will then wear in vacuum'', I would go for a bag myself. However, given a bit more time and a small (five-figure) budget, I would give an SAS a *very* close look. Mind you, I wouldn't destroy the tooling for today's garments while I was doing so... John Hogg | hogg@csri.toronto.{edu,cdn} Computer Systems Research Institute| uunet!csri.toronto.edu!hogg University of Toronto | hogg%csri.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net (arpa) | hogg@csri.utoronto (bitnet) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 88 18:40:08 GMT From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Delta launch complex transferred to Air Force (Forwarded) Jim Cast Headquarters, Washington, D.C. July 15, 1988 George Diller Kennedy Space Center, Fla. Captain Marty Hauser U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. RELEASE: 88-99 DELTA LAUNCH COMPLEX TRANSFERRED TO AIR FORCE After 143 Florida launches of the Delta expendable launch vehicle, NASA has officially transferred custody of Launch Complex 17 and East Coast Delta launch operations to the U.S. Air Force. Under an agreement signed by NASA Administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher and Air Force Secretary Edward C. Aldridge, Jr., formal handover of the two-pad complex, located at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., was effective July 1. Accountability of Delta production tooling and mission checkout equipment also was transferred under the agreement. The first successful NASA Delta launch from Complex 17 took place 28-years ago in August 1960. Its payload, Echo-I, was a 100-foot-diameter, reflective communications balloon which became a familiar orbital sight to a world-wide audience of nighttime sky watchers. NASA's final Delta launch from Complex 17 occurred earlier this year, on February 8, when a Strategic Defense Initiative Organization payload was successfully placed into orbit. Under Air Force stewardship, Complex 17 will continue to be used to launch Delta medium class vehicles. The Air Force has procured 20 new Delta IIs for DOD payloads. The first launch is scheduled for later this year. In addition, at least eight commercial Delta IIs will be launched by McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company, Huntington, Beach, Calif., from Complex 17 between 1989 and 1992. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #304 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 31 Jul 88 00:08:57 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sat, 30 Jul 88 22:39:11 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat, 30 Jul 88 22:39:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 30 Jul 88 22:28:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 30 Jul 88 22:11:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sat, 30 Jul 88 22:07:05 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06980; Sat, 30 Jul 88 19:05:19 PDT id AA06980; Sat, 30 Jul 88 19:05:19 PDT Date: Sat, 30 Jul 88 19:05:19 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807310205.AA06980@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #305 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 305 Today's Topics: Pioneer data reveals nature of the outer heliosphere (Forwarded) Re: Ramscoop engine Getting opinions to Dukakis Subroutine for computing orbital position ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Jul 88 18:41:12 GMT From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Pioneer data reveals nature of the outer heliosphere (Forwarded) Charles Redmond Headquarters, Washington, D.C. July 15, 1988 Peter W. Waller Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif. RELEASE: 88-100 PIONEER DATA REVEALS NATURE OF THE OUTER HELIOSPHERE As NASA's Pioneer 11 and Voyager 2 pass through the outer reaches of the solar system and NASA's Pioneer 10 speeds far beyond the planets, these distant spacecraft are measuring drastic changes in the flow patterns of the solar wind -- a million-mile-an-hour stream of charged particles which constantly boil off the Sun. NASA scientists have discovered a connection between the speed changes in the solar wind (near the spacecraft) and periodic changes in the Sun itself. The Sun's constant variations are manifested in shifts of its magnetic field and movements in the hot gases of its corona. Streams of faster wind particles tend to flow from thin areas, called corona holes, in the corona. Solar wind changes also are triggered by movements of a vast electromagnetic structure, called the current sheet, which bisects the Sun's field. Particles slow down as this sheet "flaps" toward them. Over the last 3 years, the Sun has been going through a phase called solar minimum -- a turning point in its 11-year cycle. "No one knew what happened during solar minimum in the farthest reaches of the solar system and beyond until the Pioneers and Voyager sent back their measurements. This is the first solar minimum for which we have been able to see what's going on in the solar wind out past Pluto," says NASA astrophysicist John Mihalov. The solar wind streams out from the Sun and envelops the entire solar system in charged particles, mostly electrons and protons. No one knows exactly how far this five-particle-per cubic-centimeter flow of particles extends. One recent guess is about 18 billion miles, or four times the distance of Neptune from the Sun. Before 1985, Pioneer 10 and Voyager 2, both positioned near the equatorial plane, measured periodic gusts in the solar wind called "high speed streams." The particles would speed up and then slow down about once every 27 days. In June 1985, the wind stream pattern stopped and the winds slowed down dramatically at Voyager 2's distance -- two billion miles from the Sun. There was no slowing measured at Pioneer 11, about the same distance as Voyager 2, but 15 degrees higher in latitude. Pioneer 11 measured the usual pattern of high speed streams. Eventually, the winds were flowing only about half as fast at Voyager 2 as they were at Pioneer 11. Three months later, in August, the solar wind slowed and the high speed streams also stopped at Pioneer 10, which is out twice the distance of the other two probes and in the equatorial region. Mihalov believes this change is connected to the earlier wind speed decrease at Voyager 2. The first slower particles, which were blowing past Voyager 2 in June, would have just reached Pioneer 10 by August. Solar winds actually sped up at the higher altitude position of Pioneer 11. The Sun's slower particles, that first reached Voyager and Pioneer 10, were boiling off in March of 1985. Mihalov and Aaron Barnes, Ames' senior scientist, proposed that changes in the Sun at this time, set off the changes in the far solar wind, which reached the vicinity of the distant probes months later. The changes in the Sun were part of a regular variation that it undergoes in 11-year cycles, or sunspot cycles. This cycle affects the number of sunspots, the configuration of the magnetic field, and the distribution of the 2-million-degree gas making up the solar corona. The coronal holes are located around the Sun's North and South poles. When the Sun approaches the part of its most active phase, called solar maximum, these coronal holes creep toward the equator by extending "tongues" 10 or 20 degrees in longitude. In the last 3 years, the Sun has been near the opposite condition, called solar minimum, when the holes retreat back toward the direction of the poles. The wind blows out fastest from these lower density holes. Barnes explains that holes form in areas where strong winds have blown the coronal particles away. As the holes retreat toward the poles, the high-speed streams migrate along with them. The Sun's magnetic field also influences the solar wind. The Sun's field, like the Earth's, has basically a North and South magnetic pole, but the Sun's more complex magnetic field deviates from this dipolar structure during parts of the solar cycle, becoming most complicated during solar maximum, when the two magnetic poles swap places. In the Earth's simpler magnetic field, field lines (the lines following the direction of force the Earth would exert on a magnetic object) wrap around the planet, connecting the North and South magnetic poles. In the Sun's field, the solar wind stretches the Sun's field lines near the equator far out into space. One region, corresponding loosely with one hemisphere, has more field lines pointing out from the Sun, and is called the positive sector, while the remaining region, with more field lines coming in, is called the negative sector. These sectors are divided by an equator, so at the Sun's surface, a point 15 degrees North of the equator would be above this equator in some areas and below it in others. Away from the Sun, the positive and negative sectors are bisected by an imaginary wavy curtain called the current sheet, which extends from this buckled equator. (It is called the current sheet because laws of physics state that there must be an electric current at the boundary between opposite magnetic fields and, indeed, there is a net flow of positive charges outward and negative particles inward in this region.) During the present solar cycle, the region above the current sheet is the negative sector and, below it, the positive sector. Back in early 1985, Pioneer 11 -- 15 degrees above the equatorial plane -- would sometimes be above and beneath the "current sheet" as the Sun rotated. Normally, as the Sun approaches solar minimum and the coronal holes retreat toward the poles, the current sheet's ridges flatten out. As the Sun approached solar minimum in 1985, Pioneer 11 was located above the current sheet, in the negative sector more of the time. By mid-1985, Pioneer 11 was always in the negative sector, indicating that the current sheet had flattened out beneath it. The closer you go to the current sheet, the slower the solar wind. As the current sheet "flapped" down toward the equator, even with Voyager 2 and Pioneer 10, the solar winds slowed in this region and sped up near the poles. The equatorial winds slowed as far as Pioneer 10, showing that the Sun's magnetic field and the associated current sheet are exerting powerful control over the solar wind even at great distances. "The Sun, its corona and magnetic fields, and the solar wind are all part of one system," says Barnes. And even well past Pluto, the solar winds are apparently still under the control of the rest of the system. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 88 13:48:59 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net (B Gray) Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine In article <2301@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >Niven brought this objection up, and handwaved his way out of it by >havng the "ramjet" fuel a laser. The ship was accelerated by light >pressure from this super laser. Is this even theoretically possible >(assuming some magic 100% efficient laser)? The most recent incarnation of the ramscoop idea I have seen was in Donald Moffitt's books "The Genesis Quest" and "Second Genesis". He seems to realise this problem exists and has one of the physicists in the story explain how it works. I quote. from page 159 and 160 of "The Genesis Quest" "Under certain circumstances, it's possible to increase the energy of a photon by a factor of from one to ten bollion. And when you do, it takes on the properties of a hadron. It acts as though it has mass, like a proton, for instance." ... "It's done strictly through electromagnetic interactions that we know how to handle. In theory, at least." ... "What you do is swat pulsed laser photons with a high energy electrin beam and scatter them a hundred and eighty degrees, [....] They pick up the energy of the swat." ... "Then you focus the back scattered photons - hadronic photons now - in the electromagnetic throat of the drive, and since they have a temporary non-zero mass, your vehicle not only gets a healthy kick, but gets it at the speed of light." ... "[a] four wave conjugate mirror [....] collect[s] all those muscular photons thatr'e scattering in all directions and herd them into a tight beam." ... "Of course, these aren't real photons [....] They're virtual photons. They exist by courtesy of the uncertainty principle." ... "The hadronic photon has no right to be. It's supposed to hold hands with another photon, so that the momentum and energy can be balanced. But it doesn't. It lives it's brief and solitary life violating all the superstitions of quantum electrodynamics. The universe finds this a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. So [it] disappears before it can be detected. It materializes into a rho vector meson, which immediately decays into two pions [......] By that time out mythical photon's given it's mythical kick to the vehicle. Now, anyone who has bothered to read this far is either rolling around with laughter or thinking "I wonder if it works". Given the number of other mistakes Moffitt makes with elementary physics I think it unlikely that the above is anything more than handwaving rubbish with buzz words thrown in. Would any real physicists like to comment. I have crossposted this article to the sf-lovers newsgroup with followups directed there. This stuff is getting too far from reality to be posted in sci.space. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Jul 88 12:42:11 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: Getting opinions to Dukakis X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space-activisists@turing.cs.rpi.edu,space@angband.s1.gov" A friend of mine tells me that Carol Rosin of the Institute for Security and Cooperation in Outer Space meets regularly with Jesse Jackson and has agreed to pass on all requests, opinions, etc, received in respect of directions national space policy should take; and that Jackson has Dukakis's ear. This compares favorably with writing letters to Dukakis, which he is unlikely to see personally (although opinions may be tallied, I guess). If you wish to write, the address is: 8 Logan Circle, Washington, DC 20005, tel. (202) 462-8886. I am neither a member of ISCOS nor any political party and do not represent them here; I am merely passing along a suggestion that had some face-value merit for a certain segment of the population. Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 88 17:03:04 GMT From: linus!munck@gatech.edu (Robert Munck) Subject: Subroutine for computing orbital position ------------------------- I'd like to call on the combined expertise of the net for something I've been unable to find; it's entirely on a "hobby" basis, no connection with anything commercial. I want a simple, fast subroutine that will compute orbital motions. The ideal subroutine would be something like this: Input parameters: position, velocity, mass of a free-falling body (whatever coordinate system and units works best) array of positions and masses of relatively massive bodies (planets, sun) an elapsed time (small, minutes or less) Output parameters: position and velocity of the free-falling body at the end of the elapsed time, accuracy at least 1% and .0001% is more than enough. This can be in any programming language that I'd have a prayer of being able to figure out -- APL, Ada, FORTRAN, even COBOL. I want to re-code it in the tightest machine code I can manage for the 80387 arithmetic chip (in my Compaq 386) and use it to drive 2-D and 3-D graphic displays of various things. I would pre-compute the motions of the massive bodies and use the subroutine to move one or several small things like satellites. My AB in Apple Math is twenty-one years old and rusty, but I'm very good at squeezing microseconds out of a program. Request II: for the second generation program, I'd like to add to the original a constraint on the motion of the free-falling body, say the actual position and velocity of it at the end of the period, and get as output the force or acceleration on the body. This could be used to fool around with things like orbiting tethers and Beanstalks. Request III is the inverse: add a force or acceleration to the original subroutine. Any help anyone can give, from an actual working program to references to a book or two that might help me, will be appreciated. Any software I manage to get working will be freely available. -- Bob Munck, MITRE Corporation munck@mitre-bedford.arpa ...!linus!munck.uucp 617-271-3671.bell ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #305 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 31 Jul 88 05:32:16 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sun, 31 Jul 88 04:41:48 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 31 Jul 88 04:41:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 31 Jul 88 04:20:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 31 Jul 88 04:08:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sun, 31 Jul 88 04:06:19 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07116; Sun, 31 Jul 88 01:05:26 PDT id AA07116; Sun, 31 Jul 88 01:05:26 PDT Date: Sun, 31 Jul 88 01:05:26 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807310805.AA07116@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #306 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 306 Today's Topics: Condensed CANOPUS - June 1988 Solar Sails Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! Re: Space Suits International Geosphere-Biosphere Program Re: Space Suits Re: Spy Satellites ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Jul 88 23:30:01 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) Subject: Condensed CANOPUS - June 1988 Here is the unabridged CANOPUS for June 1988. There are five articles, one given by title only, three in condensed form, and one short one in full. Items in {braces} are from me and are signed {--SW} when they represent personal opinion. The unabridged CANOPUS went to the mailing list last week; let me know if you expected a copy and didn't get one. CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Send correspondence about its contents to the executive editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded). Send correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA, 1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019. Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS widely, either electronically or as printout copies. If you do, however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many others receive copies. CANOPUS is partially supported by the National Space Science Data Center. {one article by title only} NASA RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENTS RELEASED - can880605.txt - 6/27/88 SHUTTLE NEARLY READY FOR LAUNCH PAD ROLL-OUT; BOOSTER QUALIFICATION TEST HELD TUESDAY - can880603.txt - 6/15/88 {The main topic of this article has been widely reported; the following paragraph was just an afterthought to the main article.} In a related area, Morton-Thiokol has announced that it will not bid on the development contract for the advanced solid rocket motor (ASRM) that will replace the current SRM in the mid-1990s. The ASRM will increase Shuttle payloads by several thousand pounds and is being justified in part as a means of reducing Space Station launches. NASA is looking at producing it at government-owned facilities in the southeast, among other areas. Morton-Thikol cited a need to focus on completing fixes to the current SRM as its reason for dropping out of the competition. VOYAGER IMAGING NEPTUNE - can880604.txt - 6/27/88 {in full but short} Voyager 2 now is returning images of Neptune and its moon, Triton, that rival the best terrestrial photos of the eighth planet. On May 9 Voyager was 685 million km (425 million miles) from Neptune, and produced an image with a resolution of about 7,857 miles per line pair on the narrow-angle camera using clear and green filters. The images, reconstructed with the aid of color cue from images taken by terrestrial observatories, shows the planet with a bluish-green caste because of its methane atmopshere, and Triton with a reddish-yellow caste, probably due to methane-derived organic compounds, according to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Neptune's image was smeared by time expsoure, and Triton's brightness was enhanced 40-fold to make it visible on the photograph. "QUICK IS BEAUTIFUL" REPORT SEEKS 5 PERCENT OF STATION RESOURCES - can880602.txt - 6/7/88 {condensed} Five percent of the Space Station's resources should be allocated for "Quick is Beautiful" experiments that could be manifested in less than three years and lead to larger, more complex experiments, according to a study group chartered by NASA's associate administrator for space station. Appropriately the QIB report is short -- fewer than 10 pages of text -- and does not recommend a "Dear Colleague" letter be issued just yet. That would leave too many investigators waiting in line as has happened on Space Shuttle. Their recommendation that standard interfaces be set early and rigidly controlled arose from the concern that the planning and operations process for Space Station as a whole not be significantly perturbed by adding QIB experiments to the daily routine: "The quantity of resources, complexity of interfaces, and level of management necessary for QIB is not nearly as important as whether significant changes in quantity, complexity, or level are required to accommodate QIB." Getting the experiments to the Station is a problem that appeared before the shuttle was grounded and can be expected to continue after flights resume. The study group recommended that QIB payloads be launched on a space available basis and stored on the Station to await operation at a convenient time. "CODE E" STRATEGIC PLAN RELEASED; "A PROGRAM IN TRANSITION" can880601.txt - 6/5/88 {condensed but long} {"Code E" is the Office of Space Science and Applications, OSSA} {This article and the previous one indicate to me that OSSA is really beginning to get its act together. Let's hope the new Associate Administrator, Lennard Fisk, can keep things moving. --SW} A measured, well-paced program for expanding U.S. science activities in space has been outlined by the "Office of Space Science and Applications 1988 Strategic Plan" recently released by NASA. It describes the nation's space science and applications program as "a program in transition ... from the exhilirating pace of the 1960s" through reduced missions in the 1970s, to the deliberately paced, complex missions of the 1990s. Significantly, the gray, 46-page booklet has no illustrations or flashy layout. It is a well-paced document outlining the current straits in which American space science finds itself {largely because of launch vehicle problems, but also because of lack of resources --SW}, and a measured approach to _retrieving_ {emphasis mine --SW} and maintaining national leadership in space. Given that budgets do not always materialize, Code E has established rules for developing projects: Completion of ongoing programs come first, and new projects will not be pursued at their expense. Major missions will be sought when it makes sense, moderate missions when near-term and lifetime resources do not allow it. In all cases, small missions will be sought each year, preferably as complements to major and moderate missions. Space Station facilities will be developed by disciplne pace, balance, relevance, and maturity. In line with the outline above, Code E is committing itself to continuation of all programs now under way. In addition, Code E now is seeking new start status for the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF) and recently released an Announcement of Opportunity for the Small Explorer program. For Space Station a suite of six microgravity sciences facilities is planned, along with life sciences facilities including a 1.8- meter centrifuge. Both classes of facilities are to be tested in Spacelab missions. An Announcement of Opportunity is to be released presently for attached (external) payloads, one of which may be a Cosmic Dust Collection Facility. The plan is to start with payloads that are "not overly demanding on the [Station's] environment and pointing capabilities," then to grow into more complex facilities. Into the 1990's, Code E plans to seek a joint start on the Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby and Cassini Saturn Orbiter/Probe missions. A dual start will be sought since both missions can use the Mariner Mark II spacecraft and would realize economies of scale. Cassini would be attempted with the European Space Agency although the Strategy states that missions normally will be started as U.S. flights with cooperation being sought as they are developed. Other major initiatives for the 1990's are the Earth Observing System (for which the A.O. was released in January), the Space Infrared Telescope Facility (the fourth member of the Great Observatories), the Solar Probe (plunging to within 4-60 radii of the "surface"), the High Resolution Solar Observatory (evolved from the scaled-down Solar Optical Telescope), the Lunar Observer (built from Mars Observer spares), and Gravity Probe-B (a "cornerstone" test of general relativity). Although the Lunar Observer is listed after HRSO, it will take higher priority, if necessary, in order to take advantage of the Mars Observer production team. Small missions will include a series of new Earth Probes, such as a Tropical Rainfall Explorer, to complement EOS, and Lifesat, a series of small, reusable spacecraft carrying life science experiments for up to 40 days. This would be similar to the Soviet Union's Biovostok program. In the research base, the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) will place a 3-meter IR telescope aboard a modified Boeing 747 to fill the gap between IRAS and SIRTF, and the Earth observing aircraft fleet will be updated. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 88 20:05:34 GMT From: puff!eric@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Eric "TheBoo" Bazan) Subject: Solar Sails The other day at the book store I was looking at an interesting paper- back on solar sails. (It was a small paperback, but like most books on spec- ialized subjects, it was quite expsenive - something like $25.00.) The book went into detail on sail design/configurations, sail materials, navigation, and possible accelerations. My question is this: just how does the sun 'push' against the sail? Is it the solar wind of charged particles (protons and elec- trons), or the the actual photonic flux, or both? If I recall, the solar constant above the Earths atmosphere is about 1.35 kW/m^2. (The best on the Earths surface is about 1 kW/m^2.) I can under- stand how actual particles could exert a push against physical matter, but not photonics energy. If so, how does photonic energy 'push' matter in a vac- uum. I have a poor physics background, so this may be a stupid question, but I'm curious anyway. thanks, -Eric(eric@shorty.cs.wisc.edu) eric@cs.wisc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 88 23:45:11 GMT From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus! In article <1988Jul9.234143.15997@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >> The article also raises questions about possible >> hidden subsidies: How much are OSC and Hercules paying for use of the >> NASA B52? How much are they paying for computing at Ames? > >This I don't know. I would speculate that the B-52 is being provided >on a basis of "until we have our own carrier aircraft, the customer has >to supply it". Ames is presumably involved in this for its own >reasons, and may consider free computing time justified. Remember that >NASA *is* charged with advancing aerospace technology for use by >private industry. Hercules and OSC were at the AIAA/(various other acronyms) Joint Propulsion Conference in Boston last week, and someone from OSC gave a talk on Pegasus. (He was an engineer, and fairly high in the team... I have his card someplace...). This question was raised, and as I recall, he said NASA has a flat rental rate for the B-52 and its support facilities of something like $30,000 per flight hour. The existing drop hardware will be used, so there is no cost to modify the plane. I believe they expect to use 8-10 hours of flight time before the first drop. Incidentally, the B-52 in question is one of 2 used to drop the X-15, and made about 100 drops with it. The plane has been flying since 1952 -- yet it only has about 2000 hours of flight time and is in like-new condition. Pegasus is almost exactly the same size, and very similar in outline, to the X-15 (although it is slightly heavier) -- the speaker noted that this was not intentional; they had just set out to build an optimum vehicle that could be carried by the B-52, and even with all their modern computers, etc. they came up with just about the same results as the X-15 designers... >> One of the more important aspects of this article is the tense... >> Hercules and OSC have far to go before this project amounts to much >> more than the inflated claims of a marketing campaign... > >One of the more important aspects of this article is the timing: after >the project is well underway, not before it gets started. I doubt very >much that an official announcement could possibly have been postponed >any longer, actually. Given the way the aerospace industry usually >ballyhoos its back-of-the-envelope design sketches, OSC and Hercules >have actually shown remarkable restraint. The talk at the Joint Propulsion Conference was an unscheduled addition to the commercial launch vehicles program -- and the reason was that at the time the schedule was made (last spring) OSC did not expect the project to be public knowledge yet. They have been playing their cards _very_ close to their chest.... >Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry Jordin Kare jtk@mordor.uucp jtk@mordor.s1.gov ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 88 00:30:32 GMT From: voder!apple!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Smith) Subject: Re: Space Suits In article <957@cfa183.cfa250.harvard.edu> willner@cfa250.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) writes: >From article <8807112314.AA12967@diamond.tamu.edu>, by >bruce@DIAMOND.TAMU.EDU (Bruce D. Wright): >> Trying to hold 3 psi pressure in your lungs reletive to the >> pressure outside of your body would probably cause an embolism to >> occur, not to mention that breathing extreme possitive pressures >> like this would be REALLY exhausting. > >From personal experience, I can say that pressure breathing at even a >fraction of a psi is extremely uncomfortable and tiring. This is NOT >a viable option for normal EVA, and a whole psi is probably not even >an option for emergencies. An analog of the effect can be had by jumping into a swimming pool. Admitidly you have presure on the outside rather than the inside of the lungs, but your muscles are about equally suited to pulling air in so this can serve as a good 'reasonableness' test. Take a tube 2 feet long. Try to breathe through it while your totally under water. Just try. The bottom of your lungs (assuming you are standing on the pool floor) are more than 2 feet down. One tires quickly of the game... One atmosphere is about 33 feet in water. Three feet down is about 1.5 psi. E. Michael Smith ...!sun!apple!ems 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 88 16:41:58 GMT From: amdahl!bnrmtv!behm@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Gregory Behm) Subject: International Geosphere-Biosphere Program I am searching for information about the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program, and hope that some of you on the net might be of assistance. Any information about the program, including (but not limited to) planned or proposed research and participating organizations, will be greatly appreciated. E-mail or posted responses welcome. Thanks, Gregory Behm ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 88 05:10:21 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Suits In article <8807112314.AA12967@diamond.tamu.edu> bruce@DIAMOND.TAMU.EDU (Bruce D. Wright) writes: >Also, breathing pure oxygen at such low total pressure causes >atelectasis to occur. This is alveoli collapse caused by the oxygen in >the alveoli being absorbed into the blood... Adding good old inert >nitrogen will alleviate these health risks... Can you explain why the Apollo astronauts, breathing 3 psi of pure oxygen for two weeks on lunar missions, had no problems? Given that base of experience, somehow I am not too worried about atelectasis. More generally, I find it really strange that people have to be told, over and over again, that the skin-tight-spacesuit idea HAS BEEN TRIED in vacuum chambers and IT WORKS. There seems to be an unlimited supply of hypothetical problems that just don't exist in real life. -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle |uunet!mnetor!utzoo! henry @zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 88 05:16:31 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Spy Satellites In article <36178@linus.UUCP> marsh@linus.UUCP (Ralph Marshall) writes: >... if in fact the orbits _ARE_ classified the fact that you >discovered them on your own still does not give you permission to >distribute the information. It is still classified. Sorry, wrong. Only information about nuclear weapons is "born classified" in this way, so that it is illegal to reveal it even if you discover it independently. (It is likely that "born classified" is unconstitutional even for nuclear weapons, but so far the US government has backed down rather than take the issue to the Supreme Court.) Anything else is in the clear, provided you really did discover it independently without use of classified materials AND you have not signed a keep-your-mouth-shut agreement with the government (as a result, say, of prior government employment in some sensitive area). This doesn't mean, of course, that they can't harass you! (Also, beware, I am not a lawyer -- consult a pro before doing anything rash.) -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle |uunet!mnetor!utzoo! henry @zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #306 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 31 Jul 88 23:09:45 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sun, 31 Jul 88 22:33:05 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 31 Jul 88 22:33:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 31 Jul 88 22:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 31 Jul 88 22:07:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sun, 31 Jul 88 22:06:11 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07689; Sun, 31 Jul 88 19:05:39 PDT id AA07689; Sun, 31 Jul 88 19:05:39 PDT Date: Sun, 31 Jul 88 19:05:39 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808010205.AA07689@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #307 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 307 Today's Topics: Re: Ramscoop engine Re: Pegasus and other space projects Re: Spy Satellites Re: Postcard from Lewis: Having a wonderful time, wish you were here Satellite Tracking Program Request Re: Spy Satellites Orbital Elements Okay, who asked for this N-body galaxy simulation stuff? Re: Spy Satellites Re: Orbital Launch Methods Re: Orbital Launch Methods Trapped, comrade? International agreements on space station Re: Orbital Launch Methods Re: Solar Sails Re: Solar Sails ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Jul 88 04:55:07 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine In article <2075@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: >I beg to differ. A ramscoop engine suffers from the same ram drag >as any other ramjet type engine. This apparent force is caused by >temporarily bringing the interstellar matter up to your speed so >you hold on to it long enough to fuse it... >This then is the upper speed limit for an interstellar 'ramjet'. If you accelerate it electromagnetically (i.e. with a very high positive voltage on the ship), you can reverse the process on the exhaust, which to a first approximation eliminates the drag. Every now and then someone who hasn't actually *read* the technical papers about ramscoops in places like JBIS rediscovers the "fundamental speed limit" of the Bussard ramjet, and immediately concludes that all the people who talk seriously about relativistic ramscoops are too stupid to have noticed it. Not so. (Sorry, Dani, but this particular misconception annoys me.) Agreed that there is a real problem with doing something with the interstellar mass once you've got it; fusing ordinary hyrdogen is not easy. If you're willing to sacrifice the fuelless nature of the Bussard ramjet, one way around the problem is to react the interstellar gas with antimatter carried on board. *That* reaction is fast! -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle |uunet!mnetor!utzoo! henry @zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 88 05:05:08 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Pegasus and other space projects In article <2076@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes: >Just because we delivered a few airplanes a few days late this year >is no reason to pick on Boeing... My apologies, Dani -- didn't realize I'd hit a sore spot. It was meant as a generic analogy, without reference to specific current events and without intent to criticize Boeing. My apologies to you and your employer. (Next time I'll cite McDonnell-Douglas... :-) :-)) >If OSC/Hercules are as smart as they seem to have been so far >then I will go out on a limb and predict that they will be buying >a used 707 cargo plane to convert to their first stage... It's a plausible theory, but I don't understand why they're being so secretive about it if so. Actually, an even more outrageous thought came a few days ago. One irritation with most airliners is that their wings are set low on the fuselage, limiting the size of loads that can be packed under the wing. (Probably not enough to be a show-stopper, mind you.) Big military transports, on the other hand, generally have high wings to keep the engines clear of ground debris. The C-5 production line is closed. You don't suppose they plan to lease an Antonov Ruslan?!?!? -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle |uunet!mnetor!utzoo! henry @zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 88 15:42:44 GMT From: agate!garnet!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: Re: Spy Satellites In article <1988Jul19.051631.25394@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo (Henry Spencer) writes: >Sorry, wrong. Only information about nuclear weapons is "born classified" >in this way, so that it is illegal to reveal it even if you discover it >independently. Cryptological information is born classified. And probably some stuff involving optics. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jul 88 10:50 PDT From: Frank Mayhar Really-To: SPACE Subject: Re: Postcard from Lewis: Having a wonderful time, wish you were here concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) writes: >ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) writes: >> PH418000@BROWNVM.BITNET writes: >> } There's also an interesting proposal to use a tether concept to deorbit >> }the space shuttle from the space-station, simultaneously reboosting the station >> }everytime you drop a shuttle off. >> >> This isn't all that new an idea. See the SF novel "Descent of A????" > >"Descent of Anansi" by Larry Niven. and Steven Barnes. (Don't forget the co-author!) Frank-Mayhar%ladc@BCO-MULTICS.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 88 18:09:29 GMT From: pru%psuvm.BITNET@jade.berkeley.edu.user@host.BITNET Subject: Satellite Tracking Program Request I was wondering if anyone has or knows where to obtain programs for tracking satellites. I'm especially interested in any programs that not only give a satellite's position, but also give some indication as to whether it will be visible over a particular location on a particular date. Any other information or references on satellite observing and tracking would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Eric ------- Eric Plesko 207 Materials Research Lab Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 BITNET: pru@psuvm.bitnet UUCP: "akgua, allegra, ihnp4, cbosgd"!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!pru ARPA: pru%psuvm.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 88 18:08:14 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Spy Satellites > Cryptological information is born classified. As far as I can tell, this is simply not true. Bobby Inman tried to make it true back in the early 1980s, but the (completely justified) backlash from the academic community sank the idea. There is a "voluntary review" procedure where researchers can run their papers by NSA before publication, but no law mandates this. At least with respect to cryptology, the First Amendment is still largely intact. Read "The Puzzle Palace" for the gory details. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jul 88 12:04:55 PLT From: Andrew Vaught <29284843%WSUVM1.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu> Subject: Orbital Elements I appreciate people posting the orbital elements of various (Soviet) spacecraft. Unfortunately, I don't know enough orbital mechanics in order to convert these to a time/position for my long./lat. Could someone post a good reference to how to do this, or tell me where a conversion program (preferably source) is archived? Thanks, Andy <29284843@wsuvm1.bitnet.edu> ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 88 21:35:26 GMT From: pioneer.arc.nasa.gov!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Okay, who asked for this N-body galaxy simulation stuff? Okay, some many weeks ago, some two people asked for galaxy simulation papers. I just mailed Christensen his copy. Was it you David Smith at H-P or some one else? Just send mail. It took this long because what I'm sending you (from B. Smith) is going into a book chapter. Sorry, no extra copies, I have this one only and I'm embarassed it took this long to get it. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 88 00:32:02 GMT From: agate!garnet!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: Re: Spy Satellites In article <1242@thumper.bellcore.com>, karn@thumper (Phil R. Karn) writes: >> Cryptological information is born classified. >As far as I can tell, this is simply not true. You're wrong. >[volunteer review policy] So? >Read "The Puzzle Palace" for the gory details. Hahaha. Is this supposed to be a dumb joke? ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 88 18:09:45 GMT From: ns!logajan@umn-cs.arpa (John Logajan x3118) Subject: Re: Orbital Launch Methods >In article <455@ns.UUCP> logajan@ns.UUCP (John Logajan x3118) writes: >>I always wondered if one might be able to >>get into orbit more cheaply by first going straight up and then going >>horizontal at an altitude where the orbital speed would be much lower. To which Paul F. Dietz says yes: >this is >indeed the case, especially if you go into an eccentric rather >than a circular orbit. And Phil Karn says no: >The answer is no. >the most efficient launch trajectory into >orbit would be nearly horizontal. To which I say, I guess I'll have to work out the math! I do like Paul's suggestion of eccentric rather than circular orbits. I can intuitively see the slight horizontal kick just being enough to miss the earths atmosphere after a long fall. The other intuitive factor is see is that the craft gets to fall an additional 2000 miles (diameter/2*50%) farther through near earth gravity than it needed to climb at launch. Or to put it another way, it gets a 4000 mile high bonus. - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - {...rutgers!umn-cs, ...amdahl!bungia, ...uunet!rosevax!bungia} !ns!logajan - ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 88 19:15:56 GMT From: ns!logajan@umn-cs.arpa (John Logajan x3118) Subject: Re: Orbital Launch Methods More on electro-magnetic launcher lengths: I used two simple equations to get ball park figures for launcher lenghts. 1.) distance=1/2*acceleration*time*time d=1/2att 2.) velocity=acceleration*time v=at or t=v/a combining 1 and 2 gives: 3.) distance=velocity*velocity/(2*acceleration) d=vv/(2a) 1g = 32.2 fps/s 17700mph = 25960 fps (near earth orbital velocity) 25960*25960/64.4 = 10,464,621 feet or 1982 miles, say 2000. Thus it takes 2000 miles of one G acceleration to reach orbital velocity. (4000 miles at one G to reach escape velocity, 25000 mph.) Various launcher lengths and performance: G's miles time 1g = 2000 14 minutes 2g = 1000 7 4g = 500 3.4 8g = 250 1.7 16 = 125 50 seconds 32 = 62 25 64 = 31 12 128 = 16 6 256 = 7 3 512 = 4 1.5 1024 = 2 .8 2048 = 1 .4 4096 = .5 .2 8192 = .25 .01 At 17700 mph it would take about 11 sec to go 50 miles through the atmosphere. - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - {...rutgers!umn-cs, ...amdahl!bungia, ...uunet!rosevax!bungia} !ns!logajan - ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 88 01:41:59 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov (MacLeod) Subject: Trapped, comrade? In article <8807140415.AA14513@angband.s1.gov> dbirnbau@nmsu.CSNET writes: :When I went to Washington, I was very :gung-ho about the space program, especially the MANNED space program, but now :I'm not so sure. The money for the space program has to come from somewhere, :be it Vet's benefits, defense, social programs or wherever. Unless those who :support the space program are able to instill their own long-range vision upon :those who are responsible for dividing the money, we are going to be trapped :on this planet for a long time. What means "we", tovarich? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 88 09:23 EDT From: RON PICARD Subject: International agreements on space station HS writes: > Fletcher says NASA budget crisis may lead to unilateral cancellation > of international agreements on space station. Is Fletcher crying wolf or is this the next (final) step in eliminating any credibility NASA may still have? It should at least make the Russians think twice about a cooperative mission to Mars anytime soon. Ron Picard (PICARD@GMR.COM) ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 88 14:49:57 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Re: Orbital Launch Methods In article <492@ns.UUCP> logajan@ns.UUCP (John Logajan x3118) writes: >To which Paul F. Dietz says yes: >>this is >>indeed the case, especially if you go into an eccentric rather >>than a circular orbit. > >And Phil Karn says no: >>The answer is no. The difference being that I was talking about electromagnetic launchers, where drag is more important. If the Earth had no atmosphere then you would probably want a horizontal launcher. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 88 23:31:44 GMT From: ganelon.usc.edu!robiner@oberon.usc.edu (Steve) Subject: Re: Solar Sails In article <1988Jul19.235426.15443@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Easy. Special relativity tells us that there is no such thing as mass or >energy in isolation: you always have both. That means that energy, e.g. >light, has mass. And so it does, and hence it has momentum, and bouncing >it off a reflective surface imparts momentum to said surface. Light does If the light bounces off the sail, how does it impart momentum. What energy of the photon is now reduced? I think the photons must be ABSORBED by the sail for this to work. =Steve= ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 88 23:54:26 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Solar Sails >... My question is this: just how does the sun 'push' >against the sail? Is it the solar wind of charged particles (protons and elec- >trons), or the the actual photonic flux, or both? It's mostly the light; as I recall it, the solar wind contributes very little. >... I can under- >stand how actual particles could exert a push against physical matter, but >not photonics energy. If so, how does photonic energy 'push' matter in a vac- >uum... Easy. Special relativity tells us that there is no such thing as mass or energy in isolation: you always have both. That means that energy, e.g. light, has mass. And so it does, and hence it has momentum, and bouncing it off a reflective surface imparts momentum to said surface. Light does not exert *much* pressure, but it does exert some. A powerful laser can levitate a small glass bead on light pressure alone. Sunlight is rather more spread out, so enormous areas are needed for good results, but the thrust is there if you're willing to gather it. My recollection is that people who run orbiting satellites have to take it into consideration as a minor source of orbit perturbations. -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle |uunet!mnetor!utzoo! henry @zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #307 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 1 Aug 88 07:59:50 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Mon, 1 Aug 88 07:12:56 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 1 Aug 88 07:12:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 1 Aug 88 06:54:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 1 Aug 88 05:33:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 1 Aug 88 04:09:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 1 Aug 88 04:06:07 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07796; Mon, 1 Aug 88 01:05:04 PDT id AA07796; Mon, 1 Aug 88 01:05:04 PDT Date: Mon, 1 Aug 88 01:05:04 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808010805.AA07796@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #308 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 308 Today's Topics: Special communications system prepared for Neptune encounter (Forwarded) RE: Re: International agreements on space station astronomy newsletters Re: Orbital Launch Methods Lithium Batteries Re: Solar Sails Proposals sought for space-based laser to study global winds (Forwarded) Trust Fund Proposed for Space Ventures ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jul 88 20:03:57 GMT From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Special communications system prepared for Neptune encounter (Forwarded) Jeff Vincent Headquarters, Washington, D.C. July 20, 1988 Paula Cleggett Headquarters, Washington, D.C. James H. Wilson Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. Release: 88-102 SPECIAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM PREPARED FOR NEPTUNE ENCOUNTER Scientists and engineers from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif., and the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), Socorro, N.M., are working together in the high plains of central New Mexico to improve the ability to receive spacecraft signals from the vicinity of planet Neptune. The researchers are currently testing a new deep-space communications system with NASA's Voyager 2 spacecraft, which will fly past the eighth planet next year. When Voyager 2 reaches Neptune in August 1989 to take close- up pictures and thousands of other measurements, the spacecraft will be nearly three billion miles from home. Its signal received on Earth will be extremely faint. Adding the 27 radio telescopes of the NRAO's Very Large Array (VLA) to JPL's Deep Space Network (DSN), which communicates with interplanetary spacecraft, will more than double the ability to capture Voyager's signal. The signal will be received eight hours per day for 40 days of the encounter -- the period that Voyager and Neptune will be above the horizon at the New Mexico desert site. Under an agreement between NASA and the National Science Foundation, which sponsors NRAO, engineers are installing new receivers and microwave horns, tuned to Voyager's X-Band radio frequency, on all the 82-foot dish antennas at the VLA. Special signal-processing and communication equipment has been added so that the VLA will be linked by satellite to the DSN's Deep Space Communications Complex at Goldstone, Calif. The new X-Band receiver systems were designed and built cooperatively by JPL, VLA, and NRAO's Central Development Laboratory at Charlottesville, Va. Like those of the DSN, the advanced receiver circuits are kept chilled with liquid helium to suppress internal electronic noise. NASA also has provided an independent power generator for the array, which has suffered power failures from summer lightning storms. This month's system test is the first chance to preview Neptune operations with the whole worldwide communication system, including elements at the VLA. The Voyager spacecraft, now 2.4 billion miles from Earth, will transmit in its planetary encounter mode, at data rates up to 21,600 bits per second (the rate used for Voyager's encounter of Uranus in 1986). Linked electronically, the two systems -- 23 VLA antennas that now have their X-Band receivers, and the 112-foot and 230-foot dishes at Goldstone -- will function as a single receiving system. The VLA, located about 100 miles southwest of Albuquerque, has, since 1980, enabled radio astronomers to study distant stars, nebulae and galaxies by collecting and analyzing radio emissions from these objects. The 27 mobile dishes are arrayed along a Y-shaped railroad track and can be rearranged for different observations. William D. Brundage, VLA project engineer, is responsible for Voyager preparations at Socorro. Voyager 2 was launched in August 1977, and has subsequently explored the planetary system of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus. The DSN has been developing and operating as a NASA system for nearly 30 years. It has communicated with spacecraft and astronauts on the Moon; tracked and commanded Earth-orbiting, unmanned spacecraft, and those sent to explore comets and six of the nine planets; and to probe the outer reaches of the solar system. Besides the Goldstone complex, the DSN includes stations in Spain and Australia, where Australia's Parkes Radio Telescope was linked with the DSN's antennas in 1986 to support Voyager 2's encounter of Uranus. This link will be made again for next year's encounter. JPL's Donald W. Brown is interagency arraying manager for the DSN, with overall responsibility for the Socorro link. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jul 88 05:14 EDT From: RON PICARD Subject: RE: Re: International agreements on space station > Why do so many people forget the first "A" in "NASA"? Good question...I have to plead guilty. Probably because the "S" is the only thing that makes the popular press. I'd be interested to hear what some of the "A" work includes although it might not be suitable for the space network. Ron Picard (PICARD@GMR.COM) ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 88 19:14:20 GMT From: fsimmons@ub.d.umn.edu (Frank Simmons) Subject: astronomy newsletters I represent the Arrowhead Astronomical Society. I am interested in knowing if there are other club members reading this ; if you would be interested in exchanging newsletters; and if you have an electronic newsletter you would not mind sharing. Frank Simmons BITNET: FSIMMONS@UMNDUL.BITNET UMD Information Services INTERNET : fsimmons@ub.d.umn.edu Univ of Minn,Duluth ATT : (218) 726-8849/7587 10 University Drive SYSTEM : VAX/VMS 4.7 JNET 3.0 Duluth MN 55812-2496 ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 88 16:17:45 GMT From: ns!logajan@umn-cs.arpa (John Logajan x3118) Subject: Re: Orbital Launch Methods In article <492@ns.UUCP>, logajan@ns.UUCP (John Logajan x3118) writes: > >>get into orbit more cheaply by first going straight up and then going > >>horizontal at an altitude where the orbital speed would be much lower. Okay, I put this scenario into a simulator and found that if I shoot a projectile straight up at orbital velocity (from the surface of the earth) it will reach an altitude of 4000 miles (just double its starting height from the center of the earth -- hmmm coincidence?) Orbital velocity at 4000 miles is quite significant, so I would say that it is not cheaper to go straight up first and then fire horizontally. Unless of course you have some form of launcher that is earth based, such as an electro-magnetic launcher. Then the economies of the launch system might overcome the additional energy requirements needed for the "tennis ball serve" launch. - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - {...rutgers!umn-cs, ...amdahl!bungia, ...uunet!rosevax!bungia} !ns!logajan - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jul 88 09:22:27 EDT From: Peter Allsop Subject: Lithium Batteries The BITNET summaries of Space Digest can be a bit behind, so if this has already been said, sorry ... In Digest 8 # 871 Paul Hass wrote: > {stuff on explosive potential} I have also heard of lithium batteries >"outgassing" ie. spewing out the nasty electrolyte. Lithium batteries >are usually made of lithium and something from the other side of the >periodic chart, iodine, bromine, chlorine, etc... You heard correctly, Lithium batteries can excrete a real nasty (read corrosive) liquid. A few years ago the Canadian government made it manditory for all civil aviation aircraft to carry an Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) powered by a Lithium battery. (Actually they required it run for a minimum number of hours at low temperature, and it worked out that a Lithium battery was the most feasible one to use). Everybody complied and things seemed great for about 6 months ... then the failure reports starting coming in. First came the reports of explosions, ELT's blowing holes in the hulls of (fortunately) parked aircraft. As I recall these were attributed to overheating (solar), not shorts. Then came the reports of corrosion problems. Several people had the batteries leak so badly that they ate right through the housing of the ELT *and* the hull of the aircraft (I saw one such case). Not long after that came the NOTAM - pull all ELT's with Lithium batteries from aircraft & inspect for damage. When we pulled ours I opened it up & literally poured the electronics out of the case ... the components had been liquified! The 1/8" aluminium case of the ELT had been eaten almost all the way through in a few spots ... far too close for comfort! NASA may be taking a rather conservative approach in banning Lithium batteries, but their history is not encouraging. Peter Allsop (old form) (new form) Science is truth, don't be mislead by facts. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 88 15:48:08 GMT From: palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu (David Palmer) Subject: Re: Solar Sails In article <10922@oberon.USC.EDU> robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve) writes: >In article <1988Jul19.235426.15443@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>Easy. Special relativity tells us that there is no such thing as mass or >>energy in isolation: you always have both. That means that energy, e.g. >>light, has mass. And so it does, and hence it has momentum, and bouncing >>it off a reflective surface imparts momentum to said surface. Light does > >If the light bounces off the sail, how does it impart momentum. What >energy of the photon is now reduced? I think the photons must be >ABSORBED by the sail for this to work. > >=Steve= Momentum is a vector. When a photon bounces vertically off a light-sail, its momentum reverses itself, so the momentum it gives the light-sail is twice its original momentum (in its original direction). The energy given to the sail is taken away from the photon and appears as a redshift. N.B. the energy is equal to momentum transfer times the velocity of the sail, so when the sail is stationary, there is no energy transfer as well as no redshift. (I know what I'm talking about, so if you disagree, mail me first and I'll explain it.) David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer "Flowers -- Just say NO!!" - Mighty Mouse ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 88 02:41:22 GMT From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Proposals sought for space-based laser to study global winds (Forwarded) Charles Redmond Headquarters, Washington, D.C. July 21, 1988 Bob Lessels Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. RELEASE: 88-103 PROPOSALS SOUGHT FOR SPACE-BASED LASER TO STUDY GLOBAL WINDS NASA's Marshall Space FLight Center, Huntsville, Ala., today issued a request for design proposals for a new, space-based remote sensing instrument to measurement wind characteristics, thereby permitting scientists to better understand and contribute to weather predictions on Earth. The Laser Atmospheric Wind Sounder will be an advanced light detection and ranging (LIDAR) instrument. Just as radar operates by bouncing radio waves off distant objects and sonar bounces sound waves off underwater objects, LIDAR bounces light waves, generated by a laser, off atmospheric particles. Analysis of the reflected light will reveal the direction and speed of the winds and provide information on the amount of particulate matter, known as "aerosols", suspended in the atmosphere. The sounder will provide real-time global wind profiles for the lowest weather-producing layer of the Earth's atmosphere. Whether obtained globally using the polar-orbiting Earth Observing System platform or from the tropics and subtropics using the manned Space Station, the wind profiles will provide essential data to improve understanding of the global biogeochemical and hydrologic cycles and understanding of large scale atmospheric circulation and climate dynamics. This new information also can be used by weather forecasters worldwide as an aid in improving their numerical predictions. According to Carmine E. De Sanctis, chief of the Space Science and Applications Group at the Marshall center, the sounder could be operational by 1996 as one phase of NASA's larger Earth Observing System initiative. The sounder would enable meteorologists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to develop more accurate 5-day weather forecasts. At present, severe weather warnings can be issued only for broad areas of the United States. A major problem is an inability to obtain global wind velocity measurements. "Most atmospheric wind velocity data is obtained using sounding balloons," Dr. Vernon Keller, the sounder's assistant project manager, said. "Unfortunately, most of these balloons are, of necessity, launched from land. More than two-thirds of the Earth's surface, however, is water, thus there exist large areas of the globe -- particularly in the southern hemisphere -- which receive only minimal measurement coverage." The sounder will allow worldwide coverage with special emphasis given to tropical and subtropical areas where, previously, measurements have been sparse to non-existent. According to Richard Beranek, the sounder's project manager, "It will enable forecasters to obtain wind velocity data from ground level up to an altitude exceeding 40,000 feet. Preliminary concepts involve using a proven carbon dioxide coherent laser, operated at an eye-safe infrared wavelength, to survey winds over Earth's entire surface at least once a day. Data would be provided to meteorologists worldwide to assist in developing weather projections to benefit all mankind." In addition to weather projections, researchers anticipate the data will assist in analyzing the impact natural occurences, such as volcanic eruptions, and human activity, such as the slash and burn land clearing now under way in many developing countries, are having on the global environment, Beranek said. Dr. Keller said the earliest work on the sounder began at the Marshall center in 1967 with various designs being tested on the ground. In 1981, tests began using a laser atmospheric wind sounder-like system aboard an aircraft. Results obtained during the last 21 years have left Marshall engineers feeling confident in proposing the space-based system. "We hope to see a design emerge which will be flexible enough to permit us to incorporate state-of-the-art advances in lasers, optics and other related systems as they emerge over the sounder's projected lifespan," De Sanctis said. "The beneficial impact it will have on enhancing our understanding of the environment is certain to be very significant." ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 88 16:47:04 GMT From: att!lzaz!lznv!psc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Subject: Trust Fund Proposed for Space Ventures < "Would you buy a used operating system from these guys?" > from Design News, 7/4/88, p. 26: "With tight federal budgets, how can the nation pay to meet growing opportunities in space? New Jersey's Rep. Robert A. Roe, chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, proposes a trust fund like the one that financed the interstate highway system. He thinks Americans would gladly buy bonds to support thrusts across space frontiers. Roe doubts that Uncle Sam alone could finance such costly proposals as an inhabited base on the moon or a joint U.S.-Soviet manned mission to Mars. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has a tough enough fight getting funds for a manned orbiting space facility. . . . --Walter S. Wingo, Washington Editor" [Typical of N.J. reps; "I'm in favor of the space program, if you can build an interstate to orbit."] -Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet psc@lznv.att.com I'm not speaking for my employer, I'm just speaking my mind. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #308 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 2 Aug 88 07:30:14 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Mon, 1 Aug 88 22:27:44 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 1 Aug 88 22:27:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 1 Aug 88 22:14:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 1 Aug 88 22:07:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 1 Aug 88 22:06:15 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08893; Mon, 1 Aug 88 19:05:46 PDT id AA08893; Mon, 1 Aug 88 19:05:46 PDT Date: Mon, 1 Aug 88 19:05:46 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808020205.AA08893@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #309 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 309 Today's Topics: Re: Solar Sails Re: Ramscoop engine Re: Solar Sails Re: Space Station Alternatives Required Re: Von Braun quote Re: Solar Sails Re: Solar Sails Re: Special communications system prepared for Neptune encounter (Forwarded) Re: Solar Sails Shuttle-C details Re: Shuttle-C details ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Jul 88 16:58:49 GMT From: att!lzaz!lznv!psc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Subject: Re: Solar Sails < "Would you buy a used operating system from these guys?" > In article <10922@oberon.USC.EDU>, robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve) writes: > If the light bounces off the sail, how does it impart momentum. What > energy of the photon is now reduced? I think the photons must be > ABSORBED by the sail for this to work. Imagine (if you will:-) a photon travelling from left to right. It has momentum of p kg-m/sec (x component; y and z components are zero). It strikes the light sail and is momentarily absorbed. An electron in the light sail goes to a higher energy level, and the light sail's momentum is increased by p (in the x direction). A short while later, the photon is re-emitted in the direction from which it came. The excited electron settles down, the photon now has momentum -p, and the light sail's momentum has increased by by 2p. -Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet psc@lznv.att.com I'm not speaking for my employer, I'm just speaking my mind. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 88 14:05:42 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine In article <1988Jul19.045507.25185@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: }Agreed that there is a real problem with doing something with the }interstellar mass once you've got it; fusing ordinary hyrdogen is not }easy. If you're willing to sacrifice the fuelless nature of the Bussard }ramjet, one way around the problem is to react the interstellar gas with }antimatter carried on board. *That* reaction is fast! "How about quantum fluctuations?" he said, dodging the bricks. "I read a read interesting article in JBIS a year or so ago...." Comments on vaccum energy, anyone? Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jul 88 23:59 EDT From: "OK, IS THIS BETTER?" + ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shari Landes (mind!shari@princeton.edu): >Is it possible that if you travel faster than the speed of light in space, >and come back to earth, you would be able to see yourself in the past? > >I think it is possible because when you approach the speed of light, time slows >down, and if you travel the speed of light, time stops. >But, if you return to earth, after traveling in space faster than the speed >of light, would you be able to see yourself before you left? This is a very intriguing question but I'm afraid the answer is disappointingly simple: If time travel were possible, wouldn't someone have told us by now? Think about it.. q:) ---------------------------------------------------------- ###################### Dave Hinson ###################### T I M E L O R D A T L A R G E Disclaimer: I make no excuses, I am totally irresponsible ---------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 88 15:39:02 GMT From: sgi!daisy!wooding@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Wooding) Subject: Re: Solar Sails In article <1988Jul19.235426.15443@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >... My question is this: just how does the sun 'push' > >against the sail? Is it the solar wind of charged particles (protons and elec- > >trons), or the the actual photonic flux, or both? > > It's mostly the light; as I recall it, the solar wind contributes very little. An earlier poster suggested tacking (sailing up wind - er is that up light?) might be possible. How's that work. Doesn't a sail boat depend on keel and aerodynamic effects on sail? Would "solar" wind be "channeled" to produce high and low pressure areas? > -- > Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology > a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle |uunet!mnetor!utzoo! henry @zoo.toronto.edu m wooding ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 88 01:49:52 GMT From: al@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Al Globus) Subject: Re: Space Station Alternatives Required >From article <8807160300.AA07099@crash.cts.com>, by jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery): > This congressman, who has supported full funding for > the space station every time it came up, is certain that, for political > reasons, the space station WILL BE CANCELLED. He shares our concern. > > We ask the help of all pro-space people in ensuring that there are > alternatives to the space station just in case. My favorite alternatives are broken up into diciplines: * Manned presence - extend shuttle stay time. There are a number of ways to do this. I think you can get up to about a month. * Microgravity - use the Industrial Space Facility. Essentially a man tended space station under development by private industry in (I think) Texas. Most of the materials people are unhappy about astronauts moving about and degrading the gravity environment anyway. * Life Science - use Mir. Life science research has little technology transfer problem and the long lead times make dependence on the Soviet's a minor issue. If they cut us off we'd have plenty of time (and incentive!) to get a facility together before any serious problems developed. * Astronomy - dedicated facilities. Launch with one of the bevy of commercial launchers. Space Station is lousy place to put most astronomy instruments anyway. * Earth viewing - same as astronomy. * Orbital construction - design a new space station for this purpose only. Since it is a single purpose facility it should be MUCH cheaper - the integration problems will be much less (believe me, I know). A big advantage of breaking the Space Station up into a lot of small facilities is robustness. Any single failure will not take out the whole ball of wax. Just think if we ever really built our $20 billion station then had a major accident ala Challeger. It would be the end of the manned space program (and maybe NASA). Putting all our eggs into a single facility is a very bad idea. And that's what Space Station is, a single facility. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 88 18:18:43 GMT From: att!whuts!homxb!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (54317-T.EBERSOLE) Subject: Re: Von Braun quote In article <1219@thumper.bellcore.com>, karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > > I've never understood why it's so necessary to put humans into space in > order to benefit from their ability to react to unforseen circumstances. > In many situations, it makes far more sense to keep such people on the > ground instead of sending them along with the payload, especially since > the state of the communications art has gotten so good. But it would'nt be near as much fun! -- Tim Ebersole ...!{allegra,ulysses,ihnp4,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 88 07:42:14 GMT From: unisoft!gethen!abostick@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Alan Bostick) Subject: Re: Solar Sails In article <1748@puff.cs.wisc.edu> eric@puff.cs.wisc.edu (Eric "TheBoo" Bazan) writes: >I can under- >stand how actual particles could exert a push against physical matter, but >not photonics energy. If so, how does photonic energy 'push' matter in a vac- >uum. I have a poor physics background, so this may be a stupid question, but >I'm curious anyway. > > thanks, > -Eric(eric@shorty.cs.wisc.edu) > eric@cs.wisc.edu Photons _are_ actual particles, that happen not to have rest mass. The energy of a photon is related to its momentum by the formula E = c*p E = energy, p= magnitude of momentum, and c = speed of light. This comes (take your pick) out of relativity, or out of classical electromagnetic theory. When light is reflected off a lightsail (or any mirror) it changes direction of propagation, and hence its momentum changes. When it is normally incident (i.e. direction of propagation is perpendicular to the reflecting surface) the momentum changes direction by 180 degrees; or, if you will, the momentum changes sign. The photon changes its momentum in this case by 2*p, where p was the magnitude of its original momentum. Since overall momentum must be conserved, that means that the reflecting surface was given a kick of momentum of magnitude 2*p in the direction that the photon was originally traveling. Expressed in terms of the photon's energy, the kick of momentum given to the reflector is 2*E/c. Now, the Solar constant is a measure of power flux, the amount of energy passing through a given area in a given time. So a reflector will be given a steady momentum push over that unit time equal to the total energy reflected in that time. That is to say, the _pressure_ on the reflector due to the incident light which is reflected will be given by P = 2*S/c where P is the pressure (force per unit area), S is the solar constant, and c is the speed of light. This means that, in the neighborhood of the earth (above the atmosphere) the pressure exerted on a reflector is about 4.0e-6 Nt/(m**2). That is to say, it will take a reflecting surface of rather more than 2 million square meters (or, roughly, a circular mirror over one and a half kilometers in diameter) to be able to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one gravity, and that kilogram has to include the weight of the reflecting surface! Clearly this is not the way to go if you are in a hurry; but if you are willing to travel at a more leisurely pace, solar sails have promising properties. Alan Bostick ucbvax!unisoft!gethen!abostick ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 88 04:45:39 GMT From: unmvax!charon!geinah.unm.edu!ee2131ac@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (SEDS-UNM) Subject: Re: Solar Sails Members of the solar sails discussion might be interested in the work done by Steve Abrams at the Univ. of Texas at Austin. He will be presenting a paper on solar sails this August during the SEDS 1988 International Conference in Houston. Steve can be reached at: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu -Ollie ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 88 18:17:50 GMT From: ulysses!thumper!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Special communications system prepared for Neptune encounter (Forwarded) > ... Linked > electronically, the two systems -- 23 VLA antennas that now have > their X-Band receivers, and the 112-foot and 230-foot dishes at > Goldstone -- will function as a single receiving system. I'm curious to know just what this means. Are the received signals from the two sites being added coherently, as in VLBI? Phil ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 88 18:40:30 GMT From: ulysses!thumper!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Solar Sails > [...] My recollection is that > people who run orbiting satellites have to take it into consideration as > a minor source of orbit perturbations. The effect of solar radiation pressure on a satellite's orbit is usually negligible. Of course, it can become significant for an unusually large and light satellite like Echo, or a satellite with a solar sail. The effect of solar radiation pressure on a satellite's ATTITUDE, on the other hand, is major -- in most cases it is the single most significant perturbing force. Voyager was able to save a considerable amount of attitude control fuel early in its mission by slowly rolling around its antenna boresight axis during the cruise phase. This had the effect of averaging out the effect of the solar radiation torque on the magnetometer boom, greatly reducing the angular momentum imparted to the spacecraft that had to be removed with the attitude control thrusters. I am hoping that we can use a similar trick with AMSAT Phase IV, since the antennas present an assymetrical cross section to the sun. On AMSAT-Oscar-7, each of the 145/432 MHz turnstile antenna elements (made out of ordinary metal carpenter's rule from the local hardware store!) was painted white on one side and black on the other. The radiation pressure of light on a reflecting surface is twice that of light on an absorbing surface, so the resulting torque produced a nice slow spin. A permanent bar magnet along the spin axis kept the spin axis in line with the earth's magnetic field, and the eddy current drag of the earth's magnetic field cutting across the metallic spacecraft kept the spin rate from ramping up too high. Note that the direction of rotation is OPPOSITE that of the toy "radiometers" one can find in science museum gift shops. They contain air and work by the reaction of the heated air on the black surface; this force exceeds the imbalance in photon pressure. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jul 88 10:49:14 CDT From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: Shuttle-C details >From the recently-Digested Canopus summaries: > SHUTTLE-C COULD HELP SPACE STATION - can880507.txt - 5/10/88 > > Shuttle-C looks much the current Space Shuttle but for wings and > vertical stabilizer which are lacking, and windows on the forward > fuselage. It would use the same boosters and tank, and would carry > its cargo in a strongback sitting above an engine module identical to > the Shuttle's boattail section. I think this was mentioned earlier, but I just cannot recall -- is this shuttle variant recoverable or a one-time-use unit? Without the wings or tail it certainly cannot fly back, even under remote control, but perhaps it is designed for parachute recovery? If it is one-time use, how can the engine module be identical to the regular shuttle? I thought the only justification for the very expensive SSMEs was that they would be re-used "n" times to make them economically viable. Or is the thing supposed to stay in orbit for use as a tug or something? If it is recovered by 'chute, is the basic structure (the "strongback" mentioned above) stronger than the regular shuttle? There have been numerous postings about the fact that the shuttle would break up if ditched, so either sea- or land-based 'chute recovery would depend on the structure being strong enough to withstand rough touchdowns. Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 88 21:38:31 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) Subject: Re: Shuttle-C details >From article <8807221618.AA24068@angband.s1.gov>, by wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI): > I think this was mentioned earlier, but I just cannot recall -- is this > shuttle variant recoverable or a one-time-use unit? > If it is one-time use, how can the engine module be identical to the > regular shuttle? Here's some more information from CANOPUS that was omitted from the condensation: With a two-engine module, Shuttle-C would be able to place 100,000 pounds in the Space Station orbit (253 miles). A three- engine module would raise that to 150,000 pounds. The manned Shuttle at present is rated for 43,000 pounds to that altitude. For the Space Station scenario, an Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (an unmanned, short-range space tug now in development) would be atop the payload. Its guidance system would be tied into the Shuttle-C maneuvering system and would direct it to the Space Station. After the payload was off-loaded, the OMV would send the empty Shuttle-C on a re-entry course and then return itself to the Station. Eudy said that disposing of the boattail and its main engines was found to be more economical than recycling. The main engines would be drawn from the manned Shuttles after 10 missions rather than being overhauled. A 50 percent discount in engine costs could be realized by the increased production rate this would demand. Development cost would be up to $1.5 billion. Current definition studies are to run through 1989. If the project is approved as a "new start," the first launch could come as before 1994, early enough to support Space Station. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #309 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 2 Aug 88 08:20:14 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Tue, 2 Aug 88 04:35:33 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 2 Aug 88 04:35:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 2 Aug 88 04:21:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 2 Aug 88 04:07:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Tue, 2 Aug 88 04:06:31 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09040; Tue, 2 Aug 88 01:06:04 PDT id AA09040; Tue, 2 Aug 88 01:06:04 PDT Date: Tue, 2 Aug 88 01:06:04 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808020806.AA09040@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #310 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 310 Today's Topics: Ramscoops Re: tacking of Solar Sails What should a PRO-space political action organization do? Re: Orbital Elements Re: Solar Sails Re: Ramscoops Re: International agreements on space station Re: Solar Sails Re: Spy Satellites Re: Solar Sails Re: Von Braun quote Re: Trust Fund Proposed for Space Ventures Re: Von Braun quote ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 88 15:40:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Anderson X-Andrew-Message-Size: 1387+0 Cc: GILL%QUCDNAST.BITNET@cornellc.ccs.cornell.edu Subject: Ramscoops a.cs.uiuc.edu!p.cs.uiuc.edu!carey@ee.ecn.purdue.edu writes: >One more question I can think of off the top of my head -- what happens >to heat dissipation as time slows down? As the fusion reactor approaches >light-speed, would its heat dissipation also slow down, thus causing >a meltdown? My first reaction to the above was "AAAAAAAArrrrrrrrrgggggghhhh!!!!!!". The person asking the question obviously knows very little about relativity. Time only "slows down" for the stationary observer comparing his/her time measurements of something happening at high velocity with those of the observer who is moving at that velocity. In the case of the ramscoop, the fusion/magnetic field generators are also travelling at the high velocity, and thus experience no time dilation. Thermodynamics are exactly normal. However, an observer who sees the ramscoop travelling at relativistic speeds will see a lot of red or blue shifted thermal radiation profiles from the ramscoop. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Arnold Gill | If you don't complain to those who | Queen's University at Kingston | implemented the problem, you have | gill @ qucdnast.bitnet | no right to complain at all ! | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 88 17:05:32 GMT From: pioneer.arc.nasa.gov!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: tacking of Solar Sails This, I think, is part of the beauty of experimental research. There are preliminary ideas about the use of sails, but we really have to test them. Face it, we don't know many of these questions with certainty, now that's where part of the human in space fun will be! It's amusing to hear about sailing (real sailing) from landlubbers and on the other hand the salts will probably have their intuition jolted. We're just learning this stuff. "Jibe ho!" Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." I'll crew on your boat anytime. ------------------------------ Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!trout.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim Date: Thu, 21 Jul 88 20:25:35 PDT From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: What should a PRO-space political action organization do? There are rumors that, due to difficulties with existing organizations, a new political action organization is forming to promote PRO space positions with the US government. I'd be interested in hearing from people who are dissatisfied with existing organizations claiming to promote space. What positions would YOU like to see a new organization to promote? Please send your responses to me via personal email. Jim Bowery PHONE: 619/295-8868 UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 88 00:07:51 GMT From: tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!mbutts@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Butts) Subject: Re: Orbital Elements >From article <8807191911.AA20419@angband.s1.gov>, by 29284843@WSUVM1.BITNET (Andrew Vaught): > > I appreciate people posting the orbital elements of various (Soviet) > spacecraft. Unfortunately, I don't know enough orbital mechanics in order > to convert these to a time/position for my long./lat. Could someone post > a good reference to how to do this, or tell me where a conversion program > (preferably source) is archived? > Several posted requests prompt posting a general reply: Tracking programs for many personal computers are in a list available from AMSAT (Radio Amateur Satellite Corp.), which is the non-profit organization responsible for Amateur Radio comm-sats. They conducted the recent sparklingly successful OSCAR-13 launch via Arianne 4. (Yayyy!!!) (OSCAR-13 is a public-access radio repeater in a Molniya-type 12-hour elliptical orbit which allows hams to conduct inter-continental voice contacts for hours at a time with relatively modest 10 watt VHF equipment.) I don't know where generic source code is available, but someone else on the net probably does. (???) You may also buy some of these programs from AMSAT. Quik-Trak for IBM PCs seems to be popular, and I'm happy with MacTrak for Macintosh. These programs will give you orbital tracks in real time or in the future, with tabular or graphical map output, given the Keplerian elements often posted on rec.ham-radio and sci.space. Inquires about membership and ham-sats in general should be sent to AMSAT, P.O. Box 27, Washington, D.C. 20044. Donations may be tax deductible. You may call at 301-589-6062 for information or to order satellite tracking software. -- Mike Butts, Research Engineer KC7IT 503-626-1302 Mentor Graphics Corp., 8500 SW Creekside Place, Beaverton OR 97005 ...!{sequent,tessi,apollo}!mntgfx!mbutts OR mbutts@pdx.MENTOR.COM These are my opinions, & not necessarily those of Mentor Graphics. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 88 19:05:41 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: Solar Sails In article <1413@daisy.UUCP> wooding@daisy.UUCP (Mike Wooding) writes: } An earlier poster suggested tacking (sailing up wind - er is that } up light?) might be possible. How's that work. Doesn't a sail boat } depend on keel and aerodynamic effects on sail? Would "solar" wind } be "channeled" to produce high and low pressure areas? Gravity - use vector component of reflected light to speed or slow orbital velocity, and so go insun & outsun. Can't tack with solar flux, only photons... Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 88 04:23:10 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Re: Ramscoops >>One more question I can think of off the top of my head -- what happens >>to heat dissipation as time slows down? As the fusion reactor approaches >>light-speed, would its heat dissipation also slow down, thus causing >>a meltdown? > > My first reaction to the above was "AAAAAAAArrrrrrrrrgggggghhhh!!!!!!". >The person asking the question obviously knows very little about >relativity. My first reaction was similar. But there's a good point. The power output of the fusion reactor must increase as the vehicle accelerates, if thrust is to be constant. This is true even in a newtonian universe. If fractional losses are constant then waste heat will increase with velocity. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 88 05:06:07 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: International agreements on space station In article <8807201411.AA21693@angband.s1.gov> PICARD@gmr.COM (RON PICARD) writes: >Is Fletcher crying wolf or is this the next (final) step in >eliminating any credibility NASA may still have? It should >at least make the Russians think twice about a cooperative >mission to Mars anytime soon. Fletcher has been crying awfully hard lately, but as I have said before, I rate the station's chances as poor going on abysmal. NASA has taken a perfectly straightforward idea and gold-plated it beyond what the US feels like paying. Anyone who undertakes *any* cooperative space project with the US these days and doesn't consider it a high-risk venture needs his head examined. NASA's credibility in this area has been nearly zero for a long time. -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle |uunet!mnetor!utzoo! henry @zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 88 05:17:56 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Solar Sails In article <10922@oberon.USC.EDU> robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve) writes: >If the light bounces off the sail, how does it impart momentum. What >energy of the photon is now reduced? I think the photons must be >ABSORBED by the sail for this to work. No. Momentum, not energy. Momentum is a vector quantity; the photon has not lost energy, but it has changed direction. It has gained momentum in one direction, the sail has gained it in the other. No conservation laws are violated in providing thrust without losing energy (the chair you are sitting on has to thrust upward against your behind to keep you from falling to the floor, but it is not expending energy to do so). If the sail is accelerating, as opposed to (say) hovering against the Sun's gravity, then it is gaining kinetic energy as well and that energy has to come from somewhere. And it does: as the sail accelerates, the light reflected from it is Doppler-shifted to longer wavelengths by the sail's motion, i.e. the light is losing energy. Not much, but then the sail isn't gaining much either, at typical solar-sail accelerations! -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle |uunet!mnetor!utzoo! henry @zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 88 16:48:47 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Spy Satellites In article <12262@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >Cryptological information is born classified. And probably some stuff >involving optics. Please cite references for this. I, too, thought this at one point, but was corrected (over in sci.crypt, whose participants include some ex-pro cryppies). NSA would undoubtedly *like* "born classified" status for crypto stuff, but they haven't managed to arrange it. The much-heralded cases in recent years of heavy-handed DoD suppression of papers at the last minute, etc., have either involved DoD funding which had explicit strings attached, or were cases of bureaucratic intimidation without legal basis. -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle |uunet!mnetor!utzoo! henry @zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 88 21:32:18 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Solar Sails We had a big discussion on this some time ago. The answer is that you can't "tack" in the same way that a sailboat can, but you instead exploit the laws of orbital mechanics to do interesting things. You have some limited control over the direction of the force on your sail by changing the angle of the sail to the sun, since the net momentum imparted by a solar photon is the vector sum of the incident and reflected photon momenta. The instantaneous force will always have a component pointing away from the sun. However, if you're in orbit around the sun, you can orient your sail to create a velocity component that either adds to or subtracts from your orbital velocity vector, so it's possible to either raise or lower your orbit. I suppose this could be called "tacking" in a loose, metaphorical sense. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 88 21:51:43 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Von Braun quote > > I've never understood why it's so necessary to put humans into space in > > order to benefit from their ability to react to unforseen circumstances. > But it would'nt be near as much fun! *NOW* we're getting somewhere. I'd object far less to the human-in-space camp if they were only up front and honest about their motivations. I enjoy a shuttle launch as much as anyone (I was one of the few people who saw Challenger blow up in real time on TV) but I don't fool myself into believing that flying humans on a Shuttle is the best way to launch a geostationary communications satellite. There *are* a few legitimate applications for humans in orbit, such as life sciences research, or even Christa McAuliffe's planned science class demonstrations. I also appreciate the human adventure and the sheer entertainment value more than you might think. BUT I am careful to distinguish these latter aspects from practical issues like cost-effectiveness. Unfortunately, many people simply don't do this. The result is something resembling a religious cult that spends much of its time reinforcing each others' rationalizations for putting as many humans into space as possible, whether or not it makes rational, economic sense. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 88 13:01:53 GMT From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Trust Fund Proposed for Space Ventures In article <1414@lznv.ATT.COM>, psc@lznv.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes: }[Typical of N.J. reps; "I'm in favor of the space program, if you can }build an interstate to orbit."] Hmm, I wonder if the Launch Loop would apeal to him.... -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school) ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31 Disclaimer? I |Ducharm's Axiom: If you view your problem closely enough claimed something?| you will recognize yourself as part of the problem. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 88 21:14:30 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Von Braun quote In article <1219@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: >Henry, I'm impressed. You *have* been reading up on us, haven't you! No, actually, I was on the net and watching the Amsat news when it first happened... >But since you like to quote anecdotes, let's pick the Solar Max rescue >mission. Remember how George ("Pinky") Nelson grabbed one of the solar >arrays in an attempt to stop the satellite from spinning? ... Phil, I didn't say humans were immune from stupidity. Especially since the instructions for that EVA specifically said "hands off the solar arrays"! Note that a similar, but slightly better thought-out, method worked perfectly for the Leasat repair. >... And I won't even mention the strong likelihood that >the rescue mission cost more than a simple replacement would have. Sure sounds to me like mentioning it... :-) The economics of many of these things are sensitive to what assumptions one makes about launch costs. One would hope that people saying "humans in space aren't worth it" would preface it with "at current launch prices"... but they don't. Do remember that the Solar Max rescue mission wasn't a dedicated shuttle flight; the reason they had practically the entire payload bay empty was the LDEF deployment. >I've never understood why it's so necessary to put humans into space in >order to benefit from their ability to react to unforseen circumstances. It isn't necessary, it just helps a lot. Teleoperation has some -- not all, but some -- of the same limitations as automation. Especially since really general-purpose waldos are still in a very primitive state. >[The human crew] need not be >prime physical specimens; they can be chosen solely for their technical >skills and perhaps even their understanding of the basic physics of >rotating bodies (unlike Pinky Nelson). This problem is already mostly licked, since the shuttle's acceleration is deliberately held down to the point where any healthy adult could fly on it. This was a specific design goal, as I recall. Don't confuse silly NASA policies with fundamental hardware constraints. >Your arguments represent a convincing case for versatile remote control, >not for manned spaceflight... I would agree, were it not that I know of no remote-control hardware that I would call "versatile". Remote control is great if the problems you run into are along the lines that the designers anticipated. The Voyager team has done minor miracles with remote control... but considering how badly Voyager 2 is limping, I suspect any of them would sacrifice one or two semi-essential parts of his/her anatomy to get a repair technician out to V2 for six hours. >[AO-10] With the help of a versatile on-board computer >that can be completely reprogrammed from the ground, we were able to >save the mission. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall the operative words were "save the mission", as opposed to "carry out the mission as if nothing had happened". You did have to accept some penalties, did you not? -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle |uunet!mnetor!utzoo! henry @zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #310 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 3 Aug 88 00:36:58 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Tue, 2 Aug 88 22:33:22 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 2 Aug 88 22:33:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 2 Aug 88 22:16:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 2 Aug 88 22:06:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Tue, 2 Aug 88 22:04:30 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00300; Tue, 2 Aug 88 19:04:01 PDT id AA00300; Tue, 2 Aug 88 19:04:01 PDT Date: Tue, 2 Aug 88 19:04:01 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808030204.AA00300@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #311 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 311 Today's Topics: Born classified Re: Born classified Re: Space Suits Re: Solar Sails Re: KH-11 Orbital Elements FTL time travel Solar flares and *nauts Re: Libertarian space policy Re: space news from June 6 AW&ST Re: Born classified Lofstrom Loop Re: Pegasus ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Jul 88 22:40:11 GMT From: pasteur!agate!garnet!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: Born classified Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, just someone who thinks he knows what he's talking about. Maybe I don't. Apply my advice at your own risk. In article <1988Jul21.164847.15389@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <12262@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >>Cryptological information is born classified. And probably some stuff >>involving optics. >Please cite references for this. The phrase "born classified" does not have a unique meaning, and so we've been talking past each other as a result. Much of that is my fault, since I was very cryptic. One must-read basic reference is: US Congress, House of Representatives, THE GOVERNMENT'S CLASSIFICATION OF PRIVATE IDEAS, 1981. Library of Congress call number: J61.E9.96th.v.13. This is truly interesting reading. Almost a thousand pages of testimony. If you have even the slightest interest in the subject--go to your library and read this monster. You'll be glad you did. The most clear-cut example of born-classified cryptology is in patent sec- recy orders. *ANY* defense agency can request a secrecy order. The patent office must grant these. They require annual review, except in times of "national emergency". (The Korean emergency lasted until Jimmy Carter. I don't care to estimate how long the Nicaraguan emergency will last.) > NSA would undoubtedly *like* "born classified" status for >crypto stuff, but they haven't managed to arrange it. You are now talking about--I assume this based on your previous article-- the notion of born-classified provided by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. This provides for criminal sanctions to someone releasing "Restricted" nuclear ideas. Cryptology does not have this. There was talk in the late seventies about getting an AEA-like act, but Inman did not push it. Instead, he lobbied in academia for the voluntary review system, and he got it. Inman, in his testimony, said that the NSA cannot classify or restrain post-publication. Note the pregnant non-comment about pre-publication. If I remember correctly, he wandered around this point cautiously. To date, NSA has gotten researchers to change or delete a few clauses, plus convinced one researcher to not publish a particular paper. They've also permitted patents after slightly changing some details. >The much-heralded cases in recent years of heavy-handed DoD suppression >of papers at the last minute, etc., have either involved DoD funding which >had explicit strings attached, or were cases of bureaucratic intimidation >without legal basis. Let's see. Your summary of these needs amplification. There was the Meyer letter to IEEE about the applicability of ITAR to crypt- ology. NSA claimed he acted on his own. They made no comment as to whether his claims were correct or not. The law as written is definitely less than clear on this point, and at the time, no cases had been decided. Since then they have been, and so far they have been in NSA's favor. Surely you're familiar with the difficulties over crypt and non-USA Unix! Then there was the stink over the secrecy order for a cryptodevice patent request by Davida and Wells, and another by Nicolai. NSA did withdraw the secrecy order on the grounds that it was not needed after a proper review. Not on the grounds that they had no legal basis. They do. And then there was the humorous attempt to invoke prior restraint on the Israeli mathematician Shamir in a talk of his last year. Note that this was done by the Army, not NSA! The grapevine has it that NSA pulled the necessary strings to undo this idiocy. At least, Shamir thanked NSA in his talk. The Army did have the legal basis for what they did--they were just incredibly incompetent about it. So, what does this have to do with the original example? Someone has pro- grams to generate KH-11 predictions. He is offering to make these gener- ally available. Since there is no AEA-like clause covering this, what he is doing is not yet *criminal*. But if NSA gets a restraining order, our programmer can proceed only by being in contempt of court. Most likely, though, NSA will ignore it. (Unless, I suppose, he tries to patent it.) ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 88 00:45:36 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Born classified It would seem that there's a very simple way to evade a patent secrecy order. Since you establish your claim at the moment you file, you simply *publish immediately after filing*. By the time the idiots down at the Pentagon even become aware of your application, it'll be too late. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 88 01:33:50 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Re: Space Suits On the subject of the Space Activity Suit: Look in The Case for Mars II, pages 469-488 (1984). W. Mitchell Clapp (MIT) describes some work on space suit gloves using the SAS idea. These gloves would go on an otherwise conventional space suit, and were designed to be compatible with NASA hardware. The gloves are made from Spandex or natural rubber. They exert 3.5 psi on the hand and fingers. Special techniques devoped elsewhere for burn bandages were used to design gloves that exert even pressure. The glove material has holes 0.5 mm across that exposes the skin to vacuum. The gloves were tested in a partial vacuum chamber (3.5 psi below atmospheric pressure). They permitted much more dexterity and tactile feedback than conventional gloves. Little or no edema was evident. Clapp also suggests using a 4.1 psi skinsuit inside a conventional space suit. This would subject the body to 8 psi, so much less prebreathing would be required at the beginning of EVA. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 88 20:44:27 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Solar Sails In article <1413@daisy.UUCP> wooding@daisy.UUCP (Mike Wooding) writes: > An earlier poster suggested tacking (sailing up wind - er is that > up light?) might be possible. How's that work. Doesn't a sail boat > depend on keel and aerodynamic effects on sail? Would "solar" wind > be "channeled" to produce high and low pressure areas? No, you can't get anything useful out of that. Solar sails can tack, sort of, using gravity as the "keel". It's not nearly as easy as tacking a sailboat. My understanding is that the primary technique is to kill some of your orbital velocity (by setting the sail at an angle) and then take in sail (by setting the sail edge-on to the Sun) and wait to fall inwards. A slooooow process, especially in the outer solar system. -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle |uunet!mnetor!utzoo! henry @zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 88 21:52:01 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: Re: KH-11 Orbital Elements In article <6233@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard the Nerd) writes: > > A few of you asked for the Keplerian elements for the KH-11 spy > satellite we have tracked down. All right, here is our best set. I > the prediction. Expect _big_ errors! But it's really bright. > I used the elements in my own Basic prog for the C-64 and got a time of 03:42 for a S to N pass of the sat for the Denver area. I saw a first magnitude object at about the predicted elevation in the east heading north at 03:53. Keep up the good work. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 88 21:01:52 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: FTL time travel >Is it possible that if you travel faster than the speed of light in space, >and come back to earth, you would be able to see yourself in the past? >I think it is possible because when you approach the speed of light, time slows >down, and if you travel the speed of light, time stops. Well, maybe. Special relativity does say that faster-than-light travel would resemble time travel in some ways -- suitably chosen observers could see effect happening before cause. Whether this could result in returning before you left is a harder question; my relativity is too rusty for me to answer it. The possibility of effect preceding cause is widely interpreted as showing that FTL travel is impossible, since it makes utter hash out of physics. There is a minority opinion that says we're going to have to revise physics to live with a looser notion of cause-and-effect anyway, since general relativity seems to provide ways of (theoretically) building real, live time machines. (The majority is hoping that when general relativity is replaced by a quantum theory of gravity, these distressing possibilities will go away.) -- Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology a traitor to mankind. --Pournelle |uunet!mnetor!utzoo! henry @zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 88 12:27:00 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: Ted Anderson Resent-To: space@angband.s1.gov Return-Path: Date: 22 Jul 88 18:05:00 CDT From: "Pat Reiff" Subject: Solar flares and *nauts To: "ota" Cc: eos@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: "Pat Reiff" With regard to the continuing discussion of energetic flare particles and man in space: In response to Watson (SD 281): >I've never heard whether or not Mitchner was making this up. No, indeed. I was a graduate student at Rice University working on plasma data from a particle detector placed on the moon by Apollo 14 when the great flare of August 2, 1982 hit. That 1B flare had a flux of >35meV protons that was so great that it penetrated the sides of the detector with ease (the detector having more shielding than the average spacecraft). I can't find the final version of the paper I wrote on it (it was published in some obscure collection), but I found an abstract for an AGU talk that I gave on it. In that abstract I said that the flux was estimated to be 10**5 to 10**6 particles/(sq cm - sec - steradian) for protons with energies above about 20 MeV. I probably refined those numbers in the final paper. At the time, my thesis advisor, David Reasoner (who is now at Marshall Space Flight Center) calcuated what the REM (roentgen equivalent in man) dose would have been for that flux of particles. I don't recall the numbers, but it would have been fatal for someone even in the LEM, but the command module people might have survived. We kept that result out of our paper (since the Apollo program was still going on at that time), but the fluxes were there for anyone to see. We did tell the folks at Mission Control about it, of course, but there really wasn't anything anyone could do. The scenario that Michener wrote about was right on the mark. The only saving grace is that those flares are pretty rare. As for MIR cosmonauts, the inclination is 51 degrees, not >70 as Chapman stated (SD 284). This puts them up at a max magnetic latitude of 62 degrees. The region of magnetically open field lines typically runs from about 70 degrees to the poles. For a big storm, however, this boundary can easily go equatorward of 60 degrees. Therefore, any spacewalk in a solar proton storm is really unnecessarily risky. However, most of the time MIR is at a much lower latitude, shielded by more of the earth's magnetic field. Plus, most solar flares do not have as strong proton fluxes as the August 2 storm had. I've asked my friends at NOAA in Boulder who send out flare warnings to give us some information on how the information is passed to NASA, and whether it also goes to the USSR (I think it does; they are part of the World Data Center, but whether the information reaches Moscow in enough time to reschedule EVA's is something I don't know). Hope this is helpful. >From the First Space Physics Department in the World: Patricia H. Reiff Department of Space Physics and Astronomy Rice University internet: reiff%spacvax.rice.edu@rice.edu SPAN: RICE::REIFF ------ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jul 88 15:05 EDT From: (Matt) Subject: Re: Libertarian space policy ======> flame to follow Re: Moon Treaty, Private development of space resources, and Libertarians: Given the state of the terrestrial environment and the level of hostility about relatively worthless real estate (Falklands, etc.) under nationalist and private sector control, the attitude that international control of space resources is "sick" is misguided. If you would like to see an analagous situation, look at Antarctica. The goal of international control for the benefit of humankind was corrupted by attaching property "rights" to any sort of presence, in fact, specifically to 'scientific' presence. True international control, ala law of the sea treaty, could allow for commercial development of space without either militarization or space pollution. But private or national interests will never choose action with the good of the commonweal first. And I think that if we look at the problems in space development over the last 20 years in the US, most if not all are related to party politics, the cold war, or military practices/priorities (and cf. pentagon procurement scandal are quite intimately related to private sector practices/motives.) Sure, the UN sucks as it is; but Ron Paul would rather hand over the ~universe to business. And as no people or nation can make any kind of indigenous claim to space, it is incumbent on Ron Paul to show how property isn't theft when it comes to space development. I can hardly wait to see the outer space equivalent of Love Canal and Manville asbestos. Please send numerous flames to the list. Matt ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jul 88 17:50:47 GMT From: acu@h.cc.purdue.edu (Floyd McWilliams) Subject: Re: space news from June 6 AW&ST Re the planned Jupiter-Pluto flight by the Voyager spare: How long would such a flight take? Since Pluto is now closer to the sun than Neptune, would it take much longer than the 12-year trip by Voyager 2? I can just imagine a 1989 Neptune-Pluto double encounter... Of course, Voyager 3 wouldn't get a boost from Saturn or Uranus, which could make a difference - I just don't have the math background to figure it out. -- Floyd McWilliams acu@h.cc.purdue.edu ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jul 88 18:23:28 GMT From: pasteur!cad.Berkeley.EDU!moto@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (EDIF Committee) Subject: Re: Born classified In article <1259@thumper.bellcore.com>, karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > By the time the idiots down at the > Pentagon... They may be dumb (I tend to agree!), but lets not forget that all this secrecy DOES have some valid reasons for existing, even if the implementation and application is stupid or counter-productive much of the time. The biggest problem is so many stupid rules that the real need gets ignored or "worked around" along with the stupid ones! Mike Waters ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jul 88 04:50:58 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!Brian_C_McBee@uunet.uu.net Subject: Lofstrom Loop I've read several science fiction stories recently in which the Lofstrom Loop is mentioned, but they don't go into any great detail. Does anyone have any references where I can read more about it? Please use the following path and NOT brianop@salem1.UUCP!!! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- What the eye beholds CI$: 72406.1363 And the heart covets PLINK: Brianop Let the hand boldly sieze! UUCP: ...tektronix!tessi!agora!salem1!brianop -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Running AmigaUUCP on salem1. Now if I could just postnews... ------------------------------ Sender: RPollard.ElSegundo@xerox.com Date: 25 Jul 88 16:49:45 PDT (Monday) Subject: Re: Pegasus From: RPollard.ElSegundo@xerox.com Cc: RPollard.ElSegundo@xerox.com Recently I have seen messages about Pegasus on this dl. When I tried to find information about the Orbital Sciences or Hercules Aerospace Inc. I couldn't find anything. Can anyone provide me with additional information so that I might contact either of these two organizations ? Any info would be appreciated. Thanks Rich Pollard ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #311 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 3 Aug 88 11:00:11 EDT Received: by po2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU (5.54/3.15) id ; Wed, 3 Aug 88 09:58:32 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 3 Aug 88 09:58:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 3 Aug 88 09:45:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 3 Aug 88 09:23:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 3 Aug 88 04:07:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 3 Aug 88 04:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 3 Aug 88 04:05:08 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00455; Wed, 3 Aug 88 01:04:44 PDT id AA00455; Wed, 3 Aug 88 01:04:44 PDT Date: Wed, 3 Aug 88 01:04:44 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808030804.AA00455@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #312 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 312 Today's Topics: Time skew -- does it hurt SETI? Re: Solar Sails Re: Shuttle-C details Re: Shuttle-C details Re: space news from June 6 AW&ST Re: space news from May 30 AW&ST Doppler lidar, ESA publications(was: NASA news - Seasat) We will bury you Re: Time skew -- does it hurt SETI? Re: Solar Sails ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Jul 88 00:25:55 GMT From: amanda!msodos@sun.com (Martin Sodos) Subject: Time skew -- does it hurt SETI? I'd like to put forward an idea for public consideration/debate. Forgive me if its already been addressed, but I have been exceedingly curious about it for some time. Consider the following: Carl Sagan (sp?) in his cosmic calendar shows that all of recent recorded history represents only the last few seconds before midnight, a mere instantaneous flicker compared to the events that have preceeded it during the cosmic 'year'. Consider further that science has in recent years taken on an exponential learning curve. For example, electricity was only 'discovered' (as in defined and put to useful purpose as opposed to merely observed in nature) within the last few hundred years, radio within the last hundred, relativity, nuclear power and space travel within this century. The true nature of superconductivity, perhaps yet to come. Practical human spacetravel outside the boundarys of even our own solar system still only an unrealized dream. Now, consider that even if there exists a race somewhere relatively closeby in the universe so that radio is a practical means of communication, and if this race has developed in a very similar manner to our own, if they are a mere 1% behind us on the cosmic calendar they will not even yet have evolved on their planet. For example, if the age of our Earth is 4 billion years, 1% of 4 billion is 40 million. longer than man has existed on this planet(by most estimates). So, let's be generous. Let's say there is some operative factor of parallel evolution which would align the development of the two cultures (theirs and ours) to within .0001%. Even to this, I dare say ridiculous, level of parallelism, they are only within +/- 4000 years of us. If they are behind us they are somewhat before the time of their equivalent of the Greeks, and there is no hope of communication. If they are ahead of us, they are probably so advanced as to be almost unrecognizable. Bear in mind what has happened scientifically in only the last 100 years. However, for those who would argue this, I contend that the point is moot by the very absurdity of the tolerance specified. Ergo, I put forward for your consideration that even if life such as ours is fairly common on the universe, that the time alignment problem would make it extremely unlikely that we would/will ever encounter it. And of course, that further assumes that the culture in question (the one relatively aligned to ours), is also the one which is reasonably nearby. I contend that if you add the 'time skew' factor to those formulae which portend to predict the probability of life like our own elsewhere in the universe you get a liklihood near zero that we will ever encounter it. What say you all? sun!amanda!msodos ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 88 09:22:38 GMT From: unisoft!gethen!abostick@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Alan Bostick) Subject: Re: Solar Sails In article <10922@oberon.USC.EDU> robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve) writes: >If the light bounces off the sail, how does it impart momentum. What >energy of the photon is now reduced? I think the photons must be >ABSORBED by the sail for this to work. Well, you're wrong. Consider a mirror initially in free fall. Let us work in the reference frame where the mirror is at rest. The mirror has a mass of m, and in this frame it has a kinetic energy of zero. A photon is traveling to the right with momentum p and energy E = c*p, where c is the speed of light. The photon bounces off of the mirror and is reflected in accordance with the laws of reflection. Now it is traveling to the left with momentum -p' and energy E' = c*p'. The momentum of the photon has changed, so in order for momentum to be conserved the momentum of the mirror must change as well. The mirror's momentum is now p" and its kinetic energy is now E" = (p"**2)/(2*m). The total final momentum must equal the total initial momentum: p" - p' = p; and the total final energy must equal the total initial energy: E' + E" = E. If we take our energy equation and make the appropriate substitutions, we have: c*p' + (p"**2)/(2*m) = c*p Now make the substitution p' = p" - p (a rearrangement of the momentum equation), and solve for p". We then have p" = m*c*((1 + (4*p)/(m*c))**0.5 - 1) . When p << mc (and we are talking about a single photon here, so it almost certainly does,) this is closely approximated by p" = 2*p - 0.5*((p/(m*c))**2) . This is the momentum of the mirror after the reflection. We substitute this into our momentum equation to find that p' = p - 0.5*((p/(m*c))**2) . We see that the photon has a little less momentum, and hence a little less energy than before. This energy lost by the photon has gone into kinetic energy of the now moving mirror. Energy is conserved, momentum is conserved, and the mirror is now moving, due to the kick of the light. No absorption is necessary. Next time, think for a minute before shooting off your mouth. This is freshman physics. This is freshman physics for liberal arts majors. Alan Bostick ucbvax!unisoft!gethen!abostick ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jul 88 10:55:28 GMT From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Shuttle-C details In article <1012@cfa200.cfa250.harvard.edu>, willner@cfa250.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) writes: }[Shuttle-C] Development cost would be up to $1.5 billion. Current definition }studies are to run through 1989. $1.5 billion to develop a launcher from mostly off-the-shelf parts!?!?!?! Multi-year definition studies?!?!?! Sounds like more gold-plating to me.... -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school) ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31 Disclaimer? I |Ducharm's Axiom: If you view your problem closely enough claimed something?| you will recognize yourself as part of the problem. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 88 13:34:44 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Re: Shuttle-C details The interesting thing about the Shuttle-C, as proposed, is that you can launch it only once for every 6.7 shuttle flights (for the two engine version) or every 10 flights (for the 3 engine version). So, after the current stock of used engines is exhausted, shuttle-C will have the capability of lifting maybe 1/3 the mass the shuttle fleet can. Excuse me if I don't cheer. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jul 88 22:01:07 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: space news from June 6 AW&ST > ... So far the station has survived, at the > expense of major cuts to CSTI, Pathfinder, NASA expendables, and the > Commercially Developed Space Facility. [Those are lousy places for cuts.] *Now* you see why the Space Station isn't such a good idea. If it competed solely with, say, SDI for funding I'd be 110% for it. But it instead competes, rightly or wrongly, mostly with other NASA projects, and with the possible exception of the Shuttle they are all far more cost-effective than the Space Station. > Soviet Academy of Sciences and the Federation of American Scientists > jointly propose a ban on nuclear reactors in Earth orbit. This would > hamper SDI and shut down the Soviet nuclear radarsats. Agreed. We really need some enlightened self-interest on both sides. An excellent start would be the following: 1. Ban the use of nuclear power sources in low earth orbit, "low" being defined as anything with a lifetime less than a thousand years or so. Deep space missions would be fine. 2. Ban any mission that involves the explosion of a warhead in orbit or the deliberate collision of objects unless the expected lifetime of the resulting fragments is less than a year. These two provisions would have the following highly beneficial effects: 1. The seemingly regular series of Soviet nuclear-powered radarsats re-entering the atmosphere would stop. 2. The increasing pollution of orbital space by ASAT and SDI tests would stop. 3. Taken together, the two provisions would effectively prohibit many, if not most, nuclear powered SDI tests. We urgently needed the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, and we urgently need a treaty like this now. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jul 88 22:50:12 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@ucsd.edu (John Pantone) Subject: Re: space news from May 30 AW&ST Henry Spencer writes: ...much valuable info deleted... Reagan will propose that the two countries study cooperation in solar-system exploration. He will refrain from endorsing missions involving extensive hardware cooperation (e.g. Apollo-Soyuz), major manned projects, or specific unmanned Mars missions. [Has it occurred to any of the brain-damaged bozos who put together this wonderful list of non-promises that maybe the Soviets are tired of studying the notion endlessly and would like to *do* something?!?] Henry - I'm not really arguing about the "brain-damage" nor even the "bozo" nor even the "non-promises". I am, however, not too thrilled to see an editorial comment which seems to imply that just because the Soviets may (or may not) be getting tired of our "studies" that we should fall through our a__holes trying to please them, or get something done to satisfy or placate them. These are the same people that in the Sputnik era (not that long ago to me, anyway) promised (not threatened, mind you, *promised*) to bury us. A couple of "kind words" and a leader in decent tailoring (for a change) hardly eradicates decades of threatening behavior. I personally think that cooperation is far more desirable than continued competition - but not without a great deal of deliberation - and due consideration. If the Soviets have to stew in their juices a while - so be it - tough luck. Gorbachev represents, PERHAPS, a new era - we'll just have to wait and see. -- These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer. John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, 9805 Scranton Rd., San Diego, CA 92121 ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.GE.COM GEnie: J.PANTONE ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jul 88 14:00 CDT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Doppler lidar, ESA publications(was: NASA news - Seasat) Original_To: SPACE All the discussion of Seasat, oceanography, and radar reminds me of an article (going slightly off on a tangent) in the current *ESA Journal* (Volume 11 Number 4/volume 12 Number 1 [hey, that's what it says on the contents page. Must be a Spectacular Double Issue or something.], pages 19-36: "Spaceborne Doppler Wind Lidars," by G. Salvetti of ESTEC. The object is to shine a laser down, observe scattered light off dust particles and aerosols, and measure the Doppler shift. Do this from two angles (two spots in the satellite's orbit) for the same location on the surface, and you have enough velocity information to get the two-dimensional wind pattern. Time delay of the laser pulse gives you depth. This could be a great boon to the weather guys, especially in the Southern Hemisphere where surface measurements are sparse. Problems: Laser needs lots of power, but beam density is limited by eye-safety requirements. Space-qualified lasers and detectors are needed. Data rates are very high (you probably need on-board processing). You have to take Doppler shift due to spacecraft motion and Doppler broadening due to molecular motion and wind shear out of a very feeble signal in order to get the numbers you want. Coherent detection of the signal would be nice and sensitive, but may be too tricky to achieve in a flyable system. Still under development-- but a rather nice technique, don't you think? I might as well reveal a secret I've been sitting on for quite a while: The European Space Agency's magazines are FREE. *ESA Journal* is for technical papers, *ESA Bulletin* is more general-- if still pretty technical-- and includes regular status reports on every ESA program, as well as articles. Both are quarterly. Write to: ESA Publications Division ESTEC 2200 AG Noordwijk The Netherlands And by all means, get your library to subscribe!! The ESA Publications Division can also give you information on buying copies of ESA's technical reports and books, which flow in great quantity from the European space program. And there are a couple of other free publications. ______meson Bill Higgins _-~ ____________-~______neutrino Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory - - ~-_ / \ ~----- proton Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET | | \ / SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS - - ~ ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 88 19:05:09 GMT From: agate!garnet!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: We will bury you >These are the same people that in the Sputnik era (not that long ago to >me, anyway) promised (not threatened, mind you, *promised*) to bury us. Like or dislike the Soviets as you think proper, but don't keep citing this famous line incorrectly. "We will bury you" is Russian idiom that meant nothing more than the trivial assertion "we will live longer than you". "Bury" here has the sense of "be in attendance at your funeral", and not the "go out of our way to put you six feet under" interpretation. And in case you think the sentence is possibly ambiguous, it most certain- ly wasn't so in context. Funny how Krushchev's full speech with this line is so rarely printed--it was just simple Marxism about how the capitalist system is going to self-destruct, the socialist system is going to endure, and all that rot. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 88 13:57:28 GMT From: rochester!rocksanne!entire!elt@rutgers.edu (Edward L. Taychert) Subject: Re: Time skew -- does it hurt SETI? My astrophysics text discusses extraterrestrial communications based most likely on radio. Different probabilites of contact are plotted against the population density of the universe on one axis and the lifetime of a sufficiently advanced culture on the other. Most depressing was the notion that we advance sufficiently to call out, then kill ourselves off. The reply falls on a dead world :-( Even optimistically, communications (a message and reply) are likely to take tens of thousands of years. We may hear a beacon in the night, or we may be heard on a distant world, but the odds of a dialog don't look good. -- ____________________________________________________________________________ Ed Taychert Phone: USA (716) 381-7500 Entire Inc. UUCP: rochester!rocksanne!entire!elt 445 E. Commercial Street East Rochester, N.Y. 14445 _____________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 88 18:45:53 GMT From: grasp.cis.upenn.edu!ulrich@super.upenn.edu (Nathan Ulrich) Subject: Re: Solar Sails In article <1111@gethen.UUCP> abostick@gethen.UUCP (Alan Bostick) writes: >In article <10922@oberon.USC.EDU> robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve) writes: >>If the light bounces off the sail, how does it impart momentum. What >>energy of the photon is now reduced? I think the photons must be >>ABSORBED by the sail for this to work. > >Well, you're wrong. > >Next time, think for a minute before shooting off your mouth. This is >freshman physics. This is freshman physics for liberal arts majors. > I think your reply is rather pompous and insulting. I did not read the original posting, but it appeared to be asking a good question, which you did not answer. Why isn't absorption most efficient for a photon sail? Relativistic physics has some interesting quirks; one of the them is the characterization of photons. They are generally considered to have momentum but not mass, and always travel at the speed of light (c). It has been experimentally determined that photons can exert pressure, and the momentum of photons at various wavelengths has been measured. However, the theory of relativity does not allow for objects with mass to travel at the speed of light, therefore photons are massless. We do know that E = hn, where E is the energy of the photon, h is Planck's constant, and n is the frequency of the photon. In a collision with a mirror, a photon will transfer some of its momentum and its energy to the mirror. The new energy E' = hn' is less than the original energy E, therefore the new frequency n' is less than the original frequency n. The result? Light reflected from a mirror changes color. If we want to build the most efficient sail possible, then we need to do two things: maximize the kinetic energy gain per photon collision, and maximize the number of photons hitting the sail. We can handle the second by making the biggest sail possible. The first is a little more interesting. It would seem intuitively that the best sail material would absorb all the photons hitting it, because then all the energy of the photons would be transferred to the sail. Unfortunately, when the speed of a photon falls below the speed of light--like when it is absorbed by the sail--it is no longer a photon, and its energy is transferred to some other form: electricity via photoelectric cells, heat via black clothing, etc. It turns out that the energy of a photon will not be converted into the kinetic energy of the sail, but into one of these other forms. The way to gain kinetic energy from photons is to reflect them as efficiently as possible--the energy transfer results in an increase in the kinetic energy of the sail, rather than to heating it up. In practice, you need a very big, very light, very reflective sail. Nathan Ulrich ulrich@grasp.cis.upenn.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #312 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 4 Aug 88 00:40:27 EDT Received: by po2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU (5.54/3.15) id ; Wed, 3 Aug 88 22:40:44 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 3 Aug 88 22:40:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 3 Aug 88 22:21:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 3 Aug 88 22:13:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 3 Aug 88 22:12:06 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01429; Wed, 3 Aug 88 19:04:31 PDT id AA01429; Wed, 3 Aug 88 19:04:31 PDT Date: Wed, 3 Aug 88 19:04:31 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808040204.AA01429@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #313 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 313 Today's Topics: Re: ET phone home? (SETI) RESPONSES Re: (none) Re: Libertarian space policy Re: Libertarian space policy Re: Libertarian space policy Re: Trust Fund Proposed for Space Ventures Solar max; also soviets and solar flares Space Station Name chosen Re: Born classified ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Jul 88 20:51:58 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: ET phone home? (SETI) RESPONSES In article <14705@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> wales@CS.UCLA.EDU (Rich Wales) writes: }In article <1001@cfa255.cfa250.harvard.edu> }elwood@cfa250.harvard.edu (Elwood) writes: } } I was wondering if it is true, as I heard, that only the } carrier wave from TV signals is able to reach beyond the } atmosphere -- i.e., no aliens out there are examining TV } pictures from Earth. } }I believe this is more or less correct. I believe that the "less" is more accurate than the "more". For instance - communications satellites. The uplink is not all that powerful (a "bad guy" overpowered one with a breadboard setup) and it obviously reaches above the atmosphere. As for ordinary tv, maybe a sci.space individual could cast some light... Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 88 18:51:59 GMT From: att!alberta!auvax!ralphh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Ralph Hand) Subject: Re: (none) In article <8807220420.AA23265@angband.s1.gov>, HINSOND@UNCG.BITNET ("OK, IS THIS BETTER?") writes: > + ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Shari Landes (mind!shari@princeton.edu): > > ** old article deleted ** >of light, would you be able to see yourself before you left? > > This is a very intriguing question but I'm afraid the answer is disappointingly > simple: If time travel were possible, wouldn't someone have told us by now? > Think about it.. > > q:) I realize that you were not really serious, but no someone would not have told us by now. Would not doing so alter their own history thereby putting their own existance into doubt. There is a potential for a paradox here. The people of the future would have to decide not to let us know if they desired to continue to exist themselves. Other than that it is a nice theory. Ralph ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 88 15:56:46 GMT From: n3dmc!gronk!johnl@uunet.uu.net (John Limpert) Subject: Re: Libertarian space policy In article <8807251911.AA01355@angband.s1.gov> WALL@BRANDEIS.BITNET (Matt) writes: > If you would like to see an analagous situation, look at Antarctica. > The goal of international control for the benefit of humankind was > corrupted by attaching property "rights" to any sort of presence, in > fact, specifically to 'scientific' presence. The only reason the 'corrupted' situation in Antarctica exists is because it is a compromise between the two extremes. A treaty has to consider the views and interests of all concerned parties. "International control for the benefit of Mankind" may be a nice idea to some people, but in its idealogically pure form, it isn't a practical basis for a treaty. The reason for the acceptance of the current treaty was the perceived uselessness of Anarctica. If someone discovers valuable mineral deposits, the current treaty may not last very long. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 88 14:53:40 GMT From: l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@k.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) Subject: Re: Libertarian space policy In article <8807251911.AA01355@angband.s1.gov>, WALL@BRANDEIS.BITNET (Matt) writes: > ======> flame to follow > > Re: Moon Treaty, Private development of space resources, and Libertarians: > . . . So you want an international body to decide what is good for us? I will admit that I do not know what is good for us--I have a few ideas. But one thing which is not good for us is to have us decide what is good for us. We do not know, and we will never know, so we must have people with initiative try things out. Of the administrators and bureaucrats I have known, industrial, academic, and governmental, many seem to have their intelligence severely reduced by the mere installment in the administrative position. I refer to those who operate "by the book", to those who feel that they were put in the position as a reward and can use that position to obstruct, and those who feel that they know what is best. That latter category, which seems to be those to whom Matt would entrust space, is especially bad. The best earth governments can do in regard to space is to try to suppress monopolies. How many governments are doing it in their own countries? I do not think that suppressing monopolies is particularly important in Monaco or San Marino, but Luxembourg is already getting there. Try to get a reasonable education in the US with the present establishment in power. And you would turn things over to something like the UN? More than 80% of the countries have no idea of individual freedom or individual initiative. >From your posting, I would have to conclude that you do not believe in individual freedom or initiative when it comes to space. Even the countries which claim to have individual freedoms are reducing their extent. The nations of the world, including the US, have largely interfered with attempts to gain freedom for oppressed "right-wingers" and have supported socialists. The right to space should belong to those with the courage, drive, ability, resources, and luch to got out there and live there. A secondary right should go to those who can use the above to exploit it. Now many, if not most, people do not believe that these efforts are worthwhile. They need not support these efforts, and can only expect to receive the spinoffs from those who do. If you look at the damage from Love Canal and Johns Manville, you will find it pales in comparison to the damage done by the statists. If you expect an industrial organization, private individual, or government to be responsible for every totally unexpected consequence of their actions, you are saying that we can do nothing. You complain about pollution and environmental damage by industry; what about that due to overpopulation? And most governments are actively encouraging overpopulation, and the ones that are attempting to control it are doing so by totalitarian or stupid means. To expect even one of our present governments to do anything to establishing free people in space is wishful thinking. To expect an international organiza- tion, composed of nations which would eliminate freedom of the press (seriously proposed by the "third world" nations) to allow it is fatuous. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP) ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 88 15:07:17 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Libertarian space policy In article <8807251911.AA01355@angband.s1.gov> WALL@BRANDEIS.BITNET (Matt) writes: > ... the attitude that international control of > space resources is "sick" is misguided... > True international control, ala law of the sea treaty, could allow for > commercial development of space without either militarization or > space pollution... [beginSarcasm] As shown by the many successful ocean-mining projects? [endS] "International control" in practice means Third World control, and that means mama-knows-best socialism in its worst form. > But private or national interests will never choose > action with the good of the commonweal first... Nor will Third World governments (or Second or First World governments, for that matter). Nations are just collections of private interests. Inter- national bodies are just collections of nations. The word "international" does not magically bestow goodness and light. > I can hardly wait to see the outer space equivalent of Love Canal... Don't forget that Hooker, the dirty commercial owners of Love Canal, didn't want to sell it to the local government, on the grounds that it was unsafe. When coerced into selling, by the benevolent government which had everyone's best interests at heart, they insisted that the bill of sale warn of the toxic chemicals present. Said benevolent government proceeded to ignore the warnings and opened the area for development. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 88 14:31:59 GMT From: ecsvax!dgary@mcnc.org (D Gary Grady) Subject: Re: Trust Fund Proposed for Space Ventures In article <22e73cc1@ralf> Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >In article <1414@lznv.ATT.COM>, psc@lznv.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes: >}[Typical of N.J. reps; "I'm in favor of the space program, if you can >}build an interstate to orbit."] > >Hmm, I wonder if the Launch Loop would apeal to him.... > Only if you put toll booths every few kilometers. :-) -- D Gary Grady (919) 286-4296 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary BITNET: dgary@ecsvax.bitnet ------------------------------ Resent-Message-Id: <4WvXWay00Vsm86skph@andrew.cmu.edu> Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 88 16:10:14 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: Ted Anderson Resent-To: space@angband.s1.gov Return-Path: Date: 27 Jul 88 13:25:00 CDT From: "Pat Reiff" Subject: Solar max; also soviets and solar flares To: "ota" Cc: eos@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: "Pat Reiff" In SD 292, Mike Smithwick says: >Oh, by the way. The solar max mission was a demonstration flight among other >things. If we didn't have a real satillite to repair, surely a dummy would >have been flown to practice with. Wrong. I was on the Committee for Solar-Terrestrial Research, a National Academy of Sciences committee overseeing (guess what) the U.S. Solar- Terrestrial Research progam, and we had long discussions on whether to repair solar max. The argument went that it was important, unreplaceable science, and it was cost effective (see below). The fact that it demonstrated the capability of repair was (at least to our committee) of secondary importance. (Incidentally, Solar Max was one of the first spacecraft to see Supernova 1987A!) >And wrt Phil's comment about the mission >costing more than a replacment satillite. I believe that the SMM cost around >$150 million. A replacement would likely cost more due to inflation and take >years to get on line, not to mention a dedicated shuttle mission just to >launch it. So with the experience gained, the time saved, I think it was >worth it. (not to mention the neato TV that was returned). We agree....The cost to repair that we heard was about $50 million. On another topic, (whether the U.S. warns the USSR of solar proton events), I received the following reply from my friends at the World Data Center (edited slightly): ....................... First, we don't put out alerts or messages on SPAN (at least yet). We do have a bulletin board you can call - 303-497-5000. It updates once/day and includes the daily forecasts and reports of activity and parameters. It is slanted toward ham radio operators. We also broadcast a simple message over WWV (5, 10, 15, 20 MHz) at 18 min past each hour. It is updated every 3 hours. The same message is put on a tape recorder for dial-up. The number is (303) 497-3235. If you get really interested, there is a satellite broadcast deal you can buy into. We basically rebroadcast a lot of our data (including GOES x-rays and protons at 1-min resolution and also the geosync mag field data) over a commercial link. You can pick it up and save it or just plug it into a PC and have it ring bells if we broadcast an alert. Finally, just call the SESC when you want information - 303-497-3171. We are in business 24 hr/day (although the operators may get busy if conditions are active). Now - the proton event. We had one on 30 June but it was puny. There was an M9/2B flare 30/0906 UT and the event began 30/1055 UT. It maxed at 1135 UT at 21 protons per cm2 etc. and ended at 30/1825. (Our threshold is 10 at greater than 10 MeV energies measured on GOES). We always call NASA when we get an event, and if a shuttle mission is in progress then we call them 3 times/day anyway (and more under event conditions). Many of your questions regarding doses and historical events can be answered by the SRAG (Solar Radiation Analysis Group) at JSC. We also send a 'courtesy message' to Moscow when we get proton events. There is no official requirement to do so, but we routinely exchange messages daily anyway as part of the IUWDS network. Here is a recent reference on doses at DMSP altitudes - Gussenhoven et al., IEEE Trans. on Nucl. Sci., Vol NS-34, no. 3, pg 676, June 1987. Sample - the accumulated dose behind .5 gm/cm2 of aluminum between Apr 77 and Apr 78 was about 3 krad. DMSP is at 840 km, and the SAA is ordinarily the big contributor. They also say that a 3-day mission at high inclination during moderately large solar particle events could lead to a dose deposition of 30 rad or more behind minimal s/c skin (enough to damage the ocular nerve). The October 1987 issue of Aerospace America had an article on the radiation hazards in space by people mostly from the Naval Research Lab. I hope this covers most of your questions. .............................. P.S. I did find the data books on the August 1972 flares, if anyone wants esoteric data (it's World Data Center A Report UAG-28)....P.R. ------ >From the First Space Physics Department (celebrating its 25th anniversary): : Patricia H. Reiff : Not only are my Department of Space Physics and Astronomy : opinions solely my Rice University, Houston, TX 77251-1892 : own, I reserve the internet: reiff%spacvax.rice.edu@rice.edu : right to change my SPAN: RICE::REIFF : mind occasionally! : ------ ------ ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 88 18:15:19 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Space Station Name chosen >From Aviation Week, July 25, p 34: President Reagan last week named the NASA/International space station "Freedom". The name was selected from more than 700 suggestions sent to NASA by its employees, contractors, international partners and the public. It was nominated by Adam Gruen, who works in NASA's space station history office. ----------------------------------------------------- They have a space station history office already?? The same issue has an article about Dukakis' opposition to the station in its present form. - Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 88 18:55:46 GMT From: pioneer.arc.nasa.gov!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Subject: Re: Born classified Please move this discussion out of space into one of the legal newsgroups. It is diverging. Why ask space nuts who know nothing about law? 8-) {I won't take this one to our space lawyers.} And if you read this on BITNET or the ARPA Internet and don't have a Usenet system, go get a Unix system and read on one of those. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #313 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 4 Aug 88 05:54:47 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 4 Aug 88 04:32:01 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 4 Aug 88 04:31:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 4 Aug 88 04:19:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 4 Aug 88 04:08:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Thu, 4 Aug 88 04:05:16 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01563; Thu, 4 Aug 88 01:04:28 PDT id AA01563; Thu, 4 Aug 88 01:04:28 PDT Date: Thu, 4 Aug 88 01:04:28 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808040804.AA01563@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #314 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 314 Today's Topics: Telescopes on Space Station Re: Video Release: Disney's CINDERELLA Re: Time skew -- does it hurt SETI? I have 3 questions. Reminders for Old Farts Heading to SIGGRAPH Space Race The Mars Project Re: FTL time travel C-64 basic program to compute satellite topocentric data Time Travel (was Re: (none)) query about 'escape velocity' Automated vs. personned spacecraft -- a reasonable compromise ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Jul 88 19:39:34 GMT From: al@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Al Globus) Subject: Telescopes on Space Station >In article <1131@eos.UUCP> you write: >> >>* Astronomy - dedicated facilities. Launch with one of the bevy of >>commercial launchers. Space Station is lousy place to >>put most astronomy instruments anyway. >> >Au contraire! An APT (Automatic Photoelectric Telescope) >(and other members of their ilk) would be _excellent_ on the space station. >They're cheap, and would be easy to install/implement. If APT's are suseptible to contamination they are in trouble on Station. Each attitude control burn, each reboost, and rondevous with shuttle or OMV will put a small amount of rocket exaust on anything not covered, such as telescope mirrors. I believe there is no known way to clean glass in orbit. Of course you could have cover for these events if they are not too frequent, and you seldom forget to close it (don't laugh - these things happen all the time). For extended, accurate viewing you will also need a system to eliminate station vibration caused by crew and animal movement, docking, arm use, etc. To get on station you have to fly in shuttle and space is limited (the actual problem seems to be center of gravity contraints). Getting on shuttle is a beaurocratic nightmare. Expect only moderate improvement (if any) for station. Finally, there aren't very many external ports in the current design so there will be substantial contention for space. I.e., you'll need fairly high priority to get a port and this biases use towards expensive instruments that have institutional clout. None of these problems are fatal, but they degrade the environment for any viewing instrument. If these problems are less serious than those of developing and launching a separate satellite maybe station would be a good place for APT's and I stand corrected. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 88 03:24:18 GMT From: att!lzaz!lznv!psc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Subject: Re: Video Release: Disney's CINDERELLA In article <5026@gryphon.CTS.COM>, hrlaser@gryphon.CTS.COM (Harv Laser) writes: > Now what *I* would really like to get my hands on would be videotapes > of some of Disney's WWII military training films, and from the early > 50's the "Man Into Space" film! > > Harv Laser, {ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax, rutgers!marque}!gryphon!pnet02!hrlaser > hrlaser@pnet02.cts.com I got it off of the Disney Channel a while ago. Like most space speculation, it's enough to make you sick; the *first* manned space shot would have twelve crew members? It'd be nice if, more than thirty years later, we could put twelve people into space at once. (It'd be nice if *we* could put *anyone* into space. C'mon, Discovery!) Anyway, it's okay. -Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet psc@lznv.att.com I'm not speaking for my employer, I'm just speaking my mind. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 88 13:18:34 GMT From: vrdxhq!daitc!csed-1!zweig@umd5.umd.edu (Jonathan Zweig) Subject: Re: Time skew -- does it hurt SETI? The chapter "Encyclopedia Galactica" in Carl Sagan's COSMOS discusses the equation estimating the statistical likelihood that fellow sentients could be in a position to communicate with us, and takes "time skew" into account. There are something like a hundred billion stars in the galaxy, and it is not inconceivable that well-behaved beings could survive without destroying themselves for very long periods (many millions of years), opening up the window on the time skew pretty wide. I hope you aren't saying we should give up on SETI because it seems unlikely we will succeed. The north pole would be explored even today if people had an attitude like that. Johnny Zweig ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Jul 88 12:12:03 EDT From: nutto%UMASS.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu (Andy Steinberg) Subject: I have 3 questions. (1) I heard that somebody recently did an experiment where 2 prisms were placed next to each other with a gap of 1 nanometer between them, and the gap was filled with oil. A second pair of prisms was arranged but with no oil in the gap. When laser beams were shot through both pairs it was as if the laser never passed through the oil. My understanding was that is something like this was built on a larger scale it would be a stargate? (2) In my astromony class the professor mentioned that a new theory other than the Big Bang was supposed to explain the origin of the universe. All he said was "warped spacetime spits out or screams out energy". Could someone please clarify this? (3) What is the proper posting address for the Physics digest? USnail: Andy Steinberg BITNet: nutto@UMass PO Box 170 nutto@Mars.UCC.UMass.EDU Hadley, MA 01035-0170 Internet: nutto%UMass.BITNet@cunyvm.cuny.edu Phone: (413) 546-4908 nutto%UMass.BITNet@mitvma.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Jul 88 09:19:12 PDT From: Eugene N. Miya Subject: Reminders for Old Farts Hints for old users (subtle reminders) You'll know these. Minimize cross references, [Do you REALLY NEED to?] Edit "Subject:" lines especially if you are taking a tangent. Send mail instead, avoid posting follow ups. [100 mail messages mean more than 1 follow-up.] Read all available articles before posting a follow-up. [Check all references.] Cut down attributed articles. Summarize! Put a return address in the body (signature) of your message (mail or article), state institution, etc. don't assume mail works. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jul 88 20:44:21 PDT From: Eugene N. Miya Subject: Heading to SIGGRAPH The other day, my host, pioneer had a pretty severe crash. It comes back and I have to scan 80 articles plus answer mail. Next week I have to attend SIGGRAPH in Atlanta [my reasons are on the back pages of the Computer Graphics quarterly. Anyways, I won't have time to scan articles or queries posted from Saturday on, so I'm just going to mark all articles I receive next week as "read." I also plan to move my work off this machine to ones which are closer to my new MPs. I should also install the "Frequently asked questions scripts into crontab. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." p.s. if you want "an official answer" to something, wait until Aug. 7. [I also plan to skip out a week for Hawaii in Sept. as well as for a Conference] [Special P.S. for Loren C.: I have something you have been patiently waiting for....] ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 88 20:52:00 GMT From: UCSFVM.BITNET!DR9021@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Space Race Date: 28 July 88, 13:43:13 PDT From: Donna Reynolds DR9021 at UCSFVM To: SCI-SPACE at VAX.BERKELEY.EDU Subject: Space Race In a book entitled (something like) _Space Shuttle: From X-15 to Orbiter_, the author states that some folks believe the Soviets initiated the race to the moon solely to draw attention and funds from the X-15/X-20 program, which they greatly feared. Is this just idle speculation, or is there some factual basis for this theory? If this subject has been previously covered, please disregard. Donna Reynolds University of California, San Francisco dr9021@ucsfvm.ucsf.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 88 20:58:00 GMT From: UCSFVM.BITNET!DR9021@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: The Mars Project Date: 28 July 88, 13:52:51 PDT From: Donna Reynolds DR9021 at UCSFVM To: SCI-SPACE at VAX.BERKELEY.EDU Subject: The Mars Project Who or what is the Mars Project, and is the organization generally considered to be respectable? If this subject has been previously covered, please disregard. Donna Reynolds University of California, San Francisco dr9021@ucsfvm.ucsf.edu ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 88 15:31:22 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net (B Gray) Subject: Re: FTL time travel In article <1988Jul23.210152.21185@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >The possibility of effect preceding cause is widely interpreted as showing >that FTL travel is impossible, since it makes utter hash out of physics. Quantum electrodynamics REQUIRES that photons travel both faster and slower than c. The same effect is required for electrons. An electron moving faster than light moves backwards in time and is observed as positron. Of course, these are virtual particles. The moment you try to observe them you will find they have a very high probability of behaving exactly as you would expect. It is in the same class of effects as when your car gets out of it's garage by means of quantum tunneling. The scaling up and manipulation of these infinitesimal probabilities and their practical application is left as an excercise for the reader. :-> Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 88 00:00:29 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: C-64 basic program to compute satellite topocentric data For those of you who inquired, the C-64 basic program (also a version for the IBM PC) is available free on the BBS COMM-POST 24 hrs at (303) 534-4646. Elements needed for input to the prog are available in the rec.ham-radio newsgroup of this net. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 88 11:24:17 GMT From: mcvax!philmds!prle!prles2!nvpna1!mcardle@uunet.uu.net (Owen McArdle) Subject: Time Travel (was Re: (none)) In article <680@auvax.UUCP> ralphh@auvax.UUCP (Ralph Hand) writes: --In article <8807220420.AA23265@angband.s1.gov>, ... writes --> simple: If time travel were possible, wouldn't someone have told us by now? --> Think about it.. -- --I realize that you were not really serious, but no someone would not have --told us by now. Would not doing so alter their own history thereby --putting their own existance into doubt. There is a potential for a paradox --here. The people of the future would have to decide not to let us know if --they desired to continue to exist themselves. The way I've always tried to figure this little one out is that *if* someone has already visited us from the future, whatever they've done has already had its' effect. I comfort myself with the reasoning that even if they wanted to, and tried really hard to, do something WHICH THEY KNOW IN THEIR OWN TIME NEVER HAPPENED, then they can't. Some combination of circumstances must have prevented them. If you can disprove this, DON'T TELL ME, I'll not sleep a wink for weeks! Such a line of reasoning can lead you to believe that, on setting out for some such trip, unless a ship bearing a remarkable resemblance to your own arrives in the distbn. area before you leave, you didn't get back before you left. Now if there did... well you need only build ONE of any ship, and using this perpetual generation technique spawn off as many as you need with time travel :-). With every ship built being a one-off, just think of the profit margin you'd want if you were building it. Physics? Who needs Physics, these are feelings. Now I know why there was only one 'Heart of Gold'... --- Owen P.McArdle || NET : mcardle@nvpna1.prl.philips.nl Philips Research Labs. || PHONE: +31-40-742824 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jul 88 11:21 EDT From: GODDEN%gmr.com@relay.cs.net Subject: query about 'escape velocity' I want to ask a question that most of you will regard as supremely dumb. Well, I'm going to ask anyway because I'm curious. It is simply this. I am aware of the so-called 'escape velocity' for earth being approx 17K mph. Why is this so? I DO understand orbital velocity, but escape velocity? Why can't you leave earth at 1 mph even? As long as you have thrust to just slightly overcome gravity, it seems (to me) that you ought to be able to leave. When I throw a ball upward, at least for a while it moves away from earth at a slow speed. By providing low thrust, why can't you just continue at some slow speed all the way to the moon? What am I missing? (Please, no condescending snide remarks. I admitted this would be a dumb question at the outset.) -Kurt Godden ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jul 88 10:59:54 CDT From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: Automated vs. personned spacecraft -- a reasonable compromise Several postings which appeared in recent Space Digests (probably came around a couple weeks ago on USENET) mentioned the controversy over automated vs. crewed space exploration, and such factors as the vast amount of support required for a living crew, which reduces the scientific payload. Another mentioned that, though he personally would like to go into space, he would give up his position, if he had one, to someone with better vision and who was lighter, to achieve better results for all humanity in return. There is an obvious middle ground. This is not my original idea -- it has been standard in SF for decades. You send a human brain, interfaced to the mechanisms, and do not waste space and mass on all the gorp required to support a full human body. Up until recently, that was just "pie in the sky" wishful thinking, but, as researchers progress more and more on viable interfaces for prosthetic devices and sensors, it becomes a reasonable way to get human thinking ability integrated on a real-time basis with automated deep-space probes. Carrying only the oxygen, fluids, and nutrients to support the few pounds of brain tissue, and, ideally, equipped with nanotechnology repair units to fix up radiation damage and wearing-out biological elements, a human brain with a spaceship body could not only explore the solar system and Oort cloud, but reach the stars. The lifetime of this synergy could be centuries, since all the non-neurological toxin-producing parts of the body would be gone, and longer-lived and replaceable mechanical parts would provide the support functions. This is a perfect opportunity for those of us with non-astronaut physiques. I, myself, would love such a change, to shed this wretched physical body and become a spaceship! (I'd probably volunteer to do it for even a lesser goal, like becoming a deep-diving submersible or a geologic exploration mechanical mole!) So you don't have 20/20 vision? Doesn't matter -- your eyes will be replaced with multispectral scanners and imagers interfaced into your visual cortex, far keener and more enlightening than human eyes could ever be. You afraid of losing the pleasures of the flesh, such as food and sex? Nonsense -- the interfaces can attach to any of the brain centers and you can experience delicious flavors by sampling atmospheres or get an orgasmic response from any stimulus you care to switch to that set of receptors. The fighter pilots and jocks can keep their fine figures -- I'll choose a mechanical support system which can be continuously improved with technological upgrades over the decades. Hmmm... if those of us who get into this line of work write our contracts right, we'll probably end up owning the planet in a couple centuries, with compound interest on the back pay piling up while we're off to the stars... Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #314 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 5 Aug 88 05:50:05 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Fri, 5 Aug 88 04:16:34 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Fri, 5 Aug 88 04:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 5 Aug 88 04:12:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 5 Aug 88 04:05:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Fri, 5 Aug 88 04:04:42 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02646; Fri, 5 Aug 88 01:04:39 PDT id AA02646; Fri, 5 Aug 88 01:04:39 PDT Date: Fri, 5 Aug 88 01:04:39 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808050804.AA02646@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #315 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 315 Today's Topics: Re: space news from June 6 AW&ST Re: space news from May 30 AW&ST Re: Time skew -- does it hurt SETI? Re: space studies Re: query about 'escape velocity' Balloon campaign will seek evidence of antimatter galaxy (Forwarded) Space Junk The Face on Mars Lithium cells Digital Images Re: query about 'escape velocity' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Jul 88 19:25:46 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: space news from June 6 AW&ST In article <3821@h.cc.purdue.edu> acu@h.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Floyd McWilliams) writes: > Re the planned Jupiter-Pluto flight by the Voyager spare: >How long would such a flight take? Since Pluto is now closer to the >sun than Neptune, would it take much longer than the 12-year trip by >Voyager 2? ... I don't remember the numbers, and there may even have been a Saturn encounter in the middle, but yeah, it was a fairly rapid trip. Maybe even faster than Voyager 2, because Uranus is actually not on a direct course for Neptune. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 88 19:30:26 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: space news from May 30 AW&ST In article <2876@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: >...I am, however, not too thrilled >to see an editorial comment which seems to imply that just because the >Soviets may (or may not) be getting tired of our "studies" that we >should fall through our a__holes trying to please them, or get >something done to satisfy or placate them. Not "just" because the Soviets are getting tired of it. Because everybody who wants to see action in space, including prospective international partners (not limited to the USSR), is getting sick of the US's inability to actually accomplish anything. The US space program currently specializes in studying missions rather than doing them. And when a possible partner actually proposes *doing* something, what answer do they get from the US government? "Great idea, let's study it for a few more years." Feh. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 88 21:04:55 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Time skew -- does it hurt SETI? In article <61351@sun.uucp> msodos%amanda@Sun.COM (Martin Sodos) writes: >... If they are >behind us they are somewhat before the time of their equivalent of the >Greeks, and there is no hope of communication. If they are ahead of us, >they are probably so advanced as to be almost unrecognizable... This hurts CETI but not SETI (at least not to such an extent). One would tentatively expect that a race would be observable for quite a while even after they advanced to the point where they weren't interested in talking to us. Unless our current grasp of physics is grossly inadequate, the electromagnetic spectrum is unlikely to be replaced by anything better as a species advances. The single most plausible reason for seeing no signs of extraterrestrial intelligence is that a species which advances not far beyond our own changes so radically that it loses interest in communication, space exploration, etc., at least in the forms we recognize. There is no way to test this hypothesis, unfortunately, since it essentially claims that extrapolation from our current knowledge is invalid. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 88 17:27:03 GMT From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) Subject: Re: space studies This is not for space.shuttle, this is more for sci.space. In article <1988Jul28.193026.10042@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >"Great idea, let's study it for a few more years." No, you have it all wrong! s/study/computer simulate/ # ;-) Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 88 18:28:39 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: query about 'escape velocity' >From article <8807291603.AA05986@angband.s1.gov>, by GODDEN@gmr.COM: [... question about escape velocity..] No, your question is perfectly sensible and your argument is correct. There is absolutely nothing to stop you going all the way to the Moon (or Pluto, for that matter) at a nice steady 55 mph (:-) if you have a nice steady thrust source. This takes an AWFUL lot of fuel though, and if your engine stops you find yourself on an orbit you didnt want to be on. You've given yourself a lot of potential energy and no kinetic energy, so if you start freely falling you are at the apogee of your orbit and will soon change all that PE into huge amounts of KE heading back towards the Earth very fast..[ "Ground... yes, ground... I wonder if it'll be friendly?"] You might also have a problem landing on the Moon once you got there; its radial velocity is small, but its orbital velocity is large.. you sure won't be going at 55 mph relative to it. Ever tried to step off a moving train? 'Escape velocity' is just the velocity needed to leave the Earth WITHOUT any further thrust; that is, if you freely fall with this velocity (in a direction away from the Earth!) you are on a parabolic orbit that will not return you to the Earth. When solar sailing and other continuous thrust propulsion methods become common, we may hear a lot less talk about escape velocity, but the relative velocities of departure and destination points will still be important. Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 88 19:07:23 GMT From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Balloon campaign will seek evidence of antimatter galaxy (Forwarded) Paula Cleggett Headquarters, Washington, D.C. July 29, 1988 Patricia M. Simms Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. RELEASE: 88-106 BALLOON CAMPAIGN WILL SEEK EVIDENCE OF ANTIMATTER GALAXY NASA will launch three huge balloons in Canada next month to search for cosmic rays, including those that could provide evidence of galaxies made of antimatter. Antimatter consists of particles with electrical charges opposite those of "common" matter, which constitutes Earth's material. When antimatter and matter collide there is a mutual and complete annihilation, releasing energy far greater in proportion then energy released by nuclear fission or fusion. Whether antimatter could ever be created in sufficient supply and harnessed to provide useful energy is a challenging question. The flights will begin Aug. 2, in a month-long campaign that is part of the NASA Balloon Program managed by the Goddard Space Flight Center's Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Va. Balloons that will lift three cosmic ray experiments to approximately 120,000 feet will be launched from Prince Albert Saskatchewan Airport, approximately 300 miles north of the U.S./Canadian border. Scientific balloons are utilized to carry large research payloads with scientific instruments to make measurements at altitudes above 99 percent of the Earth's atmosphere. They are made of a thin polyethylene material and are more than 350 feet in diameter at full inflation. These balloons provide unique experiment platforms for measurements at altitudes in the upper stratosphere. Personnel from WFF and the National Scientific Balloon Facility, Palestine, Texas, will provide the launching and operational flight support at the primary operations site in Prince Albert. Personnel from WFF also will provide downrange telemetry tracking support at Edmonton, Alberta. Principal investigators for this campaign are Dr. Steve Ahlen, Boston University; Dr. W. Robert Binns, Washington University; and Dr. Steve Schindler, California Institute of Technology. Ahlen's extragalactic antimatter experiment is a 4,500-pound payload that will search for heavy anti-nuclei (anti-silicon to anti-iron), and will be flown on a 28.4 million cubic foot balloon. The observed anti-nuclei are expected to provide evidence for the existence of galaxies made completely of antimatter. Scientist believe this discovery could prove to be extremely useful for understanding the annihilation process between matter and antimatter in the creation of galaxies. Binns' payload, called the scintillating optic fiber experiment is a 1,200-pound cosmic ray isotope experiment that will utilize newly-developed range and trajectory-defining detectors based on scintillating fiber optics. It also will be carried aloft by a 28.4 million-cubic-foot balloon. Schindler's 2,700-pound payload, to be carried on a 23.3 million-cubic-foot balloon, is the high energy isotope spectrometer telescope. This experiment employs a combination of scintillators and counters to form a cosmic ray isotope spectrometer capable of measuring the isotopic composition of cosmic rays from helium to nickle. The mission is part of the overall NASA Balloon Program, managed at Wallops. The program provides 40-45 balloon flights a year from locations around the world. ------------------------------ Subject: Space Junk Date: Fri, 29 Jul 88 17:06:33 -0400 From: Fred Baube An article in EE Times (July 25, page 21) declares that "Space Junk Threatens Future Missions", according to NASA. Spacecraft are now more likely to be struck by orbital debris than by micrometeorites. In LEO, 1-to-10 cm objects cause the most concern; NASA plans to release by the end of the year a radar to detect such objects. The Novenber 1986 Ariane breakup "instantly created 500 large pieces of debris and instantly increased the total number of objects orbiting the Earth by about 7%". "The average time between collisions that might be damaging to an orbiter at 300 km is 71 years, based on 1988 debris density .. but if current trends continue, the time period drops to 26 years for the density projected for 2000 and to 8 years for the projected 2010 density." And now for the kicker .. "Carried to its logical conclusion, space debris in LEO's could grow to the point where they are self-regenerative [and] the rate of debris generation .. will exceed the rate of debris generation by natural sinks." /f ------------------------------ Subject: The Face on Mars Date: Fri, 29 Jul 88 17:15:26 -0400 From: Fred Baube World Weekly News cover story, August 9: "Face On Mars Beams Warning to Earth" (with cover photo) Story on page 5, with another photo captioned, "Mile-long monument, center of photo, houses the Martian tele- vision transmitter that has been sending the Earth stark images of a long-dead civilization. Scientists who have seen the night- marish pictures beamed from the gigantic face say they were made by a race battling a deadly plague." Named are "Swiss astronomer Ludin Pasche" and "Dr Lars-Tvar Carlsson, the noted Swedish astronomer". "It shows thousands and thousands of wretched souls dying in the streets .. The suggestion is that the planet had been stricken with a deadly plague." More seriously, isn't there more to it than just the "face" ? Aren't there some interesting geometrical relationships among other objects in the area ? #include ------------------------------ Sender: "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@xerox.com Date: 29 Jul 88 08:25:54 PDT (Friday) Subject: Lithium cells From: "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@xerox.com Some reported explosions of lithium cells are due not to short-circuiting but to application of AC. Several reports of lithium cell explosions have appeared in 'Electronics and Wireless World', a UK professional electronics magazine not given to sensationalism. In all cases the lithium cells were part of a power supply system which operated normally from mains AC, but relied on the lithium cells for backup when mains power was disconnected. Failure of sufficient components to allow mains AC (at 240V/50Hz in UK) to be applied to the cells caused them not merely to outgas but to explode with great violence. In one case a rack of expensive apparatus was seriously damaged; in another a laboratory suffered structural damage assessed by its reporter as being similar to that which might be caused by a small hand-grenade. Since in the astronautics application no high-voltage AC will be present in the circuit, there appears to be no risk of such violent explosions. Assessment of the outgas hazard is clearly in the hands of experts. Regards, Chaz ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 88 18:50:33 GMT From: rochester!ur-tut!giaccone@rutgers.edu (Tony Giaccone) Subject: Digital Images Hi folks, I'm hoping someone out there can help me out. I'd like to get some of the raw digital images sent back by either Viking, or Voyager, or both. Does anyone know if this stuff is availible to the general public and if there's a cost associated with it. The best news would be that someone out there has copies of some of these images that I could ftp to my local machine. However, I'll take them anyway I can get them (within reason, paper tape is probably not acceptable :-). Thanks, Tony Giaccone tonyg@cvs.rochester.edu cornell!rochester!ur-tut!giaccone ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 88 19:44:52 GMT From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu (Bill Wyatt) Subject: Re: query about 'escape velocity' In article <1020@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu>, mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: > From article <8807291603.AA05986@angband.s1.gov>, by GODDEN@gmr.COM: > > [... question about escape velocity..] > > No, your question is perfectly sensible and your argument is correct. > There is absolutely nothing to stop you going all the way to the Moon > (or Pluto, for that matter) at a nice steady 55 mph (:-) if you have a > nice steady thrust source. This takes an AWFUL lot of fuel > [...] > so if you start freely falling you are at the apogee of your > orbit and will soon change all that PE into huge amounts of KE heading > back towards the Earth very fast. [...]> > 'Escape velocity' is just the velocity needed to leave the Earth > WITHOUT any further thrust; that is, if you freely fall with this > velocity (in a direction away from the Earth!) you are on a parabolic > orbit that will not return you to the Earth. [...] The above is correct except I think you have to emphasize that the escape velocity varies with the square root of the distance from the Earth's (or other gravity well's) center. Thus, if you have sufficient thrust to move away from the Earth at 55 mph, I calculate that somewhere in the vicinity of Jupiter's orbit you'll be at the escape velocity of Earth. After that point, even stopping the thrust will not let you fall back to Earth (assuming no perturbations, etc.), although you'd presumeably orbit or fall into the Sun! A better way to think of this is that you are in a potential well, with the Earth at the bottom, and you need to expend some amount of energy to move up the sides of the well. The total amount of energy needed to get out of the well (i.e. reach infintely up the sides of the well) is constant, but the increment from a given height decreases as you move outward. Bill UUCP: {husc6,ihnp4,cmcl2,mit-eddie}!harvard!cfa!wyatt Wyatt ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu (or) wyatt%cfa@harvard.harvard.edu BITNET: wyatt@cfa2 SPAN: cfairt::wyatt -- Bill UUCP: {husc6,ihnp4,cmcl2,mit-eddie}!harvard!cfa!wyatt Wyatt ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu (or) wyatt%cfa@harvard.harvard.edu BITNET: wyatt@cfa2 SPAN: cfairt::wyatt ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #315 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 7 Aug 88 04:15:40 EDT Received: by ANDREW.CMU.EDU (5.54/3.15) id ; Sat, 6 Aug 88 11:06:19 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat, 6 Aug 88 11:06:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 6 Aug 88 10:56:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 6 Aug 88 10:44:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 6 Aug 88 04:06:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 6 Aug 88 04:04:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ANDREW.CMU.EDU (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sat, 6 Aug 88 04:04:02 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00580; Sat, 6 Aug 88 01:04:06 PDT id AA00580; Sat, 6 Aug 88 01:04:06 PDT Date: Sat, 6 Aug 88 01:04:06 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808060804.AA00580@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #316 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 316 Today's Topics: NASA Prediction Bulletins Where did the BBS go? Celestial BBS Missing Mir elements Satellite Tracking Software SDI: More Spinoffs Than Apollo? Re: Time skew -- does it hurt SETI? Re: query about 'escape velocity' Re: space news from June 6 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Jul 88 20:01:13 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!tskelso@husc6.harvard.edu (TS Kelso) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins For those of you who are interested in satellite tracking, the most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (512) 892-4180, and are updated several times weekly. As a service to the amateur satellite community, the most current of these elements are uploaded weekly to rec.ham-radio. The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. Note: There will be a temporary suspension of the posting of these elements while I relocate from Austin, Texas to Dayton, Ohio. Normal postings should resume in a couple of weeks. -- TS Kelso, PhD ARPA: tskelso@emx.cc.utexas.edu The Center for Space Research The University of Texas at Austin UUCP: {ihnp4,allegra}!ut-emx!tskelso ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 88 10:15:34 MST From: SHAVER@epg1-hua.arpa >From Shaver's Screen Subject: Where did the BBS go? I no longer am getting answers to the BBS in Austin which had the NASA predicte d element sets for satellites. I have not received their new address. Does an yone have any suggestions? Please reply to this address, I am not currently on the net. " John ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Aug 88 22:06 CDT From: Kerry Stevenson Subject: Celestial BBS Missing Tried today to connect to T.S. Kelso's Celestial BBS. However, after dialing the number, (512) 892-4180, I got a recorded message announcing that the "number you have dialed is no longer in service." I heard a rumor some time ago that this BBS was moving to somewhere else. Does anyone know where it has been relocated? What is the new number? Is there a new number? Have we lost our only dependable source of orbital elements? I haven't attempted a connection there for some months now, so I'm not surpised that I got caught in the middle of a change. Kerry ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 88 19:23:00 GMT From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements Two-line elements for Mir 1 16609U 88210.22249169 0.00023018 20000-3 0 00 2 16609 51.6145 216.4331 0004446 167.8573 192.3121 15.74728513140290 NOTE: The source I'm using right now doesn't give B*; the figure above is a guess at the value. Object: Mir NORAD catalog number: 16609 Element set: 0 Epoch revolution: 14029 Epoch time: 88210.22249169 (Thu Jul 28 05:20:23 UTC) Inclination: 51.6145 degrees RA of node: 216.4331 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0004446 Argument of periapsis: 167.8573 degrees Mean anomaly: 192.3121 degrees Mean motion: 15.74728513 revs / day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00023018 * 2 revs / day**2 B* drag term: 2.0000e-04 Derived figures: Semimajor axis: 6723.24 km. Perifocal radius: 6720.25 km. Apogee height: 348.086 km. Perigee height: 342.108 km. Mean longitude at the epoch: 3.7804 degrees. Magnitudes of short-period perturbations of the second harmonic: Radius vector magnitude: +/-1.01 km. True anomaly: +/-0.0119 degrees. RA of node: +/-0.0260 degrees. Inclination: +/-0.0204 degrees. Secular perturbations of the second harmonic: Argument of perigee: 3.8439 degrees/day RA of node: -5.1447 degrees/day Mean anomaly: included in published mean motion. Long-period perturbation of the third harmonic: X=-1.642e-03, Y=-8.719e-04 Source: NASA Goddard via National Space Society Mir-Watch Hotline +1 202 543 4487 voice. NOTE: Apogee and perigee heights are referred to a mean equatorial radius of 6378.145 km, and not to the local radius of the geoid. All derived quantities are calculated using the NORAD SGP model of Hilton and Kuhlman. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Aug 88 09:31:18 EDT From: Gavin_Eadie@um.cc.umich.edu Subject: Satellite Tracking Software I found a nice program for the Mac on Compuserve or Genie (I forget which since I look at both regularly). It has many nice features and what follows is from the write-up: ---- MacSat Version 1.0 March 1, 1988 Copyright (C) 1988 BEK Developers, All Rights Reserved Permission granted for noncommercial use. The program may be copied freely, provided no money is paid. For a copy of the latest version and manual, send $10 to: MacSat BEK Developers 1732 74th Circle NE St. Petersburg, FL 33702 Documentation MacSat is a satellite tracking program. It can store data for up to 200 satellites and 100 stations. Data for the stations and satellites are contained in a file called 'MacSat Data'. Default data are contained in a file called 'MacSat Defaults'. Both files must reside in the same directory as MacSat. Some knowlege of satellite orbits is desired to make good use of this program. The program requires version 3.2 or latter of the System. MacSat can run on any Macintosh computer, provided it has 128K ROMs or greater. MacSat2 has been optomized to run on a Macintosh II, but will crash on all others. Features: Store satellite data for up to 200 satellites. Store station data for up to 100 stations. Plot satellite ground tracks on a world map (MAP). View current position of selected satellites on a world map in real-time (RTMAP). Display look angles for satellites that are illuminated when the ground site is in darkness (LOOK). Display look angles for satellites at all times of the day (TRACK). Display Right Ascension and Declination for objects (LOOK and TRACK). Maintains a self contained data base on available ground stations, satellites, and program defaults. Capable of flushing the data base. Elements in either SSPEC or SATELE formats can be loaded (SATDAT.ED, STNDAT.SD, SATELE.### files). Can write out SATDAT.ED and STNDAT.SD data and Station and Element listings. Display the latitude and longitude position of objects (POSITION). Display orbital plane crossings at a particular site (LAUNCH). Display equator crossings (EQUATOR). The following dialog boxes are used in the various programs to enter data. Parameter Dialog - This dialog is used to enter pass information to the various programs. Start and stop times for a pass may be entered in either month/day/year hours:minutes or year/day of year. Other items that may be entered, depending on the program, are step size, minimum elevation (satellite must be above this before data will be output), horizon elevation, maximum range (satellite must be within this distance before data will be output), and time zone. In some Options, the settings dialog may be selectable. Settings Dialog - This dialog is used to configure a particular option run. For the Map option, displaying tick marks can be enabled and how often the tick mark occurs can be selected. The size of the station circle and whether to beep when complete can also be selected. For the other options, pass headers can be selected to be output always, only when a pass is actually found, or never (a pass header is satellite information pertaining to the current pass). Beep when complete can also be enabled. Station/Satellite Select Dialog - This dialog is used to select desired stations/satellites to use in the program. Selections are saved in 'MacSat Data'. Multiple stations may be selected in LOOK and TRACK programs. To select more than one object, use the shift key and mouse to select a continuous block or the command key and mouse to select non-continuous items. In some Options, the filter dialog may be selectable. Filter Dialog - This dialog is used to select filter parameters for displays in the Station/Satellite Select Dialog. The filter can be set up to display all stations or satellites or those loaded since (New) or before (Old) the program was started. Stations can be filtered based on their Latitude and Longitude. Satellites can be filtered based on their Inclination, Mean Motion, Epoch, Eccentricity, and International Designator. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 88 14:48:10 GMT From: ihnp4!ihuxz!rats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D Woo) Subject: SDI: More Spinoffs Than Apollo? [There was a 330 line message here from Defense Electronics (May 88) that I punted. It is available to anyone who can't get a copy of the magazine and want to read it. Drop me a note at ota+@andrew.cmu.edu. Ted Anderson] ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 88 19:56:35 GMT From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) Subject: Re: Time skew -- does it hurt SETI? In article <1988Jul28.210455.11515@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >...One would >tentatively expect that a race would be observable for quite a while even >after they advanced to the point where they weren't interested in talking >to us. Unless our current grasp of physics is grossly inadequate, the >electromagnetic spectrum is unlikely to be replaced by anything better >as a species advances. Back when I was a grad student at UC Berkeley, one of the physics professors came up with what he thought was a mechanism for strong coupling to gravity waves -- a QM/gravity interaction. As far as I know, he turned out to be wrong, as I have not heard anything about the idea for some time. However, for a few weeks there, it looked as though one might be able to make useful gravity wave transmitters and receivers out of macroscopic QM wave function systems -- say, toruses (tori?) full of superfluid helium. This prompted at least one comment that now we finally understood why SETI hadn't found anything: everybody Out There was sending nice, clear signals -- but in gravity waves! On a more conventional note, even folks who still use the EM spectrum might well advance to the point where they saw no reason to waste energy (not to mention spectrum space) by spewing power out in all directions. High power TV stations are already giving way to cable systems, and many radar systems are being replaced with passive detectors. Lasers and fiber optics enhance this process. While I doubt the Earth will be completely radio-quiet any time soon (barring catastrophe), we may already have passed our noisiest phase. > >The single most plausible reason for seeing no signs of extraterrestrial >intelligence is that a species which advances not far beyond our own >changes so radically that it loses interest in communication, space >exploration, etc., at least in the forms we recognize. You mean, like the current Administration? :-) Jordin (Still Searching for Terrestrial Intelligence) Kare jtk@mordor.uucp jtk@mordor.s1.gov ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 88 21:01:19 GMT From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) Subject: Re: query about 'escape velocity' In article <8807291603.AA05986@angband.s1.gov> GODDEN@gmr.COM writes: > ... I DO understand orbital velocity, but escape >velocity? Why can't you leave earth at 1 mph even? As long as you have >thrust to just slightly overcome gravity, it seems (to me) that you ought >to be able to leave. Gee, we all ask basic questions from time to time; one of the things these groups is for is to let people learn things. So... 'escape velocity' is, roughly, how fast you'd have to throw a ball so it would never come back. Ignoring air resistance and all that stuff, of course. It is therefore the initial velocity a "ballistic" body must have at the surface of a uniform spherical mass if the body is to recede from the mass for ever. The key word is "ballistic" - as you say, you can go anywhere at any speed with continuous thrust. Since Newton's laws are time-symmetric, escape velocity is also the speed with which a body would hit the Earth if it fell from an infinite distance, again ignoring all other effects. Note, therefore, that the projectile fired by Verne's gun had to be travelling with at least escape velocity when it left the muzzle, with our intrepid voyagers squashed to a pulp inside it. A rocket, however, need never reach escape velocity as long as it doesn't mind burning fuel. Our rockets actually do reach escape velocity because it is more efficient to burn the necessary fuel close to the earth (that way you haven't used energy to lift lots of fuel way up into space). Hope that helps. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 88 23:45:07 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: space news from June 6 AW&ST In article <1264@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: }Agreed. We really need some enlightened self-interest on both sides. An }excellent start would be the following: } }1. Ban the use of nuclear power sources in low earth orbit, "low" being }defined as anything with a lifetime less than a thousand years or so. }Deep space missions would be fine. } }These two provisions would have the following highly beneficial effects: } }1. The seemingly regular series of Soviet nuclear-powered radarsats }re-entering the atmosphere would stop. }2. The increasing pollution of orbital space by ASAT and SDI tests would }stop. }3. Taken together, the two provisions would effectively prohibit many, }if not most, nuclear powered SDI tests. } }We urgently needed the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, and we urgently }need a treaty like this now. Not to mention the radar reconnaisance satellites that are used. (rorsat, remember?) What space pollution? We haven't gotten anything (significant) into orbit in a LONG time! That stuff is up, shoot, fall. What nuclear powered SDI tests? I must have missed something. The only nuclear-powered space weapon I have heard of is a pop-up, and its use is forbidden under existing treaties. What are you talking about? SOMEBODY definitely needs enlightenment around here, all right. maybe me? Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #316 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 7 Aug 88 07:04:55 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sun, 7 Aug 88 06:37:42 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 7 Aug 88 06:37:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 7 Aug 88 06:23:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 7 Aug 88 06:16:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sun, 7 Aug 88 06:15:22 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01242; Sun, 7 Aug 88 01:04:12 PDT id AA01242; Sun, 7 Aug 88 01:04:12 PDT Date: Sun, 7 Aug 88 01:04:12 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808070804.AA01242@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #317 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 317 Today's Topics: Re: Doppler lidar, ESA publications(was: NASA news - Seasat) Re: Space Race Re: International Geosphere-Biosphere Program The philosophy of orbital modeling Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft -- a reasonable compromise Re: query about 'escape velocity' E stamp Re: Libertarian space policy Re: Time Travel (was Re: (none)) Re: Time travel Re: Time skew -- does it hurt SETI? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Jul 88 15:32:15 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: Doppler lidar, ESA publications(was: NASA news - Seasat) In article <8807261925.AA02646@angband.s1.gov> HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: }The object is to shine a laser down, observe scattered light off dust particles }and aerosols, and measure the Doppler shift. Do this from two angles (two }spots in the satellite's orbit) for the same location on the surface, and you }have enough velocity information to get the two-dimensional wind pattern. Time }delay of the laser pulse gives you depth. This could be a great boon to the }weather guys, especially in the Southern Hemisphere where surface measurements }are sparse. You can get surface wind measurements from the altimeter of the geosat satellite during ocean transits. Thus, surface measurements in the Southern Hemisphere (mostly water) are not quite as sparse as one might be lead to believe.... (I know you can because I do. JHU APL is the site of the geosat ground station) Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 88 17:46:58 GMT From: ns!logajan@umn-cs.arpa (John Logajan x3118) Subject: Re: Space Race Donna Reynolds (DR9021 at UCSFVM) writes: > some folks believe the > Soviets initiated the race to the moon solely to draw > attention and funds from the X-15/X-20 program, I have no information on this, but it seems to me that this is in the same vein as a lot of other suggestions that we are but pawns in the schemes of our enemies. If our space program was/is founded upon stupidity, then we should lay the blame at the feet of those responsible for the program. Saying, "the devil made us do it!" isn't an honest assessment of reality, I suggest. - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - {...rutgers!dayton, ...amdahl!ems, ...uunet!rosevax!mmm} !viper!ns!logajan - ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 88 02:37:35 GMT From: sunybcs!dmark@rutgers.edu (David Mark) Subject: Re: International Geosphere-Biosphere Program In article <3640@bnrmtv.UUCP> behm@bnrmtv.UUCP (Gregory Behm) writes: >I am searching for information about the International Geosphere-Biosphere >Program, and hope that some of you on the net might be of assistance. Any >information about the program, including (but not limited to) planned or >proposed research and participating organizations, will be greatly appreciated. > The International Geographical Union recently sponsored a "Global Database Planning Project" meeting. That meeting was by no means restricted to IGBP, but did pay considerable attention to IGBP's data-handling needs. Two IGU representatives will attend an IGBP meeting in Moscow in August to present findings. Here are electronic mail addresses for organizers of the IGU-GDPP meeting, which I should add was held at Tylney Hall, England, May 9-13, 1988: Meeting Chair: Dr. Roger Tomlinson, Ottawa, Canada; CAG@UOTTAWA.BITNET Scientific coordinator: Dr. Michael F. Goodchild, UC Santa Barbara; good@topdog.ucsb.edu or GOOD@SBITP.BITNET Meeting coordinator: Dr. David Rhind, Birkbeck College, University of London Rhind@ge.bbk.ac.uk Hope this is of some interest. I have a program of the meeting. Proceedings will be published. _______________________________________________________________________________ David M. Mark, Professor of Geography, SUNY at Buffalo dmark@joey.cs.buffalo.edu dmark@sunybcs.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 88 20:57:41 GMT From: ns!logajan@umn-cs.arpa (John Logajan x3118) Subject: The philosophy of orbital modeling I was just pondering the philosophy of orbital modeling. Any real orbiting object knows nothing of orbits, or ellipses or the rules of orbits, but rather responds only to its own instantaneous velocity, mass, and gravitation force. But humans, upon observing orbits, noticed first the elliptical nature of orbits. And so was born a system by which indirect effects of gravitation and momentum could be used to predict orbital behavior. This "elliptical" model, of course, gets very complicated for more than one main body. But its value lies in that calculations for the most part avoid the problem of cumulative error. And that is why, in the main, it is used for earthly satellites. Powered flight, on the other hand, does not fit so easily into the elliptical model. With its constant vector changes, the only model that can closely approximate this vehicle behavior is the dv/dt model. - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - {...rutgers!dayton, ...amdahl!ems, ...uunet!rosevax!mmm} !viper!ns!logajan - ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 88 03:38:43 GMT From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) Subject: Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft -- a reasonable compromise In article <8807291618.AA06003@angband.s1.gov> wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes: >There is an obvious middle ground. This is not my original idea -- it has >been standard in SF for decades. You send a human brain, interfaced to the >mechanisms, and do not waste space and mass on all the gorp required to >support a full human body. If you don't waste space and mass on all the gorp required to support a human body, you have to waste space and mass on all the gorp required to simulate a human body so that the brain will stay alive, and this is something that we can't do at all today and which is likely at least decades away. > Up until recently, that was just "pie in the >sky" wishful thinking, but, as researchers progress more and more on >viable interfaces for prosthetic devices and sensors, it becomes a >reasonable way to get human thinking ability integrated on a real-time >basis with automated deep-space probes. No way -- at least not today. We can't even build an artificial heart (which would be needed to support the brain, not to mention all the other artificial things needed) that keeps a person alive for any great length of time. . . > Carrying only the oxygen, >fluids, and nutrients to support the few pounds of brain tissue, and, >ideally, equipped with nanotechnology repair units to fix up radiation >damage and wearing-out biological elements, a human brain with a >spaceship body could not only explore the solar system and Oort cloud, >but reach the stars. . . .and nanotechnology of the quality needed for what you propose is well beyond the horizon, given that microtechnology other than computer chips is only now starting to be developed in labs. > The lifetime of this synergy could be centuries, >since all the non-neurological toxin-producing parts of the body would >be gone, and longer-lived and replaceable mechanical parts would provide >the support functions. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe our neurons age partly due to causes of their own, and not due to faults of the human body? Of course, as the human body ages, it does become a markedly poorer environment for the nervous system, but machines break down too, and we self-repairing machines are quite a long way off. >This is a perfect opportunity for those of us with non-astronaut >physiques. I, myself, would love such a change, to shed this wretched >physical body and become a spaceship! (I'd probably volunteer to do it >for even a lesser goal, like becoming a deep-diving submersible or >a geologic exploration mechanical mole!) So you don't have 20/20 vision? >Doesn't matter -- your eyes will be replaced with multispectral scanners >and imagers interfaced into your visual cortex, far keener and more >enlightening than human eyes could ever be. [. . .] All fine and dandy -- let me know when you find a rig of this kind that works at all. >The fighter pilots and jocks can keep their fine figures -- I'll choose >a mechanical support system which can be continuously improved with >technological upgrades over the decades. Hmmm... if those of us who >get into this line of work write our contracts right, we'll probably end >up owning the planet in a couple centuries, with compound interest on >the back pay piling up while we're off to the stars... The way our economic systems work, once you get into this kind of deal, IBM or Humana or NASA or the Soviet Government or a Japanese trading house or something will own you. My body is lousy, but at least I own it (so far. . .) and it does work passably, which is something that no assemblage of prostheses has been able to do or will be able to do until at least well into the next century (even if our civilization continues to advance, which is quite a bit in doubt). -- Lucius Chiaraviglio chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu lucius@tardis.harvard.edu (in case the first one doesn't work) "Fluke. . .Fluuuuke. . . Let go -- and hang on. And if you can't be good -- at least be careful." ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 88 06:38:33 GMT From: polya!crew@labrea.stanford.edu (Roger Crew) Subject: Re: query about 'escape velocity' In article <1020@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu> mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: > From article <8807291603.AA05986@angband.s1.gov>, by GODDEN@gmr.COM: > [... question about escape velocity..] > > 'Escape velocity' is just the velocity needed to leave the Earth > WITHOUT any further thrust; that is, if you freely fall with this > velocity (in a direction away from the Earth!) Actually, it doesn't matter what direction you're pointed in, so long as there's nothing directly in your path that is going to slow you down (like an atmosphere or a swarm of rocks). Once you've got sufficient kinetic energy, that's it... > you are on a parabolic orbit that will not return you to the Earth. Orbital mechanics can be a bit strange sometimes (Arthur C. Clarke had a number of good short stories along these lines...). -- Roger Crew ``Beam Wesley into the sun!'' Usenet: {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!crew Internet: crew@polya.Stanford.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 88 09:24:08 GMT From: hanauma!joe@labrea.stanford.edu (Joe Dellinger) Subject: E stamp Anybody looked closely at the new U.S. "E" stamp? Notice anything funny about it? (Hint: where's the terminator, and which direction does it run?) Perhaps we really DO need to spend more time studying before launching anything! \ /\ /\ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________ \ / \ / \ /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___ \/ \/ \/Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu decvax!hanauma!joe\/\.-._ ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 88 13:50:05 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net (Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Libertarian space policy In article <355@gronk.UUCP> johnl@gronk.UUCP (John Limpert) writes: >....... The reason for the acceptance of >the current treaty was the perceived uselessness of Anarctica. >If someone discovers valuable mineral deposits, the current treaty >may not last very long. The treaty isn't goint to last very much longer anyway. It comes up for renewal in 1994(?). The Falklands conflict was at least partly caused by the reports of large mineral deposits in the area, and further to the south, all of which will be up for grabs when the treaty runs out. Some of the countries nearest Antartica reckon they should have first claim on terratory there. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 88 17:55:46 GMT From: vsi1!unisv!vanpelt@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: Time Travel (was Re: (none)) In article <107@prles2.UUCP> mcardle@nvpna1.prl.philips.nl (Owen McArdle) writes: >I comfort myself with the reasoning that >even if they wanted to, and tried really hard to, do something WHICH THEY >KNOW IN THEIR OWN TIME NEVER HAPPENED, then they can't. Some combination >of circumstances must have prevented them. There's a very good story by Larry Niven (who else?) which deals with exactly this approach to the paradox problem. The title is something outrageously long and 'Thesis-title' sounding, like "On Rotating Cylinders and the Possibility of Global Causality Violation". Two civilizations are at war, and one of them discovers a huge neutronium cylinder left in space by some previous, now-extinct civilization. They figure out it was indended to be a time machine, and was almost completed ... I won't spoil it by telling any more. -- Mike Van Pelt Here lies a Technophobe, Unisys, Silicon Valley No whimper, no blast. vanpelt@unisv.UUCP His life's goal accomplished, Zero risk at last. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 88 19:52:32 GMT From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) Subject: Re: Time travel Somebody (I believe Larry Niven) once said that the only possible future was a future without time travel. If time travel were invented at some point, busybodies would change the past, changing their own present. The only stable end to this would be a future where there was no possibility of time travel - where perhaps the inventors would never be born or something. Simpel, eh? "Now look what a mess you've gotten us into!" kwr "Jest so ya know..." ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 88 17:39:55 GMT From: amdahl!pacbell!hoptoad!dasys1!tneff@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Time skew -- does it hurt SETI? In article <61351@sun.uucp> msodos%amanda@Sun.COM (Martin Sodos) discusses the 'time skew' factor and how it affects SETI. He notes the slim piece of Sagan's "Calendar" occupied by human civilization, and also the rapid evolution of technology within this little slice of time, and concludes it's unlikely we'll be able to contact other intelligent life even if it exists. I disagree with almost all of this. First let's define the goal. ET contact of interest to us would include, in increasing order of desirability (but all fantastic!), any of (1) simple DETECTION of an ET civilization, regardless of whether or not they were technologically advanced; (2) RECEPTION of an ET signal, regardless of whether or not answering was practicable; or (3) two-way CONVERSATION. (If we received a signal we would probably try and answer it, but we would have no way of knowing whether it would be received unless the distances involved were very short. To prove conversation, we would have to receive a signal which recognizably referred to something we had previously sent.) Let's also assume that by "signal" we mean some kind of radiation, be it EM, neutrino, graviton or what have you. If something radically different pops up, SETI will presumably add it in but not abandon the old spectra. Now, in the lifetime of each planet there will be an epoch of some length (perhaps zero) wherein technological intelligence is present and capable of leaving an EM trace of some kind. (Assuming the inhabitants sustain a continuous interest in SETI soon after developing the capability, there will be a sub-epoch wherein part of the planet's EM trace is purposefully augmented and/or organized to encourage detection.) Since stars grow and die within the universe's lifetime, each such epoch is finite. Thus each intelligence bearing planet emits a spherical signal "shell" of finite thickness, expanding at lightspeed through the universe. The outer edge of each "shell" contains early radio experiments, then brightness increases (and the spectrum widens) farther into the shell, with ??? near the inner (terminal) edge. What we don't know is how many EM bubbles are out there "now" (this is the "magic number" of SETI), nor how thick they are (Sagan is no help on this at all -- how can he know? We just started our bubble), nor how many intersecting bubbles our system might presently lie in. This latter number is equal to how many civilations we COULD detect given the right equipment and techniques. I cannot accept, however, that all such bubbles must be vanishingly thin, or that only one (ours) exists. I hope and suppose that there are quite a few, and that many of them are thick. They may be rather tenuous though. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #317 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 8 Aug 88 05:46:55 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Mon, 8 Aug 88 04:35:46 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 8 Aug 88 04:35:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 8 Aug 88 04:13:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 8 Aug 88 04:05:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 8 Aug 88 04:04:43 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01923; Mon, 8 Aug 88 01:04:01 PDT id AA01923; Mon, 8 Aug 88 01:04:01 PDT Date: Mon, 8 Aug 88 01:04:01 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808080804.AA01923@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #318 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 318 Today's Topics: Re: Are these postings useful? Contractor selected for solid-fueled rocket motor bondline study (Forwarded) Re: Time skew -- does it hurt SETI? Re: Are these postings useful? Re: query about 'escape velocity' Re: query about 'escape velocity' Re: Solar Sails Re: Libertarian space policy Re: E stamp Re: Are these postings useful? orbital mechanics ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Jul 88 17:41:29 GMT From: pyrnj!dasys1!tneff@rutgers.edu (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Are these postings useful? In article <19880728032142.7.MAEDA@PELE.ACA.MCC.COM> maeda@MCC.COM (Christopher Maeda) writes: >You are sucking up a lot of bandwidth. Perhaps you could make them >available by FTP and just send a message about how to get it. Disagree! It's not a lot of bandwidth -- check the arbitron and uunet charts. And the s/n ratio is BEAUTIFUL -- all hard info. I love it. The only thing I could sincerely do without is "catching up" on 2+ month old AvWeek issues. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding) ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jul 88 02:21:58 GMT From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Contractor selected for solid-fueled rocket motor bondline study (Forwarded) James Cast Headquarters, Washington, D.C. July 29, 1988 Bob Lessels Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. RELEASE: 88-107 CONTRACTOR SELECTED FOR SOLID-FUELED ROCKET MOTOR BONDLINE STUDY NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., has selected Science Applications International Corp., San Diego, Calif., for final negotiations leading to the award of a contract to perform a study aimed at developing an engineering technology base to improve the bondlines of solid-fueled rocket motors. The value of the contract, including options, is expected to be approximately $21 million and will run for 2 years, with three 1-year options to extend. Bondline integrity is critical to the successful operation of solid-fueled rocket motors. Bondlines are the regions where the solid fuel is bonded to the motor's liner or insulation, which, in turn, is bonded to the motor case walls. These bonds prevent the hot combustion gases inside the motor from reaching the motor case wall, where the gases could burn through the wall and cause failure of the motor. The work is part of the agency's Solid Propulsion Integrity Program. The objective of the program is to increase the success rate of solid-fueled rocket motors by improving basic engineering capability in such areas as material characteristics, design analysis, fabrication and assembly processes and production evaluation and verification. The program originated from joint NASA-Department of Defense-industry studies which identified critical shortfalls in the U.S. engineering technology for solid-fueled rocket motors. In June, Hercules Aerospace Co., Magna, Utah, was selected as the contractor for the Solid Propulsion Integrity Program nozzle work packages. The two work packages represent NASA's contribution to the tripartite effort. NASA engineers managing the program expect to improve confidence in solid rocket motor launch systems by establishing urgently needed engineering tools, techniques and data bases specifically applicable to the current civil and military family of solid-fueled rocket motors. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jul 88 03:00:30 GMT From: mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) Subject: Re: Time skew -- does it hurt SETI? A point that hasn't been made: even if electromagnetic radiation is the last word in communication, why spray most of the power into empty space? I would think that advanced civilizations would probably use modulated lasers or some other point-to-point method of communicating. Not only would this save power, but it doesn't pollute the electromagnetic spectrum. That would make detection on earth a pretty low probability event --- we would have to me almost exactly in the right place at the right time to detect anything at all, and if we *did* it would probably be a brief, unrepeated message. -- Mike Coffin mike@arizona.edu Univ. of Ariz. Dept. of Comp. Sci. {allegra,cmcl2,ihnp4}!arizona!mike Tucson, AZ 85721 (602)621-4252 ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jul 88 06:40:31 GMT From: jplpub1!jbrown@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Jordan Brown) Subject: Re: Are these postings useful? In article <5813@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >The only thing I could sincerely do without is "catching up" on 2+ >month old AvWeek issues. Take heart, Henry - I think your AvWeek digests are one of the greatest things since the airplane... they're one of the few ways I keep in touch with what's happening in aviation & space technology & politics. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jul 88 15:29:41 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: query about 'escape velocity' >From article <3451@polya.Stanford.EDU>, by crew@polya.Stanford.EDU (Roger Crew): In article <1020@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu} mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu .. > velocity (in a direction away from the Earth!) Actually, it doesn't matter what direction you're pointed in, so long as there's nothing directly in your path that is going to slow you down (like an atmosphere or a swarm of rocks). . yes, I meant in any direction that does not intersect the Earth's surface. In arguments between the Earth and a spacecraft, the Earth tends to win, it has more momentum you know :-). Sorry, I should ave been more precise in my choice of phrase. Jonathan ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jul 88 15:18:01 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: query about 'escape velocity' >From article <1068@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU>, by wyatt@cfa.harvard.EDU (Bill Wyatt): > The above is correct except I think you have to emphasize that the > escape velocity varies with the square root of the distance from the > Earth's (or other gravity well's) center. Thus, if you have sufficient > thrust to move away from the Earth at 55 mph, I calculate that > somewhere in the vicinity of Jupiter's orbit you'll be at the escape > velocity of Earth. After that point, even stopping the thrust will not > let you fall back to Earth (assuming no perturbations, etc.), although > you'd presumeably orbit or fall into the Sun! Thanks for the clarification, Bill. You're quite right, at 9 AU ( about the orbit of Saturn) 55 mph is indeed escape velocity from Earth. But what happens if the thrust stops at that point? You're not travelling at 55 mph relative to the Sun.. Either: the problem implies one travels in a straight line with constant velocity relative to an inertial frame instantaneously fixed in the center of the Earth at the moment of takeoff (remember that at 55 mph the Earth has made 1700 revolutions of the Sun by the time you get to the point in question!) In this case one is no longer travelling at 55 mph relative to the Earth, but relative to where the Earth was. Or: You keep a constant 55 mph velocity relative to the center of the Earth at all times. This is very tricky as the Earth is accelerating around the Sun. In either case, you do not have the local orbital velocity relative to the Sun, you have the Earth's Keplerian orbital velocity. Since the escape velocity at a given point is root 2 times the orbital velocity, and both decrease with the root of the distance from the central mass, you just have to double your distance from the central mass while keeping the same velocity to achieve escape; so you have escape velocity relative to the Sun by the time you get to 2 AU. You're headed out into the Great Unknown. Of course, the point you make is that we shouldn't be trying to keep our velocity low anyway, since that's not what costs..it's only relative. The trick is to keep your energy requirements low, since that's what you pay for. Jonathan McDowell. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jul 88 14:09:31 CDT From: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Abrams) Posted-Date: Sun, 31 Jul 88 14:09:31 CDT Subject: Re: Solar Sails In V8 #306, Eric "TheBoo" Bazan (eric@shorty.cs.wisc.edu) writes: >My question is this: just how does the sun 'push' against the sail? Is it the >solar wind of charged particles (protons and electrons), or the actual >photonic flux, or both? Since the wave and particle paradigms for electromagnetic radiation are equivalent, you can certainly think of "material" photons bouncing off a sail film and, thereby, transferring momentum to the sail. However, I assume you want to view it from the wave perspective. With the propagation of electromagnetic radiation (light energy) there is a flow of energy. However, you've probably also heard that mass and energy are equivalent (E=mc^2). Therefore, you have a mass-equivalent entity traveling with a velocity...the product of mass and velocity is linear momentum. More mathematically, the "momentum density", g, is equal to a constant (the product of the permeability and permittivity of free space) times the "Poynting vector" (since we're in a vacuum). The Poynting vector is simply a vector defining the energy flow of the light (EM radiation). The value for this Poynting vector is just the solar constant you mention, 1.353 kW/m^2. The physical process is (loosely) that the photon is "absorbed" by an atom in the sail film. The energy is used to raise an electron's energy level. That electron then spontaneously decays thereby emitting another photon *with the same energy* as the original photon but in the opposite direction. In each process of absorption and re-emission, momentum is transferred in the same direction to the sail film. The energy of the photon doesn't change (a scalar quantity) and the magnitude of the velocity of the photon doesn't change *BUT* the direction changes. By Newton's Third Law (Action/Reaction), momentum is transferred to the sail from the photon. I realize that this won't satisfy purists, but it should be sufficient for someone with a poor physics background. Incidentally, the book Eric is probably referring to is _Starsailing_ by Louis Friedman. It is an excellent introductory, survey-type book on the subject. Does anyone know if a more technical, mathematically-oriented sequel is in the works? Ad Astra, Steve Abrams \ / --"You have twenty seconds to put down your slide rule...19...18...17..."-- / \ -- RoboDweeb 2721 Hemphill Park, Apt. C ARPANET: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu Austin, TX 78705 CompuServe: [70376,1025] (512)480-0895 OR c/o Students for the Exploration and Development of Space P.O. Box 7338, 358 Texas Union, University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78713-7883 (512)471-7097 ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jul 88 06:01:40 GMT From: tektronix!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Libertarian space policy In article <355@gronk.UUCP> johnl@gronk.UUCP (John Limpert) writes: WALL@BRANDEIS.BITNET (Matt) writes: <> If you would like to see an analagous situation, look at Antarctica. <> The goal of international control for the benefit of humankind was <> corrupted by attaching property "rights" to any sort of presence, in <> fact, specifically to 'scientific' presence. < In article <5813@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) defends the orbital elements summaries: > Disagree! It's not a lot of bandwidth -- check the arbitron and uunet charts. > And the s/n ratio is BEAUTIFUL -- all hard info. I love it. The only thing > I could sincerely do without is "catching up" on 2+ month old AvWeek issues. Disagree! Not only are Henry's summaries from Aviation Week and Space Technology useful to us non-subscribers, they stir up some informative debate. (And some real time wasters, but *no* posting is so pure that it can't be followed up by trash [PLEASE don't prove my point!!!]) > Tom Neff, UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff, CIS: 76556,2536, MCI: TNEFF > GEnie: TOMNEFF, BIX: t.neff (no kidding) -Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet psc@lznv.att.com I'm not speaking for my employer, I'm just speaking my mind. ------------------------------ Date: Mon 1 Aug 1988 10:32:11 EST From: Harold Mueller Subject: orbital mechanics To: munck@mitre-bedford.arpa Cc: space@angband.s1.gov I can recommend a couple of good books. Bate, R. R., D. D. Mueller, and J. E. White, "Fundamentals of Astrodynamics", Dover, 1971 is a good general overview. They go into computing position/velocity vector at a future time from a known position/velocity vector at some past time. It's available in paperback. Escobal, "Methods of Orbit Determination", 1965, 1985 Krieger Publishing Company, Inc., Krieger Drive, Malabar Florida 32950, ISBN 0-88275-319-3, $39.50 in April, has a couple of great appendices. Appendix I has transformation matrices between all the commonly used (and not commonly used) coordinate systems. This means you can, say, solve your motion problem in the plane of the orbit (pretty easy) and then transform it into the azimuth/elevation/range of an earth-based observer's POV, or into 3-d rectangular for off-world display. Appendix II is titled "A complete algorithm for two-body motion in space". I haven't tried the stuff in it, but the rest of the book is good so I assume this is as well. It's a skeletal flow chart with equations (not even refined to pseudocode yet), and handles the cases for circular/elliptic, parabolic, and hyperbolic orbits (all require different equations). You are attacking a non-trivial problem. Harold Mueller Bendix Field Engineering Corporation c/o Code 5360 Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375 (202) 767-3240/3356 AUTOVON 297-3240/3356 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #318 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 9 Aug 88 05:19:39 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Tue, 9 Aug 88 04:26:35 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 9 Aug 88 04:26:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 9 Aug 88 04:13:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 9 Aug 88 04:05:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Tue, 9 Aug 88 04:04:40 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03087; Tue, 9 Aug 88 01:04:44 PDT id AA03087; Tue, 9 Aug 88 01:04:44 PDT Date: Tue, 9 Aug 88 01:04:44 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808090804.AA03087@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #319 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 319 Today's Topics: Re: The Face on Mars New oxidizer plant Re: Skintight Space Suits Re: Libertarian space policy Re: What's New Re: Solar Sails Re: Are these postings useful? Re: Time skew -- does it hurt SETI? Re: Space Station Name chosen -- Fred Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft -- a reasonable compromise Re: Solar Sails ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Aug 88 15:27:13 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) Subject: Re: The Face on Mars >From article <8807291715.aa11350@note.note.nsf.gov>, by fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube): > World Weekly News cover story, August 9: > "Face On Mars Beams Warning to Earth" (with cover photo) > > Named are "Swiss astronomer Ludin Pasche" and "Dr Lars-Tvar > Carlsson, the noted Swedish astronomer". Neither of these names is listed in the International Astronomical Union membership directory dated February 1983 (the latest edition). -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Aug 88 12:23:52 CDT From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: New oxidizer plant THe following is from the Washington Post, 28 July 88, p.6: ROCKET FUEL PLANT WILL RELOCATE UPI - Salt Lake City, July 27 -- A Nevada chemical company whose rocket fuel plant was destroyed by an explosion May 4 will rebuild in southern Utah, officials announced today, saying that the move offers the best chance of speedy completion. Pacific Engineering and Production Co., or PEPCON, selected a site about 15 miles west of Cedar City over two Nevada sites considered for the $23 million plant, according to Fred Gibson, PEPCON chief executive officer, and general counsel Keith Rooker. "Selection of the Iron County site results from pressing national requirements for ammonium perchlorate," Rooker said in a joint news conference with Gov. Norm Bangerter at the state capitol. The Henderson, NV, plant was one of only two in the nation manufacturing ammonium perchlorate, which is crucial in all solid-fuel-propelled missiles and rockets, including space shuttle boosters. ***End of Article*** Comment --I suppose the distinction between "fuel" and "oxidizer" is too much to ask of the newspapers & wire services... WM ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Aug 88 13:04:17 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: Re: Skintight Space Suits X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@angband.s1.gov" >From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu >(Henry Spencer) >More generally, I find it really strange that people have to be told, over >and over again, that the skin-tight-spacesuit idea HAS BEEN TRIED in >vacuum chambers and IT WORKS. There seems to be an unlimited supply of >hypothetical problems that just don't exist in real life. I'm very interested in reading about actual data where it exists, rather than speculation. Where can I find papers on these vacuum chamber experiments? Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 88 16:10:17 GMT From: ecsvax!dgary@mcnc.org (D Gary Grady) Subject: Re: Libertarian space policy In article <978@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: >. . . (In case >you didn't know, the *real* reason that Britain and Argentina >went to war over the Falklands was that it looks like there may >be a major oilfield in the South Atlantic and the Falklands are the >nearest land. Own the Falklands and you own the oil..) Wrong newsgroup for this, but for the record such conspiracy theories rarely hold water on close examination. It's possible that the cojectured presence of an oil field was a consideration, but anyone familiar with the politics and history is unlikely to buy it as the main or "real" reason for the war. It's most likely that Argentina's military government invaded thinking the UK would not respond and hoping to bolster domestic support and get the public's mind off the lousy domestic situation with respect to human rights and the economy. Argentina has claimed the Falklands/Malvinas for decades, of course, long before anyone knew of the possibility of oil there. Britain's response was motivated by a mixture of pride and principle, as far as I can tell, even if you disagree with the principle in question. Initially, by the way, the Argentine government's move proved successful; there was a virtual orgy of patriotism in the wake of the invasion. After defeat, of course, things went rather to the other extreme, the rascals were thrown out, and many of them were put on trial. -- D Gary Grady (919) 286-4296 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary BITNET: dgary@ecsvax.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Aug 88 19:21:58 CDT From: kistler%Iowa.Iowa@romeo.caltech.edu (Allen C. Kistler) Subject: Re: What's New >From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) > >In article <506@etive.ed.ac.uk> bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (B Gray) writes: >}TSS-1 will deploy a satellite at the end of a 20km conducting >}wire with an insulating coating, upwards from the shuttle.... > >Wasn't there a proposal that this could be used as a low-thrust orbit >reboost? The current would flow through the wire, generating a magnetic >field which interacts with the earth's, and then back via ions in the >incomplete vacuum of LEO. In _Journal_of_Geophysical_Research_, vol. 70, p.p. 3131-3145, (1 July 1965) there is an article which addresses this, so the idea has been around for a while. Basically the idea is that as a conducting satellite moves across the magnetic field, the motionally induced electric field produces a current through it. This current drives the production of Alfven waves, a special kind of plasma wave for the non-EE, non-physicist folks out there. The energy for the wave comes from the motion of the satellite, so this represents a form of drag on the satellite. The neat thing is that if you apply a big enough voltage of your own across the satellite to MAKE the current go the OTHER way, then you get a little bit of boost out of it, rather than drag. This will never be more than 50% efficient since you'll still be sending some of the energy away as plasma waves. I don't know of any satellites that have ever actually used this method propulsion, so it may not be an especially practical method. Anyone else? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: UI isn't responsible for ANYBODY Allen Kistler kistler%iowasp.physics@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu Internet iowasp::kistler SPAN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 88 21:38:08 GMT From: grasp.cis.upenn.edu!ulrich@super.upenn.edu (Nathan Ulrich) Subject: Re: Solar Sails In article <8807311909.AA21830@doc.cc.utexas.edu> sedspace@DOC.CC.UTEXAS.EDU (Steve Abrams) writes: > The physical process is (loosely) that the photon is "absorbed" by an >atom in the sail film. The energy is used to raise an electron's energy level. >That electron then spontaneously decays thereby emitting another photon *with >the same energy* as the original photon but in the opposite direction. In each >process of absorption and re-emission, momentum is transferred in the same >direction to the sail film. The energy of the photon doesn't change (a scalar >quantity) and the magnitude of the velocity of the photon doesn't change *BUT* >the direction changes. By Newton's Third Law (Action/Reaction), momentum is >transferred to the sail from the photon. > > I realize that this won't satisfy purists, but it should be sufficient >for someone with a poor physics background. I don't know if I am a purist, but it won't satisfy me. One indisputable law of the universe, "You can't get something for nothing." Your explanation above will result in an increase in the total mass-energy of your system. The vector sum of the momentum of two spaceships moving at 10000 m/s in opposite directions is zero. This doesn't mean the energy is the same as two spaceships with "zero" velocity. Nathan Ulrich ulrich@grasp.cis.upenn.edu ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 88 16:00:40 GMT From: phri!cooper!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Are these postings useful? In article <7836@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> jbrown@jplpub1.UUCP (Jordan Brown) writes: >In article <5813@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >>The only thing I could sincerely do without is "catching up" on 2+ >>month old AvWeek issues. > >Take heart, Henry - I think your AvWeek digests are one of the greatest >things since the airplane... they're one of the few ways I keep in touch >with what's happening in aviation & space technology & politics. I did NOT mean to imply that Henry's work was unappreciated! I like the Avweek summaries too. But if he is behind, it would be worth it to skip forward a few so the digests are more timely. That's all I meant. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding) ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 88 15:47:55 GMT From: phri!cooper!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Time skew -- does it hurt SETI? In article <6489@megaron.arizona.edu> mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) writes: >A point that hasn't been made: even if electromagnetic radiation is >the last word in communication, why spray most of the power into empty >space? I would think that advanced civilizations would probably use >modulated lasers or some other point-to-point method of communicating. >Not only would this save power, but it doesn't pollute the >electromagnetic spectrum. That would make detection on earth a pretty >low probability event --- we would have to me almost exactly in the >right place at the right time to detect anything at all, and if we >*did* it would probably be a brief, unrepeated message. (1) You're talking about interplanetary communication channels dedicated to a civilization's own parochial purposes, not a beacon designed for detection by other civilizations. If we suppose that an advanced civilization would want to be seen, and have the resources to do it, I can think of nothing better than a big radio "lighthouse" broadcasting on you-know-what frequency, and presumably not interfering at all with the more sophisticated bands it uses for its own work. (2) If we did happen to catch one -- not impossible if many systems existed using this method, each linked to many other systems -- why would it be a "brief, repeated" message? I would imagine it would be a continuous Niagara of information, like tapping into SpaceLAN. A bigger problem is what to do if everyone is just beaming at what THEY think are the likely near systems, rather than "spraying" as you put it so that the distant long-shots can pick it up. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding) ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jul 88 18:02:23 GMT From: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!johng@uunet.uu.net (John Gregor) Subject: Re: Space Station Name chosen -- Fred >President Reagan last week named the NASA/International >space station "Freedom". ^^^ ^ Well, it's the closest thing to a compromise that I've ever seen from the U.S. Gov. ;-) -- John Gregor johng%ecrcvax.UUCP@pyramid.COM ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 88 18:57:11 GMT From: ihnp4!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Knudsen) Subject: Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft -- a reasonable compromise In article <8807291618.AA06003@angband.s1.gov>, wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes: > There is an obvious middle ground. This is not my original idea -- it has > been standard in SF for decades. You send a human brain, interfaced to the > mechanisms, and do not waste space and mass on all the gorp required to > support a full human body. Up until recently, that was just "pie in the > sky" wishful thinking, but, as researchers progress more and more on > viable interfaces for prosthetic devices and sensors, it becomes a > reasonable way to get human thinking ability integrated on a real-time > basis with automated deep-space probes. Carrying only the oxygen, > fluids, and nutrients to support the few pounds of brain tissue, and, > ideally, equipped with nanotechnology repair units to fix up radiation > damage and wearing-out biological elements, a human brain with a > spaceship body could not only explore the solar system and Oort cloud, > but reach the stars. The lifetime of this synergy could be centuries, > since all the non-neurological toxin-producing parts of the body would > be gone, and longer-lived and replaceable mechanical parts would provide > the support functions. > > Regards, Will Martin First let me say that I had fantasized stories based on doing this for people whose bodies were dying untimely deaths -- put their mind/soul into a spacecraft. The ultimate sports car, an extension of its driver. I like the concept, but it has lots of flaws-- (1) People, especially governments, will never buy it in our lifetime (too gruesome). The required advances (?) in ethics will take generations. (2) For foreseeable future, the equipment needed to synthesize and purify and pump the life-support chemicals (ie, blood and O2 etc.) is likely to be both bulkier and less reliable than a human body. [You could streamline ahuman body by amputating the arms and legs, if your volunteer was already a quadraplegic]. Seriously, we could probably do a lot more research into high-efficiency foodstuffs that eliminate the need for elimination or recycle efficiently. That is, use your proposed biochemical technology to synthesize foods in space for conventional people. (3) While many vital organs do fail on people prematurely (hearts, eyes, cancer), the brain has life limits too. Most elderly people are unable to learn new memories. Brain cells DO NOT divide and reproduce -- when they're gone, they're gone. So much for your centuries of lifespan. (4) Until we get warp drive or hyperspace, space travel is going to be pretty damn DULL 99.9% of the time, just waiting to get to the next thing worth seeing. Human brains do not like being deprived of new sensations for years and then suddenly being expected to deal with a planetary rendezvous. Granted, suspended animation (a la 2001) may be cheaper for just a brain than for a whole person. (5) Boredom, loneliness, uncertainty -- ever hear of this software bug called insanity? Don't put any weapons or too much plutonium fule on the first few ships... (6) What would be the legal rights of a person-ship? OK, they can build a newer vessel and move your brain into it. But what happens when the new crop of younger brains trained in newer methods starts taking over the plum exploratory missions, and you get relegated to dull but dangerous milk-runs where the beaurocrats secretly hope you'll buy the farm? A gold mine here for SF authors -- have they worked it yet? (Really, I'd like titles and authors for my own enjoyment.) A very early Frank Herbert (Destination: Void) novel hooked up three brains to a deep-space ship, but they all died from sensory overload, which personally I doubt. (7) My body has to be pretty bad before I'll consider giving it up. I mean racked with pain or totally useless. I wonder if the human psyche could really stay sane once divorced from its original body, even if the new one seemed to offer valid replacements of all functions and pleasures. I'll be looking (hoping?) for some refutations of the above. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 88 03:51:46 GMT From: agate!saturn!ucscb.UCSC.EDU!spcecdt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Space Cadet) Subject: Re: Solar Sails In article <5711@super.upenn.edu> ulrich@grasp.cis.upenn.edu.UUCP (Nathan Ulrich) writes: +In article <8807311909.AA21830@doc.cc.utexas.edu> sedspace@DOC.CC.UTEXAS.EDU (Steve Abrams) writes: +>The energy of the photon doesn't change (a scalar +>quantity) and the magnitude of the velocity of the photon doesn't change *BUT* +>the direction changes. By Newton's Third Law (Action/Reaction), momentum is +>transferred to the sail from the photon. + +I don't know if I am a purist, but it won't satisfy me. + +One indisputable law of the universe, "You can't get something for nothing." +Your explanation above will result in an increase in the total mass-energy +of your system. Surely the frequency of the photon as reflected from the sail will be lower than the original photon (thus it will have lower energy)? It sounds to me like there would be a double Doppler effect (once upon absorbtion, and once upen emmision). -- > John H. DuBois III # spcecdt@ucscb.ucsc.EDU ...!ucbvax!ucscc!ucscb!spcecdt < ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #319 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Aug 88 05:41:20 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Wed, 10 Aug 88 04:31:25 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 10 Aug 88 04:31:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 10 Aug 88 04:20:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 10 Aug 88 04:05:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 10 Aug 88 04:04:57 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04207; Wed, 10 Aug 88 01:04:39 PDT id AA04207; Wed, 10 Aug 88 01:04:39 PDT Date: Wed, 10 Aug 88 01:04:39 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808100804.AA04207@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #320 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 320 Today's Topics: Re: Solar Sails Re: Libertarian space policy Solar flares 20-year anniversary Satellites Re: Lithium cells Re: Space Station Name chosen -- Fred Re: E stamp RE: Solar Sails Re: Libertarian space policy Re: 20-year anniversary ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Aug 88 09:47:50 GMT From: polya!crew@labrea.stanford.edu (Roger Crew) Subject: Re: Solar Sails In <8807311909.AA21830@doc.cc.utexas.edu> sedspace (Steve Abrams) writes: > In V8 #306, Eric "TheBoo" Bazan (eric@shorty.cs.wisc.edu) writes: >> My question is this: just how does the sun 'push' against the sail? >> Is it the solar wind of charged particles (protons and electrons), >> or the actual photonic flux, or both? > > Since the wave and particle paradigms for electromagnetic radiation are > equivalent, you can certainly think of "material" photons bouncing off a sail > film and, thereby, transferring momentum to the sail. However, I assume you > want to view it from the wave perspective. > > [...stuff about photons ...] Look, if you want to view it from the wave perspective, you're supposed to forget you ever heard the word ``photon.'' An electromagnetic wave in a vacuum consists of an electric field and a magnetic field oscillating perpendicularly to one another, both perpendicular to the direction of motion. So consider what happens if you have a single charged particle sitting off in the middle of nowhere when an EM wave hits it: Let's just put a positron (+ charge so that we don't get too messed up by sign changes) in the middle of your terminal screen and have the wave be moving into the screen. Just to keep things simple let's have the wave be polarized so that the electric field (E) is oscillating up and down. By itself, the electric field causes the positron to vibrate up and down. As with any simple harmonic oscillator the force will be 180 degrees out of phase with the displacement; the positron reaches its lowest point just when the electric field is at its strongest pointing upward (thus pushing the particle back up...) and vice versa. Note that the velocity of the particle is 90 degrees ahead of the dislacement. No problem so far, but now we've also got a magnetic field (B) as well which will be oscillating left to right. Recall that the magnetic field is generated by the changing electric field (Maxwell's version of Ampere's Law) [B ~ dE/dt] --- and vice versa (Faraday's Law E ~ -dB/dt), after all, this is how we get an electromagnetic wave in the first place --- and will thus be 90 degrees ahead of the electric field. After lots of exercises with your right thumb and index finger, you'll get that whenever the positron is moving upwards (electric field changing downwards), the magnetic field points to the right, and whenever the positron is moving downwards, the magnetic field is to the left. Thus, at all times, the magnetic force on the particle q(v x B) is pointed into the screen. If the particle were an electron, the magnetic force would be reversed, but we also have that it would be vibrating in the opposite direction --- still ends up being pushed into the screen. To first order, this is what's happening. But it's not the whole story. Whenever a charged particle accelerates, it radiates a wave of its own. Part of this wave heads into the screen, cancelling out a part of the original wave headed in that direction. The other part heads out of the screen back towards your face. Thus, energy has been taken out of the original wave; some of it goes to the particle, the rest gets reflected back. If you consider the waves to have momentum inversely proportional to the wavelength, it turns out that momentum is conserved as well. Note that this is a completely classical explanation; at no point have we drawn on anything from quantum mechanics. -- Roger Crew ``Beam Wesley into the sun!'' Usenet: {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!crew Internet: crew@polya.Stanford.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 88 04:51:39 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Libertarian space policy In article <978@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: >Note that Argentina has *already* started claiming *soveriegnty >over it's portion of Antartica... Claims of sovereignty over parts of Antarctica are nothing new; I don't believe it has *ever* been the case that *all* interested parties were willing to renounce them completely. Just because the superpowers have renounced them does not mean everybody has. (In fact, this is the sort of assumption that really irritates citizens of non-superpower nations.) However, the big powers *have* played a key role in keeping those claims in the realm of unimportant legal fiction. When the US and the USSR ignore your claims and violate them regularly, nobody else is likely to take them seriously either. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 88 02:17:17 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Solar flares To: eos%spacvax.rice.edu@rice.edu Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: "Pat Reiff" > ... the great flare of August 2, 1982 ... the Apollo program was > still going on at that time ... Are you sure you don't mean 1972? ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 88 01:10:02 GMT From: tektronix!teklds!mrloog!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-101;) Subject: 20-year anniversary Next year will be the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11 and I'm sure that everyone would like to celebrate it. It never hurts to be prepared in advance, so lets start to kick ideas around. My idea is that they launch Discovery on or before July 20, 1989, even if its faucets do leak. Any others? --- Dan Tilque -- dant@twaddl.LA.TEK.COM ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 88 22:45:37 GMT From: unccvax!nrk@mcnc.org (Nitin R Kulkarni) Subject: Satellites Hello, fellow-netters. I am a newcomer to this group. Can anybody in net-world give me the following information : 1. How many satellites has the US and the USSR launched into deep space ? 2. Their probable location in our solar system as of today. 3. The dates when they were launched. Thanks in advance. Nitin. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ UUCP : nrk@unccvax.UUCP ARPA : nrk%unccvax@mcnc.org ****** Is it clean in other dimensions ? ****** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 88 02:14:51 GMT From: killer!tness7!tness1!nuchat!splut!jay@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) Subject: Re: Lithium cells In article <880729-124705-5997@Xerox> "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@XEROX.COM writes: >Some reported explosions of lithium cells are due not to short-circuiting but to >application of AC. >[...] >Since in the astronautics application no high-voltage AC will be present in the >circuit, there appears to be no risk of such violent explosions. Assessment of >the outgas hazard is clearly in the hands of experts. Uhm...not quite. Main power on the space station is specified as 220 VAC at 20 kHz. This, of course, makes power supplies efficient (since, in essence, they're giving you the front half of a switching power supply), but can indeed generate AC across a lithium battery in the manner described. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC...>splut!< | Never ascribe to malice that which can uucp: uunet!nuchat! | adequately be explained by stupidity. hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- {killer,bellcore}!tness1! | Birthright Party '88: let's get spaced! ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 88 08:33:11 GMT From: mcvax!enea!liuida!yngla@uunet.uu.net (Yngve Larsson) Subject: Re: Space Station Name chosen -- Fred In article <605@ecrcvax.UUCP> johng@ecrcvax.UUCP (John Gregor) writes: >>space station "Freedom". > ^^^ ^ Well, coincindence of coincidences; The strange fact is that "Fred" is the Swedish word for "Peace". How nice of you to (sort of) honor Mir in this way.. :-) > >John Gregor johng%ecrcvax.UUCP@pyramid.COM -- Yngve Larsson UUCP: ...mcvax!enea!liuida!yla Dept of CIS Internet: yla@ida.liu.se Linkoping University, Sweden Phone: +46-13-281949 ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 88 19:15:32 GMT From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rogers@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Craig Milo Rogers; FAST) Subject: Re: E stamp Since the center of illumination lies over Siberia, and the orange bands in the background might have the correct elevation for orbital platforms, perhaps the E stamp depicts SDI deployment. What a subtle method to subliminally influence the US voting public! This, too, would explain why the stamp is limited to "domestic" use; wouldn't want too many Soviets or Europeans getting the wrong ideas through repeated exposure to these stamps. Craig Milo Rogers ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 88 12:20:22 CDT From: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Abrams) Posted-Date: Wed, 3 Aug 88 12:20:22 CDT Subject: RE: Solar Sails In V8 #312, Alan Bostick replies to a simple question (FLAME ON) in his ubiquitously obnoxious and condescending manner intended, not so much to answer the question or enlighten the questioner, as to impress us with his virtuosity in physics. However, as a former professor of mine used to say, "If you can't answer a physics question in words, *without resorting to formulae*, then you don't understand the topic well enough. (FLAME OFF) Now, the original poster asked and Alan responded: >In article <10922@oberon.USC.EDU> robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve) writes: >>If the light bounces off the sail, how does it impart momentum. What >>energy of the photon is now reduced? I think the photons must be >>ABSORBED by the sail for this to work. > >Well, you're wrong. However, Alan (in his response) implicitly agreed that the momentum trasnfer *does* occur when the photon *is* absorbed by the sail film... >The photon bounces off of the mirror and is reflected in >accordance with the laws of reflection. Well, Alan, you kinda' glossed over the mechanism of momentum transfer by the "in accordance with the laws of reflection" phrase. Let's look at exactly what happens when the photon is "reflected." In an "ideal" reflective surface, the incident photon is *temporarily* absorbed by the electrons (at some equilibrium energy level dictated by thermal effects and its "nearest neighbor" electrons) in the surface of the sail (look up "classical skin depth" and "anomalous skin effects"). An electron absorbing a photon increases its energy level. The photon's momentum is transmitted, via interaction with the electron's potential "barrier," to the metallic lattice of atoms of the sail film. In addition, the electron with the higher energy level is unstable and perturbations induced by the "re-bound" of the potential barrier cause it to decay to its original energy level thereby emitting a photon with the original energy *but* in a direction of "least opposition" (i.e. back towards the surface and not further into the film; this new photon's polarization is also reversed from the original's) thereby imparting more momentum because of the change in direction; of course, in a *real* reflective surface, the electron decays to a higher energy level and the re-emitted photon has less energy than the original. Occasionally, some "higher energy" electrons are more stable in their new configuration and survive the "re-bound." These photons are the ones we call "absorbed." Also, since skin depths for most metals are for the same order of magnitude as the thicknesses of sail films and thin films are close (within a couple of orders of magnitude) in thickness to the wavelengths of the radiation incident, some photons make it all the way through and are "transmitted." BOTTOM LINE: For the ideal sail films you were discussing, *all* incident photons *are* absorbed, transmit a "unit" of momentum, and are re-emitted (transmitting another "unit" of momentum). FLAME RE-IGNITED: See, Alan, it can be explained without the tedium of working through ASCII equations and in a manner that conveys the *physics* of the topic and not just the math. So, >Next time, think for a minute before shooting off your mouth... FLAME RE-DOUSED I've been wondering if anyone has looked into the possibility of using thin, conducting polymer films rather than metallic films for sail films. I know that polymers were once used for backing for a metallic film and dropped to improve the thrust to mass ratio. Can thin films be polymerized to appropriate thicknesses? If so, the doping to make them electrically conducting (and reflective) can be done rather easily. The electrical conduction mechanisms are different in these polymers from metals so, presumably, are the reflections mechanisms. With metals, you must consider specular, diffuse, and back reflectances. Anyone know if all of these apply to the reflection mechanism of conducting polymers? Are there any different ones? Ad Astra, Steve Abrams \ / --"You have twenty seconds to put down your slide rule...19...18...17..."-- / \ -- RoboDweeb 2721 Hemphill Park, Apt. C ARPANET: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu Austin, TX 78705 CompuServe: [70376,1025] (512)480-0895 OR c/o Students for the Exploration and Development of Space P.O. Box 7338, 358 Texas Union, University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78713-7883 (512)471-7097 ------------------------------ Sender: "James J. Lippard" Date: Wed, 3 Aug 88 10:49 MST From: "James J. Lippard" Subject: Re: Libertarian space policy Reply-To: Lippard@bco-multics.arpa To: WALL%BRANDEIS.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov >Date: Mon, 25 Jul 88 15:05 EDT >From: (Matt) > I can hardly wait to see the outer space equivalent of Love Canal and > Manville asbestos. Ah yes, Love Canal--where the government used its power of eminent domain to take a Hooker Chemical dump site and build a school on it despite Hooker's warnings against it. Jim Lippard Lippard at BCO-MULTICS.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 88 21:58:52 GMT From: jec@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (James E. Conley) Subject: Re: 20-year anniversary In article <2087@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> konath@silver.UUCP (kannan) writes: >In article <3763@teklds.TEK.COM> dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes: > >; Thu, 11 Aug 88 11:06:07 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 11 Aug 88 11:06:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 11 Aug 88 11:01:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 11 Aug 88 04:05:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Thu, 11 Aug 88 04:04:35 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05342; Thu, 11 Aug 88 01:04:37 PDT id AA05342; Thu, 11 Aug 88 01:04:37 PDT Date: Thu, 11 Aug 88 01:04:37 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808110804.AA05342@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #321 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 321 Today's Topics: Re: 20-year anniversary Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft Cheap way out of the galaxy!? Re: Satellites Re: Space Station Name chosen -- Fred Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) Re: Automated vs. personned spacecr Space Shuttle fuel leaks Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft Large Amateur Telescope project Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft Re: 20-year anniversary ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Aug 88 21:39:06 GMT From: silver!konath@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (kannan) Subject: Re: 20-year anniversary In article <3763@teklds.TEK.COM> dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes: Dan Tilque -- dant@twaddl.LA.TEK.COM Kannan konath@silver.bacs.indiana.edu ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 88 20:46:00 GMT From: linus!necntc!primerd!hobbiton!choinski@husc6.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft [Lines, lines everywhere and not a bit to eat...] On ships with human brains for pilots... >A gold mine here for SF authors -- have they worked it yet? >(Really, I'd like titles and authors for my own enjoyment.) Try _The Ship who Sang_ by Anne McCaffery. Very nice book dealing with the subject. =============================================================================== Burton Choinski Prime Computer Inc. At: choinski@env.prime.com Framingham, Ma. 01701 ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 88 00:13:32 GMT From: lim@csvax.caltech.edu (Tat Lim) Subject: Cheap way out of the galaxy!? Seen in Aviation Week & Space Technology, 7/25/88, page 51: "During one-sixth of a polar orbit, a satellite is exposed to intergalactic space." -- Kian-Tat Lim ktl@wagvax.caltech.edu, ktl@citchem.BITNET, GEnie: K.LIM1 ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 88 20:39:51 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Satellites In article <1059@unccvax.UUCP>, nrk@unccvax.UUCP (Nitin R Kulkarni) writes: > > 1. How many satellites has the US and the USSR launched into > deep space ? > 2. Their probable location in our solar system as of today. > 3. The dates when they were launched. Do you count solar orbit as deep space? If that's OK, then: All the following are solar orbiting, unless otherwise noted. The box scores are as follows: USSR 19 US 16 Japan 2 ESA 1 __________ 38 The data I've got only goes through 1987, but the '88 efforts are recent history. The full list follows... Pioneer 4 3/3/59 US solar orbit Pioneer 5 3/11/60 US " " Venera 1 2/12/61 USSR Ranger 3 1/26/62 US (missed moon...) Ranger 5 10/18/62 US (missed moon...) Mars 1 11/1/62 USSR (lost earth lock 65.9M miles) Mariner 3 11/5/64 US Mariner 4 11/28/64 US Zond 2 11/30/64 USSR (Mars probe) Luna 6 6/8/65 USSR (Lunar soft lander missed moon) Venera 2 11/12/65 USSR (passed Venus, no data) Pioneer 6 12/16/65 US (still returning good data) Pioneer 7 8/16/66 US (still active) Pioneer 8 12/13/67 US (still active) Mars 4 7/21/73 USSR (missed Mars orbit) Mars 5 7/25/73 USSR (orbiting Mars) Mars 6 8/5/73 USSR (Mars lander failed) Mars 7 7/21/73 USSR (Mars lander failed) Venera 9 6/8/75 USSR (orbiting Venus) Venera 10 6/14/75 USSR (orbiting Venus) Viking 1 8/2075 US (orbiting Mars {except lander}) Viking 2 10/9/75 US ( ditto ) Helios 2 1/15/76 US Voyager 2 8/20/77 US (solar system escape, en route Neptune) Voyager 1 9/5/77 US (likely solar system escapee) Pioneer 12 5/20/78 US (orbiter portion orbiting Venus) Pioneer 13 8/8/78 US (5 payloads hit Venus, rest solar) Venera 11 9/9/78 USSR (all but lander in solar orbit) Venera 12 9/14/78 USSR ( ditto ) Venera 13 10/30/81 USSR ( ditto ) Venera 14 11/4/81 USSR ( ditto ) Venera 15 6/2/83 USSR ( ditto ) Venera 16 6/7/83 USSR ( and again ) Vega 1 12/15/84 USSR (Venus/Halley mission) Vega 2 12/21/84 USSR ( " ) Sakigake 1/7/85 Japan ( Halley mission) Giotto 2/7/85 ESA ( " ) Suisei 9/18/85 Japan ( " ) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 88 17:55:34 GMT From: ruffwork@cs.orst.edu (Ritchey Ruff) Subject: Re: Space Station Name chosen -- Fred In article <852@prefix.liu.se> yngla@prefix.liu.se (Yngve Larsson) writes: >In article <605@ecrcvax.UUCP> johng@ecrcvax.UUCP (John Gregor) writes: >>>space station "Freedom". >> ^^^ ^ >Well, coincindence of coincidences; The strange fact is that "Fred" is the >Swedish word for "Peace". How nice of you to (sort of) honor Mir in this >way.. :-) And I thought the space station was named after someone named "Fred Om" and it was just that Ronnie couldn't spell... yea, yea...space station "Fred Om", or "Fred" for short... --ritchey ruff ruffwork@cs.orst.edu -or- ...!tektronix!orstcs!ruffwork ps-John G, say hi to john S... ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 88 04:36:23 GMT From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) Subject: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) In article <629@splut.UUCP> jay@splut.UUCP (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >Main power on the space station is specified as 220 VAC at 20 kHz. > >This, of course, makes power supplies efficient (since, in essence, >they're giving you the front half of a switching power supply), [. . .] Isn't this going to cause considerable inefficiency of power transmission due to radiative losses, which go up with increasing frequency (I don't remember the exact relation, but it's linear or worse)? Also, this is going to make it impossible to operate induction motors (unless you want them to go VERY fast) without using electronic conversion of the power to get the frequency down. (I said something about this before, but I think my posting got hosed.) -- Lucius Chiaraviglio chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu lucius@tardis.harvard.edu (in case the first one doesn't work) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 88 13:31:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk!william@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Automated vs. personned spacecr In article <8807291618.AA06003@angband.s1.gov> wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes: >Hmmm... if those of us who >get into this line of work write our contracts right, we'll probably end >up owning the planet in a couple centuries, with compound interest on >the back pay piling up while we're off to the stars... Yep, the theory is fine - all you need is the technology. I suspect this is built on the "I've done all the difficult creative work, now you guys can go and work on the details" management process. However, I would be vastly surprised if a free-floating brain has any legal rights like this. Can a single human organ own a contract? After all, you wouldn't want to go in for your body amputation and then find that the people running the program could wriggle out of their commitments. You wouldn't even be able to storm into their offices, unless you're considering developing the future of law enforcement. ... Bill ************************************************************************ Bill Witts, CS Dept. * UCL, London, Errrp * Don't believe everything you hear, william@uk.ac.ucl.cs(UK) * or anything you say. william@cs.ucl.ac.uk(US) *********************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu 4 Aug 1988 13:27:56 EST From: Harold Mueller Subject: Space Shuttle fuel leaks How do you find a leak in a hydrogen line? Hydraulic fluid would be easy to spot oozing out, but liquid hydrogen would vaporize. I don't suppose it would be such a great idea to traverse the line with a lit match. Harold Mueller Bendix Field Engineering Corporation c/o Code 5360 Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375 (202) 767-3240/3356 AUTOVON 297-3240/3356 ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 88 12:15:50 GMT From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org (James Symon) Subject: Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft In article <45900001@hobbiton>, choinski@hobbiton.prime.com writes: > On ships with human brains for pilots... > >A gold mine here for SF authors -- have they worked it yet? > >(Really, I'd like titles and authors for my own enjoyment.) > > Try _The Ship who Sang_ by Anne McCaffery. Very nice book dealing with > the subject. > Somebody had cat brains for pilots, quicker reflexes. (Actually, working in tandem with human pilots, as I remember) Jim ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 88 00:16:40 GMT From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpscdc!jackz@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Jack Zeiders) Subject: Large Amateur Telescope project Large Amateur Telescope A group of Northern California amateur astronomers are getting together to put a bid on a large piece of glass 70"dia. x 8" thk. We are basically the same group that built the 30" telescope at the Fremont Peak Observatory. Now the opportunity has presented itself to build a larger instrument, a 70". A 70" f4 or so Newtonian with a cass and Coude' focus. An altaz fork is planned with computer control. Battleship technology is the watchword for tube and fork design. The group is forming now and if you have strong interest in contributing, let us know what you can help with. Right now we are looking for people willing to contribute cash to finance the glass. We have about eight to ten who want to see this scope become reality enough to contribute $1k each. We are looking for other crazies who want to join us. Most of us can't really afford to, but we want this badly enough to put our money up. We are not a rip-off and this is not a scam. We don't want cash in advance. We are looking for real people who can be relied on to help make a dream reality. We need about $25-30k to put a serious offer in for the glass. Glass this size is not easy to come by, and this opportunity is too good to pass up. The idea is that if we can get the glass, we can make the machines and the mirror. Once that is under way we can start on the tube and mounting. When the scope is well under way we will start looking for a site and designing a building. When you have something real to show people will take your dream seriously. As the project matures we will need more crazies who may not have monetary resources, but expertise in other areas. But the people must be active contributers not drones. I apologize if this offends anyone but this is the way it must be. For further info contact: Kevin Medlock (415) 784-0391 or me Jack Zeiders !hplabs!hpscdc!jackz (408) 281-0220 evenings to 10PM or leave msg. There are 13 of us as of 8-2-88 Standard disclaimers apply, If you have no interest or are offended please disreguard this message. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 88 13:57:07 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft All this disgusting, hard-to-support, short-lived ORGANICS! YECH! Lets move the MIND to the space craft, not the brain. You are welcome, A. C. Clarke. AI guys, go to it. Not just an "intelligence", but MINE! (maybe with a few callable subroutines.....) Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 88 00:23:31 GMT From: tektronix!teklds!mrloog!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-101;) Subject: Re: 20-year anniversary In article <11289@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> jec@iuvax.UUCP (James E. Conley) writes: >>In article <3763@teklds.TEK.COM> dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes: >>>>> >>> >I would hope that NASA would cancel the launch if there we any unreasonable ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >possibility of failure. Last thing we need to be remindered is how twenty >years ago we would put men on the moon, and now all we can do is scatter >them over the Atlantic Ocean. Perhaps you mean "reasonable". But then since you seem to agree with the current NASA administration, perhaps you do mean "unreasonable". This is not a flame just at you, there were several others who expressed similar sentiments. My purpose in posting the original article was two-fold. One was that it's now a good time to start thinking about a 20-year celebration. I think it's unfortunate that we don't have some major new project ready to go (or already underway) at that time. (How many of you would have predicted the current state of the U.S. space effort 20 years ago?) My other purpose was to indicate that at the rate the Discovery testing is going, they won't launch before the end of the century. Every day I open the newspaper and read about a new leak setting the launch back another week or so. It seems like NASA is trying for a Perfect launch; something which anyone with common sense will tell you is virtually impossible. After all, there's always the "unreasonable" possibility of it being hit by a meteor on its way up. Anyway, many of the delays are caused by things which would not have caused delays in pre-Challenger launches. I'm not saying that they should ignore every one of them, but their hyper-cautiousness is becoming ridiculous. --- Dan Tilque -- dant@twaddl.LA.TEK.COM P.S. It occurred to me after I wrote this that maybe there's an SDI test scheduled next July. Then we could claim that the test is our celebration. I can't think of anything more reflective of our current space effort than to blow up a satellite. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #321 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Aug 88 00:04:46 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Fri, 12 Aug 88 22:22:27 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Fri, 12 Aug 88 22:22:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 12 Aug 88 22:05:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 12 Aug 88 21:53:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Fri, 12 Aug 88 21:41:55 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06375; Fri, 12 Aug 88 01:04:42 PDT id AA06375; Fri, 12 Aug 88 01:04:42 PDT Date: Fri, 12 Aug 88 01:04:42 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808120804.AA06375@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #322 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 322 Today's Topics: Re: Space Cities Re: Satellites Re: Satellites Re: Libertarian space policy Re: Space Station Name chosen -- Fred Orbital Data and Observation Relay Satellite Re: E stamp Re: What's New Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft -- a reasonable compromise Re: Satellites Re: Solar Sails Re: Satellites Re: Satellites ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Aug 88 21:46:04 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Re: Space Cities To: Peter.J..Forsling%IOWA.PHYSICS.UIOWA.EDU@uunet.uu.net Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov > From: Peter.J..Forsling@IOWA.PHYSICS.UIOWA.EDU Why don't you get an address that the rest of the world has heard of and can reply to? >> People might come to prefer weightlessness. > Sure. Who needs all that calcium, anyway. And surely nobody cares > about being able to taste their food. Ask the Russians. Doesn't seem to bother them. >> Too fast! That will give you about 3 Gs. Rats. I thought I had killed that one and re-sent it without that line. I was calculating in feet and thinking in meters. Did two copies show up? >> You'd better have good radiation shielding. > Do you really think you're such a genius that nobody else thought of > that? If you had bothered to read any of the three references ... There is no need to be rude. I did not know whether the person asking the question knew of this, so I thought I should mention it. > I hope that in the future, you will bother to read some references > and check your calculations before you waste the time of those on > the net who know better, and mislead those who don't. I hope in the future you will be more polite. That one line was the only error in my posting, and had I known it had gone out, I would have asked Ted Anderson to pull it. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 88 00:52:56 GMT From: tektronix!teklds!mrloog!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-101;) Subject: Re: Satellites In article <62689@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >The full list follows... Most deleted > >Pioneer 8 12/13/67 US (still active) You forgot Mariners 9 and 10 which were launched somewhere in between these two, if memory serves me correctly (reference works at home). Mariner 9 is still orbiting Mars but ran out of attitude fuel. Mariner 10 is still orbiting the Sun at roughly Mercury's orbit. >Mars 4 7/21/73 USSR (missed Mars orbit) --- Dan Tilque -- dant@twaddl.LA.TEK.COM ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 88 01:17:12 GMT From: tektronix!teklds!mrloog!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-101;) Subject: Re: Satellites In article <3772@teklds.TEK.COM> dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes: >In article <62689@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >>The full list follows... > > >You forgot Mariners 9 and 10 ... >Mariner 9 is still orbiting Mars but ran out of attitude fuel. Mariner 10 >is still orbiting the Sun at roughly Mercury's orbit. After posting the above, I went back and reread the list. It seems it was also missing Pioneers 10 and 11. They are currently on their way out of the Solar System and should reach the heliopause any year now. Still active, as far as I know. How can any list of space probes be complete without the above four. Each of them achieved a very important first in the history of space exploration. The discoveries made by each of them are too numerous to mention. Mariner 9 First orbit of another planet Mariner 10 First flyby of Mercury (only probe to flyby Mercury, which it did 3 times.) Pioneer 10 First flyby of Jupiter, first to achieve solar escape velocity. Pioneer 11 First flyby of Saturn --- Dan Tilque -- dant@twaddl.LA.TEK.COM ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 88 16:18:27 GMT From: uop!todd@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu ( Todd/Dr. Nethack ) Subject: Re: Libertarian space policy In article <5499@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, dgary@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (D Gary Grady) writes: > In article <978@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: > >(In case you didn't know, the *real* reason that Britain and Argentina > >went to war over the Falklands was that it looks like there may > >be a major oilfield in the South Atlantic and the Falklands are the > >nearest land. Own the Falklands and you own the oil..) > Wrong newsgroup for this, but for the record such conspiracy theories > rarely hold water on close examination. Actually, if you look at the geology of the area, there is a high degree of probability that there is a large oil mass there. If you think money is not reason enough for war, you must be from another planet. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 88 19:59:54 GMT From: uop!todd@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu ( Todd/Dr. Nethack ) Subject: Re: Space Station Name chosen -- Fred In article <5887@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU>, ruffwork@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU (Ritchey Ruff) writes: > In article <852@prefix.liu.se> yngla@prefix.liu.se (Yngve Larsson) writes: > >In article <605@ecrcvax.UUCP> johng@ecrcvax.UUCP (John Gregor) writes: > >>>space station "Freedom". > >> ^^^ ^ > yea, yea...space station "Fred Om", or "Fred" for short... I hate to break it to you.. but they were toying with all sorts of names before fred.. they were going to try "Barney" but fred was chosen instead. The "Fred-Om" was from a suggestion by Eddie "Superfrog" Caplan. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 88 21:25:13 GMT From: uop!todd@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu ( Todd/Dr. Nethack ) Subject: Orbital Data and Observation Relay Satellite Not to be absurd.. (the title was to be abit funny, but this is a valid concern .. I hope) In watching the re-run of NOVA's "Death of a Star".. it occured to me that a network of satellites capable of swapping telemetry and digitized phone and visual communications would be a good thing to have towards better connectivity with remote sites. They could be accessed from earth stations using small dishes (comparitively). I am sure someone is working on something like this.. someplace.. But I could not help feeling abit primitive that the discovery of the super- nova, could not be relayed in a more rapid way. I thought of things I could have done.. amatuer radio, or an AMSAT hookup.. why not a joint .edu or .arpa project to fund a group of connects that can swap pictures, images, telephone, etc.. That belongs to the .edu community at large? I don't think they should be "public access".. but in a sense, it would be nice if a flash net could be established to facilitate info throughput from the more remote regions.. --just an idea! --- ARPA cogent!uop!todd@lll-winken.arpa Or something like that BITNET ucdavis!uop!todd@ucbvax.BITNET anyway... UUCP ucbvax!ucdavis!uop!todd UUNET uop!todd@uunet.uu.net ..this account soon to be gone... ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 88 22:16:50 GMT From: ncspm!jay@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Jay C. Smith) Subject: Re: E stamp The "E" stamp was done by Robert McCall, a noted space artist who has designed almost every space stamp since the Moon Landing one from 1969. BTW, that one showed the Earth just above the horizon in the background, when it actually wasn't in that position. He knew that, and he probably realizes that the "E" stamp shows Earth inaccurately. It's called artistic license. Robert McCall is also well-known for his pre-production paintings for "2001: A Space Odyssey" and the giant space mural in the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum. Oh, yes, and the "E" stamp is "domestic use only" because non-denominated stamps aren't valid for international postage (excepting special waivers Canada routinely grants). -- "The duality of man. The Jungian thing, sir." --------------------------------------------------------------------- Jay C. Smith uucp: ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 88 14:54:38 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: What's New In article <880801192112.20e0154a@Iowa> kistler%Iowa.Iowa@ROMEO.CALTECH.EDU (Allen C. Kistler) writes: >... the idea has been around for a while... Yes, and some of the recent work on tethers has increased interest in it. One cute idea that's been suggested is based on the reversibility of the technique: use the tether for propulsion while you are in sunlight, and for power while you're in Earth's shadow. This combines orbit maintenance (assuming adequate power in sunlight) with energy storage. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 88 14:44:03 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft -- a reasonable compromise In article <6060@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: >(3) While many vital organs do fail on people prematurely >(hearts, eyes, cancer), the brain has life limits too. ... >Brain cells DO NOT divide and reproduce -- when they're gone, >they're gone... Actually, recent research has shown that brain neurons *do* divide and reproduce in some species of birds. It's not clear yet whether it happens in mammals. In other words, this particular dogma is being re-examined of late, and there may be some surprises. If the things can reproduce in adults, it's not inconceivable that there might be some way to encourage them to do so when necessary. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 88 01:24:00 GMT From: unmvax!charon!geinah.unm.edu!ee2131ac@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (SEDS-UNM) Subject: Re: Satellites Here's the address to use when requesting the Satellite Situation Report: NASA Office of Public Affairs Code 502 Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD 20771 -Ollie ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 88 21:54:59 GMT From: attcan!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!mcdchg!ddsw1!igloo!bhv@uunet.uu.net (Bronis Vidugiris) Subject: Re: Solar Sails I think doppler shift (which was ingored for simplicity in the referenced posting, but mentioned in other postings on this topic), would keep the energy of the universe constant. Picking an inertial frame stationary relative to the sun, as soon as the sail starts to move the light that is emitted will be red shifted, lowering it's energy. A sail that is held stationary will not cause red shift, but, of course, will not have any work performed on it either. A decelerating sail will cause blue shift, but then it is in fact loosing energy. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 88 20:38:55 GMT From: unmvax!charon!geinah.unm.edu!ee2131ac@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (SEDS-UNM) Subject: Re: Satellites The NASA Satellite Situation Report is handy for looking up the current status of almost every sat ever launched from all countries. This free listing may be obtained from the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD. Sorry, no address handy at the moment. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 88 13:58:38 GMT From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Satellites In article <62689@sun.uucp>, fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: }Pioneer 6 12/16/65 US (still returning good data) }Pioneer 7 8/16/66 US (still active) }Pioneer 8 12/13/67 US (still active) Talk about outliving their expected lifetimes! I didn't know anything older than Pioneer 10 was still active out there. BTW, Pioneers 10 and 11 were missing from the list. -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school) ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31 Disclaimer? I |Ducharm's Axiom: If you view your problem closely enough claimed something?| you will recognize yourself as part of the problem. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #322 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Aug 88 07:22:37 EDT Received: by PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU (5.54/3.15) id ; Sat, 13 Aug 88 06:05:08 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat, 13 Aug 88 06:05:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 13 Aug 88 05:45:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 13 Aug 88 05:34:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 13 Aug 88 04:07:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 13 Aug 88 04:06:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ANDREW.CMU.EDU (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sat, 13 Aug 88 04:05:26 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07626; Sat, 13 Aug 88 01:04:50 PDT id AA07626; Sat, 13 Aug 88 01:04:50 PDT Date: Sat, 13 Aug 88 01:04:50 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808130804.AA07626@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #323 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 323 Today's Topics: Rocket Triggered Lightning Research Program enters sixth summer (Forwarded) Spacesploitation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Aug 88 14:11:58 GMT From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Rocket Triggered Lightning Research Program enters sixth summer (Forwarded) George H. Diller August 1, 1988 Kennedy Space Center Release No. 55-88 ROCKET TRIGGERED LIGHTNING RESEARCH PROGRAM ENTERS SIXTH SUMMER KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla. - The NASA-sponsored Rocket Triggered Lightning Program (RTLP) has entered its sixth summer season at the Kennedy Space Center. Triggered lightning launch activity has resumed from the pads on the shore of Merritt Island's Mosquisto Lagoon, approximately 8 miles north of the Vehicle Assembly Building. A space age, high-tech version of Ben Franklin's key on a kite string, the program entails launching three-foot-tall solid fueled rockets into a thunderstorm to an altitude of 3,000 feet, trailing a wire to ground. Data are collected by lightning in- vestigators at the launch control site and at near-by field loca- tions. There is capability to launch up to a dozen rockets from each pad in a single thunderstorm, depending on the storm's lightning potential. The principal investigators began installing instrumentation at KSC on July 15 for the summer program, which lasts through August. Approximately 40 investigators are participating in the program this year from 15 institutions including the federal government, the private sector, leading universities, and inter- national organizations. The lightning research program grew out of NASA's desire to improve lightning protection systems for KSC facilities and space launch vehicles. This objective continues with an additional goal of improving lightning forecasting. Because the nature of this research has a broad range of applications, and because the the result of a lightning strike is everyone's problem, NASA has encouraged others to participate. Eventual civil applications of the Rocket Triggered Lightn- ing Program may include earlier and more precise lightning warn- ings, lightning avoidance by aircraft, and the development of lightning protection systems that would preclude power outages and loss of communications. A new element has been added for the 1988 season. A tethered balloon 1500 feet in the air has suspended from it an instrumented lightning strike object at an altitude of 500 feet. The ultimate goal is to develop a set of data that will delineate the characterics of the lightning strike potential in three environments; over land, over water, and in the air. This year NASA continues to collect data for evaluating the effectiveness of lightning protection systems used for facilities at the Kennedy Space Center, and to increase understanding of the lightning initiation process. This will improve early detection of thunderstorm development and lightning strikes. It will also enhance the quality and reliability of launch criteria for lightning avoidance by understanding how rockets or other aerospace vehicles can trigger lightning. In addition, a data base continues to be established to bet- ter understand the climatology of the Cape Canaveral area so that more precise weather forecasts can be developed. Along with NASA, the leading institutions participating this year are NOAA, the U.S. Air Force Geophysical Laboratory, the Naval Research Laboratory, Boeing Aircraft, Dayton Granger Cor- poration, the Electric Power Research Institute, Florida Power Corportion, the University of Florida, the University of Arizona, the State University of New York at Albany, Embry Riddle Aeronutical University, the University of Mississippi, the New Mexico Institute of Mining Technology, and the University of San Juan in Puerto Rico. Also, three government-sponsored research groups from France are again participating which include CENG (Centre Etudes Nucleaires de Grenoble), ONERA (Office National d'Etudes et de Recherches Aerospatiales), and CNET (Centre National d'Etudes Telecommunications). The French have had an ongoing involvement in the KSC program and along with the United States pioneered the first rocket triggered lightning research. The participants collaborating in the program change from year to year because the objective of each organization differs, predicated on distinct areas of direct application. The field mill system at KSC, used to detect and locate lightning, is providing data as part of most experiments in the program this summer. As in the past, field mills are being used to study the electric field environment in situations where lightning is being triggered. This will provide a more complete picture of weather conditions conducive to triggering lightning, and will provide data which can assist in developing guidelines that can extend to larger launch vehicles. For a second year, in addition to the traditional land pad, a raft-like launching pad is being used. The 12-by-12 foot plat- form used to launch rockets from about 100 feet offshore, is con- nected with the launch control and instrumentation facility by pneumatics and fiber-optic instrumentation. A lightning strike with a more "pure" electrical signature is generated from a launch over water. This is more characteristic of natural lightning since it is not subject to electrical current distor- tions from the ground or pad-associated ground support equipment. The tethered balloon included in this year's research resembles a blimp, is 85 feet long, 25 feet in diameter, and holds 20,000 cubic feet of helium. Suspended from the balloon is the instrumented lightning strike object. This cylinder is ap- proximately 8 feet long, 2 feet in diameter, and weighs about 60 pounds. Also suspended from the balloon is an airborne electric field mill. This is being provided by the University of Missis- sippi, with research assistance from the New Mexico Institute of Mining Technology. The objectives using the balloon are being closely coor- dinated with the French research team. Four lightning science objectives are under study. 1.) Determine the pre-attachment of electric fields to the suspended lightning strike object which would initiate a lightn- ing strike. Eventually, by detecting and understanding the process by which a cloud develops a charge, it is anticipated that forecasters can be provided with advance notice as to where and when lightning will occur. 2.) Attempt to document with photography and other data collec- tion methods the lightning initiation process of an upward-going positively charged "streamer" and downward-going negatively charged "step leader" from a free-flying object, believed gen- erated by high electric fields. This process exists in nature between ground and cloud. 3.) Improve understanding of how far lightning will travel from its point of origin to a distant object during a strike, called the "lightning striking distance." In addition it will hopefully be learned why lightning also chooses to strike some particular secondary object instead of some other. 4.) Study the relationship between a ground-based field mill and an airborne field mill which is above the area of space charge, or interference created from the ground environment. This can ultimately improve the accuracy of launch criteria. NOAA is flying a pair of P-3 Orion weather reconnaisance aircraft with standard meteorological observation instruments and an airbourne field mill to compare data with a similarly instru- mented pod and a field mill which are suspended from the balloon. The intent is to correlate the data from each set of instruments and assess reliability. It is possible that lightning may not strike the instru- mented canister suspended from the balloon. If this is found to be true, then the rockets will be attached to the canister for launch. Using the tethered balloon probably comes the closest to recreating Ben Franklin's original experiment using "high-tech" methods. Hopefully it will lead to discoveries as significant as Franklin's original studies. The private sector participants each have an objective for the summer program with a specific application in mind and have provided lightning strike objects which are mounted on the land launching pad. Boeing Aircraft has installed a fiberglass radome and as- sociated radar dish taken from the nose of a jet aircraft to study the effectiveness of metal lightning diverter strips at- tached to the radome. This essentially creates an airborne at- tach point on which to focus a lightning strike which then provides a preferred path through the skin of the aircraft. Boeing, together with the Dayton Granger Corporation which manufactures the diverter strips, will attempt to learn what type, how many, and where these metal strips should be placed on the radome to establish effective protection. However, the desire is to use as few as possible so that the efficiency of the radar antenna beneath it is not impaired. Again this year, the Electric Power Research Institute and Florida Power Corporation are testing the effectiveness of lightning current recorders. These recorders measure the lightn- ing current wave form with its associated effect throughout the power distribution system. Based on data obtained during last summer's program, changes have already been implemented into recorders associated with FPC's power grid. This measures more accurately what happens to the power line system when lightning occurs. In addition, the effectiveness of protective devices for Florida Power will be assessed under actual conditions on a dedi- cated, normally powered line subject to the lightning environ- ment. The ongoing participation of three major university institu- tions in the program will enable them to move closer to their re- search objectives, expanding upon the knowledge gained in pre- vious years. The State University of New York at Albany is taking high speed video and film photography of lightning flashes. From this imagery they will study the lightning stroke process, the velocity of the stroke, and the stroke's fractal geometry. This data will be of benefit to other lightning researchers. The University of Arizona has three objectives during the 1988 summer season. They are studying the optical properties of lightning with the specific objective of improving satellite air- borne sensors which are being developed by the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center for installation on future weather satel- lites. The optical equipment can distinguish where the lightning strikes, and by photographic analysis quantify the type and mag- nitude of the strike. Approximately 1,000,000 watts of light per meter of lightning channel has been measured with an internal temperature of 60,000 degrees. This optical system also provides accurate data on which to judge the accuracy and reliability of other lightning instrumentation. Further, this could assist NASA in the field of planetary meteorology in understanding the lightning process on other planets. The Univeristy of Arizona is also measuring and analyzing the production of ozone from lightning. It is postulated that ozone generation by lightning may replenish the Earth's natural supply, possibly being depleted by aerosols. Again this year University of Arizona researchers are taping the sound of thunder at various distances from the rocket trig- gered lightning launch site, hoping to learn how thunder is produced, and how the sound characteristics of thunder change with distance from the lightning. The University of Florida is continuing to develop sensors which remotely sense the electrical atmospheric environment to detect the early lightning initiation processes. This will im- prove the ability to measure and forecast a three-dimensional electrical environment up to 25 miles distant from Kennedy Space Center. Antennas for this system are under installation at KSC. Associated instruments will be installed later in the season. The goal is to gather information which may help determine the pre-initiation process of lightning before it actually oc- curs. From this may come a more cost-effective way to forecast thunderstorm development and the lightning initiation process-- parameters that can be included in KSC's launch commit criteria. Another aspect of the University of Arizona research has a similar objective but takes an alternative approach, using a sen- sor buried in the earth. This sensor detects a ground current which is correlated with the measured negative potential between ground and cloud. The purpose is to locate the generating source of currents in the cloud that are associated with specific cloud development. Potentially, either system could provide advance notice of the occurance of lightning. Also, aircraft may be able to use such instrumentation to map and avoid charged clouds. The Advanced Program Development Office of NASA Headquarters and NASA-KSC are supporting the Rocket Triggered Lightning Program by attempting to transfer technology generated by the program to private industry, other federal agencies, univer- sities, and the general public. In addition NASA is promoting the attributes of the Cape Canaveral area for lightning research, hoping to demonstrate the feasibility of establishing a permanent atmospheric science research laboratory at the Kennedy Space Cen- ter, attracting other private sector participants. ------------------------------ Cc: anarchy-list%sob.cwi.nl%mcvax.uunet.uu.net@note.nsf.gov Subject: Spacesploitation Date: Fri, 05 Aug 88 15:53:38 -0400 From: Fred Baube Regarding the discussion and comparison of the ocean seabed, Antarctica, and outer space as "common heritages of mankind", and whether this is a deterrent to exploitation, entrepeneurial or otherwise .. There's not really anything fundamentally wrong or evil about the economic development/exploitation regime established by the Law of the Sea Treaty ("UNCLOS 3"). And because the legal statuses of the Antarctic and outer space are much less well-defined, similar criticism about either is premature. UNCLOS 3 does not tell private interests they are forbidden to exploit the seabed. It's mainly the legalistic aspects of UNCLOS 3 as a treaty instrument that have kept the US from ratifying it; among other things, it seems to leave signatories vulnerable to an open-ended amendment process. This hasn't stopped the US from taking advantage of transit rights codified by the treaty, but it *has* inhibited private parties from leaping into the legal limbo of seabed development. It's not a big problem for the US and the OECD, because placer deposits and crusts that fall within the US EEZ are turning out to be much better economic bets than seabed nodules, and the Soviet Union and South Africa have not (yet) moved to exploit OECD import vulnerability in manganese, cobalt, or any other metal found in marine deposits. Check OTA reports for details. Roughly speaking, an entity (such as a US company) wishing to develop a seabed tract is to give its survey results, and a list of pairs of tracts, to the "International Seabed Authority" (ISA), which gets its choice of the better of each pair of tracts, and use on its tract (the ISA's) of the same technology available to the company on its (the company's) tract. The notion is REJECTED that a monopoly on economical technology shall imply a monopoly on exploitation of the "common heritage". How *else* can the ISA be expected to exploit a plot and develop a distributable surplus value ? The US objects to the treaty's tech transfer provisions, but they are objections to the specific implementation set forth in the treaty, and not to the principle involved. UNCLOS 3's seabed provisions are not absolute prohibitions on development or developers, they're novel (and as yet untried) mechanisms to try to ensure that everyone (in the UN) gets a piece of the pie. A company is not denied the fruits of its developmental abilities, it is denied absolute property rights. Property rights and developmental rights are a creature of gov- ernment, and there's no government in the seabed, or Antarctica, or space, just the UN. Unilateral assertion of US interests outside of a treaty framework would invite, even *mandate*, corresponding acts by other nations, ensuring a mess. Presumably, if Capitalist Company "A" can profitably develop a tract, then so can Multi-National "ISA", if it has access to comparable technology, and a modicum of managerial competence. This should then preclude unilateral exploitation. An ISA-type model was not the only way seabed development could have been accommodated, but the US went along with it at the time. (There's a belief in some parts that the US traded the seabed provisions for the codification of transit rights, never intending to ratify the treaty, thus getting what it wanted in the short-term at the cost of establishing an undesireable precedent for the "common heritage's exploitation.) Regarding alternatives to an ISA-type regime, royalty schemes and the like have their own problems. For the Antarctic, an ISA-like scheme is only one of several possible institutional models that could be implemented. Environmental considerations seem to be paramount, and there's the nasty matter of conflicting claims (cf. the Falklands), so progress is very slow. The recent minerals agreement on the Antarctic reinforced the current scheme wherein non-Treaty-signatories are excluded, but that is about all it settled, I believe. There *are* other institutional models under consideration that implement certain flavors of ownership wherein signatory nations have incentives both to encourage exploitation and to preserve the environment. Virtually *none* of these models provide for the recognition of existing national claims, despite Chilean mothers giving birth down there and other imaginative claims- advancement methods. If Outer Space is asserted to be the "common heritage of man- kind", that is not in principle excluding its exploitation, or locking out entrepeneurs. It's asserting a principle that although private initiative may be [is] a motivational force for development, perhaps the heavens are not best left solely to the technological "Haves", i.e. the likes of Union Carbide and Occidental Petroleum. It also leaves an opening for *multi- lateral* regulation of environmental issues, so that we don't end up with something like Heinlein wrote about in "The Man Who Sold the Moon", where rockets lay carbon trails on the lunar surface to create a giant soft drink logo. Or nuclear contamination of Mars. Horatio Alger is a story for kids, not a useful model for extending "progress" into space. Armchair libertarian entre- peneurs should not be concerned that they will not be able to exploit exploit exploit. What they *should* be concerned about is that on the high seas, flagless ships are strictly verboten, and any country can board a flagless ship. If you want to set up your own operation at L1 or L2 or the Asteroid Belt, you'll be able to build it, but if current customary practice holds, you'll have to submit to some nation's jurisdiction. The US is the enemy here; we've been vigorously enforcing the UNCLOS 3 provi- sion that a ship under Slobovian registry must have a "genuine link" to Slobovia, clamping down on "flags of convenience". Fur- ther, at least in the case of the Sarah (Radio New York Inter- national), we boarded the ship, and later lied about asking the permission of the flag state (I have this from an authoritative source). Not a pretty precedent. If you think that "common heritage of mankind" is some sort of romantic tripe, or Third-World blathering, or One-World Commie-nism, so be it. #include ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #323 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Aug 88 05:10:35 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sun, 14 Aug 88 04:26:10 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 14 Aug 88 04:26:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 14 Aug 88 04:20:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 14 Aug 88 04:04:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sun, 14 Aug 88 04:04:17 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00472; Sun, 14 Aug 88 01:04:25 PDT id AA00472; Sun, 14 Aug 88 01:04:25 PDT Date: Sun, 14 Aug 88 01:04:25 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808140804.AA00472@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #324 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 324 Today's Topics: Date of Afghan mission to Mir announced Economic Conversion Re: Spacesploitation Re: Satellites Re: Space Shuttle fuel leaks Re: Skintight Space Suits Re: Satellites Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) Re: Disagree? I'll cut you off! Re: "NukeWinter" garbage (was Re: Aegis, SDI) Re: Spacesploitation SDI and space station partners Re: Economic Conversion ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 5 Aug 88 17:02:24 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Date of Afghan mission to Mir announced The Soviets have announced Aug. 29th as the launch date for the Soyuz TM-6 mission to Mir. This mission will bring up an Afghan guest cosmonaut, either Col. Mohammad Dauran or Capt. Abdol Ahad. Unfortunately, the Russians have retreated a bit from announcing the crew in advance. For a while they would give out the full flight crew list well in advance. Now they will list the names of people training for the flight, and the probable make up of the prime and backup crew. The mission date will be announced well in advance, but not the crew makeup stating that will be selected shortly before they fly. For those keeping count the in orbit crew of Vladimir Titov and Musahi Manarov have now been up for 228 days, nearly 2/3 of their full year mission. The Russians have also talked again about future Mars missions. There will not be a 1992 flight, but the 1994 mission will contain a rover vehicle (no details as to size). The 2000 AD mission will return samples to earth from Mars. 2010 is the earliest they are now talking about manned missions. With their on orbit experience the USSR will be in a position to send humans to Mars by that date. It is clear that unless this country's program changes there is little chance that it will be able to do so also. Yours truly Glenn Chapman ------------------------------ Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim Date: Sun, 31 Jul 88 16:48:18 PDT From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery) To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space Subject: Economic Conversion Those calling for international cooperation in space have had the crucial insight that science has always been an international activity of tremendous value in its own right. They understand the need to get away from letting NASA hold our space activities hostage to the permanent war economy. We must: * Expand our scientific activities in space so that we can have broad international cooperation in space. * Ensure that all NASA civil servants and contractors working on large development projects participate in economic conversion so they can truely contribute to our economy. Like the economic conversion of the military development industry, the economic conversion of the civilian aerospace development industry to the support of open scientific research will promote a higher standard of living and greater international harmony. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 88 01:02:24 GMT From: aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: Re: Spacesploitation >If you think that "common heritage of mankind" is some sort >of romantic tripe, or Third-World blathering, or One-World >Commie-nism, so be it. It is all three. However, more importantly, it is (an attempt at) an exercise in power for its own sake, and is merely another of the endless string of conceits by which the governments of the world justify the impoverishment of their people. --JoSH ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 88 19:16:47 GMT From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!bturner@hplabs.hp.com (Bill Turner) Subject: Re: Satellites > [Text of satellite list deleted] Isn't it a bit depressing that a deep scientific mission hasn't been launched by the US since 78? --Bill Turner ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 88 18:46:44 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Shuttle fuel leaks In article <8808041733.AA17257@nrl-radar.ARPA> mueller@NRL-RADAR.ARPA (Harold Mueller) writes: >How do you find a leak in a hydrogen line? Hydraulic fluid would be >easy to spot oozing out, but liquid hydrogen would vaporize... I think they use portable mass spectrometers to spot hydrogen in the air; they also has the advantage of being sensitive to very small traces. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 88 19:42:03 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Skintight Space Suits In article <880801130417.0000204E092@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@grouch.jpl.nasa.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: >I'm very interested in reading about actual data where it exists, rather >than speculation. Where can I find papers on these vacuum chamber >experiments? The major source is NASA CR-1892, Development of a Space Activity Suit, by James Annis and Paul Webb. Be warned that it's out of print. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 88 18:42:30 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Satellites In article <62689@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >Pioneer 6 12/16/65 US (still returning good data) >Pioneer 7 8/16/66 US (still active) >Pioneer 8 12/13/67 US (still active) You missed Pioneer 9, which is also still active. And I think one of the earlier ones -- Pioneer 8? -- is out of contact and presumed dead, as of quite recently. Also, at least one of these Pioneers is returning data only intermittently, because its spin axis is off enough that its semi- directional antennas (which see a plane perpendicular to the axis) are not aligned with Earth most of the time. You also missed Pioneers 10 and 11, heading out of the solar system. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 88 18:45:42 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) In article <2090@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> chiaravi@silver.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes: >>Main power on the space station is specified as 220 VAC at 20 kHz. > > Isn't this going to cause considerable inefficiency of power >transmission due to radiative losses... Actually, what it is mostly going to cause is expenditure of vast sums of money to develop all-new power hardware to save a few kilograms, when the money would be much better spend on launching those few extra kilos of standard aviation (400 Hz) power hardware. The 20 kHz power is technically a cute idea, but in terms of getting a space station into orbit and making it useful, it's totally unnecessary and really dumb. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 88 18:22:23 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Disagree? I'll cut you off! In article <6540@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes: >weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >>For your further information, Henry Spencer is probably one of the most >>respected posters on USENET, and most certainly in sci.space. If Henry >>Spencer tells you to get some topic off this newsgroup--in this case, SDI, >>which has its own newsgroup--then YOU GET THIS TOPIC OFF THIS NEWSGROUP. > >And who elected him dictator? Or you his enforcer? This network does not >need to answer to any one person, even you. I will listen to what Henry >Spencer says, and will likely follow any reasonable suggestions. I will >certainly not do either for you... The thought of good old Obnoxious supporting me truly makes the mind reel; at least it made mine reel. While I may sometimes sound like the dictator of sci.space, especially when the reappearance of the SDI debate makes me grouchy, I have never claimed any particular authority over the group. And I do my own enforcing... :-) I'm unaware of any newsgroup specifically for SDI, although misc.headlines [I almost wrote talk.headlines... :-)] comes to mind. >... SDI IS RELEVANT TO SPACE. No; certain aspects of SDI are relevant to space. I wouldn't get grouchy about it if the sci.space discussion confined itself to those aspects (and preferably to new issues rather than endless shouting matches, which really accomplish nothing...). -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 88 18:34:31 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: "NukeWinter" garbage (was Re: Aegis, SDI) In article <2358@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >>I was really hoping I had heard the last of the NukeWinter (NW) fabrication. >>It just goes to show how much damage a politician can do when people think he >>is a scientist and trust him. > >Dr. Sagan has unquestionable scientific credentials in astronomy and >planetary science. On the other hand, I've never heard of you. Like >other human beings, he also has political views. And what do you mean >by "damage"? ... In my opinion, there is some reason to wonder whether the TTAPS study was quite as objective as one would prefer for ground-breaking science. And the way it was publicized was, to put it bluntly, political propaganda rather than careful popularization of science. This probably did do some harm to objective investigation of the issue, not to mention science's reputation as a whole. But overall, a fabrication it was not. It was certainly a crude first cut at analysis, using very simplistic models. And it did make some assumptions which qualified as dubious even at the time and just don't hold up to careful investigation (for example, wildland fires were assumed to make a contribution equal to urban fires, which was demonstrated to be nonsense by a detailed study). However, the overall conclusion stands: a major nuclear war could have serious effects on the climate. Even if one ignores the howling-blizzard scare stories, there is good reason to believe that it might produce enough world-wide cooling to cause massive crop failure. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 88 19:10:21 GMT From: polya!cayuga!andy@labrea.stanford.edu (Andy Freeman) Subject: Re: Spacesploitation In article <8808051554.aa05436@note.note.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube) writes: >so that we don't end up with something like Heinlein wrote about in >"The Man Who Sold the Moon", where rockets lay carbon trails on the >lunar surface to create a giant soft drink logo. A Coca-Cola logo on the moon bothers me a lot less than no human presence on the moon. I don't care whether someone makes a buck (or trillion) as long as space is opened to us IN MY LIFETIME. Govts aren't going to do it. >Or nuclear contamination of Mars. Governments are the worst polluters on Earth because they aren't liable. That's not going to change in space. >Presumably, if Capitalist Company "A" can profitably develop a >tract, then so can Multi-National "ISA", if it has access to >comparable technology, and a modicum of managerial competence. >This should then preclude unilateral exploitation. Ah, but the terms say that "A" has to pay for the surveys, interpret them, and pay for the mining technology development. It will have to recover these costs from the mining profits on inferior locations. The ISA doesn't have to pay these costs and I'll bet it will end up being tax-exempt. I can get better terms from the Mafia; no wonder the countries with substantial ore deposits love this treaty. If the Pacific is "our common heritage" so is the African continent. -andy UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!andy ARPA: andy@polya.stanford.edu (415) 329-1718/723-3088 home/cubicle ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 88 13:52:40 GMT From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org (James Symon) Subject: SDI and space station partners >In article <1988Jul29.024014.15610@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>In article <3657@thorin.cs.unc.edu> symon@lhotse.cs.unc.edu (James Symon) writes: > . . . >>Why? Where else does a discussion of the legitimate uses of space >>belong? ... > >*WHAT* discussion of the legitimate uses of space? . . . >But the SDI debates always spend most of their time and energy arguing >about TOTALLY NON-SPACE ISSUES like whether the software can be made to >work and whether deployment would be destabilizing and whether the Soviets >could defeat it easily and so on and so on ad nauseam. > . . . >I repeat: get it off sci.space, please. Or at least restrict the sci.space >discussion *entirely* to space-related issues. >-- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Now that I can agree with. I enjoyed the discussions about particle beams in space and how far they might reach into the atmosphere, also the ones about fast acceleration boosters that might allow separation of warheads before leaving the atmosphere. Those are certainly space science related. Of course, one might argue that destabilization might lead to no one getting to space ever, but that's reaching and I agree it doesn't belong. "Space-related issues" has, in the past, included the politics of funding of space exploration. I would like to hear from this group whether they have seen indications that insistence on the part of our government that the space station not be off limits to the military IS seriously jeopardizing our getting international cooperation. Now that we are a little further down the road, my impressions are that initial hysteria and propaganda has died down and the SS partners are still on board. Jim Symon Rt 4 Box 443 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 at school: Jim Symon Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175 "Better get Helms on the UUCP: uunet!mcnc!unc!symon scrambler, we got incoming UUCP: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon treaties all over the screen" Internet:symon@cs.unc.edu - MacNelly ***Don't use "r" or my header line address*** ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 88 00:29:40 GMT From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) Subject: Re: Economic Conversion In article <8807312356.AA03328@crash.cts.com> mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov writes: >They understand the need to >get away from letting NASA hold our space activities hostage to >the permanent war economy. I wrote a paper a few years ago on holding space "hostage" (not in those words). My thesis: the US space program has been a political tool, and has been crippled by its use as such. I could see NASA where it is now without the military, but if it were not for the rushes to score quick political victories we could have done much better (initial prohibition of orbital flight; later rush to get man in space/in orbit/to Moon; termination of Apollo when it had served its political purpose;...). The military has contributed to the space program (you decide for better or worse), but politics has done far more. The military is at least capable of long term planning. John Carr "When they turn the pages of history, jfc@Athena.mit.edu When these days have passed long ago, Will they read of us with sadness For the seeds that we let grow?" --Neil Peart ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #324 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Aug 88 10:41:19 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Mon, 15 Aug 88 04:26:41 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 15 Aug 88 04:26:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 15 Aug 88 04:14:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 15 Aug 88 04:05:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 15 Aug 88 04:04:07 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01135; Mon, 15 Aug 88 01:04:11 PDT id AA01135; Mon, 15 Aug 88 01:04:11 PDT Date: Mon, 15 Aug 88 01:04:11 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808150804.AA01135@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #325 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 325 Today's Topics: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: Satellites Re: Skintight suit reference Earth Orbit material limit Re: centralizing science (was NASA ASRM sites) Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: Time skew -- does it hurt SETI? Re: Disagree? I'll cut you off! Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: 20-year anniversary Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Aug 88 22:00:47 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov (MacLeod) Subject: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <2087@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> konath@silver.UUCP (kannan) writes: :In article <3763@teklds.TEK.COM: dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes: ::above that temperature<, while working on a better engineering solution. There are many, many qualified scientists and pilots willing to risk their lives in spaceflight. The engineering effort necessary to move from a 95% safety record to a 99.9% safety record has stunted the US space program, focussed its energy in introverted paranoia instead of a healthy adult acceptance of risk, and mave have given the Soviets an unbeatable lead in space travel. To me, the latter also implies the potential for Soviet domination of the entire Earth. Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod) ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 88 16:38:15 GMT From: osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu!reader-c@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Charles Reader) Subject: Re: Satellites More depressing, at least to me, is the fact that we have deep-space probes sitting in warehouses gathering dust while we wait for the space shuttle to fly again. Chuck Reader ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Aug 88 20:04:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Kevin William Ryan Subject: Re: Skintight suit reference I posted this once before, but in brief: NASA Report CR-1892, "Development of a Space Activity Suit", by James Annis and Paul Webb. This contains a good history of pressure suits and describes the building and testing of a couple of 'skinsuits.' Photos include a couple of (to me) disconcerting pictures of a man in long underwear and a bubble helmet in vac chambers. Ask your nearby congresscritter to send it to you - that's how I got mine. I also included a letter asking why the SAS hadn't been followed up on, instead of the expensive full-pressure suits. He never did answer that question... The preceeding reference comes courtesy of J. E. Pournelle, from the Summer 1980 (Vol. 2, No. 3) _Destinies_, now a defunct publication. Pity... kwr "Jest so ya know..." ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 88 21:09:20 GMT From: netsys!nucleus!hacker@lll-winken.llnl.gov (Thomas Hacker) Subject: Earth Orbit material limit In the news recently, I noticed a small article pertaining to the limiting of certain projects that would put objects into geosynchinous orbit. One of the projects was a piece of art created by a French sculpter that would reflect light onto the planet's surface and appear as a bright object to the viewers below. The article proceeded to mention that many astronomers were against this because they feared that the sky would become too "washed out" with light, thus decreasing the visibilty in the night sky already filled with "light pollution". Has anyone heard of what there was behind this and what the outcome will be? ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 88 00:26:54 GMT From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) Subject: Re: centralizing science (was NASA ASRM sites) Well, I survived the humidity of Atlanta, and a fellow from GSFC held a "Space Program BOF" which one could easily see the disillusion of some potential "colonists." [Tomorrow was too far away for them.] I return home to see a few a few pieces of mail saying "lighten up." Well, I guess a few took my note too seriously (If Tim's note is the one). This is a contrast to an embarassing amount of "fan mail" which I receive. Anyways, I guess I'm just reacting to a wide variety of stimuli and some of it's spilling into sci.space. Forgive me. In article <3434@cadnetix.COM> beres@cadnetix.COM (Tim Beres) writes: >In article <12474@ames.arc.nasa.gov> eugene@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Eugene N. Miya) writes: > >>In article <3417@cadnetix.COM> beres@cadnetix.COM (ME) >>> [paraphrasing myself...] Sure seems like a lot of NASA centers, all with >>> big projects. > >>Anyway, we have this growth problem. > >To clarify: I am not upset at growth in programs, per se, but at possible >savings that could accrue from centralizing administrative, facilities and >support functions. As for applications and research, congress seems unable >to comprehend any of the justifications or the technology anyway; they just >see jobs/prestige/votes stemming from various facilities (NASA and otherwise). To elaborate: there is increasing centralization going on at this moment. This is not unique to NASA, or the US. Consider the centralization of much of technology in Japanese to one new city. They also fund government research thru 2 major ministries. ESSA has a different problem, and the SU a further one. The future of science and technology in the USA is a tricky one. You have probably heard of proposals for a cabinet-level Dept. of Science and Technology. There are pluses and minuses to this proposal and who ever the new Prez is will have lots of his hands. You are talking about yanking DARPA from DOD, merging DOE/NASA and parts of DOC, DOT, EPA, etc. This is certainly a worthy topic for discussion. Again, pluses and minuses, and there is lame-duck lethergy in Washington at the moment. >>Speaking about centralization, perhaps we need more centralized >>rather than decentralized computer facilities. Yeah that's the ticket! >>Ok, you guys, back to your punch cards. None of this workstation stuff, >>If 1 person on a SUN is good, then 15 is 15x better. Right?! >Get real, Eugene. See comment below. Actually in my sarcasm, the SUN example is true to the extreme. The example came from one of my colleagues at Dryden. A dozen of us were unable to convince this fellow the importance of single user workstations (I'm posting from an IRIS 4D thru to a VAX; glad I'm not at Dryden). >>newly emerging concept of NSF "Centers without Walls." > >Now we're talking. How about research and developement occuring in this >manner; build up and use university and corporate R&D centers - with a few >computing hubs. Consolidate engineering and technology applications into >a few NASA centers. I just wonder why it is necessary to launch from the >cape (used to live in Fla, too - so I do know the effects of greasing the >local economy with jobs/projects. Rep. Nelson was 1 district over from me. >What he did for KSC and the local economy was good - but is it good for the >nation's space program?), monitor/communicate from JSC, Marshall's in the >loop and who knows who else takes part in each Shuttle mission. Why not >merge some of these facilities into larger facilities, with combined support >and resources. The nature of the jobs they do won't change, they'll just >be under one roof. > >Thinking about this...no way congress will do it (assuming this *is* a good >idea - I'm open to persuasion). Well, several factors enter into selection of Centers. I think economic (where is land cheap?) was a major one at the start of the 1960s. Now, it's where will the jobs be centered? FL was important because of launch directions and minimal energy to orbit (Cuba is carefully factored out of directions, and we have a launch over water policy to protect public lands (read buildings). If I really had my way, I would want to live in Santa Barbara and watch launches from home (if not working). Better yet, let's launch from near the Silicon Valley [well, I guess you guys are making me silly again] we will have to ease "over water" restrictions. It will at least expose space program to more modern electronics as suggested necessary by Henry. We now have to pick up and move not only Centers, but families, contractors (100,000s) and their families. In time, these Centers will be like airports or toxic waste dumps (people want them, but not in "my backyard."). I don't know what the long-term solution will be. We have two major computing facilities at Ames (meiosis) and we justified our existence by similar interdisciplinary splits at other supercomputing facilities (most notable LCC and NMFECC at Livermore). Now we see a re-collection (collapse) of separate administrations happening all over. This does not please users but it does make the bureaucracts happier. Anways, I'm getting long winded again. Let me finish by saying that our society is one the verge of some major changes. The Soviet Union isn't alone. The problems come from within and without the US. Some redundency will exist (and will need to exist), and how we are going to pay for getting into space (with all of our other problems): you got me, but merging a few NASA Centers isn't going to help. Eyes on Duke. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 88 00:37:34 GMT From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Interesting discussion. Extreme full-speed ahead discussion tend to get ignored in NASA (especially when dealing with lives, especially when some are the scientific creme of America). Also note the McNeil-Lehrer discussion with Bruce Murray and Fletcher. If the problem were one simply of temperature (Yeager also put this argument forward, and launching above them temp), it would make the problem easier. It is not. There are other long-term problems, suffice it to say. The problem, as Feynman pointed out, is how do you quanitify this? I can easily say 99.9 or 95 percent based on some metric, but which. Anyway, the point is partly moot, we are here now, we are dealing with lots of unknowns (I don't work in manned space, and we don't launch based on popular democracy). [A good reference on pressure BTW is "Normal Risks" which I am currently rereading]. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." You can send money to NASA or you can send it to the Richard Feynman Memorial Fund for Cancer Research [UCLA], P.O. Box 70021, Pasadena, CA 91107 or both. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 88 05:35:42 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!tmca@rutgers.edu (The Anarch) Subject: Re: Time skew -- does it hurt SETI? In article <61351@sun.uucp> msodos%amanda@Sun.COM (Martin Sodos) writes: > >Ergo, I put forward for your consideration that even if life such as >ours is fairly common on the universe, that the time alignment problem >would make it extremely unlikely that we would/will ever encounter it. For an entertaining discussion of such "time windows" read Stanislaw Lem's latest "Fiasco". Probably one of his best, though not of the light-hearted Pirx the Pilot or Cyberiad kind. The "skew" becomes a narrow time window bordered on one side by the necessary technological advancement and on the other by self-annihilation or evolution to a society unninterested in contact with such lowly creatures as ourselves. Tim. Clean as a Q-Tip Quiet as Nylon. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 88 19:18:35 GMT From: hpda!hpcuhb!hp-sde!hpfcdc!hpfclm!myers@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bob Myers) Subject: Re: Disagree? I'll cut you off! >And who elected him dictator? Or you his enforcer? This network does not >need to answer to any one person, even you. *Especially* not him. Bob M. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 88 19:12:12 GMT From: hpda!hpcuhb!hp-sde!hpfcdc!hpfclm!myers@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bob Myers) Subject: Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) >Main power on the space station is specified as 220 VAC at 20 kHz. AC? Why AC? Bob M. hplabs!hpfcla!myers ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 88 14:00:46 GMT From: kerog@eneevax.umd.edu (Keith Rogers) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <3659@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: >I disagree, strongly. There should have been an investigation of the >Challenger disaster, and when they found that the O rings failed below >a certain temperature, they should have continued launching >above that >temperature<, while working on a better engineering solution. I couldn't agree more. This has been my attitude ever since the Challenger disaster. I just don't see why they have to spend more than two years without a single flight, missing many important launch windows for various projects, just to have an all temperature space shuttle, when they could have just flown it on a warm day in almost perfect safety. Sure the O ring thing had to be fixed, but did it have to kill the entire U.S. space program in the meantime? Keith Rogers ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 88 15:38:29 GMT From: sunybcs!campbl@rutgers.edu (Scott S. Campbell) Subject: Re: 20-year anniversary In article <3763@teklds.TEK.COM> dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes: >Next year will be the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11 and I'm sure that >everyone would like to celebrate it. It never hurts to be prepared in >advance, so lets start to kick ideas around. > >--- >Dan Tilque -- dant@twaddl.LA.TEK.COM How about a commemorative(sp) stamp issue?? - Scott S. Campbell campbl@cs.buffalo.edu campbl@sunybcs.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 88 15:28:24 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <1704@eneevax.UUCP> kerog@eneevax.umd.edu.UUCP (Keith Rogers) writes: > I just don't see why they have to spend more than >two years without a single flight, missing many important launch windows >for various projects, just to have an all temperature space shuttle, >when they could have just flown it on a warm day in almost perfect safety. It has been stated many times before, but let's do it again. The Rogers commission did NOT say that the shuttle would be safe to launch in warm weather. They said that so many things were wrong with the joint design that it was impossible to determine what actually caused the leak. Cold was a contributing factor, but O ring damage has occured on launches in hot weather, too. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #325 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Aug 88 04:13:03 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Tue, 16 Aug 88 04:26:19 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 16 Aug 88 04:26:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 16 Aug 88 04:20:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 16 Aug 88 04:14:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Tue, 16 Aug 88 04:13:41 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02296; Tue, 16 Aug 88 01:04:50 PDT id AA02296; Tue, 16 Aug 88 01:04:50 PDT Date: Tue, 16 Aug 88 01:04:50 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808160804.AA02296@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #326 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 326 Today's Topics: Mir elements space news from June 13 AW&ST space news from June 20 AW&ST space news from June 27 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Aug 88 01:49:00 GMT From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements Indeed, they have reboosted Mir. Here are the latest elements: Two-line elements for Mir 1 16609U 88221.77631193 0.00026093 30000-3 0 00 2 16609 51.6180 157.0634 0018933 270.3884 89.4579 15.71082378142110 Object: Mir NORAD catalog number: 16609 Element set: 0 Epoch revolution: 14211 Epoch time: 88221.77631193 (Mon Aug 8 18:37:53 UTC) Inclination: 51.6180 degrees RA of node: 157.0634 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0018933 Argument of periapsis: 270.3884 degrees Mean anomaly: 89.4579 degrees Mean motion: 15.71082378 revs / day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00026093 * 2 revs / day**2 B* drag term: 3.0000e-04 Derived figures: Semimajor axis: 6733.64 km. Perifocal radius: 6720.89 km. Apogee height: 368.245 km. Perigee height: 342.747 km. Mean longitude at the epoch: 2.7386 degrees. Magnitudes of short-period perturbations of the second harmonic: Radius vector magnitude: +/-1.00 km. True anomaly: +/-0.0118 degrees. RA of node: +/-0.0259 degrees. Inclination: +/-0.0203 degrees. Secular perturbations of the second harmonic: Argument of perigee: 3.8220 degrees/day RA of node: -5.1166 degrees/day Mean anomaly: included in published mean motion. Long-period perturbation of the third harmonic: X=-1.639e-03, Y=-8.706e-04 Source: NASA Goddard via NSS Mir Watch Hotline NOTE: Apogee and perigee heights are referred to a mean equatorial radius of 6378.145 km, and not to the local radius of the geoid. All derived quantities are calculated using the NORAD SGP model of Hilton and Kuhlman. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 88 03:21:40 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from June 13 AW&ST DoD and NASA approve plan to restore ammonium perchlorate production: Pacific Engineering will build a new plant to replace the ruined one, while Kerr-McGee will re-open its plant, expand it, and also build a new plant. Supply will meet demand by 1990, but things may get a bit sticky until then. Bad news time: Mars Observer may slip another two years (to 1994 launch) due to cost overruns and NASA's budget problems. SDI looking at cancelling the Space-Based Interceptor project as too expensive. SDI's priorities are also shifting, toward sensors and a treaty-compliant ground-based interceptor system, partly to make the Soviets happier about strategic arms reduction. Morton Thiokol drops out of the bidding for the advanced SRB, officially to concentrate its efforts on the current SRBs. NASA denies that M-T dropped out because it had no chance of winning after Challenger. Ariane 4 first flight delayed by minor electronics problems. [Went fine.] Shuttle rollout imminent. [As you might expect, I'm cutting some of this pretty short because it's old news.] Trouble in the offing: the oxidizer shortage is likely to wreak havoc with the 1989-90 shuttle manifest. A further problem is that orbiter Columbia's updating has slipped farther and farther onto the back burner, and it may be late 89 before it's flyable again. First launch of the new version of Delta slips a month or so due to parts shortages. First launch now expected late Oct or early Nov. Soyuz TM-5 launched to Mir June 7, carrying two Soviet and a Bulgarian researcher. [Flight International reports that after currently-agreed foreign participation in Soyuz launches is completed, all further "guest cosmonauts" will fly on a fare-paying basis -- no more freebies.] Detailed space station negotiations with all three international partners reported complete, agreements to be signed over the summer. "Aerospace Forum" piece by Lowell Wood, urging "brilliant pebbles" approach to missile interception. The basic notion is simple: since about 20 grams at 10 kps will kill an ICBM, and there appear to be no fundamental barriers to shrinking "smart rock" technology to this size, it should be possible to orbit "brilliant pebble" interceptors in very large numbers at manageable cost. Many SDI problems get simpler if interceptors are available in near- unlimited numbers. But he's got a touching faith in our ability to solve certain software problems, the ability of DoD and its contractors to cut manufacturing costs the same way personal-computer manufacturers have, and the extent to which all this technology will be so routine that it can be given to the Soviets without any technology-transfer problems! Letter from Robert Stefan: "With the way many of our government programs have been run lately, NASA might as well name the space station Icarus. Naa, that's too optimistic -- Icarus at least got off the ground." [And from the 28 May Flight International...] Several European companies, including British Aerospace, are investigating building a small low-orbit launcher, LittLeo, capable of putting a few hundred kilos into low polar orbit from the sounding-rocket base at Ando/ya [well, how would *you* type a slashed o on an ASCII keyboard?] in Norway. This would be an entirely commercial venture, with minor help (but no money) from ESA and a policy of using off-the-shelf hardware. It could fly in 1992; development cost is estimated at "tens of millions [of pounds]". [Note, yet another bunch who don't believe that you need a decade and a billion dollars to put something into orbit.] -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 88 04:51:22 GMT From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from June 20 AW&ST US Navy is thinking about an antisatellite system that could be launched from missile subs or surface ships. Shared development with the USAF is tempting but the Navy would prefer a system it has full control over in wartime. Pioneer 10 celebrates its fifth anniversary technically outside the solar system, still returning data. Someone asked TRW whether there was a warranty on Pioneer 10; the reply was "TRW's position has been that if you bring it back, we'll fix it." First Ariane 4 launched June 15, a complete success. Third-stage shutdown was about ten seconds earlier than planned, so something performed better than expected, perhaps the new liquid-fuel strap-ons. Arianespace has five more launches planned this year and nine next year; the earliest open payload slots are late 1990. Ariane 4 will normally carry two satellites, but Arianespace is looking seriously at triple payloads to try to open up more payload slots. There were three aboard this time, but a couple were a bit small by normal Ariane standards. The payloads were ESA's Meteosat P2 Clarke-orbit weather satellite, Pan American Satellite's PAS1 -- the first privately-owned satellite to compete with Intelsat for international business -- and the latest Amsat. Later this year, ESA will begin feeling out possible customers for low- cost launch opportunities on the two test flights of Ariane 5. Fees will be modest in compensation for the risks of early flights. European satellites will have priority. This is pretty much the same deal as for the Ariane 4 launch, in which fees basically just covered payload integration and were divided up by satellite weight: Meteosat P2 paid $2.4M, PAS1 paid about twice that, and Amsat was exempt on the grounds that it will not be used for operational or commercial purposes. Two possible Ariane 5 payloads have already been identified: a possible second-generation Meteosat built from spares from the production series, and the Cluster multi-satellite solar/terrestrial science mission. Rocketdyne test-fires a small rocket engine with a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1200:1 (20:1 is more typical for small engines). The major application is as a terminal-guidance thruster for a missile interceptor. Of note is the use of graphite and carbon-carbon composites in hot areas, eliminating the need for ablative or active cooling. Doesn't look good for the space station. Congressional proposals basically put the program in caretaker status until the next president decides what to do about it. Neither Bush nor Dukakis [as of June 20] has taken an official position on the station. MIT team aboard NASA's Kuiper Airborne Observatory make first direct observation of an atmosphere on Pluto, by stellar occultation. Team leader, James Elliot, used the same technique in 1977 to discover the rings of Uranus. First SRB firing on the new dynamic-loads test stand; looks good at first glance. Aussat picks Hughes to build the next Aussats, with launcher selection imminent. Navy navsat launched by Scout from Vandenberg June 15. Intelsat tentatively picks Ford Aerospace to build the Intelsat 7s, subject to detailed negotiations. If negotiations fail, second choice is Matra. [This is a very interesting way of announcing who won. Why in the world is this still tentative, with a backup choice announced? Note a significant fact: the backup contractor is European. Smells to me like Intelsat wants to launch on Proton, or just possibly Long March, and the US firm gets the contract *if* the US government okays this choice of launcher!] International Civil Aviation Organization predicts major role for satellites in aircraft navigation, tracking, and communications. ICAO has declined to recommend a specific navsat system, but has defined specs for suitable systems. Of note is that they ruled out "dependent" systems like Geostar in which the position is calculated on the ground and transmitted up, on the grounds that the complex communications make this too fragile, while approving heartily of the idea of aircraft beyond radar coverage (e.g. over oceans) automatically radioing back their positions periodically for air-traffic control. [I smell aviation politics here...] They have also called for tests of satellite communications with aircraft in the polar regions, where Clarke-orbit satellites are near or even below the horizon. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 88 04:42:42 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from June 27 AW&ST Cover picture: the Ariane 4 launch. Hercules decides to test its upgraded Titan 4 SRB in a nozzle-down position to duplicate standard flight assembly procedures and loads; nozzle-up is used for current Titan SRBs. Senate subcommittee proposes transferring $600M from DoD research budget to the space station. Reagan is not pleased. The Commercially Developed Space Facility is not going to get approval from Congress, by the looks of it, without more detailed market studies. Decision to start Shuttle-C unmanned heavylift launcher slips to FY1990. NASA is considering flying Shuttle-C with some of the old pre-Challenger SRBs that are still in storage. Senate subcommittee moves to make SDI put up $200M to support ALS work, with about half going to NASA for ALS propulsion technology. Mir cosmonauts plan EVA to repair British/Dutch X-ray telescope hardware that has failed. Complications because it was not designed for on-orbit servicing. [The EVA had to be terminated when a tool broke; another attempt will be made.] Hughes quotes $360-520M for the first two new-generation Aussats; the lower quote assumes launch on Long March. Europe will press US for an agreement on "competitive guidelines" for commercial expendables [translation, for an agreement to try to keep Long March and Proton out of the Western market]. (Flight International, 2 July, reports that the Chinese are not pleased about this. They say technology exports are a transparent pretext, and lower Chinese prices are due to lower labor costs. They also say that China is not a serious threat to other launch industries due to limited capacity, with fewer than a dozen launches a year available to outside customers. The Chinese have just signed their first firm commercial launch deal, to launch AsiaSat 1 (the former Westar 6, retrieved by the shuttle in 1985) as Asia's first regional comsat, with a Hong Kong / British consortium.) Analysis of first Ariane 4 mission looks good; the payload orbits were right on the nose and the telemetry looks clean. Meteosat P2 and PAS-1 have fired apogee motors and are drifting towards their final positions in Clarke orbit. Amsat 3C maneuvers are imminent [its final orbit is very different]. Britain's last chance to get in on Ariane 5 is fast approaching; it is unlikely that British companies can be involved otherwise, since ESA policies portion out work based on national contributions. Arianespace registers a modest after-tax profit for FY1987. Pioneer 10, five years out of the solar system and sixteen years after launch, is still doing well at 45 AU (six light-hours) out. Both it and Pioneer 11 are far beyond original lifetimes and performance. Excluding launch, the two spacecraft cost a total of about $100M. P10 has about 10 years of useful life still ahead as its isotope generators decay. It could continue to act as a radio beacon for some while after the last instruments are shut down, this being significant because gravity-wave and tenth-planet-detection experiments just need precision tracking. More on Pegasus. The design emphasizes simplicity over ultra-high reliability, with single, unredundant systems. (The destruct system is necessarily an exception, the only one.) The solid rocket motors use off-the-shelf technology, and the propellant is chosen to be a relatively non-explosive formula requiring minimal handling precautions. The similarity in size to the X-15 is not a coincidence, since Pegasus is sized for similar carrier aircraft and somewhat similar early mission profiles. The bulk of the aerodynamic design has been proved by existing vehicles, the major exception being wing/body shockwave interaction, which is being studied using supercomputer simulation. Cork insulation will be attached to the composite wing in two areas where the shockwaves cause localized heating. Pegasus will be assembled horizontally in the field by six men over about two weeks, in a special trailer. The carrier aircraft will also carry an equipment pallet for pre-launch control, with a single operator. The actual launch is triggered by the pilot of the carrier aircraft, after the Pegasus operator enables his launch control "pickle". There will be no dedicated test launch; the first launch will be heavily instrumented but will carry a payload. Time and expense will also be saved by not using altitude-chamber firings to calibrate the motors; this means the orbits achieved by the first few launches will be fairly imprecise, although this will improve as flight experience supplies calibration data. There is continued talk of a "four-engined commercial transport" as the long-term carrier aircraft, with OSC and Hercules still coy about which one they've picked. [I still think it's the Airbus A340.] Pegasus is halfway through development, scheduled to be 28 months. First flight expected July 1989, given a customer (probably ARPA) and a firm contract. All development so far is being funded by Hercules and OSC, who have spent about one-third of their $40M budget to date. A small amount of outside revenue will probably be available late this year, from customer deposits. OSC may possibly seek some commercial financing before completion. The companies are hoping for a wide mix of customers to avoid dependence on any single budget. Both consider Pegasus a reasonably low-risk project. Pegasus was originally OSC's idea. Hercules was interested in the small-payload market, was sound financially, and (according to OSC) is the cheapest source of small solid motors. Hercules has invested heavily in automated production machinery in recent years, the result being greatly lowered costs. Letter from Peter Thomas comments that ALS tentatively might be ready for operational use in 1998, 25 years after the last Saturn V launch. By comparison, the first Saturn V was launched 22 years after World War 2 and 10 years after Sputnik... and it was bigger than ALS will be. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #326 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Aug 88 05:29:51 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Wed, 17 Aug 88 04:26:41 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 17 Aug 88 04:26:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 17 Aug 88 04:19:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 17 Aug 88 04:05:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 17 Aug 88 04:05:18 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03283; Wed, 17 Aug 88 01:05:28 PDT id AA03283; Wed, 17 Aug 88 01:05:28 PDT Date: Wed, 17 Aug 88 01:05:28 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808170805.AA03283@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #327 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 327 Today's Topics: Most distant galaxy detected (Forwarded) Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: Satellites August shower. Electromagnetic Launchers Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: Satellites ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Aug 88 15:27:37 GMT From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Most distant galaxy detected (Forwarded) Charles Redmond Headquarters, Washington, D.C. August 8, l988 Ray Villard Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, Md. RELEASE: 88-111 MOST DISTANT GALAXY DETECTED Astronomers at NASA's Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, Md., and the University of California at Berkeley have uncovered the most distant galaxy yet seen. Called 4C41.17, the newly-discovered galaxy is located at an estimated distance of 15 billion light years -- more than 90 percent of the distance to the visible limits of the universe. The discovery was made by Ken Chambers, a graduate student at Johns Hopkins University; George Miley, professor of astronomy on leave from Leiden University, Netherlands, and stationed by the European Space Agency (ESA) at the Space Telescope Science Institute; and Will van Breugel of the University of California at Berkeley. Extremely distant galaxies are of great interest to astronomers because radiation from these galaxies takes billions of years to reach the Earth. The distance established for 4C41.17 means that what is being seen happened only a few billion years after the Big Bang, which marked the beginning of the universe. Such remote galaxies can be used to study the early stages of the universe. According to current cosmological theories, the physical conditions of the early universe were very different from those encountered today. Hence, remote galaxies like 4C41.17 may help forge a better understanding of how galaxies have evolved since the time of the Big Bang. Galaxy 4C41.17 also is intriguing because it has a fundamentally different appearance from nearby galaxies. It and other high red-shift galaxies have unique, enigmatic properties, say the researchers. They certainly are not "normal" galaxies. Galaxy 4C41.17 is one of several extremely distant galaxies discovered by Chambers, Miley and van Breugel during the past few months using their newly-developed search strategy. Their strategy makes use of the fact that galaxies such as 4C41.17 produce intense radio emissions, millions of times more powerful than those of our own Milky Way galaxy. The unique radio spectrum of these objects can be used to select the most powerful and most distant of them. The researchers find that such galaxies have a distinctive radio spectrum which peaks and then drops off at a much faster rate than found in nearby radio galaxies. This "ultra-steep" spectrum indicates that the galaxies are intrinsically quite luminous, though they appear very faint because of their tremendous distances from Earth. Galaxy 4C41.17 was first identified in a survey of 51 distant radio galaxies conducted by the researchers. Next, detailed radio observations of 4C41.17 were made at various frequencies using the Very Large Array Radio Telescope Facility near Socorro, N.M. Those observations were then followed by an optical search with the 2.1 meter telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory. A long-exposure image revealed 4C41.17's optical component which has the characteristic appearance of a galaxy because the component characteristic is elongated rather than star-like. Once the galaxy was identified optically, the researchers established its huge distance by taking an optical spectrum which uncovered emission lines in carbon and hydrogen produced by the elements within the galaxy. The observations reveal that these lines are greatly shifted along the spectrum, or reddened, more than those of any galaxy previously observed. This red-shift phenomena is attributed to the fact that the universe is expanding, thus these galaxies are moving away from the Earth. Because the universe is expanding at a uniform rate, the more distant a galaxy, the greater its red shift. This phenomenon can be used by astronomers as a measure of distance. Chambers, Miley and van Breugel also discovered that distant, high red-shift galaxies have mysterious properties. Unlike nearby "normal" galaxies, say the researchers, the visible light in distant radio galaxies appears to be stretched out along the direction of their radio emissions. Although this effect is not yet fully understood, it indicates a very close relationship between the starlight presumed to be producing the optical radiation and the powerful radio emissions. The radio emissions may be produced by twin jets of extremely fast particles which are spewed out from a massive black hole rotating at the core of the galaxy. The most likely reason the visible images of galaxies like 4C41.17 are stretched along the directions of their radio emissions is that the high velocity jets of particles, which produce the radio radiation, also compress gas and dust along their paths, triggering new star formations. The new stars then preferentially would be born along the jets' paths, creating the elongated optical appearance seen in 4C41.17. During the last few years, several attempts have been made to draw conclusions about the evolution of the universe by assuming that distant radio galaxies have similarities with nearby galaxies. The unexpected discovery of the strange elongated appearance, associated with extremely distant radio galaxies, forces astronomers to rethink some of their previous deductions. Galaxy 4C41.17 also provides an important clue in determining when galaxies were formed, a question that has intrigued astrophysicists. The researchers say that their discovery establishes conclusively that, in contrast to some theories, galaxies were forming only a few billion years after the Big Bang. This research was supported by NASA, ESA, the National Science Foundation, the Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope project, and the Space Telescope Science Institute. The Space Telescope Science Institute is operated for NASA under a contract with the Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. (AURA). AURA is located on the Johns Hopkins University campus in Baltimore. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 88 16:02:23 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <1704@eneevax.UUCP> kerog@eneevax.umd.edu.UUCP (Keith Rogers) writes: > >I just don't see why they have to spend more than >two years without a single flight, missing many important launch windows >for various projects, just to have an all temperature space shuttle, >when they could have just flown it on a warm day in almost perfect safety. > >Keith Rogers Right after the event, NASA did announce that they intended to go ahead with Crippin's Vandenburg launch in June of '86 since the SRBs were of a different design and so couldn't suffer the same failure. Plus, the warmer West coast weather would also ease problems. But we all know what happened to those plans, don't we. . . Remember though, that the Accident Review Board came up with a list of "Criticality 1" problems which were fixable during the downtime. So, I imagine that they simply decided that it wouldn't be wise to risk another failure from another problem which could be repaired. -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "Due to the Writer's Guild of Amierica strike, this signature is temporarily cancelled". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 88 19:07:52 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Satellites In article <1988Aug5.184230.18530@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <62689@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: > >Pioneer 6 12/16/65 US (still returning good data) > >Pioneer 7 8/16/66 US (still active) > >Pioneer 8 12/13/67 US (still active) > > You missed Pioneer 9, which is also still active. Oops! (See below) > And I think one of the > earlier ones -- Pioneer 8? -- is out of contact and presumed dead, as of > quite recently. My list, unfortunately, doesn't cover events after December 29, '87. > You also missed Pioneers 10 and 11, heading out of the solar system. Also two Mariners, as pointed out in another message. Thanks for the corrections (from various sources) to the list I originally sent out. The errors, btw, are my fault: The list I was getting the info from has all the correct entries. This is what comes of trying to scan through 2,979 launches during lunch. :} ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Aug 88 14:04:30 -0900 Reply-To: Sender: From: Robert Jesse Hale III I have been appointed representive of ISECCo for Space digest. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions please send them to me not to the digest unless you decide it is worthy of the nets attention. If I don't reply to you within a week we are having a problem with the net. Then if you choose to use space digest to contact me. At times the net looses an issue or two, please be persistant. Robert J. Hale III I am not an elected member, only a representive of a "people" space intrest group. SPACE: Do you want to go? The International Space Exploration & Colonization Co. (ISECCo) is an organization dedicated to the greatest effort mankind has ever undertaken: extra-terrestrial emigration. Join us on the forefront of science and help us explore and ultimately settle the cosmos. ISECCo is developing space technology with the aim of reducing the cost of getting to, and surviving in, space. We are building an ecologically sealed unit capable of supporting 2 people. This biosphere will be a prototype for self-contained lunar and interplanetary colonies. Other projects include research and development of launch systems, both material and human. The ecologically sealed unit, or biosphere, has already been designed and construction will begin in 1989. Aerospace plane concepts are being studied and once an acceptable design has been selected, a working scaled prototype will be built for air-launch. Sub-orbital flight will test design parameters and demonstrate concept viability. Mass drivers are also being considered for use to launch material from terrestrial and lunar surfaces. Research in robotics, remote sensing, video communication, and space-based power stations is expected to begin early in the next decade. Methods of making space colonies financially independent are being evaluated. This includes space manufacturing, satellite service and repair, space hotels, and space mementos. Generous donations from our members are our current source of income. Future funding will be supplemented through venture capital, grants, and companies wishing to operate in space. Space colonies are feasible with today's technology. Tomorrow's technology will make them economically viable. Help us turn today into tomorrow and come with us on the ultimate journey: Come with us to the stars! For more information send your address to: U.S. mail: Bitnet: ISECCo FNRJH@ALASKA P.O. Box 60885 Fairbanks, AK 99706 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Aug 88 19:37:20 CST From: "SKott L. Underwood" Subject: August shower. I have heard that there is an upcoming meteor shower visible sometime in August here in the U.S. If any- body has any info on this event, please respond via SPACE or e-mail. --- SKott (UCPL040 at UNLVM) P.S. I will be in the Rockies later this month and would like to know the dates and areas of the sky to be observing. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Aug 88 21:36:22 EDT From: dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Electromagnetic Launchers I was thinking a little more about that scheme I described for launching from Earth-based electromagnetic launchers. A major problem with the scheme was that a fixed launcher sends payloads into different orbits depending on the time of launch. This complicates rendezvous with a LEO space station, for example. But you can change orbital parameters without rockets, by exploiting the nonsphericity of the Earth. The plane of orbits can precess (nodal regression) and the major axis of eccentric orbits can be made to rotate (apsidal rotation). Here's an updated scheme for launching mass to a space station in LEO: (1) An EML shoots a payload into a highly eccentric orbit with the same inclination as the station's orbit. A small burn at apogee raises the perigee into the upper atmosphere. (2) Aerobraking lowers the apogee to several thousand miles. A small burn at apogee raises the perigee above the atmosphere. (3) The difference in nodal regression rates between the orbit of the space station and the payload matches the planes of the orbits. This might take several weeks. (4) When the planes are matched, the payload aerobrakes further and enters a low phase matching orbit. Rendezvous. This should remove restrictions on the orbit of LEO space stations that could be supplied by this scheme. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 88 21:46:48 GMT From: a!jkw@lanl.gov (Jay Wooten) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <1704@eneevax.UUCP>, kerog@eneevax.UUCP (Keith Rogers) writes: > Sure the O ring thing had to be fixed, but did it have to kill > the entire U.S. space program in the meantime? You can bet the Soviets would have hardly missed a beat in sending up another one (something they've proved several times in the past). Isn't it interesting that the space "program" of the (once) pioneering leader has become so hamstrung by politics and public/media pressure not to fail, while the otherwise world leader in repressive bureaucracy plods ahead unflinchingly to world leadership in space. ~ Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare ~ ~ The lone and level sands stretch far away................. ~ Jay Wooten Los Alamos National Lab ARPA: jkw@lanl.gov ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 88 02:38:48 GMT From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) Subject: Re: Satellites In article <3500001@hpcvlx.HP.COM> bturner@hpcvlx.HP.COM (Bill Turner) writes: >> [Text of satellite list deleted] > >Isn't it a bit depressing that a deep scientific mission hasn't >been launched by the US since 78? > >--Bill Turner Your are telling me? 8-) It's extremely depressing! 8-( But, you the American public wanted "men" in space. [Just stating the facts (all those cards and letters).] You see what is depressing is knowing the (or thinking about the original proposed dates for Missions, largely killed, by Ronnie and friends [Ed Meese who came to Caltech one fateful date in 1981]). You see I think of Galileo as a 1982 launch (when my friends were doing ODs [orbit determinations], you might think of it as 1989 or what ever. Frank at JPL thinks of it as a 1978 launch, and he proposed the Mission! [Think how depressed he would be [he isn't]]. Even worse are the single Solar/Polar mission (rather than tandem), and the total lack of a comet rendezvous. There were other missions cancelled as well. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." Gee, lots of SDI postings: remember Star Wars is a trademark of Lucasfilm, Ltd. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #327 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Aug 88 02:19:34 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 18 Aug 88 00:49:43 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 18 Aug 88 00:49:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 18 Aug 88 00:43:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 18 Aug 88 00:30:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 17 Aug 88 22:14:01 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04259; Wed, 17 Aug 88 19:05:08 PDT id AA04259; Wed, 17 Aug 88 19:05:08 PDT Date: Wed, 17 Aug 88 19:05:08 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808180205.AA04259@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #328 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 328 Today's Topics: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability SETI Re: Solar Sails Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) lightning Re: SETI (& STI) fixing Oscar-10 Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: Satellites Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Aug 88 20:42:31 GMT From: adelie!infinet!rhorn@xn.ll.mit.edu (Rob Horn) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <1231@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes: >The problem, as Feynman pointed out, is how do you quanitify this? >I can easily say 99.9 or 95 percent based on some metric, but which. Well, the current launch-to-correct-orbit reliability for Delta-class expendibles is 95%. A fairly generous metric, and one that I sure wouldn't want to ride in. -- Rob Horn UUCP: ...harvard!adelie!infinet!rhorn ...ulowell!infinet!rhorn, ..decvax!infinet!rhorn Snail: Infinet, 40 High St., North Andover, MA ------------------------------ Resent-Message-Id: <4Wzl6Vy00VseI-eFI7@andrew.cmu.edu> Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Aug 88 10:52:17 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: Ted Anderson Resent-To: space@angband.s1.gov Return-Path: Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1988 09:59-EDT From: Ingemar.Hulthage@cs.cmu.edu To: Ted Anderson Subject: SETI I don't think one can assume that advanced civilizations do broadcast signals with the purpose to make themselves known, for the following reason. Suppose there exist some incredibly vicious species somewhere out there, a race that routinely seeks out intelligent civilizations and exploit them rutlessly. Now, if that is so, any civilization that broadcasts its existence would soon be found and silenced, but even if it is wrong it is still irresponsible to take the risk of broadcasting unless the horror scenario can be ruled out with 100% certainty and that may be hard or impossible. I therefore think that its more likely that some advanced civilizations deem regular wide angle transmission safe and useful for some purposes, as we do on earth. Hence, I don't think there is much hope of SETI being successful until a capacity to detect regular transmissions is developed. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Aug 88 10:23:41 CDT From: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Abrams) Posted-Date: Tue, 9 Aug 88 10:23:41 CDT Subject: Re: Solar Sails Cc: spd7924%tamvenus.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu In SPACE Digest V8 #319, Nathan Ulrich (ulrich@grasp.cis.upenn.edu) and John DuBois (spcecdt@ucscb.ucsc.EDU) respond to my reply to someone (*with a poor physics background*) on the mechanism by which radiation pressure can transfer momentum to a light sail. Nathan Ulrich: >I don't know if I am a purist, but it won't satisfy me. > >One indisputable law of the universe, "You can't get something for nothing." >Your explanation above will result in an increase in the total mass-energy >of your system. You're a purist. Although I didn't make it clear, I was describing a "perfectly" reflecting sail (R=1.0) in an attempt to get the idea across without burdening the original questioner with a lot of homologous information. You are absolutely correct. John DuBois: >Surely the frequency of the photon as reflected from the sail will be >lower than the original photon (thus it will have lower energy)? In a *real* (R<1.0) sail, this is true. Again, I was responding pedagogically, trying to present the explanation without rigor, but with clarity. In a subsequent posting, I am much more clear in my presentation. >It sounds to me like there would be a double Doppler effect (once >upon absorbtion, and once upon emmision). Doppler effect? The Doppler effect arises from motion (in the frame of the observer) of a "source" with respect to an observer. While I agree that a solar sail moving away from the Sun will "see" red-shifted photons (and, hence, gets slightly less - for interplanetary sails - push, as the "peak" of the solar irradiance curve is red-shifted from around 490 nm), it doesn't depend upon their absorption and re-emission. It wouldn't be a double effect as, when the photon is re-emitted, the sail would be both "source" and "observer." Since the sail has no velocity relative to itself and the sail will never interact with that photon again, there is no Doppler effect with respect to emission. This belongs in sci.physics... Steve Abrams "The reality we describe with physics is derived from the reality we observe with our senses which doesn't necessarily relate to the reality that is..." 2721 Hemphill Park, Apt. C ARPANET: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu Austin, TX 78705 CompuServe: [70376,1025] (512)480-0895 OR c/o Students for the Exploration and Development of Space P.O. Box 7338, 358 Texas Union, University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78713-7883 (512)471-7097 ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 88 11:32:11 GMT From: bungia!meccts!viper!dave@umn-cs.arpa (David Messer) Subject: Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) In article <1110001@hpfclm.HP.COM> myers@hpfclm.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes: > >>Main power on the space station is specified as 220 VAC at 20 kHz. > >AC? Why AC? > >Bob M. AC is easy to convert to whatever voltage you want by means of a transformer. DC is obtained with a simple rectifier. A high frequency is used because the transformer needed is smaller and higher frequencies are easier to filter out when DC is needed. -- If you can't convince | David Messer - (dave@Lynx.MN.Org) them, confuse them. | Lynx Data Systems -- Harry S Truman | | amdahl --!bungia!viper!dave | hpda / Copyright 1988 David Messer -- All Rights Reserved This work may be freely copied. Any restrictions on redistribution of this work are prohibited. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 88 16:55:47 GMT From: ubc-cs!fornax!zeke@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Zeke Hoskin) Subject: lightning The NASA lightning research is interesting and potentially (pun accidental) useful, but incomplete as it is framed. It isn't enough to predict lightning or lighning-harden spaceships on the pad. What we need is a way to USE the stuff. Getting the power onto the grid would be nice...but consider that one of the problems with electromagnetic launch is: where can we get that much energy in a short burst? The hell with huge capacitors and slowly growing currents in superconducting coils! The Ultimate El Cheapo Spaceship: a shielded compartment, a big strong nozzle full of ice, and a ground wire. Lightning strikes, ice vaporizes, up she goes...somewhere over the rainbow....:-{)> -- What makes one step a giant leap|Zeke Hoskin/SFU VLSI group,Burnaby,BC,Canada Is all the steps before | ...!ubc-cs!sfu_fornax!zeke ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 88 22:31:20 GMT From: spdcc!eli@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Elias) Subject: Re: SETI (& STI) In article <587138396.iaeh@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU> Ingemar.Hulthage@CS.CMU.EDU writes: >Suppose there exist some incredibly vicious species somewhere out >there, a race that routinely seeks out intelligent civilizations and >exploit them ruthlessly. suppose that species is man. perhaps such a vicious species would destroy itself long before it evolved far enough to destroy species away from its home system. a species which survived its own nuclear self destruct phase would have evolved past any vicious tendencies long before the reach into deep space. (or so they say). ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 88 22:14:33 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: fixing Oscar-10 Henry's comments about AMSAT Oscar-10 and its problems (caused by a post-separation collision with the Ariane third stage) came just before I left for Europe for two weeks, and I didn't get a chance to respond. At the risk of re-opening the manned-vs-unmanned argument, here goes: Yes, of *course* it would have been very nice had somebody been up there to fix our satellite, even if all he could do was to bend the 2 meter antenna element back into place. But you evade a fundamental and crucial question: AT WHAT COST? All told, our mission cost us only a few hundred thousand US dollars. That kind of money might be enough to buy a toilet seat on the Shuttle. But I doubt even AMSAT (with a proven track record for low-cost space engineering) could send up a fixit person for the same amount and get him back safely. The simple and sad facts of life that the "I wanna go!" crowd has got to learn sooner or later are these: 1) With both present and forseeable technology, manned missions are inherently orders of magnitude more expensive than unmanned missions, and 2) There are VERY few situations (either practical applications or scientific research) where specific mission goals can be met more cost-effectively with humans on board. If it's *entertainment* you're after, then you should at least be honest about your motivations. The cheapest way BY FAR to "fix" a malfunctioning satellite, especially a small one, is almost always to launch a replacement. That's exactly what we did this year. Not only did we get a perfectly healthy satellite in orbit, but one with twice as many communications transponders and twice as much onboard computer memory because we were able to take advantage of newer technology. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 88 23:54:43 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability [] In article <1181@infinet.UUCP> rhorn@infinet.UUCP (Rob Horn) writes: >Well, the current launch-to-correct-orbit reliability for Delta-class >expendibles is 95%. A fairly generous metric, and one that I sure >wouldn't want to ride in. > >-- > Rob Horn Remember, that the majority of the failures in a given rocket program are concentrated in the first few flights until the engineers can get all of the bugs worked out. So the success-rates of a vehicle should not include the first dozen missions or so. I'm sure that Henry has the figures right at his fingertips, but I believe that we've launced over 180 of them Delta thingies, and only lost a couple in the last 160 or so. *** mike *** -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "Due to the Writer's Guild of Amierica strike, this signature is temporarily cancelled". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 88 17:25:35 GMT From: tektronix!teklds!mrloog!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-101;) Subject: Re: Satellites Steve Hix writes: > >> You also missed Pioneers 10 and 11, heading out of the solar system. > >Also two Mariners, as pointed out in another message. Actually, you missed 4 Mariners. Besides Mariners 9 and 10, You also missed Mariners 6 and 7. These were two Mars flybys in 67 (I think). In case anyone is interested, Mariner 8 was also launched as a companion to Mariner 9, but some problem caused it to end up on the bottom of the Atlantic. They had to do some quick fixing to Mariner 9 to avoid the same problem with it. > >This is what comes of trying to scan through 2,979 launches during >lunch. :} Perhaps you should first look at the list in the Information Please almanac which has only those launches which have gone beyond Earth orbit. It doesn't give the current status so you would have to refer to your other list for that. --- Dan Tilque -- dant@twaddl.LA.TEK.COM ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 88 18:09:25 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) In article <1110001@hpfclm.HP.COM> myers@hpfclm.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes: >AC? Why AC? Same reason we use AC here: transformers. The big problem with DC power is that there is no simple equivalent of the transformer, meaning that any equipment that needs a different voltage has to work hard to get it. If you want to provide service to a wide variety of gear with a wide variety of needs, AC is the clear choice. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 88 20:55:20 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <646@a.lanl.gov> jkw@a.lanl.gov (Jay Wooten) writes: >You can bet the Soviets would have hardly missed a beat in sending up >another one (something they've proved several times in the past). As somebody wrote in Aviation Week a few months afterward (roughly, from memory): "If the same thing had happened to the Soviets, they would have swept the debris off the launch pad, hoisted the next launcher onto the pad, and started the countdown. Anyone who objected would have been told where to go, or sent there." -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 88 20:53:36 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <20043@cornell.UUCP> dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) writes: >... The Rogers >commission did NOT say that the shuttle would be safe to launch in warm >weather. They said that so many things were wrong with the joint design >that it was impossible to determine what actually caused the leak... True, as far as it goes. From the data they supplied, though, it is reasonable to infer that the combination of warmer temperatures and going back to the old low-pressure leak-test procedure would greatly reduce the risks. Neither cold nor high-pressure leak tests had a perfect correlation with joint problems, but both correlations were quite strong and the combined correlation was even stronger. Since there is no such thing as perfect safety, reduction of risk is all one can realistically discuss. Many people thought that a handful of simple precautions, including those mentioned above, should reduce risk enough to permit urgent missions to be flown by volunteer crews. Sigh, NASA didn't agree... -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #328 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Aug 88 05:47:00 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 18 Aug 88 04:29:52 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 18 Aug 88 04:29:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 18 Aug 88 04:10:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 18 Aug 88 04:05:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Thu, 18 Aug 88 04:04:24 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04388; Thu, 18 Aug 88 01:04:36 PDT id AA04388; Thu, 18 Aug 88 01:04:36 PDT Date: Thu, 18 Aug 88 01:04:36 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808180804.AA04388@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #329 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 329 Today's Topics: Re: Solar Sails SETI (was Re: Time dilation affecting SETI) The Challenger Disaster ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Aug 88 05:51:01 GMT From: agate!saturn!ucscb.UCSC.EDU!spcecdt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Space Cadet) Subject: Re: Solar Sails In article <8808091523.AA18626@doc.cc.utexas.edu> sedspace@DOC.CC.UTEXAS.EDU (Steve Abrams) writes: ~ Doppler effect? The Doppler effect arises from motion (in the ~frame of the observer) of a "source" with respect to an observer. ~While I agree that a solar sail moving away from the Sun will "see" ~red-shifted photons (and, hence, gets slightly less - for ~interplanetary sails - push, as the "peak" of the solar irradiance ~curve is red-shifted from around 490 nm), it doesn't depend upon ~their absorption and re-emission. It wouldn't be a double effect as, ~when the photon is re-emitted, the sail would be both "source" and ~"observer." Since the sail has no velocity relative to itself and the ~sail will never interact with that photon again, there is no Doppler ~effect with respect to emission. I meant a double doppler effect as observed from the original source of the light (the sun, a laser launcher, etc.) I referred to the Doppler effect to explain why you would not be getting "something for nothing": while the kinetic energy of the sail (and ship) will be increased, the frequency of a reflected photon will be lower, as will its energy. Thus, energy has simply been tranferred from the photon the sail. If one is looking for a non-rigorous explanation, I think this is the simplest way to put it. Note that as the velocity of the ship increases, the redshift of the reflected photons increases; that is, more of their energy is transferred to the sail. -- > Hello, lift. # We're going to space if we have to walk. -Jerry Pournelle < < -Marvin the PA # The meek will inherit the earth. WE will go to the stars! > > John H. DuBois III # spcecdt@ucscb.ucsc.EDU ...!ucbvax!ucscc!ucscb!spcecdt < ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 88 16:33:41 GMT From: attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!hcr!edwin@uunet.uu.net (Edwin Hoogerbeets) Subject: SETI (was Re: Time dilation affecting SETI) Let's imagine for a moment that we want to send out a strong message in the Hydrogen band to other intelligent life in the galaxy. Which way would we send it? I think it would be obvious to send it in the direction of the center of the galaxy to reach the most prospective planets(?) where life would exist. Now think of *our* galactic location. We're on the edge of the galaxy. Maybe we're just missing out on all the fun because we're on the sidelines? Everyone is sending their message the other way! By the time the messages from the other side of the galaxy get to us, they are too weak to detect. This assumes, of course, that a message is directional. You could probably get stronger reception if the message doesn't spread thin as in the shell example earlier, so it might be that everyone else is sending directional messages to each other. Think of the infamous transmitter aboard the Discovery in the book/movie 2001. AC Clarke made that one directional, as it used less precious energy that way. Another possible reason we might not be receiving came to me while reading sci.crypt. Maybe everyone is sending RSA across the universe and we don't know what's going on? (again :^) You might argue that we are receiving statistically provable random noise. Does anyone have a proof that all encrypted messages that can be statistically distinguished from noise? If not, then this might also affect SETI. Unrelated topic: Has the person who is conducting the poll of significant space related events finished said poll? I am interested in seeing the results ;-) Comments anyone? ------ --------- = ------------------------------------------- Edwin (Deepthot) Waterloo co-op student, HCR Corporation Hoogerbeets 2A computer science and psychology uunet!utai!utcsri!hcr!edwin Me Tarzan, Unix. edwin@hcr // Freudian slips? This message or: // contains no Freudian sex. ...!hcr!MsgPort!edwin \\ // Amiga Glider pilots are experts A B2000 running UUPC \X/ Enthusiast at keeping it up! ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 88 17:53:27 GMT From: att!ihlpb!ihnp4!ihuxz!rats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (D Woo) Subject: The Challenger Disaster ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following article appeared in the May 1988 *Defense Science*. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Challenger Disaster by Dr. Yale Jay Lubkin What we don't know can create problems, but even greater problems can arise from what we think we know, but which is inaccurate. The Rogers Commission investigating the Challenger incident seems to have set out to create a body of facts that are not true. This is my conclusion after reading Richard Feynman's dying declaration in the February 1988 *Physics Today*. (Feynman died almost simultaneously with the PT publication.) The Commission was an almost typical Washington commission. Its head was William Rogers, just about the consummate example of a Washington insider. (Casper Weinberger, retiring as Secretary of Defense, has joined Roger's law firm several rungs down the ladder from Rogers. Perhaps only Clark Clifford can come close to Rogers in the class of political lawyers. Who made up the Commission? In the words of Senator Hollings, "So who have ya got, there, on your commission? Ya got a couple of astronauts, a Nobel prizewinner, a general, some businessman and a couple of lawyers. What you really need is gumshoes, who will be right down there at Kennedy, eating lunch with the very guys who do work on the Shuttle." Rogers actually had a gumshoe, whom he could not suppress. Feynman reports that Rogers did his best to keep the Commission from finding any disturbing facts, tried to sit on Feynman, and then tried to freeze him out. It didn't work. Feynman had a bone and he wouldn't let go. Feynman eventually issued his own report, differing substantially with the preconceived notions of the Commission. And probably killed any chances for future independent thinkers to appear on Presidential Commissions. I feel sure that Mr. Rogers would have been much more comfortable with Henry Hudson, of the Meese Pornography Commission, who replied to criticism that that commission had reached unscientific conclusions: "If we relied exclusively on scientific data for every one of our findings, I'm afraid all of our work would be inconclusive." Or with OSHA, who, right after Challenger, gave NASA a citation for having the best government workplace safety record. There seems to be much to hide. Feynman lights up a lot of bureaucratic garbage at NASA. CYA is running rampant. Questions: The Challenger incident leads one to ask many questions. Since one can draw any conclusion from a false premise, the first question is "Just what happened?" This is hardly trivial, but the experiences of Feynman and AbuTaha lead to a second question: "Why are the authorities trying so hard to prevent the answer to the first question?" The third question is "Why did it happen." The answer to the forth question is self-evident. "If NASA is fixing the wrong problem, what happens next time?" Let me introduce Feynman and AbuTaha. Richard Feynman was a Nobel Laureate in Physics. More importantly, he was a great physicist with an informal manner and a driving curiosity. Alone of the members of the Rogers Commissions, he had the intelligence and the drive to find out answers, was beholden to none and was afraid of none. He viewed his job as only finding out the truth. Read his dissenting report and read his article in *Physics Today*. Read between the lines as to the purpose of the Rogers Commission, and remember what William Rogers is. (Also read the extensive article by Trudy Bell and Karl Esch in the *IEEE Spectrum* of February 1987.) Ali AbuTaha is a space engineer, with ten years' experience at Comsat, plus another few there as a consultant. He has been a space consultant for some time. He read the Challenger Commission report simply for self- education, but his curiosity was excited because when he found a large number of "specific disparities, errors and mistakes." And a few outright lies. He dug into it at his own expense, and spent two years of time and thousands of dollars. He got a second, third and forth mortgage. He hunted up reports and videos tapes from non-NASA observers and processed them, and formed a theory. He transmitted this to NASA. They first dismissed him as a kook for daring to question official dogma, then tried to destroy his reputation by ad hominem attacks, then appro- piated some of his findings and passed them off as their own. You can understand some of what happened by reference to Figure 1, from Feynman's article. The figure shows the joint between 12-foot diameter sections of the booster. The upper section has a lip that fits into a clevis in the lower section. The leak of hot gases quite clearly came from that section of the joint between the bottom and middle sections of the booster which was next to the main rocket. (The O-rings are on the inside.) NASA and the Rogers Commission say that the O-rings lost resiliency because of the cold and allowed a 20 mil leak, starting 0.67 seconds into the flight, mysteriously closing at 3.52 seconds, then disastrously re-opening at 58.8 seconds. Feynman says that this isn't true. Morton Thiokol goofed on the design, and knew it. The internal pressure of the rocket was supposed to squash the O-ring into a good seal. Problem was that the joint was much stronger than the rocket wall (it was three times as thick), so instead of the joint deforming, the wall deformed, lifting the O-ring away from the joint, and allowing the leak. So Feynman's theory calls for a continuous leak. The Thiokol engineers knew the joint was no good, and tried a bunch of fixes. They went to Parker Seal Company, who made the O-rings, for advice. Parker said that O-rings weren't supposed to be used that way, and no advice was given. One makeshift that Thiokol used was to shim the outer portion of the joint, as shown in Figure 1. Unfortunately, the outer lip is much lighter than the middle, so instead of squashing the O-ring, the shim just bent the outer lip outwards. Ali AbuTaha has the most convincing theory. The lower section of the booster had been used in a previous flight. There is a strut connecting the booster to the external tank, and this strut is located just below the joint. There are tremendous forces on this strut, on the order of a miillion pounds, and the strut pulls on the side of the booster. The forces of the previous flight bent the the bottom section out of round, by 0.512 inches according to measurements (apparently by Lockheed personel) at the Kennedy Space Center. This meant that the midsection would not fit into the lower section. The midsection was apparently round. As far as AbuTaha can tell, the Lockheed people used a hydraulic press and adjusting nuts mounted in the middle section the middle section together to distort the shape so that it matched the out-of-round section. This seems to have caused a crack at the edge of the middle section, which then leaked continuously during the flight. Flames are clearly visible on the enhanced videos during most of the flight. AbuTaha provided 39 enhanced photos of the leak, flame, etc. to NASA on August 12, 1987. Instructions were to limit the hydraulic pressure to 1250 lb, which was done, but there were no instructions as to how much pressure should be exerted by the adjusting nuts. Nobody ever measured. The leak caused a side thrust, diverting the Challenger from the proper course. The Challenger control systme put a correction in the loop, to cancel the side thrust. This caused the whole system to hunt, as can be seen from the time sequence of position shown in Figure 2. The Challenger oscillated. Each oscillation put tremendous stress on the strut, on the order of millions of pounds. The oscillations are clear from the shape of the exhaust plumes. The strut and the control system oscillation flexed the booster wall in and out, each time causing the release of hot gas. Eventually, the continued violent flexing caused the entire strut support structure to break off, letting the flame hit the Challenger directly, killing some of the crew and causing the explosion. (Some of the crew were apparently alive at moment of impact.) It was not the leak that killed the astronauts. It was the attempt to correct the sidethrust, which sent the Challenger into violent oscillations. If the Challenger had been permitted to go off course, without attempting the major correction, the side of the booster would not have broken out, the booster would have burnt out eith the Challenger still intact, and the crew could have ejected, off course but alive. AbuTaha has thousands of pages of documentation and many photographs and video tapes to prove his contentions. We have room to show only one photograph, taken from a video made at New Smyrna Beach by Harold Sehnert of Ohio. The photograph, Figure 3, is fifty or sixty seconds into the flight. Note that the intermittent nature of the puffs is clearly visible. Many stills can be seen in the March 1987 issue of the British magazine *Spaceflight News*. Note that one similar shot was used by the Commission in its report, but it has been cropped to exclude the puffs. The twin plumes were present- ed as coming from the two boosters, rather than from the boosters and the leak, as is obvious from the film. One universed in the subtleties of Washingtonspeak might call this a deliberate lie. The NASA Reaction. In bureaucratese, the NASA reaction was pure CYA. A Supreme Court justice said it was not only necessary to do justice, it also was necessary to give the appearence of doing justice. NASA does not seem to be doing either. For example, Malcom McConnell, in his book *Challenger*, (Doubleday, 1987) just about accuses two NASA bigwigs of severe conflicts of interests. He accuses Dr. James Fletcher, periodic NASA Administrator, of being a member of the Mormon Mafia who threw the booster contract to Utah-based Thiokol, despite their inferior product and lack of experience. He also blasts Dale Myers, who alternated between being Deputy Administrator of NASA and a high Rockwell executive, for pushing the Challenger award to Rockwell in still-secret proceedings. Now McConnell exhibits a left-wing, anti-Republican bias, but he does raise valid questions and does appear to have been stonewalled by the NASA legal eagles. He notes that Aerojet was able to make one-piece boosters, and thus avoid an entire set of problems due to Thiokol's need to use multiple segmented rockets. He notes that the McDonnell-Douglas orbiter proposal included and abort motor which would have seperated the orbitier from the stack, allowing it to glide back to the landing site in event of booster failure. But AbuTaha was not engaged in politics. He was engaged in engineering. And NASA trashed him, then stole his ideas. In July 1986, for example, AbuTaha reported his finding that Challenger was operating with negative safety margins for loads at lift off, backed it up with analyses and sent the data to NASA. His findings were rejected with comments like, "It is unnecessary to pursue the thoughts contained in this report," (John Thomas, Oct. 30, 1986), and, "The loads and stresses measured prior to and during launch match those predicted within nominal tolerance," (Richard Truly, Nov 12, 1986). In a memo to Fletcher on January 15, 1987, the National Research Council was talking about negative safety margins. But in March 1987, AbuTaha was still receiving comments from NASA of "not plausible" and "NASA finds no new evidence in any of your analyses that could change the original sequence of events or the cause of the accident," (James Rose, 13 March 1987) while NASA was presenting AbuTaha's findings as their own. It is also not especially clear how cold weather could have caused four O-rings to be damaged on Launch 51-B, including almost complete burn- through of the primary O-ring on the left booster nozzle joint. The launch temperature for that lauch was a balmy 75 F. It is not especially clear how the NASA and Thiokol executives attained their perspectives on the mission. Feynman questioned many people about their estimate of probability of mission failure. Working engineers typically estimated about one in a hundred. Executives estimated about one in a hundred thousand; i.e. one failure could be expected in a sequence of one lauch a day for three hundred years. Do executives get a daily fix? Feynman stressed that NASA officials had been living in a world of unreality. The Commission reported incredible paperwork sloppiness (P220). They found that half the paperwork was flawed, including 96% of Work Authorisation Documents. Why? The Commission stated categorically, "The system ... is an impediment to good work and good records." Has anything changed? It was not only the paperwork that was sloppy. The Viton O-rings were specified for use between -30 F and +500 F, but NASA never seems to have tested them. It is not clear that any of the people responsible for all of this sloppy work, poor management, political sleeze and unreality have paid for it. Certainly not Fletcher or Myers or Young. Certainly not NASA or Thiokol, who received millions more as a result of the Challenger incident. (I do not call it an accident. It was a disaster waiting to happen.) The people who were punished were Roger Boisjoly and Allan McDonald, who tried to prevent the disaster. It is clear that another investigation, run by engineers, not lawyers, might be in order, maybe even a book with a lot of photographic evidence left out of the Commission report. The final words of Feynman's report are important: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #329 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Aug 88 05:59:54 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Fri, 19 Aug 88 04:33:57 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Fri, 19 Aug 88 04:33:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 19 Aug 88 04:16:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 19 Aug 88 04:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Fri, 19 Aug 88 04:05:04 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05395; Fri, 19 Aug 88 01:05:17 PDT id AA05395; Fri, 19 Aug 88 01:05:17 PDT Date: Fri, 19 Aug 88 01:05:17 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808190805.AA05395@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #330 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 330 Today's Topics: Re: Skintight suit reference Re: Satellites Series E stamps Re: skintight suits Re: Satellites Exploitation/Exploration of Seabed, Space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Aug 88 05:32:06 GMT From: umigw!umbio!pglask@handies.ucar.edu (Peter Glaskowsky) Subject: Re: Skintight suit reference in article , kr0u+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Kevin William Ryan) says: > > I posted this once before, but in brief: > > NASA Report CR-1892, "Development of a Space Activity Suit", by James > Annis and Paul Webb. > [...] > Ask your nearby congresscritter to send it to you - that's how I got mine. Any indication how they handled the tender parts? If the suit is porous, I'd expect that areas too complex for actual skin contact would probably have to be covered with something air-tight (plastic briefs, socks, ?) in order to protect them from exposure to vacuum. That doesn't sound too comfortable. > The preceeding reference comes courtesy of J. E. Pournelle, from the > Summer 1980 (Vol. 2, No. 3) _Destinies_, now a defunct publication. Pity... "Far Frontiers" followed "Destinies" into defunctitude, but "New Destinies", which came along within the past year, seems to be doing well. . png | Sysop, the John Galt Line TBBS. 305-235-1645. | pglask%umbio.miami.edu@umigw.miami.edu ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 88 13:15:37 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Satellites >From article <62689@sun.uucp>, by fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix): [ satellite list amended to add other ones I can remember...] AMS "Luna" 1/2/59 USSR Solar orbit, missed moon, called Luna-1 now. : Pioneer 4 3/3/59 US solar orbit : Pioneer 5 3/11/60 US " " : Venera 1 2/12/61 USSR : Ranger 3 1/26/62 US (missed moon...) : Ranger 5 10/18/62 US (missed moon...) Mariner 2 Late 62, US, flew past Venus : Mars 1 11/1/62 USSR (lost earth lock 65.9M miles) Luna-4 4/63 USSR (missed moon, perturbed into solar orbit) Zond-1 Early 64,USSR failed Venus probe : Mariner 3 11/5/64 US (Mars flyby failed) : Mariner 4 11/28/64 US (mars flyby) : Zond 2 11/30/64 USSR (Mars probe) : Luna 6 6/8/65 USSR (Lunar soft lander missed moon) Zond-3 7/65 USSR lunar flyby/deep space system test,solar orb. : Venera 2 11/12/65 USSR (passed Venus, no data) Venera-3 11/65 USSR (hit Venus, no data) : Pioneer 6 12/16/65 US (still returning good data) : Pioneer 7 8/16/66 US (still active) Mariner 5 7?/67, US, Venus flyby Venera-4 ?/67 USSR, Venus atmosphere probe : Pioneer 8 12/13/67 US (died 1983?) Pioneer 9 ?/68 US (Solar orbit, flare monitoring) Venera-5, 1/69, USSR, Venus atmosphere probe Venera-6, 1/69, USSR, Venus atmosphere probe Mariner 6 2/69, US, Mars flyby Mariner 7 3/69, US, Mars flyby Venera-7, 8/70, USSR, Venus landing, survived 23 min Mars-2 5/71 USSR Mars orbit, lander hit surface Mars-3 5/71 USSR Mars orbit, lander survived 20 sec? Mariner 9 5/30/71, US, Mars orbital mapper (M-8 at bottom of Atlantic) Pioneer 10 3/72, US, Jupiter flyby, en route the heliopause Venera-8 ?/72, USSR, Venus landing Pioneer-Saturn 4?/73 US. Jupiter/Saturn, en route the stars.... (formerly Pioneer 11) : Mars 4 7/21/73 USSR (missed Mars orbit) : Mars 5 7/25/73 USSR (orbiting Mars) Mars 6 8/5/73 USSR (Mars lander crashed, bus in solar orbit) : Mars 7 7/21/73 USSR (Mars lander failed) Helios 1 12/74 FRG/US Solar approach to 0.3 AU : Venera 9 6/8/75 USSR (orbiting Venus) : Venera 10 6/14/75 USSR (orbiting Venus) Viking Orbiter1 8/20/75 US (orbiting Mars ) Mutch Memorial Station 8/20/75 US (Chryse Planitia, Mars) (was Viking Lander 1 ,renamed) : Viking Orbiter 2 10/9/75 US ( Mars orbit) Viking Lander 2 10/9/75 US Utopia Planitia, Mars : Helios 2 1/15/76 US [No, FRG(=West Germany)/US... solar approach to 0.29 AU) : Voyager 2 8/20/77 US (solar system escape, en route Neptune) : Voyager 1 9/5/77 US (likely solar system escapee) [Likely? What's going to stop it.. the famous Great Galactic Ghoul?] Pioneer Venus Orbiter 5/20/78 US (orbiting Venus, still active) Pioneer Venus Mulitprobe 8/8/78 US "(5 payloads hit Venus, rest solar)" No, bus hit Venus too, burnt up. : Venera 11 9/9/78 USSR (all but lander in solar orbit) : Venera 12 9/14/78 USSR ( ditto ) International Cometary Explorer 11/78 US; Was ISEE 3 in Earth-Sun L1 halo orbit; renamed 12/83 after lunar flyby, Comet Giacobini-Zinner flyby 9/85, now in solar orbit : Venera 13 10/30/81 USSR ( ditto ) : Venera 14 11/4/81 USSR ( ditto ) Venera 15 6/2/83 USSR Venus orbiter, radar mapper Venera 16 6/7/83 USSR Venus orbiter, radar mapper : Vega 1 12/15/84 USSR (Venus/Halley mission) : Vega 2 12/21/84 USSR ( " ) : Sakigake 1/7/85 Japan ( Halley mission) : Giotto 2/7/85 ESA ( " ) : Suisei 9/18/85 Japan ( " ) Fobos-1 7/88 USSR en route Mars/Phobos Fobos-2 7/88 USSR en route Mars/Phobos Sundry Saturn final stages from the Apollo program, and also the spaceship Snoopy (Apollo 10 LM ascent stage) were discarded after use into solar orbit. Other very distant Earth-orbiting satellites have likely been gravitationally perturbed by the Moon and Sun into solar orbit; such satellites are too distant to be tracked after their transmitters fail. - Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Subject: Series E stamps Date: Wed, 10 Aug 88 13:07:46 EDT From: Sheri L Smith _ALL_ series E stamps (and there have been many) are printed with no price on them (i.e. 25 or $1.00 etc.) and for that reason (according to my local postal agent) are limited to domestic usage only...not even APO or FPO. They are used during the interim periods when postal rates increase, and there are insufficient stocks of the new stamps available. Non-denominational stamps are printed up well in advance, and they merely assign a price to them at the time they are made available to the public in lieu of the "new" stamps of higher prices. (I suppose they could also be used in the event of a postal rate DECREASE, but view it unlikely...) Sheri ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Aug 88 18:42:09 EDT From: John Roberts Subject: Re: skintight suits It seems to me that while there has been much discussion of the concept of the skintight spacesuit, several items of information have been left out that could be very important to the ultimate usefulness of the design. * Kevin Ryan summarizes an article by Jerry Pournelle, based on NASA Report CR-1892, describing tests of the suit. It is stated that the pressure is maintained at 170mm Hg for the central part of the body (matching the pressure of the breathing air), dropping to 100-120mm at the extremities, the difference being maintained by a gasket. This could be interpreted to mean that gas is normally present between the extremities and the fabric of the suit at this pressure, but I interpret it to mean that this is the pressure exerted by the fabric against the skin, with vacuum outside the skin. There is a considerable difference between the implications of these two interpretations. The fabric can support the skin overall, but not on a microscopic basis. At the microscopic level, the skin, rather than being a continuous sheet of dead tissue, is full of pores, and the pores contain important living, wet cells exposed to the outside pressure. At body temperature, the partial pressure of water is ~50mm, meaning that if the ambient pressure falls below this point, rapid boiling of water at and for a short distance below the surface will begin. It seems highly unlikely that these living cells could be directly exposed to vacuum without a considerable number being killed. * Henry Spencer states that the suit has been tested and it works. The problem lies in the interpretation of the word "works". The loosest interpretation is that "the test subject, exposed to these conditions for an unspecified period of time, did not split open and gush blood, and survived the experiment without any observed permanent damage". I would like to know about the results of long-term exposure, which I suspect would at least cause the skin to become dry and brittle, and might kill the hair follicles, oil and sweat glands. It would be very inconvenient to use the suit six hours a day for three weeks and then have your skin fall off. * Paul Deitz describes gloves designed with holes to expose the skin to vacuum. However, the gloves were tested only in a *partial* vacuum, which for the reasons stated above I do not feel to be a valid test of performance in absolute vacuum. The overall structural integrity and pressure differential effects may be the same, but the small-scale effects of water loss and damage from boiling and evaporative cooling will be different. Was the skintight suit tested in full or partial vacuum? * Dale Amon speculates that the inhabitants of a space station might want to wear skintight suits all the time as a safety precaution. However, when the suit is worn with ambient atmospheric pressure, the ambient pressure and the elastic pressure of the suit are *added*. Assuming something can be done to alleviate breathing difficulties, the problem remains that the the pressure exerted on the extremities is comparable to the systolic blood pressure. Since this is the technique used in a blood pressure test to cut off the flow of blood to a limb entirely, I consider it very likely that the suit worn indoors would significantly interfere with the normal functioning of the circulatory system. This might or might not be a problem for a person "suiting up" to go outside, but I doubt that it would be a good idea for these suits to be worn all the time indoors. (What is the "tightness" of the Soviet indoor suits?) If any of these arguments are invalid, I would particularly apreciate a reply from someone who has had access to the original documents. (Note: I may have misunderstood the description of the skintight suit, or the description may have been overgeneralized.) John Roberts roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 88 19:44:01 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Satellites In article <1049@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu>, mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: > From article <62689@sun.uucp>, by fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix): > [ satellite list amended to add other ones I can remember...] > > : Voyager 1 9/5/77 US (likely solar system escapee) > [Likely? What's going to stop it.. the famous Great Galactic Ghoul?] Maybe it'll run into a rock? Something similar happened to at least one deepspace probe a while ago. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 88 18:54:37 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov (MacLeod) Subject: Exploitation/Exploration of Seabed, Space fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube) writes: :There's not really anything fundamentally wrong or evil about the :economic development/exploitation regime established by the Law :of the Sea Treaty ("UNCLOS 3"). And because the legal statuses :of the Antarctic and outer space are much less well-defined, :similar criticism about either is premature. Presumably rational men can disagree about this. I think it sets a poisonous precedent. :UNCLOS 3 does not tell private interests they are forbidden to :exploit the seabed. It's mainly the legalistic aspects of UNCLOS :3 as a treaty instrument that have kept the US from ratifying it; :among other things, it seems to leave signatories vulnerable to :an open-ended amendment process. This hasn't stopped the US from :taking advantage of transit rights codified by the treaty, but it :*has* inhibited private parties from leaping into the legal limbo :of seabed development. It's not a big problem for the US and the :OECD, because placer deposits and crusts that fall within the US :EEZ are turning out to be much better economic bets than seabed :nodules, and the Soviet Union and South Africa have not (yet) :moved to exploit OECD import vulnerability in manganese, cobalt, :or any other metal found in marine deposits. Check OTA reports :for details. I don't doubt that the US government is pursuing some kind of cynical, expedient course of action. :Roughly speaking, an entity (such as a US company) wishing to :develop a seabed tract is to give its survey results, and a list :of pairs of tracts, to the "International Seabed Authority" :(ISA), which gets its choice of the better of each pair of :tracts, and use on its tract (the ISA's) of the same technology :available to the company on its (the company's) tract. The :notion is REJECTED that a monopoly on economical technology shall :imply a monopoly on exploitation of the "common heritage". How :*else* can the ISA be expected to exploit a plot and develop a :distributable surplus value ? Why must those who develope the technology share it with others? How else indeed? Like any other "mixed economy" proposition, the developed countries gain nothing from the situation, except a fragile guarantee that the third-world savages won't club them to death for mining the sea. :The US objects to the treaty's :tech transfer provisions, but they are objections to the specific :implementation set forth in the treaty, and not to the principle :involved. To the USA's shame, if true. :UNCLOS 3's seabed provisions are not absolute prohibitions on :development or developers, they're novel (and as yet untried) :mechanisms Try "protection racket". :to try to ensure that everyone (in the UN) gets a :piece of the pie. A company is not denied the fruits of its :developmental abilities, it is denied absolute property rights. You can say that again. :Property rights and developmental rights are a creature of gov- :ernment, and there's no government in the seabed, or Antarctica, :or space, just the UN. I disagree strongly that property rights are governmental creations. :Unilateral assertion of US interests :outside of a treaty framework would invite, even *mandate*, :corresponding acts by other nations, ensuring a mess. : :Presumably, if Capitalist Company "A" can profitably develop a :tract, then so can Multi-National "ISA", if it has access to :comparable technology, and a modicum of managerial competence. :This should then preclude unilateral exploitation. Is "unilateral exploitation" an evil to be countered in and of itself? :If Outer Space is asserted to be the "common heritage of man- :kind", that is not in principle excluding its exploitation, or :locking out entrepeneurs. It's asserting a principle that :although private initiative may be [is] a motivational force for :development, perhaps the heavens are not best left solely to the :technological "Haves", i.e. the likes of Union Carbide and :Occidental Petroleum. It does make them subservient to States or a World MegaState, both of which are objectionable. :It also leaves an opening for *multi- :lateral* regulation of environmental issues, so that we don't end :up with something like Heinlein wrote about in "The Man Who Sold :the Moon", where rockets lay carbon trails on the lunar surface :to create a giant soft drink logo. Or nuclear contamination of :Mars. Yes, we're much more likely to end up with a Sierra-club like approach which spends large sums to >prevent< anybody from using resources. This placates the perceptions of a small group of elitists. :Horatio Alger is a story for kids, not a useful model for :extending "progress" into space. Armchair libertarian entre- :peneurs should not be concerned that they will not be able to :exploit exploit exploit. Your contempt for the free market was quite clear without this particular dig. Apparently the matter is settled in your own mind. :What they *should* be concerned about :is that on the high seas, flagless ships are strictly verboten, :and any country can board a flagless ship. If you want to set up :your own operation at L1 or L2 or the Asteroid Belt, you'll be :able to build it, but if current customary practice holds, you'll :have to submit to some nation's jurisdiction. The US is the :enemy here; we've been vigorously enforcing the UNCLOS 3 provi- :sion that a ship under Slobovian registry must have a "genuine :link" to Slobovia, clamping down on "flags of convenience". Fur- :ther, at least in the case of the Sarah (Radio New York Inter- :national), we boarded the ship, and later lied about asking the :permission of the flag state (I have this from an authoritative :source). Not a pretty precedent. You're god-dammed right I'm concerned about it, and it's part of the same disease. In the killing fields of Southeast Asia, the streets of Lebanon, the mountains of Armenia, and (until recently) the Fertile Crescent, the armies of the States clash and war and send their children to die for a scrap of colored cloth. They rob and torture their own "citizens" and if the proles complain they are called immoral for not sacrificing all to the State. There are countries for Jews and Palestinians and even black racists, but there is no home for anarchists. There is not one postage-stamp sized piece of land anywhere not claimed by a government or by some hypothetized UN mandate forbidding >any ownership at all<. I have blasted and flamed a lot of posters in talk.politics.misc about political events in the here and now. But that is nothing compared to my feelings about the socialization of space. The battle for freedom is over on Earth, in my opinion; posters like the one here have become entrenched in the moral high ground, and everywhere socialist premises are so embalmed into political thought that they are never questioned but are as accepted as the laws of thermodynamics. >IF< space exploration and commercial exploitation do reach a certain technological level - FTL travel being a good example - then the frontiers should be wide enough to make repression and tyranny difficult. I'm worried about the fragility of the current scene and the near future. :If you think that "common heritage of mankind" is some sort :of romantic tripe, or Third-World blathering, or One-World :Commie-nism, so be it. More like something out of _Atlas Shrugged_, if you ask me. Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #330 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Aug 88 05:45:14 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sat, 20 Aug 88 04:40:31 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat, 20 Aug 88 04:40:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 20 Aug 88 04:24:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 20 Aug 88 04:16:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sat, 20 Aug 88 04:14:42 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06507; Sat, 20 Aug 88 01:05:33 PDT id AA06507; Sat, 20 Aug 88 01:05:33 PDT Date: Sat, 20 Aug 88 01:05:33 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808200805.AA06507@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #331 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 331 Today's Topics: Adam Smith's Money World: The Privatization of Space AW&ST Recommends Scrapping the Space Station space news from July 4 AW&ST space news from July 11 AW&ST space news from July 18 AW&ST space news from July 25 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Aug 88 14:00:49 GMT From: att!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (54317-T.EBERSOLE) Subject: Adam Smith's Money World: The Privatization of Space A local PBS station (WNET - Channel 13 out of Newark, NJ) carried this Adam Smith show on Monday, 8/8/88. I taped it but haven't had time to review it yet. I thought I would post this to let others have a chance to watch any rebroadcast your local PBS stations may have. If anything interesting was said, I'll post a summary of the show, unless someone else does that first. -- Tim Ebersole ...!{allegra,ulysses,ihnp4,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Aug 88 23:21:56 EDT From: dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: AW&ST Recommends Scrapping the Space Station The editorial in the 8/8 issue of Aviation Week is titled "Space Station Realities". The one sentence summary: "The current space station program is headed for serious trouble and should be killed or heavily modified." The editorial explains the problems with the program. Nearly five years after inception, it is still a management exercise. User support is inadequate, the most vigorous supporters being NASA management and contractors. Costs are too high. Congress will not fund $3-4 billion annual budgets. The shuttle is inadequate to assemble the station. The suggested alternative is a smaller scale, incremental approach. Shuttle-C is used to launch a manned core. Built from Spacelab or ISF modules, this would take 2 - 3 launches. Science would be moved to co-orbiting man-tended platforms, which would be grouped by discipline and brought on line gradually. Microgravity research would be done on privately funded platforms. The manned core would be in space by 1995. This is similar to what Henry Spencer was recommending months ago. I like it a lot more than the current space station design. I really like the development of a heavy lift vehicle, even (especially?) an evolutionary step like Shuttle-C. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 88 02:10:47 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from July 4 AW&ST Editorial complimenting NASA on Pioneer 10, and observing that P10 shows that the aerospace industry once could build reliable, sophisticated systems which performed well at low cost. NASA delays decision on a space station crew rescue vehicle to late summer. Space Science Board of National Academy of Sciences calls for giving science, especially unmanned science, higher priority in NASA. Disassembly of SRB short-duration test rig shows joints behave well even with multiple deliberate flaws. Shuttle launch date continues to slip, as repeated small problems bump up against the lack of contingency time in schedules. Rollout set for 0001 on July 4. Rollouts are done in the early morning because that is when KSC's volatile weather is least likely to produce lightning -- the pad and the VAB both have heavy lightning protection, but since the shuttle (unlike the Saturns) has no tower riding with it on the launch platform, it is vulnerable while in transit. NASA is looking at using pre-Challenger SRBs on unmanned shuttle missions, given the impending oxidizer shortage and the substantial stockpile of old SRB segments. DoT issues combined launch manifest for US commercial expendables over the next few years. Most customers are governments and international organizations; there are *no* US commercial customers for US commercial launches at this time. DoT Sec. Burnley says he thinks the oxidizer shortage will not delay commercial schedules, and that the desire for diversity of US launchers makes commercial launches a national-security issue. List of the customers, 18 payloads. NASA Lewis is proposing Coldsat, an experimental satellite to test storage and transfer of cryogenic propellants in orbit, as part of the Pathfinder technology effort. Final preparations at Baikonur for the Phobos launches. [Successful.] The oxidizer shortage is looking bad. The Hubble telescope may be delayed. The 10 shuttle payloads scheduled for this year and next year cannot possibly all fly; a shortfall of three missions is likely. Magellan and Galileo will be protected. At risk of schedule slip are the Hubble telescope, the Astro ultraviolet astronomy mission, the fourth TDRS, and the LDEF retrieval. Postponing Hubble would be very unpopular, and there is some sentiment that if it slips, TDRS should slip too since the telescope is its biggest customer. LDEF retrieval cannot be allowed to slip too far, but there is some slack. The astronomers would like to see Astro up in time for supernova observations, but most everyone agrees that Hubble is higher priority. Discussion of various options. [The one I'd put a small bet on is modest slips in LDEF and one of the DoD missions, and a long slip in Astro; NASA doesn't want the fuss that would result from postponing Hubble.] Morton Thiokol and NASA agree to guarantee loans for rebuilding Pacific Engineering's oxidizer plant. SDI will launch two long-duration missions early next year, the Relay Mirror Experiment to demonstrate using a space mirror to relay laser beams, and the Laser Atmospheric Compensation Experiment to test techniques to compensate ground-based lasers for atmospheric distortion. Letter from Larry Evans observing that Pegasus has some resemblance to an early-60s proposal to use a B-52 and an X-15 to carry a small rocket that could put small payloads, say 100 lbs, into low orbit. Total program cost was estimated at $850k, and of course the B-52 and X-15 were fully reusable. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 88 04:04:06 GMT From: clyde!watmath!water!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from July 11 AW&ST Editorial lauding Discovery rollout, while cautioning that recent experience proves that NASA cannot possibly keep three or four orbiters on the go with current manpower levels. Japan will slip launch of CS-3B comsat at least a month and possibly several, until an antenna-control problem that crippled CS-3A shortly after launch (Feb) is understood and fixed. NASA is studying an internal proposal to launch Columbia unmanned next year using old SRBs. It would carry one of the DoD satellites scheduled for an early mission. Some modifications would probably be needed, notably a braking chute to assist landing. JSC is opposed to the idea because of the orbiter modifications; Marshall is in favor. The problem is that NASA has about 13 pre-Challenger SRBs left, containing about 11 million pounds of oxidizer that cannot be recovered, and the oxidizer shortage is looking worse and worse. There are several schemes for minor mods to the old SRBs to increase reliability. Unmanned shuttle flights have been considered before, and generally rejected due to risks and lack of need. The proposal is just an idea as yet. An alternative would be to buy more expendables and shift payloads to them, since they use less ammonium perchlorate, but NASA does not have the money for that. Phobos 1 launched from Baikonur on Proton July 7. [Phobos 2 likewise, on the 12th.] Mars arrival early next year. SDI has dropped financial support for space-based radar, due to budget problems. USAF is expected to continue it, though. Senate Democrat staff study finds that early deployment of SDI is hopeless because the launch capacity is not there. Earliest full operational date for ALS is about the year 2000. There is also a great deal of skepticism about whether ALS can really achieve its goal of a factor of 10 reduction in launch costs, and some doubt about whether it is really wise to pack many small payloads together into one launch. [I've skipped a lot of stuff about the July 4 shuttle rollout which is old news now. This was otherwise a light issue for space news.] -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 88 02:38:29 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!water!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from July 18 AW&ST Cover photo is the Phobos 1 launch at Baikonur... photo taken by Aviation Week photographer as part of the Western press contingent watching the launch. Editorial commenting that IKI (the Soviet Space Research Center in Moscow) is becoming a common meeting place for planetary scientists. Roald Sagdeev, IKI director, says Proton and Energia [!] will compete for the launch of the 1994 Mars probes. [I don't need to say "Soviet Mars probes", do I now?] Japanese space contractors plan to form a new company to coordinate bulk orders for parts for the H-2 launcher. Orbital debris problem gets worse: NASA quotes odds of 1 in 30 for a minor collision on any random shuttle mission. Space station funding situation continues to look ominous. Lengthy coverage of the Western press visit to Baikonur, highlighted by the Phobos 1 launch on July 7. They saw the Proton integration hall, with Phobos 2 on top of its Proton ready for rollout. Markings on the Proton included names and logos of Danieli and Voest-Alpine, two European (Italy and Austria respectively) steel-factory-equipment companies which had paid to be "sponsors" of the Proton. Both have been supplying steel factories and related equipment to the Soviets for quite a while and thought it was a "nice gesture"; "we didn't pay an astronomical price". Neither company has any particular connection with aerospace. AW&ST was struck by how nonchalant the Baikonur staff were about the whole thing; it was just routine for them. AW&ST was particularly surprised that there were no cables or pipes running from the fairing covering Phobos 2 to support equipment, that there was no effort to keep visitors away from the vehicle, and that the doors were open and a table of refreshments was set up nearby. Ivan Ermolin Petrovich (deputy director of Proton integration), after some delay in figuring out what they were confused about, said: "Of course the spacecraft normally is hooked up to ground support equipment and we maintain a constant temperature under the fairing. But to give you a better look at the whole launcher, we decided to switch off the systems and pull out the plugs." Sagdeev is resigning as head of IKI later this year; he has been in charge there for 15 years. He has not said exactly why he is resigning, but he is known to feel (and to have formally recommended) that 15 years is too long for one man to lead the institute, and that in future two five-year terms should be the maximum. Spectators at the Phobos 1 launch included a USAF delegation headed by Aldridge (Sec of the AF). The Soviets have fixed 1994 as launch year for their next big Mars effort. 1992 was felt not to allow enough time for planning and hardware design. Proposals have been made for using Energia in 1994 and thenceforth. This would permit a heavy payload including a large rover in 1994, a sample return mission in 2000-2005, and a manned mission in 2005-2010. Using Proton would require less ambitious missions, of course. One idea is to use Proton-compatible mission modules that could be launched several at a time by Energia if the switch does get made. The Soviets see 1994 as a tight schedule for a rover mission, and want to see experiment ideas from international partners at once and to start making decisions about them by year-end. [The contrast between this and the world's other soi-disant "space programs" is just getting worse and worse. Better start learning Russian. :-( ] Final full-scale SRB test slips a month after Morton Thiokol employee damages a field joint during leak testing. The motor is being partly dismantled to assess the damage, which resulted when a 1000-psi leak-test pressure line was connected to a port meant for only 100 psi. Aug 20 is now the earliest date for the test; it must precede STS-26 by ten days or so to permit detailed analysis, but that's not looking like a big schedule problem unless the test slips further. India's ASLV launcher goes into the drink on its second launch (the first was also a failure). ASLV is the older SLV (which successfully launched three small satellites) plus strap-ons. India was hoping to have a rather bigger launcher, the PSLV, in service by the mid-90s, and ASLV's main job is to be a development vehicle for PSLV. PSLV's schedule will slip. USAF is working on a "phasar" concept to use multiple telescopes in precise alignment to get the effect of bigger apertures. There is interest in both receiving light (for better spysats) and transmitting it (for guess what). The USAF optics lab is also working on mirror coatings that are tough enough that the mirrors could be cleaned by just blasting contaminants off with a small laser. They think it is not practical to put really big telescopes into orbit without getting them dirty, so one has to be able to clean them afterward. [Finally, from Flight International 16 July] The once-elite USAF manned spaceflight engineer corps, which was going to be the Air Force's space crew for military shuttle flights, has been effectively disbanded. NASA has consistently opposed having USAF crewmen taking crucial roles in shuttle activities, especially EVAs. With the USAF's reduced interest in the shuttle, NASA is winning this one. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 88 02:39:58 GMT From: clyde!watmath!water!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from July 25 AW&ST Rep. Gerald Solomon introduces House bill to bar US companies from entering into commercial ventures using Mir or Soviet launchers. NASA asks companies interested in using shuttle external tanks to say so before September, including details of plans and financial qualifications. Parking tanks in orbit for future use has been specifically rejected. Congress orders major shift in SDI priorities by cutting funding for the Space-Based Interceptor 75% and boosting funds for ground-based systems. Fit hits shan before flight readiness firing: small nitrogen tetroxide leak in Discovery's left OMS pod. NASA decides to postpone worrying about it, since the problem is under control, until after the FRF. It will not affect the FRF. A decision will be made after the FRF to (a) fly the mission without fixing the leak, (b) do minor surgery on the OMS pod to do a repair, or (c) roll the shuttle back to the VAB, unstack it, and either repair the pod or replace it with a pod from Atlantis. Flying the mission without a fix should be possible but is politically very unlikely; the leak is fairly harmless, but it is just possible that nitric acid, formed when the nitrogen tetroxide reacts with water (e.g. humid air), might perhaps drip down and damage the nylon threads that hold insulation blankets in position within the pod. On-pad surgery is tricky, because the innards of the OMS pod are basically inaccessible on the pad and technicians would have to cut a couple of holes in the pod's tiles and structure. Rollback is the conservative thing to do, but that would slip the launch to early October at the earliest. The problem is that the leaking seal is buried in a mass of plumbing and components, and the OMS pod cannot be removed on the pad because the pad service masts are in the way. China prepares for Aug 5 Long March launch with a West German piggyback payload, a protein crystal-growth experiment. German technicians installed the hardware in the Chinese capsule in June, and German representatives will watch the launch. A second German payload is booked for next year. Spacehab completes joint marketing agreement with 3M, and is starting to bend metal on its first flight hardware. Dukakis speaks on space. The verdict is mixed. He is against SDI, the Aerospace Plane, and Asat projects. He is in favor of *a* space station but has major reservations about *NASA's* space station, saying that there are cheaper alternatives that could be operating much sooner. [It's hard to argue with that!] He would negotiate an Asat ban with the Soviets, which would cover lasers and electronic interference too. Another agreement would establish "keep out" zones near military spacecraft to reduce the danger of attack on satellites. He would limit military manned spaceflight. He has a low opinion of NASA's management [it's hard to argue with *that* either!] and thinks better people can be, and should be, found. He wants a space policy that will improve US competitiveness and encourage commercial spaceflight and provide stability for space science. He supports resumption of shuttle flight, building the Challenger replacement, and diversification of the launch fleet (possibly including new expendables). Finally, he gives the predictable nod towards international cooperation. Ariane carries Insat 1C (Indian comsat) and Eutelsat ECS-5 (European comsat) into orbit from Kourou July 21. Reagan names space station "Freedom". [Whee.] More on the press visit to Baikonur. Energia and its payload -- the Soviet shuttle -- will be launched "when we're ready". The first shuttle mission will be unmanned. Neither Energia nor the shuttle was visible, although the launch pads were. AW&ST was quite surprised that the Soviets let them photograph anything they wanted. Assembly of Proton is very simple: the first-stage core is installed in a stand and is rotated to allow the engine fairings to be installed one at a time. The stage is tested and then the upper stages are added. This is all done horizontally, with erection to launch position done at the pad. The assembly hall is not a clean-room facility, although the Soviets say that one reason this is not needed is that the major assemblies are shipped in as sealed units. The press also visited the Soyuz integration hall, where Progress 37 was awaiting final assembly; this wasn't a clean room either. Soviet marketing efforts shift to microgravity services, since they're not having much luck selling Proton launches. They hope to sign two or three more payloads for recoverable capsules or Mir by the end of the year. CNES, the French space agency, has booked a 30 kg payload on a recoverable capsule early next year. Microgravity involves fewer technology-transfer worries than major satellites, and there is less competition. The Soviets are pushing their Cyclone launcher for this work; of particular note is that its payload can be installed as little as 5 hours before launch. Cyclone's erection and launch are highly automated, with very simple ground procedures, and the Soviets say it would be feasible to install a Cyclone launcher "in other locations to meet customer requirements". Austria is negotiating with Glavcosmos to fly an Austrian cosmonaut to Mir. Final preparations have started for French cosmonaut Jean-Loup Chretien's November flight to Mir, which will last about a month. Geostar has started space operations with 500 mobile user units. Geostar will break even this year and be in the black next year, if all goes as planned. Geostar has ordered a third dedicated satellite. Incorporation of its European counterpart, Locstar, is imminent. Geostar is talking to China about putting Geostar-type payloads on Chinese comsats, although technology transfer will be an issue here. Geostar currently has only one payload in orbit, piggyback on GStar 2, and will not be able to use satellite triangulation until GStar 3, with another piggyback Geostar payload, goes up in September. At the moment, Geostar ground units use Loran receivers for position determination and use the Geostar hardware only to radio back the results. Loran is good to about 1 km, whereas Geostar triangulation will be good to about 50m. Geostar has stopped work on its third piggyback package, meant for GStar 4, in favor of getting its own dedicated satellites into orbit; they are scheduled for shuttle launches in 1992. (Geostar was exempted from the ban on commercial shuttle payloads because of federal interest in the system [a flimsy excuse if I ever heard one...]) Current Geostar cash customers are mostly trucking companies, with aviation and maritime users (including the Coast Guard) still evaluating it. Geostar subsidiary applies to FCC for permission to launch a digital land mobile comsat system in the early 1990s. Opposition is expected from the existing consortium that has an FCC-granted monopoly on voice land-mobile comsat operations. Geostar says the monopoly was because of limited bandwidth, but the ITU has opened international maritime spectrum allocations for sharing with land-mobile services, *on condition* that only digital technology be used, and this new allocation is what Geostar wants to use. It is not clear when the FCC will start formal proceedings on all this. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #331 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Aug 88 05:47:01 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sun, 21 Aug 88 04:37:20 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 21 Aug 88 04:37:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 21 Aug 88 04:20:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 21 Aug 88 04:06:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sun, 21 Aug 88 04:05:18 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07176; Sun, 21 Aug 88 01:05:31 PDT id AA07176; Sun, 21 Aug 88 01:05:31 PDT Date: Sun, 21 Aug 88 01:05:31 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808210805.AA07176@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #332 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 332 Today's Topics: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability exotic propulsion methods Re: SETI (was Re: Time dilation affecting SETI) death of Anatoly Lewtschenko Re: SETI Re: SPACE Digest V8 #320 Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: Most distant galaxy detected (Forwarded) Re: Re: ET phone home? (SETI) RESPONSES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Aug 88 20:58:31 GMT From: jpl-devvax!lwall@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Larry Wall) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <1988Aug9.205520.5911@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: : In article <646@a.lanl.gov> jkw@a.lanl.gov (Jay Wooten) writes: : >You can bet the Soviets would have hardly missed a beat in sending up : >another one (something they've proved several times in the past). : : As somebody wrote in Aviation Week a few months afterward (roughly, from : memory): "If the same thing had happened to the Soviets, they would have : swept the debris off the launch pad, hoisted the next launcher onto the : pad, and started the countdown. Anyone who objected would have been told : where to go, or sent there." You guys are comparing Apples and Orchids. The Soviets aren't hazarding a gigabuck each time they launch. I think they must study different economics textbooks than we do. :-) Larry Wall lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Aug 88 20:37:01 EDT From: John Roberts Subject: exotic propulsion methods >From: kistler%Iowa.Iowa@romeo.caltech.edu (Allen C. Kistler) >>From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!ralf@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) >>In article <506@etive.ed.ac.uk> bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (B Gray) writes: >>}TSS-1 will deploy a satellite at the end of a 20km conducting >>}wire with an insulating coating, upwards from the shuttle.... >In _Journal_of_Geophysical_Research_, vol. 70, p.p. 3131-3145, (1 July 1965) >... >The neat thing is that if you apply a big enough >voltage of your own across the satellite to MAKE the current go the OTHER way, >then you get a little bit of boost out of it, rather than drag. This will >never be more than 50% efficient since you'll still be sending some of the >energy away as plasma waves. I don't know of any satellites that have ever >actually used this method propulsion, so it may not be an especially practical >method. Anyone else? If it works as described, the <50% efficiency is no problem, and it could be a useful method. In low Earth orbit, energy is available in large quantities via solar cells, but reaction mass is hard to come by. It sounds as though none of the mass of the craft is used (unless the wire is evaporating). John Roberts roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 88 22:14:29 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: SETI (was Re: Time dilation affecting SETI) > Does anyone have a proof > that all encrypted messages that can be statistically distinguished > from noise? The reverse is instead true. Randomness is an important concept in cryptography. It is easy to show that "apparent" randomness (to the eavesdropper) is an essential feature of any good cipher system. A few "random" comments on SETI: The important issue with regards to frequency selection for SETI, which hasn't really been discussed here fully yet, is the dependence of the background noise level on frequency. The combined effects of galactic synchrotron radiation, absorption by the interstellar medium, quantum effects and the like are such that the optimum frequency window for interstellar communication within our galaxy is between 1 and 10 gigahertz. Any other intelligent civilizations within our galaxy studying the same problem would almost certainly come to the same conclusions. There is nothing particularly magic about the "water hole" band used for the initial SETI experiments. It was picked more or less whimsically, probably with intent to fire up people's imaginations, but also because it was as good a place as any to start. A *true* SETI search would cover far more spectrum than the water hole, but unfortunately large parts of it are already in use by humans. The conventional wisdom in SETI has long been to search for coherent signals, like carriers. Yes, civilizations could be using more complex signals (e.g., spread spectrum) but even for simple signals, the search space (direction, bandwidth, frequency, signal level) is enormous. This point merits emphasis: SETI has only just begun, and all of the searches to date have only barely scratched the surface of the search space, even if only simple coherent signals are considered. I think we should rule out the simple cases before spending much effort on the more complex possibilities. The comment about TV transmitters being the most conspicuous evidence of life on earth is true. But this applies only to detecting a TV signal, not demodulating it. Much of the power in a TV transmission is in the narrowband carrier, and this is far easier to detect than the sidebands that are spread out over several megahertz. Also making the earth extremely "bright" at radio frequencies are the various deep space tracking radars. These are probably not as effective as TV transmitters because they aren't as numerous, don't operate full time and are inherently broadband (they don't put most of their energy into a single, coherent, narrowband carrier). Phil ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 88 08:38:49 GMT From: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!bruno@uunet.uu.net (Bruno Poterie) Subject: death of Anatoly Lewtschenko The soviet cosmonaut Anatoly Lewtschenko died last Saturday, of a "big desease" (no more precision). He came back from Mir on 29th of December 87, together with Romanenko (326 days stay) and Alexandrow, few days also after starting his planned stay. It is not sure that this is to relate directly to weightless, or to the starting chock, or if this could have arrived after i.e. a routine fly on a jet. The list of space victims is getting longer by one, but let's hope that studying the reasons will help shorten it for the future. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 88 19:12:18 GMT From: vrdxhq!daitc!csed-1!zweig@umd5.umd.edu (Jonathan Zweig) Subject: Re: SETI Isn't it pretty ridiculous to envision a species that is (a) nasty enough to want to exploit other civilizations, (b) has the capability for interstellar travel and the weaponry to actually get away with it and (c) can't sniff out intelligent life forms unless they are broadcasting? Come off it! If we want to shield our planet from obeservation, fine -- I think there is just about enough conducting material in the solar system to build a pretty nice faraday cage around the earth -- oops! We have to put it in place without using radio communications so the BGM (Big Green Men) don't come and zap us. Sheesh. I thought a pretty sensible assumption with SETI is that it simply isn't feasible for *any* of the parties involved to travel (else they would be here now, etc. etc.) and that's why we use gigawatt radio beacons. I'll take my chances -- who knows, maybe if we make enough noise the Galactic Police would come to investigate at the same time as the Space Pirates come to get us. ;-) Johnny Z ------------------------------ Sender: "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@xerox.com Date: 11 Aug 88 02:34:39 PDT (Thursday) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #320 From: "chaz_heritage.WGC1RX"@xerox.com In his 3 Aug 88 02:14:51 GMT Jay Maynard writes: >Main power on the space station is specified as 220 VAC at 20 kHz. This, of course, makes power supplies efficient (since, in essence, they're giving you the front half of a switching power supply), but can indeed generate AC across a lithium battery in the manner described.< I stand corrected. The explosions were held to be due to blocking diode failures. Perhaps those in charge of such things will ensure that circuitry rated for the Space Station is designed to preclude any possibility of diode failure causing application of high-frequency AC to lithium cells. Then again, perhaps they won't. Regards, Chaz ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 88 13:33:25 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Keith Rogers wrote: > > Sure the O ring thing had to be fixed, but did it have to kill > the entire U.S. space program in the meantime? Jay Wooten wrote: > > You can bet the Soviets would have hardly missed a beat in > sending up another one (something they've proved several times > in the past). When, precisely? In April 67, while the Moon race was heating up, Soyuz 1 crashed and the the Russians lost their first cosmonaut (Komarov). A full eighteen months elapsed before their next manned launch. This delay was only three months less than the US delay after the Apollo fire. There was another long hiatus in Russian manned launches after three cosmonauts died in the reentry of Soyuz 11 (June 1971). Those gaps may have been due to other causes, but the point is that there is no obvious evidence that the Russians are or were less bothered than the US by fatal accidents in their manned space program. Besides, a 2.5 year gap in the US manned space program is nothing compared to the 10 year hole in the unmanned planetary exploration program... Jorge Stolfi @ DEC Systems Research Center stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi The hazards involved were greatly increased by the notorious nonchalance of American cannoneers; during the civil war, they had actually loaded their guns with cigars in their mouths. --Verne, _From the Earth to the Moon_ (1865) DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer, my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 88 02:00:38 GMT From: bsu-cs!davodd@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Brad Majors) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <1704@eneevax.UUCP>, kerog@eneevax.UUCP > >a certain temperature, they should have continued launching >above that > >temperature<, while working on a better engineering solution. > > > I couldn't agree more. This has been my attitude ever since the > Challenger disaster. I just don't see ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ FLAME ON ******* Impatience caused the Challenger to explode. FLAME OFF*********** The Improved O rings are just one of many features that were changed on the shuttle. Don't you keep up on your readings? Many faulty parts were found in the investigation sparked by the challenger tragety. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 88 17:48:29 GMT From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <1988Aug9.205520.5911@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <646@a.lanl.gov> jkw@a.lanl.gov (Jay Wooten) writes: >>You can bet the Soviets would have hardly missed a beat in sending up >>another one (something they've proved several times in the past). > >As somebody wrote in Aviation Week a few months afterward (roughly, from >memory): "If the same thing had happened to the Soviets, they would have >swept the debris off the launch pad, hoisted the next launcher onto the >pad, and started the countdown. Anyone who objected would have been told >where to go, or sent there." I don't think the Soviets are as callous as one might make them out to be in this series of notes. Otherwise I think we would have seen more boosters come out faster. I think they would have spent some time trying to figure out what "caused" the problem. Our problem was that we had a series of civilian and military losses (Delta [formerly Thors] and Titan]). They are back launching both of these now. We are just a bit more hung up on the sanctity of life than the Soviets, the Japanese, the Chinese, etc., etc. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 88 18:45:15 GMT From: hp-pcd!hplsla!deanp@hplabs.hp.com ( Dean Payne) Subject: Re: Most distant galaxy detected (Forwarded) >MOST DISTANT GALAXY DETECTED > Called 4C41.17, the newly-discovered galaxy is located at an >estimated distance of 15 billion light years -- more than 90 >percent of the distance to the visible limits of the universe. > Once the galaxy was identified optically, the researchers >established its huge distance by taking an optical spectrum which >uncovered emission lines in carbon and hydrogen produced by the >elements within the galaxy. > The observations reveal that these lines are greatly shifted >along the spectrum, or reddened, more than those of any galaxy >previously observed. Like many press releases, this article gives the disputable estimated distance without giving the real meaningful data -- the observed red shift value. Some local papers often condense these releases, leaving out most of the news and just printing part of the background information. I wish I had saved a classic from a few years back. The banner said something about 'Astronomers announce major new discovery', followed by several sentences of background. There was no mention about what discovery had been announced. So, what is the measured red shift of this galaxy? It will probably be out-dated by the time S&T can publish it. Dean Payne ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 88 18:01:33 GMT From: hpda!hpcuhb!hp-sde!hpfcdc!hpfclm!myers@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bob Myers) Subject: Re: Re: ET phone home? (SETI) RESPONSES >} I was wondering if it is true, as I heard, that only the >} carrier wave from TV signals is able to reach beyond the >} atmosphere -- i.e., no aliens out there are examining TV >} pictures from Earth. >} >}I believe this is more or less correct. >I believe that the "less" is more accurate than the "more". Agreed. To put it in slightly oversimplified form, the higher the frequency of the signal, the less the signal is refracted (not, as some believe, reflected) by the various layers of Earth's ionosphere. VHF TV, and to a greater extent UHF TV, are certainly at sufficiently high frequencies so that there's an excellent chance of the signal making it through to space. A very good example is the OSCAR series of amateur radio satellites; these are routinely used by hams running no more than 100W ERP (effective radiated power), at roughly the 145 MHz range - smack in the middle of the VHF TV bands. (Channels 2-6 are below this band; 7-13 are above.) By the by, I don't know how it would be possible that the carrier of a signal would be able to reach "beyond the atmosphere", but the information carried on that signal (the modulation of the carrier) would not. Certainly it is possible that the entire signal can be weakened to the point where it is just detectable that the signal is there, but it's rather a neat trick to somehow strip the modulation off and leave a nice healthy carrier behind. Bob Myers KC0EW | Opinions expressed here are not | those of my employer or any other {the known universe}!hplabs!hpfcla!myers | sentient life-form on this planet. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #332 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Aug 88 05:14:57 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Mon, 22 Aug 88 04:35:42 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 22 Aug 88 04:35:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 22 Aug 88 04:14:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 22 Aug 88 04:07:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 22 Aug 88 04:05:23 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00534; Mon, 22 Aug 88 01:05:42 PDT id AA00534; Mon, 22 Aug 88 01:05:42 PDT Date: Mon, 22 Aug 88 01:05:42 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808220805.AA00534@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #333 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 333 Today's Topics: Re: SDI Re: SETI (was Re: Time dilation affecting SETI) Re: The Challenger Disaster Motor speeds in space station Re: SETI (& STI) Shuttle test-firing feature I'm back Re: Series E stamps Re: Space Station Name chosen -- Fred Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: ET phone home? (SETI) RESPONSES Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: HOTOL funding cancelled Re: death of Anatoly Lewtschenko ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Aug 88 18:17:21 GMT From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) Subject: Re: SDI In Henry Spencer's defense....[wait a minute, I'm defending Henry? hazard the thought]...and as the anti-SDI person who suggested the net.sdi group (should now be talk.politics.sdi). There are two problems with posting SDI "news." 1) rehashing the same old unclear arguments, and 2) the net propagation delay (Re: What time is it?) where 20 people come back with the same answer. This is why Mark Horton made the most frequently ask questions postings and what's I'm trying to slowly formulate to cut down some space stuff. I will offer to add an SDI question into the most frequently asked space questions if someone will offer to compose the questions and statements raised. That way, you can see the same old questions (nicely edited I hope) on a frequent regular basis, then when you get into an SDI argument you can say "Number 57b!" Okay? I'm serious, send me a good summary of the issues and I will compose something. [Yes you can have a few political comments, a few.] Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." [But DON'T send them to space@angband.s1.gov send them to eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov. -Ed] ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 88 16:10:56 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: SETI (was Re: Time dilation affecting SETI) Want to kill 2 birds with 1 stone? Dump all the weapons-grade plutonium into the sun! 1. Weapons-grade plutonium is not that great thing to have on earth. 2. The spectral lines of a blatant transuranic in a Go star would be a sure indicator to anyone looking that there is intelligent, space- capable (don't I wish) peaceful (got rid of the plutonium, right?) life form around that star. Question: How much would it take to make an impression? Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 88 16:02:03 GMT From: geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks) Subject: Re: The Challenger Disaster Thanks for a fantastic posting. I hope this will make people more skeptical of special commissions. It's too bad Feynman wasn't on the Warren commission. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Aug 88 07:17:53 CDT From: steve@ncsc.arpa (Mahan) To: chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu Subject: Motor speeds in space station Cc: space@angband.s1.gov Lucius, The base speed of an induction (or synchronous) motor is determined by the following equation: 120 Frequency Rotational speed = ------- Poles An induction motor must have a few percent deducted from the base speed to determine the operating speed. Using the above relationship I just worked out representative examples. For a 20 kHz frequency a two pole motor would rotate at 1.2 million RPM. By making the number of poles large the speed may be reduced. For a 6000 RPM motor you would need 400 poles. This is still not good. It is likely that another technology such as brushless DC or synduction motors will be used. Please note that these types are electronically controlled and therefore not affected by input power frequencies. Also, in smaller sizes brushless DC motors are smaller, lighter, and more efficient than equivalent induction or standard DC types. In most cases they will outperform standard synchronous type motors as well. steve@ncsc.ARPA Stephen Mahan Naval Coastal Systems Center Panama City, FL 32407 ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 88 17:59:59 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SETI (& STI) In article <1628@spdcc.COM> eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: > a species which survived its > own nuclear self destruct phase would have evolved past > any vicious tendencies long before the reach into deep space. > > (or so they say). Or so they say. This is an unproven hypothesis, not a well-established fact. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Aug 88 15:23:14 CDT From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI Subject: Shuttle test-firing feature On the news films of the first abortive test of the SSME firing, it appeared that there was a spray of sparks across the area under the nozzles that started a few seconds prior to scheduled ignition. I believe I have read that those are something designed to ignite stray fumes. Is that right, or is that what actually ignites the rocket when the fuel and oxidizer begins to flow? Just what sort of device is generating those sparks? Is it some sort of firework-like thing, or what? Is it something that is ignited and burns until it runs out, or something that can be turned on and off and on again? Regards, Will Martin wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (on USENET try "...!uunet!almsa-1.arpa!wmartin") ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1988 20:46-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: I'm back Just got caught up after spending two weeks experimenting with pints of Guiness in Galway... Gary Hudsen seems to be moving very quickly and very quietly. Space Calendar had a picture of his first stage being moved on a crane on it's way to Vandenburg for testing. He's got bent metal now folks! And incidentally, I do admit to having authored the Ron Paul space policy position papers. I worked with campaign HQ staff to make it as close to Dr. Paul's own language and philosophy as possible. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 88 14:41:00 GMT From: ncspm!jay@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Jay C. Smith) Subject: Re: Series E stamps In article <8808101708.AA05670@mitre.arpa> ltsmith@MITRE.ARPA (Sheri L Smith) writes: >(I suppose they could also be used in the event of a postal >rate DECREASE, but view it unlikely...) Actually, the first US non-denominated stamps (the "A" ones) were used when the USPS didn't get the rate increase that was asked for -- something that had never happened before. The anticipated 16c rate (and all the stamps printed up and ready to go for that) was disapproved, and 15c was approved instead (without a sufficient stock of stamps ready). So the first use was due to a reduced increase. I know this now has nothing to do with sci.space, so I feel compelled to add that the first US stamp prepared in secret was the 1962 Mercury program stamp, which was scheduled to be released at the time of John Glenn's flight. Its design and release date were not made public because of the possibility of delays in the launch and that the Atlas booster might just blow up on the pad, turning the stamp into a memorial of sorts. -- "The duality of man. The Jungian thing, sir." --------------------------------------------------------------------- Jay C. Smith uucp: ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay Domain: jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 88 22:28:25 GMT From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Space Station Name chosen -- Fred Actually the name was chosen this way. As a last ditch measure to stave off cancelling the Station, DOD and NASA arrived at a compromise, fitting both SDI and science applications in a single combined facility. The resulting platform was to be named the Manned Orbital Defense Emplacement / Earth Research Facility, or MODE/ERF. All parties agreed, and a press conference was scheduled for Reagan to announce the name. Unfortunately, when they fed Ron's Teleprompter somebody slipped the sheet in *backwards*. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding) ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 88 18:00:53 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <13101@ames.arc.nasa.gov> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes: >I'm sure that Henry has the figures right at his fingertips... You underestimate the reach of my fingertips. :-) -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 88 15:03:52 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: ET phone home? (SETI) RESPONSES There has been enough interest in further info re SETI that I thought I'd point everyone at a book I've found to be a pretty good introduction to the topic. It's "The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence", NASA SP-419. It has been republished by Dover, ISBN 0-486-23890-3. The report came out in 1977, so it's now a bit dated (no mention of the new monster FFT systems that are being developed at JPL and elsewhere) but it covers the basic considerations quite well. Re propagation of carriers vs information, some basic communication theory explains this. The amount of white background noise that a receiver "sees" from natural sources is directly proportional to the receiver's bandwidth. More specifically, the noise power is kTB, where k is Boltzmann's constant (1.380622e-23 J/K), T is the equivalent noise temperature of the source in Kelvin (i.e., the local preamp's noise, plus the sky "behind" the target) and B is the receiver bandwidth in hertz. To be detectable, a signal has to be sufficiently more powerful in the receiver's bandwidth than the noise. TV transmissions typically spread their energy out over 6 Mhz or so, but the spreading is highly nonuniform. Much of the energy is concentrated in the video carrier, and this can be detected in a very narrow bandwidth receiver. The video sidebands, however, is where the actual information is, and receiving these requires a much wider receiver -- one that lets in much more background noise. So it's much easier to simply detect the presence of a weak video signal's carrier than it is to get a good picture. As an interesting exercise for the reader, using the thermal radiation formulas available in any physics textbook, compute the apparent "temperature" of the earth at the frequency of 789.24 Mhz, which is the video carrier frequency of WMPB-TV in Baltimore, MD, on UHF channel 67. (I used to run that transmitter as a summer job during college). That transmitter has an effective radiated power of about 600 kilowatts. Assume that the receiver is in the main lobe of the antenna, i.e., that it sees the transmitter on the edge of the visible earth. By "apparent temperature", I mean the temperature the earth would have to be heated to for its natural blackbody radiation to radiate enough power at 789.24 Mhz in some narrow bandwith (say 100 Hz) to equal the power put there by WMPB's transmitter. The result should shed some light on just how visible we are making ourselves at the UHF and microwave frequencies. Consider also that there are even more powerful transmitters, e.g., 5 megawatts EIRP from WAPB-TV on channel 22 in Annapolis, MD, which was the most powerful UHF TV transmitter in the US at the time it was commissioned in the middle 1970s. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 88 05:42:20 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!Paul_L_Schauble@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability One comment, Henry, about flying the shuttle with the old boosters: The real risks isn't the loss of the crew, it's the loss of the vehicle. To replace the crew, all NASA needs to do is announce the vacancy and stand back. As I understand it, replacing the vehicle will exhaust the complete stock of structural spare parts. In other words, the total number of flights including the rebuild vehicle will not be much greater than operating with three vehicles and using the spares as intended. And what is that limit? The NASA plan allowed for an airframe fatigue life of 100 flights. I understand that they won't make it, and that an optimistic estimate is more like 75 to 80. I don't have the message archived, but I recall Dani Eder commenting on a Boeing study predicting a loss of vehicle accident rate of one in 50 (from possibly defective memory) flights. At this rate, there is only a 20% chance that the vehicle will reach it's fatigue life. So the present shuttle system is limited to somewhere around 200 to 300 flights TOTAL before it needs total rebuilding. Can we build more vehicles? I understand the answer is NO. The tooling and construction facilities either no longer exist or have been converted ot other uses. Except for the existing spares, building a new shuttle would require an effort comparable to building the first one. Much like building a Saturn 5. The above is my understanding gleaned from too little data. I solicit informed comments. I'm hoping someone can tell me that things are really this bad. Paul ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 88 19:28:57 GMT From: att!ihnp4!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Knudsen) Subject: Re: HOTOL funding cancelled In article <4643@whuts.UUCP>, sw@whuts.UUCP (WARMINK) writes: > I was rather surprised at the lack of comments (or maybe I shouldn't have been) > when it was announced that the British government had decided to stop funding > the HOTOL program. Apparently British Aerospace and Rolls Royce are expected > to fund to development themselves. Well I had one thought when I heard of the cancellation, which you have reminded me to post. Namely, will the private companies be free to share the techonology and deal with the US? If I remember right, we were very interested a few years ago in the British HOTOL (Reagan's "space plane", not heard of lately) and approached the British Govt about sharing the development. We were rebuffed, the Brits saying tht the technology was too advanced to share with anyone (secret, proprietary, ya know). Now will the private UK companies be interested in a US deal? If so, would Maggie & her friends/enemies let them? I know the US and UK Navies cooperate on a lot of war technology; why shouldn't this be a marriage made in heaven? (Yes, I'm *assuming* that US govt and/or private enterprise are interested and have the money.) ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 88 15:32:38 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!wlp@ucsd.edu (Walter L. Peterson, Jr.) Subject: Re: death of Anatoly Lewtschenko In article <612@ecrcvax.UUCP>, bruno@ecrcvax.UUCP (Bruno Poterie) writes: > The soviet cosmonaut Anatoly Lewtschenko died last Saturday, > of a "big desease" (no more precision). > [rest of msg deleted] According to a report which I heard on the radio last night, he died of a brain tumor (this was on CBS-radio news on KSDO, San Diego at approx 1630 PDT 8/10/88). Since Lewtschenko had reportedly been scheduled to command the first manned Soviet shuttle mission, that would raise some interesting questions. Did the Soviet space medicine people know of his condition? If they did were they keeping it quite and going on with business-as-usual, or did they actually expect him to fly ? (that would seem an incredibly strange idea!). On the other hand did the Soviet doctors not know of his condition, which would raise some interesting questions about the state of Soviet medicine in general and their space medicine program in particular. -- Walt Peterson GE-Calma San Diego R&D "The opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those GE, GE-Calma nor anyone else. ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!wlp wlp@calmasd.GE.COM ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #333 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Aug 88 03:45:34 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Wed, 24 Aug 88 02:02:12 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 24 Aug 88 02:02:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 24 Aug 88 01:41:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 24 Aug 88 01:29:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Tue, 23 Aug 88 04:05:28 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01806; Tue, 23 Aug 88 01:05:47 PDT id AA01806; Tue, 23 Aug 88 01:05:47 PDT Date: Tue, 23 Aug 88 01:05:47 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808230805.AA01806@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #334 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 334 Today's Topics: space news from Aug 1 AW&ST Where's that summary? (was Re: SETI ...) Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: SETI Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 88 02:19:33 GMT From: clyde!watmath!water!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Aug 1 AW&ST Cover photo is Magellan in final test. Congress gives large boost to Navy's laser comsat project, developing technology for communication with submerged submarines. Japan's CS-3B comsat is now slated for launch Sept 14, to replace CS-3A, which had an antenna failure after launch. Rocketdyne is successfully test-firing a small high-pressure rocket engine for a USAF contract, aimed at orbital transfer vehicles. Britain dumps Hotol. British government will no longer fund development work. The government will promote attempts to find international support, but most everyone agrees this is a silly idea, especially since some of the technology is secret. British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce surprised. NASA is [finally] giving serious attention to using non-US expendables to launch supplies to the space station. The US is also looking at what can be done with US expendables, including the notion of developing an unmanned freighter resembling Progress. 3-4 expendable launches per year for station logistics look likely, on top of the cargo carried by shuttle crew-rotation visits. It is not clear whether expendable-launched freight loads would be towed to the station by the OMV -- which would require basing it there rather than on the ground -- or would rendezvous and dock by themselves a la Progress. Also being re-examined is the issue of garbage disposal, since fewer shuttle visits means less opportunity to send waste (and useful payloads, for that matter) down to the surface. Having the OMV de-orbit garbage, or small reentry vehicles for priority cargo, is being looked at. NASA narrows station crew-escape options to ground-based standby shuttle or new small manned spacecraft based at the station; there is a notion that both might be needed. The idea of leaving an orbiter at the station full time has been dropped as impractical. Shuttle flight readiness firing slips slightly due to minor technical problems. NASA plans to ask for $2.1G for the space station next year, and boost that to $2.9G in FY91. [Micro-editorial: This is ridiculous. NASA can forget that. It is becoming increasingly clear that NASA's gold-plated space station does not have the political support it needs to survive. I've been saying this for quite a while, but I admit I didn't expect it to come to a head quite so quickly. NASA is having to fight hard to get $900M this year; no way is Congress ever going to give them three times that two years from now.] NATO selects Delta to launch its first next-generation comsat; the attempt to get Ariane considered for this one has failed. The Europeans intend to keep trying, while the US remains adamantly opposed. (For those with short memories, the *official* US reason is that such contracts are supposed to stay within full NATO members, and France isn't one.) The Mir cosmonauts will do a second EVA to repair the British/Dutch X-ray detector. It will probably happen early this fall, after new tools are developed and a Soviet/Afghan Soyuz visit is completed (late August?). US State Dept has been formally asked to approve export licenses to ship US-built comsats to China for launch on Long March. Asiasat (a British/ Chinese consortium) wants to launch the former Westar 6 on Long March, Hughes wants to use Long March for the two new Aussats, and Intelsat is also formally interested. These are the first formal "go all the way" requests. State will decide by late September, but the matter is subject to interagency review, which has a habit of causing major delays. China, unlike the USSR, is not on the "forget it" list for restricted technology; case-by-case review is the procedure for China. DoT and others are unhappy about China's prices being much lower than US expendables, and oppose the applications as harmful to long-term US interests. Others see it as a free-trade issue and oppose clumsy protectionism: "perhaps the Chinese have discovered a cheap approach to space, and the US companies are simply victims of their gold-plated approach". Pacific Engineering picks site for its new oxidizer plant, with hopes for limited production by "next February". [The wording sounds like Feb 89, which would surprise me a bit -- maybe they mean Feb 90?] NASA picks TVA's Yellow Creek site in Mississippi as the tentative site for a government-owned advanced-SRB plant. Bidders for the new-SRB contract must propose operations using the government-owned site, but may also propose a privately-financed site as an alternative. Japan picks one of Hughes's spinners as its next weather satellite, GMS-5, for launch in 1993. Major National Academy of Sciences assessment of space-science goals says that lots more money should be spent on science missions [surprise, surprise] and that few (but some) of the missions have any real use for the station. US leadership is not just threatened but gone: "...the Soviet Union is now the leader in space science." Apart from the predictable, the report calls for: - Much better coordination within the US government for satellite operations, with fewer artificial boundaries between "research" and "operational" use. "...interagency cooperation is essential to the advancement of the Earth sciences, yet such cooperation in the area of satellites has not fared well at the Office of Management and Budget." - Under planetary exploration, a high-priority effort for specialized space- based telescopes for detection of planets around other stars. [While I agree that this is a good idea, classing it under "planetary exploration" is silly; it's astronomy.] - The obvious set of unmanned planetary missions. - A Pluto flyby. - Renewal of the search for life on Mars. - A space-based imaging interferometer for much higher resolution than the Hubble telescope. - Consideration of manned lunar and Mars operations as inherent evolutionary steps in planetary exploration. - High priority for the Large Deployable Reflector, a 20-30 meter reflecting telescope assembled in orbit. - A solar polar orbiter. - Starprobe, a flyby of the Sun at 2.7Mkm. - Interstellar Probe, using electric propulsion and a Jupiter flyby to leave the solar system at 80 kps. If launched in 2000, this would overtake the Pioneers and Voyagers by 2005. - A dedicated space-based life sciences lab. - A major technology effort, starting now, to prepare for these missions. - An ongoing program of smaller flight projects to keep small-scale space science alive. - Treating launch systems, space platforms, etc. as "tools to support well-defined objectives" rather than ends in themselves. [I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, it's the sensible thing to do. On the other hand, one then starts to hear: "Your project relies on this space platform that isn't approved yet, so we can't possibly fund you. ... Your space platform has no committed customers, so we can't possibly fund it." NASA's uncritical devotion to the station and the shuttle is not (solely) the result of preoccupation with engineering over science.] More mumbling about US-Soviet cooperation in space, especially Mars. Latest unhappiness: NASA is probably going to delete the Visual and Infrared Mapping Spectrometer from Mars Observer, and replace the radar altimeter with a less sophisticated one. The space scientists claim NASA is gutting the mission; NASA counters that the instruments are over budget, and the choice is between reducing the scope of the mission or delaying it further (something the scientists are very much against). [NASA is being politically naive here: what they ought to do is punt the decision to the scientists, which would probably have the same result but without the uproar being directed at NASA.] More pictures of Soviet hardware at Baikonur. IKI [the Soviet space-research institute] has asked for the use of NASA's large vacuum chamber at JSC, to compile a larger database of known spectra for the laser spectrometer aboard the Phobos probes. IKI's own small vacuum chamber has limited what they can do. SDI's Space-Based Interceptor will continue as a program, but its flight experiment will be deferred indefinitely since Congress is refusing to fund SBI at the necessary levels. [Whew! I am finally caught up -- the Aug 8 issue only arrived today, and I haven't finished reading it yet.] -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Aug 88 00:06:18 GMT From: heurikon!lampman@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Ray Lampman) Subject: Where's that summary? (was Re: SETI ...) In article <3730@hcr.UUCP> edwin@hcr.UUCP (Edwin Hoogerbeets) writes: | Has the person who is conducting the poll of significant space related | events finished said poll? I am interested in seeing the results ;-) | Comments anyone? ________________________________________________________________________ I'm looking forward to those results also ... and am especially interested in the net community's forecast of future significant space events and when they will occur. Would anyone care to post their forcast for discussion? A forecast that includes prerequisite events, matterals, and technologies, would start an interesting discussion. For example ... What are the prerequisites for human colonization for a nearby solar system? Forget for a moment that we can not do this at present, and think about why not. What must come first? Changes in governments? Economies? Technology? Do we need any basic scientific advances? How about long range sensors? -- I am seriously considering a career on | Ray Lampman (608) 276-3431 the beach. I'll need a microwave modem, | Madison Wisconsin USA Earth solar power supply, and a little shade. | {husc6,rutgers}!uwvax!heurikon!lampman ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 88 14:08:08 GMT From: kerog@eneevax.umd.edu (Keith Rogers) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <8042@cup.portal.com> Paul_L_Schauble@cup.portal.com writes: >Can we build more vehicles? I understand the answer is NO. The tooling and >construction facilities either no longer exist or have been converted ot >other uses. Except for the existing spares, building a new shuttle would >require an effort comparable to building the first one. Much like building >a Saturn 5. Do you mean to tell me that NASA made *no* provisions whatsoever for building more shuttles? None at all? This whole program has been a dead end with no hopes of going anywhere but down the tubes? Please tell me it isn't so. This will crush my last naive hopes that NASA isn't just a bunch of hopeless incompetants. At least tell me what their justification is. Keith Rogers ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 88 21:27:27 GMT From: kerog@eneevax.umd.edu (Keith Rogers) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <1731@eneevax.UUCP> kerog@eneevax.umd.edu.UUCP (that's me) writes: >This will crush my last naive hopes that NASA isn't just a bunch >of hopeless incompetants. > I apologize and retract this. My dissatisfaction is not with NASA but with the way it is managed and the way the government runs it. Again, I admit that my reaction was unwarranted. Keith Rogers gain a British space program bites the dust before it has even started. [I wonder, if this were a US program, how much follow-up would there have been on the net?!] -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If all the statisticians were laid end to | Stuart Warmink, APT UK Ltd. end across the Atlantic, 99% would drown :-) | !whuts!sw Whippany NJ USA -----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of APT UK Ltd. <----------- ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 88 15:11:46 GMT From: psivax!quad1!ttidca!jackson@uunet.uu.net (Dick Jackson) Subject: Re: SETI In article <3730@hcr.UUCP> edwin@hcr.UUCP (Edwin Hoogerbeets) writes: > >Another possible reason we might not be receiving came to me while >reading sci.crypt. Maybe everyone is sending RSA across the universe and >we don't know what's going on? (again :^) I don't know what "RSA" is but this para triggered an idea. Maybe its obvious to THEIR radio designers that the messages should be sent using spread spectrum with a code given by some naturally occuring, fundamental number. This number could not be a physical constant or transcendental number because of the choice of significant figures. Maybe there are some long but rational numbers generated by number theory? (For those who may not be familiar with spread spectrum, it is a radio technique which trades off power for bandwidth; signals can be buried in the noise level and recovered by correlating the signal using the code by which it was generated - Please no flames for this cheap and cheerful description.) Dick Jackson ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 88 02:26:54 GMT From: tness7!tness1!splut!jay@bellcore.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) Subject: Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) In article <2090@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> chiaravi@silver.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes: >In article <629@splut.UUCP>, I wrote: >>Main power on the space station is specified as 220 VAC at 20 kHz. > Isn't this going to cause considerable inefficiency of power >transmission due to radiative losses, which go up with increasing frequency (I >don't remember the exact relation, but it's linear or worse)? According to my source, the losses are low enough to be of minor problem. Me? I'm not a power engineer (if it ain't 1 or 0, it's broke!). > Also, this is going to make it impossible to operate induction motors >(unless you want them to go VERY fast) without using electronic conversion of >the power to get the frequency down. Or DC motors, from a power supply. My source hasn't seen a single motor specified on the station, though. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC...>splut!< | Never ascribe to malice that which can uucp: uunet!nuchat! | adequately be explained by stupidity. hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- {killer,bellcore}!tness1! | Birthright Party '88: let's get spaced! ------------------------------ Date: 13 Aug 88 04:30:27 GMT From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <1731@eneevax.UUCP> kerog@eneevax.umd.edu.UUCP (Keith Rogers) writes: > Do you mean to tell me that NASA mad *no* provisions whatsoever for >building more shuttles? None at all? This whole program has been a dead >end with no hopes of going anywhere but down the tubes? Please tell me >it isn't so. This will crush my last naive hopes that NASA isn't just a bunch >of hopeless incompetants. At least tell me what their justification is. I cannot totally justify the thinking of many of those who made decisions in the early 1970s [remember back then, that's when this thing was put together, but maybe a few of you were young [I was in college]]. Anyway, on one hand you can argue: YES, no provisions, on another hand you can argue the X-3* X-20 Dynasoar, etc. with more men in the loop (i.e., a more low key space thing). Would the Soviets have beaten us? Etc. Anyways, we took the path more travelled. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #334 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Aug 88 05:27:00 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Wed, 24 Aug 88 04:20:44 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 24 Aug 88 04:20:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 24 Aug 88 04:13:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 24 Aug 88 04:07:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 24 Aug 88 04:06:11 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02774; Wed, 24 Aug 88 01:06:15 PDT id AA02774; Wed, 24 Aug 88 01:06:15 PDT Date: Wed, 24 Aug 88 01:06:15 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808240806.AA02774@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #335 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 335 Today's Topics: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: SETI The galaxy at the edge of the universe Re: SETI (& STI) Space Station Info Needed Re: death of Anatoly Lewtschenko Spacesploitation Re: SETI (was Re: Time dilation affecting SETI) Re: skintight suits ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Aug 88 03:29:42 GMT From: ecsvax!cjl@mcnc.org (Charles Lord) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability No, Keith - that does not make them incompetent. (boy, I wish I could spell tonight!) The Space Program has always been a progressing system of better systems designed to not only perform a function but also provide a platform for new technologies in the future. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Shuttle: each was ordered in a set quantity with the understanding that there would be a newer, better vehicle coming. The problem is that the cutbacks (massive) following the moon landings began to spell doom for this system. The second generation shuttle was on the drawing board for a long time (and still is - the USAF is the only entity that has a real budget for their version of the "orient express"), and didn't follow suit because the American public through their representatives in DC decided the massive spending was better funneled elsewhere. The delays, politics, and infighting when coupled with the explosion have all but guaranteed no relief to that situation. Turnover at NASA as well as the contractors has made it a nightmare for those responsible for getting them airborne. That supposively was the reason for the FRF glitches/delays. Too many ground personnel had never actually prepped a shuttle for launch... The real point of my rambling is that the shuttle in its antiquity is not to be expanded - it was meant to be (and SHOULD be) superceeded. -- Charles Lord ..!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl Usenet Cary, NC cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Bitnet #include #include ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 88 16:15:10 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!cam-cl!scc@uunet.uu.net (Stephen Crawley) Subject: Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft [My apologies to those who think that SF does not belong in sci.space ...] In article <3696@thorin.cs.unc.edu> symon@lhotse.cs.unc.edu (James Symon) writes: >Somebody had cat brains for pilots, quicker reflexes. (Actually, >working in tandem with human pilots, as I remember) I expect you are recalling "The Game of Rat and Dragon" by Cordwainer Smith. It is currently in print in a collection of CS's short stories entitled "The Rediscovery of Man". Classic SF this: worth every penny. -- Steve ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 88 13:49:57 GMT From: mailrus!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg@rutgers.edu (Gregory N. Hullender) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <1988Aug9.205520.5911@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >"If the same thing had happened to the Soviets, they would have >swept the debris off the launch pad, hoisted the next launcher onto the >pad, and started the countdown. Anyone who objected would have been told >where to go, or sent there." I imagine they would also have sent various officials from Morton Thiokol and Nasa off to the Gualag, if not had them shot. As I recall, a fair amount of the pressure for putting safety first came from the astronauts themselves; considering just how shoddy Nasa had gotten, I can understand their point of view. Read "Challenger: A Major Malfunction" for a more detailed description. Fortunately, we don't live in the Soviet Union; however, considering your callous disregard for human life and warm regard for the power of a police state to stifle dissent, perhaps you should consider relocating. -- Greg Hullender uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg 3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 88 16:58:36 GMT From: ndsuvax!nekinsel@uunet.uu.net (Peter Kinsella) Subject: Re: SETI In article <587138396.iaeh@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU> you write: >I don't think one can assume that advanced civilizations do broadcast >signals with the purpose to make themselves known, for the following >reason. > >Suppose there exist some incredibly vicious species somewhere out >there, a race that routinely seeks out intelligent civilizations and >exploit them rutlessly. Aren't we making a few rather large assumptions. If we assume that life exists elswhere in the universe. 1. That the warring society can travel to conquer the broadcasting world before that society developes sufficent technology to defend itself. (faster then the speed of light ?) 2. That it can travel in such numbers as to conquer a whole planet. 3. If it had the technology to transfer enough people to take over the planet of a lesser thechnology what would it gain ? (welfare recipients? ) ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 88 22:03:58 GMT From: aplcen!jhunix!ins_aaaa@mimsy.umd.edu (Deen Ilyas) Subject: The galaxy at the edge of the universe A couple of days ago astronomers in Baltimore (I'm not sure, but I think it must be the Space Telescope Institute) discovered the most distant galaxy ever seen. There are a couple of problems that arise from this discovery. For example, it has been thought that the age of the universe is around fourteen billion years old. Yet the distance measured to the newly discovered galaxy exceeds that number. Was the composition of the galaxy mostly hydrogen-helium or was the composition of the galaxy heavy elements? How can we reconcile this discovery with the big bang theory? Does anyone on the net knows the answer to these questions? I would appreciate it very much if anyone could supply the information and contribute to the discussion. Thanks in advance. Deen Ilyas ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 88 20:46:37 GMT From: trwrb!aero!mac@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Robert McGwier) Subject: Re: SETI (& STI) In article <1988Aug10.175959.21238@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1628@spdcc.COM> eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: >> a species which survived its >> own nuclear self destruct phase would have evolved past >> any vicious tendencies long before the reach into deep space. >> >> (or so they say). > >Or so they say. This is an unproven hypothesis, not a well-established fact. I agree with Henry. I would think that the inevitable environmental pollution of a technological species would be a much bigger danger and that takes a great deal of energy to clean up after the damage is done. On another topic: About a year ago, after I did something for JPL they did something for me. They took me to Goldstone let me ride the big dish and talk to the folks on the SETI team. This was including Mike Klein (SETI leader at JPL), Ed Olson, Larry Rauch, and Ed Posner whose office runs the deep space network. One thing was clear from our discussions. At that time, they were doing a hell of a lot of work on figuring out what was the best strategy for DETECTING a signal (targeted super sensitive search or all-sky not so sensitive search). For them to be able to do a targeted transmitted signal, they have to use resources available to them. This would imply that they have to use the antennas used by the folks at Ames and JPL and all of these are high gain and very directional. Which direction would you have them point in? If they knew this, we would not be discussing SETI since the SEARCH would be over ;-). What frequencies would you have them use? The quiet frequency zones for radio astronomy? Or those guaranteed by international treaty to be for the use of other services? I think you get the idea. Transmitting doesn't seem to be a part of the plan. I'm a signal processing theoretician and don't represent them or claim any special knowledge of what has gone since that meeting. My last impression was that this was a listen only project. On 145 Mhz, we do transmit and receive on those bands from our AMSAT OSCAR's and Soviet RS's. They are not all that transparent however. Dispersion is a problem and other funnies happen to signals on these bands. As you go even higher, water in the atmosphere begins to become very absorbent, etc. The world above 145 is not a panacea for pointing at space. Bob McGwier N4HY ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 88 22:53:56 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jsalter@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (The Math Hacker) Subject: Space Station Info Needed Can anyone point me to any information about the viable alternatives to the manned Space Station. Specifically, the use of robotics instead of permanently-manned modules; the effects on micro-gravity experiments by the introduction of people moving about; the use of the heavy-lift shuttle (Shuttle-C, I think) for building as opposed to the regular shuttle; and anything else. It's easy to come up with reasons for the station, especially when I'm already for it. What about arguments against it? (The pro-earth people should know by now that space exploration is not only important, but imperative. I really need better counter-arguments than "we should spend money on earth-bound needs instead") Thanks for any help. -- James A. Salter -- Yes, math majors can use UNIX(tm), too... jsalter@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU | sin(x)/n = 6 (Cancel the n's!) ...!ucbvax!voder!polyslo!jsalter | "Type h for help." -- rn ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 88 14:57:52 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net (Bob Gray) Subject: Re: death of Anatoly Lewtschenko In article <612@ecrcvax.UUCP> bruno@ecrcvax.UUCP (Bruno Poterie) writes: >The soviet cosmonaut Anatoly Lewtschenko died last Saturday, >of a "big desease" (no more precision). The report I heard said it was a brain tumor. Note also that he was the Soviet's main test pilot for their shuttle, so the first launch may be further delayed if they do intend to fly it manned. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Aug 1988 14:58-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Spacesploitation Much that you say about the way the statists deal with free people is true. I fear very much that the only way we will be able to defend our property rights on the moon or anywhere else is to be prepared to shoot back when the UN version of a 'coast guard' tries to enforce these assinine treaties. I did not sign and would not have signed these treaties. I am not bound by them. PERIOD. I give them NO allegience whatsoever. My only long term allegiance is to libertarian principles, not to any government, whether it be the one which currently CLAIMS it has jurisdiction over me, or that of A UN agency in the future that makes such claims on my person or property off earth. I submit to the tyranny of neither, now or then. Anything I do that assists a government at this time is either out of the wisdom of not marching unarmed into a machine gun, or of helping statists to go as close to the direction I desire as possible. I am myself not the type to ever take up arms, but should the UN or other agency ever attempt to enforce their 'rights' over space, I hope the residents in that distant decade blow their imperial asses all the way back to Earth. The only thing that will be unfortunate (on that far future date) is that those asses will belong to innocent 18 and 19 year olds who have been fed statist propaganda from childhood. Those responsible, as is always the case, will sit back in their easy chairs while others do the dying. That is the way of all statists, whether they are commie-statists or capitalist-statists or fascist-statists. When it comes to expending lives for 'the glory of the state', for 'state interests', there is absolutely no difference between a Reagan, a Gorbachev, a Botha, or an Ortega. People will be free. They will protect their property rights one way or another. With blood, if necessary. Space is too big for any government or agency to control. Can't we EVER learn that imperialism doesn't work? And when you get down to it, that is ALL that treaties like the moon treaty really are: a means of enforcing an Earth based imperialism of the solar system. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Aug 88 19:14:24 GMT From: sugar!peter@uunet.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: SETI (was Re: Time dilation affecting SETI) In article <1628@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu>, jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes: > Want to kill 2 birds with 1 stone? Dump all the weapons-grade plutonium > into the sun! > 1. Weapons-grade plutonium is not that great thing to have on earth. Weapons-grade plutonium is a valuable substance. It can be used to generate electrical power. The idea of wasting it in this manner is abhorrent. Better to burn the Mona Lisa. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today? ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 88 15:57:38 GMT From: attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!db.toronto.edu!hogg@uunet.uu.net (John Hogg) Subject: Re: skintight suits In article <8808102242.AA08336@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes: >It seems to me that while there has been much discussion of the concept >of the skintight spacesuit, several items of information have been left out >that could be very important to the ultimate usefulness of the design. > >* Kevin Ryan summarizes an article by Jerry Pournelle, based on NASA Report > CR-1892, describing tests of the suit. It is stated that the pressure is > maintained at 170mm Hg for the central part of the body (matching the > pressure of the breathing air), dropping to 100-120mm at the extremities, > the difference being maintained by a gasket. > [Confusion about meaning of this.] The ``gasket'' is presumably the neck seal. A description of the breathing-bag arrangement around the torso has been given in an earlier posting; send mail for details. Apart from that, pressurization is controlled by the number, type and tension of fabric layers at any point on the body. The fabric supports the skin; the skin is in fact the pressure vessel. > The fabric can support the skin overall, but > not on a microscopic basis. At the microscopic level, the skin, rather than > being a continuous sheet of dead tissue, is full of pores, and the pores > contain important living, wet cells exposed to the outside pressure. At > body temperature, the partial pressure of water is ~50mm, meaning that if > the ambient pressure falls below this point, rapid boiling of water at and > for a short distance below the surface will begin. It seems highly unlikely > that these living cells could be directly exposed to vacuum without a > considerable number being killed. At the beginning of the Contractor's Report, the authors review studies on skin outgassing at low pressures. The conclusion was that the rates are too low to pose a problem. Skin is tougher than most people give it credit for, and no signs of boiling skin were noted on the test subjects. This is because the cell walls *are* strong enough to maintain adequate pressures over the distances involved. If this seems surprising, remember high school biology and osmosis in root cell walls. >* Henry Spencer states that the suit has been tested and it works. The > problem lies in the interpretation of the word "works". The loosest > interpretation is that "the test subject, exposed to these conditions > for an unspecified period of time, did not split open and gush blood, > and survived the experiment without any observed permanent damage". > I would like to know about the results of long-term exposure, which I > suspect would at least cause the skin to become dry and brittle, and > might kill the hair follicles, oil and sweat glands. It would be very > inconvenient to use the suit six hours a day for three weeks and then > have your skin fall off. You could be right about the long-term effects of SAS usage. Of course, there may be totally unforeseen problems with any suit, SAS or conventional, run at low pressures over long periods. The fact of the matter is that we have precious little experience of any sort. EVAs have been of extremely limited duration. Medical experts (which I am assuredly not) don't seem to be too worried about the possibilities that you describe. Given the many desert peoples that survive harsh, drying conditions with skins wrinkled but intact, and the ability of root cells to hold pressure, this doesn't sound unreasonable. There's only one way to find out, though: design it, build it and use it. Preferably under actual conditions. And don't throw away existing designs while you're at it. > >* Paul Deitz describes gloves designed with holes to expose the skin to > vacuum. However, the gloves were tested only in a *partial* vacuum, > which for the reasons stated above I do not feel to be a valid test > of performance in absolute vacuum. The overall structural integrity > and pressure differential effects may be the same, but the small-scale > effects of water loss and damage from boiling and evaporative cooling > will be different. Was the skintight suit tested in full or partial > vacuum? Good point. The later glove tests showed very little that the original work hadn't covered. However, Webb and Annis tested their series of suits in both partial and (to the extent possible at zero altitude) hard vacuum. As Henry said, they work. There have been a number of objections to the SAS raised in this newsgroup. Interestingly enough, doubters don't seem to be worried about the problems to which the original researchers had no answer. The suit must be precisely fitted, and given that humans stretch in microgravity, that's not acceptable. A multilayer suit takes a long time to don in gravity, let alone free-fall, and single-layer suits require too much force to put on without special aids, which haven't been designed. And the problems of blood pooling still weren't totally overcome in the last prototype, although that may be more a matter of implementation than design. No, the idea is not without flaws, but we don't know of any show-stoppers. -- John Hogg | hogg@csri.toronto.{edu,cdn} Computer Systems Research Institute| uunet!csri.toronto.edu!hogg University of Toronto | hogg%csri.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net (arpa) | hogg@csri.utoronto (bitnet) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #335 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Aug 88 02:27:05 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Wed, 24 Aug 88 23:32:08 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 24 Aug 88 23:32:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 24 Aug 88 23:21:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 24 Aug 88 22:48:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 24 Aug 88 22:08:11 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04052; Wed, 24 Aug 88 19:06:14 PDT id AA04052; Wed, 24 Aug 88 19:06:14 PDT Date: Wed, 24 Aug 88 19:06:14 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808250206.AA04052@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #336 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 336 Today's Topics: Re: SETI Re: fixing Oscar-10 Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) Re: SETI (was Re: Time dilation affecting SETI) Re: skintight suits Aerospike Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: Aerospike Ozone layers Re: Destinies lives again - was Skinsuit Re: Orbital Data and Observation Relay Satellite ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Aug 88 18:43:08 GMT From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SETI In article <443@csed-1.IDA.ORG> zweig@csed-1.IDA.ORG (Jonathan Zweig) writes: >Isn't it pretty ridiculous to envision a species that is (a) nasty enough >to want to exploit other civilizations, (b) has the capability for >interstellar travel and the weaponry to actually get away with it and (c) >can't sniff out intelligent life forms unless they are broadcasting? No, not really. As far as the capabilities go, we might be able to do it in another century or so, even assuming no breakthroughs. >Sheesh. I thought a pretty sensible assumption with SETI is that it simply >isn't feasible for *any* of the parties involved to travel (else they would >be here now, etc. etc.) and that's why we use gigawatt radio beacons... The trouble is that the assumption is untenable, unless there is some deep problem that we can't see. Interstellar travel simply isn't that hard, if you're willing to accept high costs and long transit times. There are a dozen different propulsion systems that we could probably build within a century which would work. "Interstellar travel is not feasible" used to be the standard answer to "why aren't they here now?", but not even the most fervent SETI advocates can keep a straight face when saying that now. The fact is, we *don't know* why they aren't here now, and it's a major puzzle. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 88 21:11:04 GMT From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: fixing Oscar-10 In article <1282@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: >... 1) With both present and forseeable >technology, manned missions are inherently orders of magnitude more >expensive than unmanned missions... Present, maybe, although I think you should check Soviet prices before assuming that the Shuttle represents the current state of the art for cheap manned missions! Foreseeable, nonsense, unless by "foreseeable" you mean "what NASA can foresee". There is no *inherent* reason why launching a repairman to a satellite should cost significantly more than launching a 3000-lb satellite into the relevant orbit. (The Mercury capsule, built with late-50s technology, weighed 3000 lbs loaded; I think one can safely assume that more modern hardware would cut the weight enough to add the maneuvering and EVA capability that Mercury lacked.) Of course, if one is really smart and doesn't need a particular orbit, one can avoid having to launch the repairman by making the satellite co-orbit with Mir... > 2) There are VERY few situations >(either practical applications or scientific research) where specific >mission goals can be met more cost-effectively with humans on board... If you define "mission goals" to be those selected for funding today, when human presence is very expensive (except for the Soviets), this is vacuously true. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 14 Aug 88 09:06:41 GMT From: larson@unix.sri.com (Alan Larson) Subject: Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) In article <643@splut.UUCP> jay@splut.UUCP writes: >In article <2090@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> chiaravi@silver.UUCP writes: >> Also, this is going to make it impossible to operate induction motors >>(unless you want them to go VERY fast) without using electronic conversion of >>the power to get the frequency down. > >Or DC motors, from a power supply. My source hasn't seen a single motor >specified on the station, though. Hmmm. Something sounds strange here. What about the fans that move air around the cabin. (I hear that these are rather necessary due to the lack of convection. Breathing fresh air is considered nice.) Speaking of fans, there may be fans (and pumps) in the restroom facilities. my opinion: The best reason for 220 VAC at 20 KHz is that it provides the contractors with the opportunity to engineer custom parts at great profit. It seems unlikely that the savings in size by 20 KHz power are worth the trouble. DC could be used without great difficulty in many places. DC to DC converters are common in small modules. Using DC would help eliminate the need to filter continuing background hum of the power system from the electronics and experiments. Common AC frequencies (60 Hz, 400 Hz) could be used with more easily available equipment. Filtering and processing these frequencies is not much of a problem, since the technology of building power supplies operating with normal forms of power is well developed. If a large assembly or rack needs a special type of power, it makes more sense to provide that power in local busses. This could provide the savings that 20 KHz power would be expected to provide. 20 KHz power would, it seems, be at higher risk to coupling from the power lines by both magnetic and capacitative couplikng means. This would mean that the supply lines would need extra protection to keep them away from the data lines. Failure to do that would contaminate the non-power lines with the same AC 'hum' that was filtered out by the power supplies. Alan ------------------------------ Date: 14 Aug 88 03:13:17 GMT From: tektronix!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: SETI (was Re: Time dilation affecting SETI) In article <3730@hcr.UUCP> edwin@hcr.UUCP (Edwin Hoogerbeets) writes: roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes: > ... The fabric can support the skin overall, but > not on a microscopic basis. At the microscopic level, the skin, rather than > being a continuous sheet of dead tissue, is full of pores, and the pores > contain important living, wet cells exposed to the outside pressure. At > body temperature, the partial pressure of water is ~50mm, meaning that if > the ambient pressure falls below this point, rapid boiling of water at and > for a short distance below the surface will begin. It seems highly unlikely > that these living cells could be directly exposed to vacuum without a > considerable number being killed. If boiling starts, the cell will swell, pressurizing itself against the surrounding cells (which, overall, are confined by the suit pressure). Rupture is unlikely; cells are tougher than you'd think. > I would like to know about the results of long-term exposure, which I > suspect would at least cause the skin to become dry and brittle, and > might kill the hair follicles, oil and sweat glands... Humans survive for decades in deserts, where the partial pressure of water approaches zero for months at a time. For that matter, the partial pressure of water in the atmosphere is usually lower than in the body even in non- deserts. The outer layers of the skin *are* dead, dry, and brittle in normal human beings; dead skin cells flake off your body constantly, and are a major component of the dust you vacuum up when you clean house. The human skin is not in equilibrium with its environment even at one atmosphere of pressure; rather, it is a steady-state system maintained by constant effort by the body. It appears that with mechanical support, it should work about equally well in vacuum. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 88 01:09:00 GMT From: aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: Aerospike What is an aerospike? What is meant by its being (or not being) "plugged"? What is the specific impulse of hydrazine? --JoSH ------------------------------ Date: 14 Aug 88 02:53:41 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <8042@cup.portal.com> Paul_L_Schauble@cup.portal.com writes: >One comment, Henry, about flying the shuttle with the old boosters: The real >risks isn't the loss of the crew, it's the loss of the vehicle... Agreed. However, we aren't *quite* at the point where replacement is impossible; almost but not quite. Challenger was lost just in time. >As I understand it, replacing the vehicle will exhaust the complete stock of >structural spare parts. In other words, the total number of flights including >the rebuild vehicle will not be much greater than operating with three >vehicles and using the spares as intended... As I recall, there is a new set of structural spares in the works, so the situation isn't quite that bad. However, I detect no signs that anyone has really paid attention to NRC's comment that ongoing orbiter production is an absolute requirement for a viable fleet. (Their reasoning, briefly, was that the fleet is so small in comparison to the significant chances of losing another orbiter that it is impossible to make long-range plans based on using the shuttle unless replacement orbiters continue to be available.) -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 88 03:56:30 GMT From: rochester!kodak!ornitz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (barry ornitz) Subject: Re: Aerospike In article josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) writes: >What is an aerospike? What is meant by its being (or not being) >"plugged"? Heck if I know! >What is the specific impulse of hydrazine? This maybe I know! It depends on the oxidizer - see table below: Oxidizer Oxy/Fuel Ratio Chamber Temp, deg. F Specific Impulse, sec. O2 0.75 5370 279 H2O2 1.70 4690 265 N2O4 1.1 4950 262 F2 2.0 7740 318 RFNA (NO2-15%) 1.3 4980 260 Red Fuming Nitric Acid All of the above is for a 500 PSI chamber pressure. Kit, Boris and Douglas Evered, "Rocket Propellant Handbook," Macmillan Co., New York, 1960. Barry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Aug 88 10:16:30 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: Ozone layers X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@angband.s1.gov" Can someone please explain why ozone produced as a component of smog is apparently not a factor in regenerating the ozone layer that everyone's so worried about? I know ozone is poisonous; is it just the case that smog-ozone is trapped under the inversion layer? How? Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 88 16:08:58 EDT From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Destinies lives again - was Skinsuit To: BBoard.Maintainer@PT.CS.CMU.EDU Re: > Date: Sun, 7 Aug 88 20:04:53 -0400 (EDT) > From: Kevin William Ryan > Subject: Re: Skintight suit reference ... > The preceeding reference comes courtesy of J. E. Pournelle, from the > Summer 1980 (Vol. 2, No. 3) _Destinies_, now a defunct publication. Pity... "Destinies" died in 1983 or so, but "New Destinies" started publishing quarterly in 1987. Same editor, Jim Baen, now under his own imprimatur: Baen Books. Available as before in the paperback SF section of your bookstore, rather than the magazine rack. -Hans Moravec ------------------------------ Resent-Message-Id: <8X1ogWy00VseM0ml9C@andrew.cmu.edu> Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Aug 88 16:35:46 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: Ted Anderson Resent-To: space@angband.s1.gov Return-Path: Date: Mon, 15 Aug 88 12:34 EST From: Subject: Re: Orbital Data and Observation Relay Satellite Todd (uop!todd@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu) writes >In watching the re-run of NOVA's "Death of a Star".. it occured to me that >a network of satellites capable of swapping telemetry and digitized phone >and visual communications would be a good thing to have towards better >connectivity with remote sites. > >They could be accessed from earth stations using small dishes (comparitively). > >I am sure someone is working on something like this.. someplace.. It is, in northern Canada. I'm not exactly sure who is involved, but it is sure to include Telecom Canada, Bell Canada, and Bell Northern Research. The idea is to use one of the Anik satellites and small dishes (that can be mounted onto vans if needed) to provide telephone communications, etc. for remote communities in the Northwest and Yukon Territories. From there it is just a small step to doing what Todd has suggested. Of course, since this is being done in Canada, no one in the US or the rest of the world has any inclination of what is going on! :-) Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the Soviets are working on a similar system, since they have the same communication/terrain/remote population difficulties as Canada. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Arnold Gill | If you don't complain to those who | Queen's University at Kingston | implemented the problem, you have | gill @ qucdnast.bitnet | no right to complain at all ! | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #336 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Aug 88 14:19:12 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 25 Aug 88 12:32:50 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 25 Aug 88 12:32:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 25 Aug 88 12:21:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 25 Aug 88 12:09:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 25 Aug 88 10:27:02 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04261; Thu, 25 Aug 88 01:05:23 PDT id AA04261; Thu, 25 Aug 88 01:05:23 PDT Date: Thu, 25 Aug 88 01:05:23 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808250805.AA04261@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #337 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 337 Today's Topics: Re: SETI (& STI) Re: Ozone layers Re: HOTOL funding cancelled Re: Aerospike 'prestigious' space programs Feedback Space Bloopers Re: SDI, Asats, and access to orbit Not in the line of duty Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? Re: space news from Juen 27 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Aug 88 17:44:20 GMT From: spacely!eto@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Edward Olsen) Subject: Re: SETI (& STI) The NASA SETI program will only be a SEARCH. It will be listen only. No Transmissions are not part of the program. The search space presently envisioned is (1) High Sensitivity Target Search of the nearly 800 solar type stars within 25 pc and (2) Low Sensitivity, Broad Band All Sky Survey. The Target Search will be carried out with a frequency resolution of about 1 Hz between 1 GHz and 3 GHz. Integration times will be 100 -> 1000 seconds using Arecibo and other large antennae (i.e. 70m DSN net, OSU, etc). Instantaneous bandpass will be 10 MHz to 40 MHz and polarization dual circular. Sensitivity achieved will be approximately 10**-26 watts/m**2. The Sky Survey will be carried out with a frequency resolution of 10 Hz to 30 Hz between 1 GHz and 10 GHz (and higher frequency spot bands). Integration times will be 1/3 -> 3 seconds using the DSN 34m net and possibly the NRAO 300 ft. Instantaneous bandpass will be 300 MHz and polarization dual circular. Sensitivity achieved will be approximately 10**-23 watts/m**2. The big problem is radio frequency interference --- keeping our signal detectorsfrom saturating with reports of all the local intelligent signals. Edward Olsen /******************************************************************* * Edward Olsen ARPA: eto@spacely.jpl.nasa.gov * * Mail Stop: 169-506 UUCP: ...!cit-vax!spacely!eto * * Jet Propulsion Laboratory SPAN: jplrag::olsen * * 4800 Oak Grove Drive * * Pasadena, CA 91109 * * * * Phone: FTS: 792-7604 Commercial: (818) 354-7604 * *******************************************************************/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Aug 88 18:50:57 PDT From: Eugene Miya Subject: Re: Ozone layers 18:45 PDT start out bound. Peter Scott asks about Ozone, unfortunately, Bob Watson, one of the best men to ask this question isn't at JPL anymore, but there's lots of other people you can ask. Basically, inversion layers don't completely have much to do with it. 1st: we don't really understand the production (your word was regeneration) mechanism. Anything anyone tells you is a theory. 2nd: we don't completely understand the transport mechanism. It was only recently discovered that CFCs could convect so quickly, because the O3 doesn't (don't forget it's heavy). So generation is largely "in place." The "in place mechanisms are largely molecular and atomic oxygen up high combining. Some argued lightning was a production mechanism, largely too low in altitude, largely discounted. One person asked about working on scrubbers for CFCs up high, the problem here is the sheer size of the upper atmosphere. Prevention is a better treatment, but who knows, we may have passed points of no-return, maybe not. --eugene 18:54 PDT ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 88 19:58:41 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: HOTOL funding cancelled In article <6233@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: > > If I remember right, we were very interested a few years ago in > the British HOTOL (Reagan's "space plane", not heard of lately) Two different aircraft (air?). Similar missions, though. > and approached the British Govt about sharing the development. > We were rebuffed, the Brits saying tht the technology was too > advanced to share with anyone (secret, proprietary, ya know). Apparently Rolls Royce had solved some problems bugging US engine designers up to that point. Maybe it'll get out now. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 88 14:14:49 GMT From: att!whuts!sw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (WARMINK) Subject: Re: Aerospike In article , josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) writes: > What is an aerospike? What is meant by its being (or not being) > "plugged"? An aerospike is a sharp extension of a (usually) blunt nose cone. The idea is that by starting the shockwave ahead of the main nose cone, as far as the airflow is concerned, the nose cone has the same shape as the shockwave rather than its real, blunt, shape. This will reduce the supersonic drag quite considerably. I believe this is used on some of the submarine lauched ICBMs, like Trident, which are rather blunt-nosed so as to pack as much volume as possible into the limited space available. I'm not sure what 'plugged' refers to, I would hazard a guess at 'stored (i.e. retracted) position' or maybe it is a reference to the small cone at the end of the spike (the angle at the vertex (?) of the cone is the same as the angle of the shockwave at the velocity for which the spike is optimized). > > What is the specific impulse of hydrazine? Already been answered by another mailing. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If all the statisticians were laid end to | Stuart Warmink, APT UK Ltd. end across the Atlantic, 99% would drown :-) | !whuts!sw Whippany NJ USA -----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of APT UK Ltd. <----------- ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 88 01:04:03 GMT From: spdcc!eli@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Elias) Subject: 'prestigious' space programs In article <907@altger.UUCP> Macros@altger.UUCP (Macros) writes: >In another article, ?? writes: >>program, the ESA's space program, Japan, China, India, Brazil, and >Controlling these countries might not even be too bad an idea. They should do >more in fighting poverty, starvation and their population >explosion, than diving into some prstigious space programs. why does this argument apply to other countries if it does not apply to the US & Soviets ? (leaving followups here, for lack of a better 'space' for them). ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 88 12:48:11 GMT From: nyser!cmx!anand@itsgw.rpi.edu (Rangachari Anand) Subject: Feedback Did anyone on the net catch an interesting call-in talk show on Public radio called "Feedback" last night? Last night's program was devoted entirely to space. There were several people on hand from NASA and from the Commerce department to answer questions about the US space program. Many of the callers appeared to be quite enthusiastic about the space program in general but more than one caller seemed to be very worried about the increasing role of the military in the space program. In response to this, the person from NASA said that the space station was to be devoted entirely to civilian activities.[This seemed to contradict reports published in Aviation week]. The other popular question was on whether the spinoffs from the space program justified the investment. NASA has apparently calculated that $8 is returned for every $ spent. I myself was able to get in a question on the topic of expendable launch vehicles. I tried to point out the virtues of a simple and cheap launcher. As an example, I mentioned that the reliable Proton rocket was essentialy unchanged from the 1960's. I also mentioned the Pegasus rocket being developed by Hercules/OSC in this regard. The person from NASA replied that the Russians were in the process of building a space shuttle and in his words "... were desperately trying catch up with us" !. His view was that the shuttle is all that is needed for now. In marked contrast, the person from the Commerce department was in complete agreement with me. He was very enthusiastic about the Pegasus project and said that they were trying to give all the encouragement they could. He went so far as to say that had the Saturn Vs not been scrapped, they would have probably been cheaper than the shuttle. I can tell you that I was more reassured by the Commerce department than NASA ! R. Anand Internet: anand@amax.npac.syr.edu Bitnet: ranand@sunrise ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 88 01:24:19 GMT From: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) Subject: Space Bloopers In article <1049@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu> mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: >From article <62689@sun.uucp>, by fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix): ... When space travel DOES become common, we're going to have to keep on a constant lookout for the remains of all the "missed shots"; because in space, what goes around, comes around ... ... > >AMS "Luna" Solar orbit, missed moon, called Luna-1 now. >Ranger 3 missed moon... What did they call IT after it missed the moon? >Ranger 5 missed moon... >Mariner 2 flew past Venus >Luna-4 missed moon, perturbed into solar orbit >Zond-1 failed Venus probe >Mariner 3 Mars flyby failed >Luna 6 Lunar soft lander missed moon >Venera 2 passed Venus, no data >Venera-3 HIT Venus, no data BULLSEYE! (20 years is enough time to look back and laugh.) ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 88 19:57:18 GMT From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: Re: SDI, Asats, and access to orbit bobmon@iuvax writes: > Years ago, somebody British proposed (in Punch? New Scientist? > Lancet?) a nice, cheap anti-ICBM solution to be used preemptively in > times of tension: Just throw a few tons of gravel into LEO. This sort of thing comes up about once a year. Time for some math, kiddies: Assume, by some miracle, we are able to orbit all these tons of gravel in a thin shell at 120 Km altitude (Radius = 6.5e6 meters). Assume a third stage moving at 4000 meters per second and still boosting, 5 meters long and 2 meters in diameter. Assume a 10 gram pellet moving at orbital velocity (8000 m/s) will destroy it and its warheads. The booster will spend (5 m)/(4000 m/s) or 1.25 msec traversing the shell. It will collide with any pellets in a patch 2 meters x 1.25 msec x 8000 m/s in area, or 20 square meters (crude description; see a good book on statistical mechanics for a better description yielding the same result). If N pellets are randomly distributed, they will have a density of N/(4*pi*R^2) per square meter, and the probability of finding one or more pellets in a given area is Probability = 1 - exp( - Area * density ) [see the book again]. This can be boiled down to the following equation: V missile 4 pi (Orbit Radius)^2 Number of pellets = --------- * --------------------- * -ln( 1 - Probability ) V orbit Area Missile for a 25% intercept rate (typical SDI number) about 8e12 pellets will be needed; about 80 million tons. More than "a few tons". For a 99.9% intercept rate (as claimed by many Anti-SDI folk) about 2 billion tons will be needed. ---- Smart interceptors (which can cover vastly more territory) are a whole different kettle of fish. If the booster has been visible for 60 seconds, and the interceptor can change velocity by 2000 meters/second in that time, it can intercept boosters over a "patch" of around 1e10 square meters. A 25% intercept rate would require 15,000 interceptors. ---- Please don't construe this message as being pro-SDI. Most bureaucrats and their political allies live in cities. The only way to eliminate this infestation may be for them to fry each other, as they seem hell-bent to do. If it wasn't for all the innocent people in cities it might even be a good idea :-). Hopefully, I just caused apoplexy for a few of the deserving :-). I DO want to show that space is a BIG place; the Earth is not too small, either. Village-scale thinking doesn't work any more. You have to do some math until the new scale of things gets imbedded in the culture; "common sense" isn't calibrated in this regime. -- Keith Lofstrom ...!tektronix!vice!keithl keithl@vice.TEK.COM MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 88 01:46:13 GMT From: stsci!berman@noao.edu (Mike Berman) Subject: Not in the line of duty Ten of our astronauts' deaths have been widely publicized - namely the three aboard Apollo 1 and the seven aboard the Challenger. I'm curious as to who is no longer with us as the result of a more "normal" demise? Are all of the crews of the successful Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and shuttle missions still alive? -- Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218 Mike ARPA: berman@stsci.edu BITNET: berman@stsci Berman UUCP: {arizona,decvax,hao}!noao!stsci!berman SPAN: {SCIVAX,KEPLER}::BERMAN ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 88 01:41:15 GMT From: vsi1!unisv!vanpelt@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? In article <1112@ndsuvax.UUCP> nekinsel@ndsuvax.UUCP (Peter Kinsella) writes: > Aren't we making a few rather large assumptions. If we assume that >life exists elswhere in the universe. > 1. That the warring society can travel to conquer the broadcasting > world before that society developes sufficent technology to defend > itself. (faster then the speed of light ?) > 2. That it can travel in such numbers as to conquer a whole planet. > 3. If it had the technology to transfer enough people to take over > the planet of a lesser thechnology what would it gain ? > (welfare recipients? ) Who knows? Now, I don't really believe this, but suppose the warlike society wasn't interested in conquest, just in extermination? There's lots of talk about making self-replicating explorers to go through all the galaxy collecting data and eventually returning it to Earth -- Suppose a sufficiently xenophobic civilization decided to use the technique for eliminated threats/rivals? You can postulate that they get along fine with each other, but are horrified at the idea of "others", so the "destroy themselves before they advance that far" argument wouldn't hold. Presumably it wouldn't be all that difficult for an advanced civilization to build probes that would be more than a match for any civilization that had only a few years before mastered the use of radio, on which the probes would home in. I like to think of this as preposterously unlikely. (After all, we've been broadcasting like mad for decades, and haven't been blasted yet.) But then again, there's all those Biilyons and Biilyons * of stars out there, for all those Biilyons and Biilyons * of years ... and it only has to happen once for us all to be in deep yoghurt. -- * "Biilyons and Biilyons" is a trademark of Carl Sagan Enterprises, Inc. -- Mike Van Pelt When the fog came in on little cat feet Unisys, Silicon Valley last night, it left these little muddy vanpelt@unisv.UUCP paw prints on the hood of my car. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 88 22:48:43 GMT From: phri!dasys1!tbetz@nyu.edu (Tom Betz) Subject: Re: space news from Juen 27 AW&ST In article <1988Aug11.044242.285@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > The Chinese have just signed their first firm commercial >launch deal, to launch AsiaSat 1 (the former Westar 6, retrieved by the >shuttle in 1985) as Asia's first regional comsat, with a Hong Kong / >British consortium.) I think the most significant bit of news this month is contained in the sentence above... China has the honor and privilege of launching the first remarketed used communications satellite in the history of space technology! Let us hope there will be many more such launches to follow. -- "Through practice, I have become one of the |Tom Betz better liars in the English language. |ZCNY, Yonkers, NY 10701-2509 I wouldn't say it if I didn't know it wasn't true" |UUCP: tbetz@dasys1.UUCP or - Emmanuel Transmission - | ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tbetz ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #337 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Aug 88 05:18:15 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sat, 27 Aug 88 04:30:20 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat, 27 Aug 88 04:30:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 27 Aug 88 04:12:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 27 Aug 88 04:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sat, 27 Aug 88 04:03:46 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01660; Sat, 27 Aug 88 01:04:59 PDT id AA01660; Sat, 27 Aug 88 01:04:59 PDT Date: Sat, 27 Aug 88 01:04:59 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808270804.AA01660@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #338 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 338 Today's Topics: First meeting of Greater Detroit Space Society International NSS mebers get together at New Orleans SF Worldcon Advanced Space Systems with beer at Worldcon space editorial Change of Address orbital elements space news from Aug 8 AW&ST red-shift Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 88 08:36 EDT From: RON PICARD Subject: First meeting of Greater Detroit Space Society News Release The Greater Detroit Space Society, a local chapter of the National Space Society, takes great pride in announcing an open meeting on Saturday, September 10th at 1:00 p.m. at the Southfield Public Library. We will have a guest speaker from the NASA Lewis Research Center in Ohio. He will be speaking on the Space Shuttle, the proposed Space Station, and spinoffs from the Space Program. There will be a question and answer period following the presentation, along with refreshments. This meeting is open to anyone interested in Space. There will be a $1.00 charge at the door to help defray the cost of the room and the speaker. This dollar will be subtracted from the cost of dues for anyone wishing to join the Society. Greater Detroit Space Society dues are: $5.00 for students and senior citizens; $10.00 for adults; and $15.00 for families. We are a non-profit educational organization whose goals are to promote the exploration and development of Space. The Southfield Public Library is located in the Southfield Civic Center at Evergreen and Civic Center Drive (10 1/2 Mile Road). Because seating is limited, we recommend that people wishing to attend, reserve their seats by calling 554-3759. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 88 13:31:03 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: International NSS mebers get together at New Orleans SF Worldcon To help promote chapters outside the United States the post of International Chapters Coordinator is being re-created with myself, Glenn Chapman, accepting that position. Together with my spouse, Ann Carlsen, we are a truly international team, we currently work in the USA, but I am Canadian, while she was born in Norway, lived in England as a child, and is now a naturalized Canadian. We usually attend the annual world science fiction convention. In addition I always listen to several international short wave broadcasts each evening. Our address is 7 Parker Rd., Bedford, MA 01730 USA Phone 617-275-8729 my ARPA net address is glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa We hope to hear from all those interested in international chapters. We especially wish communications from any international members which will be attending the SF Worldcon in New Orleans from Sept 1-7. Ann and I are planning an informal get together/party for international members on Friday Sept 2, tentatively at 9:00 pm, in our room at the Marriott. We invite those members to come visit us there. I really want to hear exactly what you wish the NSS to do for international people. We expect also to have Elisa Wynn (Chapters coordinator) and Aleta Jackson (NSS Chapters Administrator) coming by later in the evening to the party so you can get a chance to talk over issues directly with them. We both feel strongly if the human race is to expand into the universe it will need the help of many people living in many lands. Thus we will work towards making the NSS an effective means for chapters in all nations to both keep their members informed about what is going on in space exploration and help educate both their citizens and their government officials about the advantages of creating space faring civilizations. Remember no one country's name is mentioned in the name of the society, just the generic term national. Also no earth border's extend into the cosmos. Space is for all mankind. Again please contact me if you have any issues concerning the international members of the National Space Society. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Aug 88 21:39 CDT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Advanced Space Systems with beer at Worldcon Original_To: SPACE Members of the British Interplanetary Society will present an ADVANCED SPACE SYSTEMS SEMINAR and Technical Gabfest Friday, 2 September 1988 at the World Science Fiction Convention New Orleans, Louisiana, USA Exact time (nineish?) and location to be announced at the Convention If you attend this informal gathering, be prepared for intensive tech-talk. It is a successor to a "advanced propulsion seminar" Dani Eder held in his room at the Austin NASFiC last year. If we have half that much fun this year the effort will be worth it. Two improvements this year: Snacks and a sponsoring organization. I'll do a grocery run, purchasing a modest supply of beer, soda, and munchies with Higgins cash. I shall trust in the generous nature of BISers, space techies, and science fiction fen to donate a little at the party. Sponsorship by the British Interplanetary Society isn't official, but I've discovered that quite a few members show up at Worldcon, and it's high time North American members started to socialize together. The BIS is one of the world's oldest spaceflight societies (1933) as well as one of the most forward-looking (Moonship design published 1939, Daedalus starship design 1978). Keynote Speaker: Dani Eder, Boeing Aerospace "Is the Time Right for Private Space Programs?" Look for announcements of the party, er, seminar time and room number around the Mariott and Sheraton. I'd appreciate hearing from you over the net if you think you might come-- it'd give me some idea how much food to buy. See you in New Orleans! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Aug 88 09:43:27 MDT From: dbirnbau%nmsu.csnet@relay.cs.net Subject: space editorial I just caught up in my reading pile to Science magazine, July 22, 1988 issue. Everyone ought take a look at the editorial on Space Science on page 397. | David Birnbaum, programmer/consultant | dbirnbau@nmsu.edu | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Aug 88 06:52:45 PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: Change of Address The Internet portion of the Space Digest will be changing homes. Although the time frame for this transition is not yet clear, I have set up the new distribution list and people should begin trying to get used to them. The new address for submissions is 'space@andrew.cmu.edu' and the address for request is 'space-request@andrew.cmu.edu'. The old addresses (at angband.s1.gov and mc.lcs.mit.edu) will continue to work for now. Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 88 13:10:22 GMT From: bbn.com!grossman@bbn.com (Martin Grossman) Subject: orbital elements I'm looking for a third source of orbital elements (the 3 line format). Both first choice (rec.ham-radio) and second choice (DR TS KELSO's BBS) have been unavailable for a few weeks. I going on a cruise and would like to make printouts for various nights and lat/long locations (aprox will have to do). 1) Does anyone know of a good third source? 2) Does anyone know of a good source of lat/longs for following area's Miami beach San Juan St Thomas Please email or post to either group. PS Leaving on 9/2/88 grossman@bbn.com ------------------------------ Date: 22 Aug 88 01:45:20 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!water!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Aug 8 AW&ST Space-station editorial saying some of the things I said a few months ago. The current space station is headed for a crash. "...in the nearly five years since receiving [Reagan's] mandate, NASA has been running a management exercise instead of a station program." The station is already very costly and won't be operational until 1995-6... and only the naivest optimist would expect it to come in on budget or on time. Worse, there is little support for it outside its own bureaucracy and contractors; even potential customers are lukewarm because of the delay, cost, and uncertainty. The budgets that NASA estimates will be required [never mind the ones that will *actually* be required] are beyond anything Congress would ever approve, in the current financial climate. Finally, the current station is totally dependent on the shuttle, a weak reed if there ever was one. "The US and its partner nations need a space station, but realities require a more evolutionary, cost-effective, lower-risk facility which can be orbited earlier and which depends less on the shuttle for assembly." AW&ST says the thing to do now is a rapid redefinition to provide a more sensible plan in time for FY91 budgeting. "NASA should be ordered to place a manned core facility into orbit by 1995 and pursue that goal with the same vigor it applied to the Apollo lunar landing program." Shuttle-C development should start immediately. The manned core should be launched by Shuttle-C and should be based on Spacelab modules and ISF technology. Extensive, although not continuous, manned operation could be had without the cost of a rescue vehicle if Rockwell's idea for docking a shuttle to the station for 60 days at a time were adopted. The rest of the facility should use free-flying platforms, designed for manned servicing but unmanned operation. This would separate incompatible customers and allow gradual deployment, as well as providing opportunities for commercial involvement. The OMV should be expanded into a taxi/tug suitable for going between the core station and the platforms. [On the whole, I go along with this. The current station is simply too expensive and too far in the future to survive. NASA has been having great trouble keeping the program alive even today. As funding requirements rise and problems appear, there's no way it can survive. NASA is, I think, right to say that a lot of the skeptics would eventually become supporters once they see how useful the station can be -- but that's not going to happen until the thing is at least partly operational! And unless major changes are made, that's not going to happen. What's needed is an evolutionary approach with smaller up-front costs and shorter up-front delays. My own gut reaction, actually, is that even Shuttle-C shouldn't be necessary for that. Forget the gold-plating. It should be possible to fit a Spacelab long module, fitted out as living quarters, and the necessary power and life support into one shuttle payload. This is with *no* scientific payload, mind you. It goes up and stays up, with the shuttle orbiter attached to it just in case, for a month or two. If something goes badly wrong, the whole thing just comes back down. If things are going okay, a second shuttle goes up to meet it, carrying the OMV and another Spacelab long module, containing the beginnings of the "working" facilities. The two modules are docked. The first orbiter goes down; the second one stays there for the moment. We still have no major scientific payload aboard; these two launches are pure infrastructure. A third shuttle takes up an ISF as a co-orbiting platform, and on-orbit servicing can then be checked out and science work can start. At this point, we *have* a minimal space station in orbit. Getting all this done within limited stay times will take some careful planning and possibly a deliberate "surge" effort by the shuttle people, but it shouldn't be impossibly hard. After that, evolution can proceed. Get the Europeans to build a rescue vehicle -- they're interested in returnable capsules anyway -- and the Japanese to build a proper logistics module combined with a reboost system. Then one shuttle flight can take those two up and start permanent manned operations. It shouldn't take tens of billions, it shouldn't take dozens of shuttle launches, and dammit, it shouldn't take until 1995 to do! Not if a real Apollo-style effort is made, with adequate support from Congress (not a trivial assumption, that...). What we eventually get probably won't be as simple, cheap, or prompt as this... but it definitely won't be NASA's current gold-plated rabbit hutch.] ESA may save some hardware from the ELA-1 launch complex (to be decommissioned because it is old and can't handle Ariane 4) for use on ELA-3, the coming Ariane 5 complex. [Actually, if I were ESA I would be worried about putting all my eggs in one basket named ELA-2. All it takes is one big launch accident and Ariane is grounded for quite a while, for lack of a launch pad.] House and Senate subcommittees agree to cut NASA FY89 budget request by $810M, including $67M out of the space station's $967M. However, a large chunk of the station money is embargoed until the next president can make some decisions about the program. Other NASA projects, notably AXAF, got bigger cuts. NASA and USAF still at odds over KSC range safety, including how many people should be allowed to watch and from where. Bush commits to deployment of SDI, development of a space station, and development of a heavylift launcher. Specifics lacking, of course... US Navy follows Aussat's lead in picking Hughes's new 3-axis-stabilized comsat as its next generation. Navy deal is for one satellite and options on nine more, plus expendable launches for some of them. Flight readiness firing delayed due to sluggish operation of a bleed valve; the Aug 4 FRF attempt was scrubbed at T-7, less than a second before SSME ignition, when the valve closed too slowly. NASA decides to do an on-pad repair on the RCS leak. A hole will be cut in the aft end of the cargo bay to provide access to the trouble area. The hydrogen leak discovered during the wet-countdown demonstration is somewhere in the pad umbilical; attempts to cure it by replacing suspect parts have not worked so far. Hydrogen concentration is being monitored and it is hoped that it won't get high enough to interfere with the FRF. Big article on X-30 technology efforts. The X-30 will be about the size of a 727, by current estimates, with empty weight comparable to that of an F-15. The decision to build and test three X-30s (one for ground test, the other two for flight) will be made in 1990. [Assuming it survives; I believe Dukakis is opposed to it.] Big article on the elaborate nondestructive-testing procedures the USAF is using on Titan SRBs to avoid a repetition of the early-1986 fireworks. NAS/NRC report criticizes NASA's weather forecasting at KSC, saying that weather hazards are "poorly observed and predicted". There isn't even a definition of what information is needed for shuttle launches. For example, no attempt has been made to set a limit on the size of raindrops in clouds (which could be a hazard to shuttle tiles), much less to measure it or incorporate the information in launch decisions. Other important parameters are similarly neglected. Weather observation at emergency landing sites is crude to nonexistent. Recommendations are: quantification of weather hazards and incorporation of the results into launch criteria; better instrumentation for measuring conditions, with an attempt to measure the important parameters directly rather than inferring them indirectly from things that are easier to measure; clear support and adequate budgeting for NASA's weather office; and a forecasting-research center at KSC to promote improvement of the technology. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 88 21:43:28 GMT From: haven!uflorida!novavax!ankh!Marc.Dantonio@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Marc Dantonio) Subject: red-shift Dean Why would the red-shift value be outdated? It would not be changing? What did you mean? Marc -- FidoNet : 369/6 the Eye of Osiris - 305-973-1947 - OPUS/UFGATE UUCP : ...!{gatech!uflorida!novavax, hoptoad, umbio}!ankh!Marc.Dantonio internet : Marc.Dantonio@ankh.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 88 06:10:54 GMT From: ndsuvax!nekinsel@uunet.uu.net (Peter Kinsella) Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? In article <561@unisv.UUCP>, vanpelt@unisv.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: > There's lots of talk about making self-replicating explorers to > go through all the galaxy collecting data and eventually returning it > to Earth -- Suppose a sufficiently xenophobic civilization decided > to use the technique for eliminated threats/rivals? You can postulate > that they get along fine with each other, but are horrified at the > idea of "others". > Presumably it wouldn't be all that > difficult for an advanced civilization to build probes that would be > more than a match for any civilization that had only a few years > before mastered the use of radio, on which the probes would home in. Why would would the get along fine with each other but be afraid of a a little puny underdeveloped planet. If we assume that the galaxy is as expansive as most people claim. And if we assume that the Race is suffiently developed to send probes to wipe out other planets, wouldn't they also be advanced enough to harvest resources from uninhabited worlds. Wouldn't the later also be more economically efficent, especially if the world be taken over detonates atomic weapons in its self defense. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #338 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Aug 88 04:50:33 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sun, 28 Aug 88 04:23:23 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 28 Aug 88 04:23:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 28 Aug 88 04:09:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 28 Aug 88 04:04:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sun, 28 Aug 88 04:03:32 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02394; Sun, 28 Aug 88 01:04:56 PDT id AA02394; Sun, 28 Aug 88 01:04:56 PDT Date: Sun, 28 Aug 88 01:04:56 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808280804.AA02394@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #339 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 339 Today's Topics: Re: Not in the line of duty Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) whither Mike? Re: Not in the line of duty Re: Earth Orbit material limit astute pebbles; also: planets / space Re: Space Bloopers Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) Space Station Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? Re: Aerospike Kettering Boys School ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Aug 88 13:51:44 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Not in the line of duty >From article <390@obi-wan>, by berman@stsci.EDU (Mike Berman): > Ten of our astronauts' deaths have been widely publicized - namely the > three aboard Apollo 1 and the seven aboard the Challenger. I'm curious > as to who is no longer with us as the result of a more "normal" demise? > Are all of the crews of the successful Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and > shuttle missions still alive? Jack Swigert (Apollo 13), died Dec 1982 of cancer Donn Eisele (Apollo 7), died Dec 1987 of cardiac arrest X-15 pilot Jack McKay (flew above 80 km), died Apr 75 of complications from injuries in 1962 X-15 crash X-15 pilot Mike Adams, died in crash of X-15-3, Nov 1967, 81 km apogee X-15 pilot Joe Walker, flew above 100 km, died in F-104/XB-70 collision at Edwards, 1966. Astronaut trainees have also died while in training...Ted Freeman (1964), Elliot See and Charlie Bassett (1966), Robert Lawrence (1967), Stephen Thorne (1986) in plane crashes, Ed Givens (1967) in a car crash; and two former military astronaut trainees (Russell Rogers, 1967; James Taylor, 1970) died in plane crashes after their programs were cancelled. As far as I know, Swigert and Eisele are the only US astronauts or astronaut trainees to have died 'natural' deaths, while the USSR has lost Belyayev, Varlamov, Sorokin, Nelyubov, Lefchenko and possibly others; as well as Komarov, Dobrovol'skiy, Volkov and Patsaev in spaceflight, and Bondarenko and Gagarin in training. Sorry for such a morbid article! - Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 88 15:44:57 GMT From: rochester!ritcv!ritcsh!ultb!awpsys@louie.udel.edu (Andrew W. Potter) Subject: Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) In article <1110001@hpfclm.HP.COM> myers@hpfclm.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes: > >>Main power on the space station is specified as 220 VAC at 20 kHz. > 20 Khz???? I sure hope they never bring any dogs up there! -- Andrew W. Potter Email: awpsys@ritvax.BITNET Systems Programmer awp8101@ritcv.UUCP Information Systems and Computing Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY, 14623 (716) 475-6994 ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 88 15:55:00 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: whither Mike? [] Well guys, it looks like all of your letters to Dukakis (sp?) has worked. While visiting JSC yesterday Mike D. told of his changed heart regarding the Space Station and the space program in general. He clearly supports the space station, and talked of the "disarray" in the space program due to bearuacracy (sp? again) and mis-management. He wants to set up Bentsen as chairman of the National Aeronautics and Space Council or some such thing. (Remember, Bentsen is a very strong support of NASA). With this turn of events, and the strong pro-space plank in the Republican's platform, things would appear to be looking up. -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool Mom". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 88 15:19:12 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Not in the line of duty [] In article <390@obi-wan> berman@stsci.EDU (Mike Berman) writes: >Ten of our astronauts' deaths have been widely publicized - namely the >three aboard Apollo 1 and the seven aboard the Challenger. I'm curious >as to who is no longer with us as the result of a more "normal" demise? >Are all of the crews of the successful Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and >shuttle missions still alive? >-- The only experianced astronauts to have died from "normal" situations are Jack Swigert the CMP from Apollo 13. He died a couple years back due to cancer I believe, while he was running for congress. (He died before the election, and he still won!) And just about 2 months ago, Donn Eisele the CMP of Apollo 7 died while in Japan. (I forget what of). Of course there have been a number of other rookie astros who died or were killed. Elliot See and Charles Bassett were killed when the plane they were flying crashed into the hanger that contained their Gemini spacecraft. The were the prime crew for Gemini 10 I think. ( I don't have my books here at work so I can't verify that). And the original Apollo 12 LMP, Theodore "CC" Freeman was killed in an car accident. Al Bean took his place. More recently, a couple of years ago a Shuttle rookie astronaut (forgot his name) was killed in a plane accident. -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool Mom". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Resent-Message-Id: <8X26dmy00Vse41h0Z4@andrew.cmu.edu> Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 88 13:01:38 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: Ted Anderson Resent-To: space@angband.s1.gov Return-Path: Date: Tue, 16 Aug 88 12:39 EST From: Subject: Re: Earth Orbit material limit Thomas Hacker writes: > In the news recently, I noticed a small article pertaining to the >limiting of certain projects that would put objects into geosynchinous >orbit. One of the projects was a piece of art created by a French >sculpter that would reflect light onto the planet's surface and appear >as a bright object to the viewers below. The article proceeded to >mention that many astronomers were against this because they feared that >the sky would become too "washed out" with light, thus decreasing the >visibilty in the night sky already filled with "light pollution". > > Has anyone heard of what there was behind this and what the outcome >will be? Where have you been for the last two years? :-) The French part of the story was an attempt by some French artist to put 100m diameter, highly reflecting balloons into orbit, ringed around the entire Earth, as part of the 100th anniversary celebrations of the Eiffel Tower. That amount of light would have disrupted astronomical observations around the world for years, as well as filled space with more junk. The idea was proposed several years ago, and abandoned sometime last year, because of the outcry (and expense probably). It was a really stupid idea, and hopefully no other concerns, especially commercial ones, will try such trash. If not, we may be subjected to a giant "Golden Arches" covering the face of the moon! And that is a scary thought. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Arnold Gill | If you don't complain to those who | Queen's University at Kingston | implemented the problem, you have | gill @ qucdnast.bitnet | no right to complain at all ! | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 88 19:27:29 GMT From: spdcc!eli@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Elias) Subject: astute pebbles; also: planets / space In <2753@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> keithl@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Keith Lofstrom) writes: ... a nice treatment of the 'smart pebbles' idea ... and... >I DO want to show that space is a BIG place; the Earth is not too small, >either. Village-scale thinking doesn't work any more. "Space is small. The planets are big." this quote has stuck with me for many years. i think it belongs to Heinlein. i hope it makes someone out there smile... ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 88 19:35:52 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Space Bloopers In article <6510@uwmcsd1.UUCP>, markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >>From article <62689@sun.uucp>, by fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix): >> >>Ranger 3 missed moon... > > What did they call IT after it missed the moon? Ranger 3 (at least when "Ranger what?" didn't work) :} ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 88 21:03:21 GMT From: phri!cooper!dasys1!tbetz@nyu.edu (Tom Betz) Subject: Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) In article <20633@sri-unix.SRI.COM> larson@unix.sri.com (Alan Larson) writes: >my opinion: >The best reason for 220 VAC at 20 KHz is that it provides the contractors >with the opportunity to engineer custom parts at great profit. It seems >unlikely that the savings in size by 20 KHz power are worth the trouble. The reason NASA offered for using 20KHz AC is that just about any desired frequency can be obtained by using filters, obviating the need for much heavier transformers. This was at a NASA forum on the Space Station at EAA/Oshkosh last year. Anyone at NASA care to comment? -- "Through practice, I have become one of the |Tom Betz better liars in the English language. |ZCNY, Yonkers, NY 10701-2509 I wouldn't say it if I didn't know it wasn't true" |UUCP: tbetz@dasys1.UUCP or - Emmanuel Transmission - | ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tbetz ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 88 07:56:02 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jsalter@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (The Math Hacker) Subject: Space Station Could someone e-mail me a copy of the full set of modules for the space station, and their respective functions. I seem to have lost mine in some shuffle somewhere... Thanks. -- James A. Salter -- Yes, math majors can use UNIX(tm), too... jsalter@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU | sin(x)/n = 6 (Cancel the n's!) ...!ucbvax!voder!polyslo!jsalter | "Type h for help." -- rn ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 88 04:20:54 GMT From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? In article <1123@ndsuvax.UUCP> nekinsel@ndsuvax.UUCP (Peter Kinsella) writes: |In article <561@unisv.UUCP>, vanpelt@unisv.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: |> There's lots of talk about making self-replicating explorers to |> go through all the galaxy collecting data and eventually returning it |> to Earth -- Suppose a sufficiently xenophobic civilization decided |> to use the technique for eliminated threats/rivals? You can postulate |> that they get along fine with each other, but are horrified at the |> idea of "others". [. . .] | Why would would the get along fine with each other but be afraid of a |a little puny underdeveloped planet. If we assume that the galaxy is as |expansive as most people claim. And if we assume that the Race is |suffiently developed [. . .] These assumptions make sense from the rational point of view, but the assumption that any technologically-advanced civilization (or any that might be capable of star-faring by any other means, for that matter, although I have a little trouble thinking of "other means" right off hand) will also be rational is a dangerous assumption. This is particularly the case considering the very forboding human example. . . -- Lucius Chiaraviglio chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu lucius@tardis.harvard.edu (in case the first one doesn't work) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 88 15:54:03 GMT From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Aerospike In article <4655@whuts.UUCP> sw@whuts.UUCP (WARMINK) writes: >> What is an aerospike? What is meant by its being (or not being) >> "plugged"? >An aerospike is a sharp extension of a (usually) blunt nose cone... Actually, if I have my history right, this is a relatively recent use of the term. The older use is for a variant of the "plug nozzle" engine (which is where the "plugged" business may come from). The normal rocket nozzle is a sort of bell shape wrapped around the exhaust. It is possible to turn it inside out, and have a tapering spike in the middle with the exhaust around it. It turns out that this works just fine even if there is nothing around the exhaust but air, and in fact it has an advantage: it has automatic "altitude compensation". A normal rocket nozzle for use at varying altitudes is invariably a compromise. You get to choose what pressure the exhaust will be at when it leaves the nozzle. If it's higher than the local atmospheric pressure, you are wasting energy that could be used for thrust. If it's lower than local pressure, the exhaust can break away from the nozzle surface before reaching the end, with various ungood results. You can cheat on this a bit -- the SSME exhaust pressure is less than 1 atmosphere -- but not too much. The trouble is that rocket engines have to function at varying altitudes, the worst case being something like the SSME which goes from one full atmosphere at launch to hard vacuum just before cutoff. There are schemes for variable-geometry nozzles, so far not very practical. The plug nozzle's exhaust stream sticks close to the spike at high outside pressure and expands widely at low pressure, effectively varying the shape of the nozzle automatically. One obvious problem is that that spike sticking down is a problem to cool and a nuisance to have around on the pad. But it turns out that you can get almost the same results if you chop off the spike fairly short and inject some low-velocity gas -- e.g. pump-turbine exhaust -- into the gap. This is the "aerospike nozzle", which is the form of the plug nozzle that would actually be used in a modern design. It works pretty well. There are disadvantages too, mind you. For example, at high outside pressure with the exhaust close to the spike, air has to make a fairly abrupt turn around the base of the rocket to follow the surface of the exhaust jet, and that adds drag. On the whole the plug nozzle can still be a considerable net win, and it's somewhat surprising that it's never been used in a major application. Scuttlebutt has it that the shuttle would have had a plug nozzle, and been the better for it, were it not that one company controlled all the patents and the spectre of single- source procurement reared its ugly political head. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 14 Aug 88 17:21:19 GMT From: unmvax!charon!ariel.unm.edu!seds@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (SPACE EXPLORATION) Subject: Kettering Boys School Hello. Does anyone have some information on Geoffrey Perry and activities at the Kettering Boys School in England? This is the group that listens to satellite radio transmissions and uses them to find newly launched Soviet sats. (see National Geographic, September 1983, pg. 327) I would like to hear from anyone who knows about this. Anyone have an address for this school or news about their latest activities? Ollie Eisman - N6LTJ SSTS Project _______________________ seds@ariel.unm.edu ____________________________ SEDS-UNM : Students for the Exploration and Development of Space Box 92 Student Union, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87106 (505) 898-1974 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #339 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Aug 88 05:28:40 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Mon, 29 Aug 88 04:40:52 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 29 Aug 88 04:40:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 29 Aug 88 04:24:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 29 Aug 88 04:15:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 29 Aug 88 04:15:16 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03025; Mon, 29 Aug 88 01:04:27 PDT id AA03025; Mon, 29 Aug 88 01:04:27 PDT Date: Mon, 29 Aug 88 01:04:27 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808290804.AA03025@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #340 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 340 Today's Topics: Planetariums Re: Aerospike Re: E-Stamps and cat brains Re: ET phone home? (SETI) RESPONS Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? Re: HOTOL funding cancelled Re: Space Station Name chosen -- Fred Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: Seti ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Aug 88 14:55:41 GMT From: bbking!rmarks@burdvax.prc.unisys.com (Richard Marks) Subject: Planetariums Over the past year my little daughter and I have gone to two planetariums. We went to the one in Philadelphia at the Franklin Institute and the one in New York at the Hayden Planetarium. Both have the Zeiss Projectors and put on rather impressive shows. I wonder what experiences others have had with the various planetariums. The show at the Franklin Institute was called "Death of the Dinosaurs" and explored evolution and development of pre-historic life. It discussed the various cosmic (comets, interstellar gas, etc) events that may have lead to the sudden disappearence of the dinosaurs. There were several neat special effects, including a simulation of the BIG BANG. The show was not the traditional "the night sky" planetarium show. The cost was reasonable and parking and access was good. The show at the Hayden was in two parts. I forget the first part, but the second part was about the Hubble Space Telescope. It was interesting but was a bit of a PR (we can do nothing wrong) pitch. The special effects were OK, but not up to the Franklin's level. THe Hayden has some interesting space exhibits outside of the dome. (The Franklin has many exhibits, but none related to the planetarium.) Being New York, the cost was high and parking was hard. Richard Marks rmarks@KSP.unisys.COM ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 88 18:18:01 GMT From: telesoft!roger@ucsd.edu (Roger Arnold @prodigal) Subject: Re: Aerospike In article <4655@whuts.UUCP>, sw@whuts.UUCP (WARMINK) writes: > josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) writes: > > > What is an aerospike? What is meant by its being (or not being) > > "plugged"? > An aerospike is a sharp extension of a (usually) blunt nose cone. > [..] That's a likely sounding definition, but I don't think it's the one that josh was inquiring about. I've heard Gary Hudson talk about an "aerospike" as a configuration of rocket engines, in which a large number of (relatively) small engine nozzles are arranged in a circle around the periphery of a blunt disk. The idea, as I understand it, is that the configuration exhibits the aerodynamic behavior of a long tapering tail, thereby reducing atmospheric drag. Must confess I don't have a good sense of the physics behind such behavior, but presume there's something to it. I know it was the configuration proposed by Boeing for one of their HLLV designs in the SPS studies they did in the 70's. That design was a VTVL, SSTO design. (Aren't acronyms a riot; nothing like 'em to separate the cognoscenti from the hoi polloi, and, BTW, announce which camp YOU're in). Looked kind of like a giant Apollo capsule. Where's Dani? A "plugged" aerospike is one with a conical structure (the "plug") in place of the blunt disk inside the ring of engines. The exhaust gases expand against the structure, providing additional thrust. A plugged aerospike effectively has a variable expansion ratio, a function of ambient atmospheric pressure. It's an efficient design for booster stages; the problem is cooling the plug. - Roger Arnold ..ucsd!telesoft!roger ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Aug 88 08:09:25 PDT From: hairston%23666%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov Subject: Re: E-Stamps and cat brains X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"space@angband.s1.gov" Adding to the debate on the "E" stamp, actually McCall's drawing of the terminator isn't that far off from being correct (or at least as best you can tell from that tiny picture). We've played around with a globe here with the north pole tilted 23 degrees towards a single light source (which is the geometry you would get on the summer solstice) and the terminator does fall so that South America is in darkness while most of North America is still in light (looks like it would be around 8pm Eastern Daylight Time). Still McCall's picture looks like the Earth is tilted another 10 degrees or so, but that doesn't change the overall effect of the picture that much. As for the background colors, that's definately artistic license, flat black space just isn't that interesting visually. If you remember the Shuttle stamps back in 1981, those were done by McCall and also had the blue, orange, and yellow backgrounds. (McCall isn't the only artist to "take license" with space. Those of you who have seen the 1978 NASA book on "Space Settlements" may have noticed that most of the artwork there showed space to look like a field of deep purple cotton puffs. It wasn't accurate, but it did look nice.) Additional trivia note: McCall did the space mural at Johnson Space Center Vistor Center as well as the one at the Air and Space Musuem. In the discussion of wiring the brain up to hardware for space travel, James Symon (V8 #321) mentioned a scifi story where cat brains were used in conjuction with human brains to fly starships. He's refering to the short story "The Game of Rat and Dragon" by Cordwainer Smith. The story was first published in 1955, so this idea has been bounced around (in scifi, at least) for a while. In his novel "Norstrilia", Smith comes up with an interesting variation on these ideas. Since the cost of interstellar travel is based on weight and enormously expensive, he imaged a future where a traveller has his or her head removed and put into a freeze-dried hibernation. The rest of the body is dehydraded and perserved. The greatly "lightened" person is then shipped off to its destination. Once there the body is reconstituted, the head is reattached, and the person revived. I think I'll stick to taking the bus, thank you. Marc Hairston--Center for Space Sciences--University of Texas at Dallas SPAN adress UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTD750::HAIRSTON The opinions are my own. When I find out what the official UT system opinion on interstellar body shipments is, I'll let you know. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 88 11:31:00 GMT From: cca!mirror!datacube!chris@husc6.harvard.edu Subject: Re: ET phone home? (SETI) RESPONS >The fact is, we *don't know* why they aren't here now, and it's a major puzzle. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu Actually, the puzzle isn't quite that complex; we as a race have proven ourselves to be capable of the most pernicious acts directed against ourselves for some fairly modest differences of opinion. Religious and racial intolerance are still at the top of the list of "causes" that we are willing to kill each other for. As an open question to all of you in Netland, how do you think we as a race would react to somebody as wildly different as an Extraterrestrial form of life? I feel that if their tech- nology allows for inter-stellar or even intergalactic travel, it must certainly allow for some form of remote surveying or monitoring of our planet and it's people. And given our fairly unimpressive track record, their elusive behavior could be due to a desire not to contact us. After all, how we treat ourselves is a mirror of how we would treat others. This all may sound a little trite, but surely not too far off the mark. Chris Munschy Datacube /* End of text from datacube:sci.space */ ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 88 16:59:53 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? >From article <561@unisv.UUCP>, by vanpelt@unisv.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt): > Presumably it wouldn't be all that difficult for an advanced > civilization to build probes that would be more than a match for > any civilization that had only a few years before mastered the use > of radio, on which the probes would home in. > > I like to think of this as preposterously unlikely. If it is possible for an advanced civilization to build and deploy self-reproducing, interstellar probes, probes could be continuously resident in each solar system. If the civilization constructing the probes were irrationally hostile to other life forms, the probes could be programmed to detect life and sterilize any planets long before radio could be developed. Obviously this has not happened, so at least one of the assumptions is wrong (or else we are just incredibly lucky that all the probes in our solar system have malfunctioned). -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 88 23:53:42 GMT From: vsi1!unisv!vanpelt@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? In article <1123@ndsuvax.UUCP> nekinsel@ndsuvax.UUCP (Peter Kinsella) writes: >In article <561@unisv.UUCP>, vanpelt@unisv.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >> [description of the "berserker hypothesis" Understand, my arguments here are of a "devil's advocate" nature. I do not think that this is the answer to the silence problem. (Maybe I'm being overly optimistic...) >Why would would they get along fine with each other but be afraid of a >a little puny underdeveloped planet. Perhaps they can get along fine with each other because 'each other' aren't *ALIENS*, thus don't trigger the xenophobia. Perhaps the planet is inhabited by the sole surviving group of centuries of genocidal wars, so on that planet there are no 'others' to be xenophobic about. Remember, if we're talking about self-replicating robots doing the dirty work, the original xenophobes aren't afraid of us; they probably don't even know about us even if they aren't extinct. Their robots, multiplying and filling the galaxy, seek out and destroy civilizations all on their own. >If we assume that the galaxy is as expansive as most people claim. This supports the Berserker Hypothesis. If the galaxy (or universe if we allow for intergalactic travel) is so big, it almost doesn't matter how fantastically improbable the Berserker Hypothesis is. It only has to happen ONCE in fifteen billion years of the history of the entire galaxy/universe. If anyone, anywhere, anytime, built self-replicating robots programmed to seek out and destroy all life (Saberhagen's version) or even all technological civilizations (Benford's version), they could fill the galaxy in on the order of a million or two years. That what makes it so scary. >And if we assume that the Race is >suffiently developed to send probes to wipe out other planets, wouldn't >they also be advanced enough to harvest resources from uninhabited worlds. >Wouldn't the later also be more economically efficent, especially if the >world be taken over detonates atomic weapons in its self defense. This all assumes that they are rational, that their rationality includes a need and desire to harvest resources from uninhabited worlds, economic efficiency, etc. Remember, in the Berserker Hypothesis, they don't care beans about extraplanetary resources -- they just want to stamp out those awful, ugly, obscene, disgusting *alien* *horrors*. (That's us, if we attract their attention.) And it also assumes that nuclear weapons are the Ultimate Weapon. Talk to some of the nanotechnology people, and you'll see that nukes are just peashooters compared to Gray Goo -- just a pinch will consume an entire planet right down to the magma in short order. (I'm not entirely convinced about nanotechnology, either, but the topic sure is interesting.) (*GAD* but this message is depressing. I sure hope it isn't true.) -- "Dreams of flight are universal among space-faring races.| Mike Van Pelt Indeed, such dreams may form much of the motivation for | Unisys Silicon Valley becoming space-faring." -- T'chaih Hrinach | vanpelt@unisv.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 88 16:41:20 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net (Bob Gray) Subject: Re: HOTOL funding cancelled In article <4643@whuts.UUCP> sw@whuts.UUCP (WARMINK) writes: >I was rather surprised at the lack of comments (or maybe I shouldn't have been) >when it was announced that the British government had decided to stop funding >the HOTOL program. Apparently British Aerospace and Rolls Royce are expected >to fund to development themselves. I posted an article on the subject last week. There have been a couple of developments since then. Rolls Royce are said to be reluctant to continue development withour Government backing. They hold all the patents on the airbreathing engine. Second, a group of financial backers are said to have raised 120 million pounds to continue development over the next two years. The backers do not include BAe or RR. Now, if British private enterprise can manage to compete with the Government funded projects elsewhere in the world there might be some hope for the future yet. The old pattern is repeating itself yet again. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 88 16:44:58 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net (Bob Gray) Subject: Re: Space Station Name chosen -- Fred In article <1635@uop.edu> todd@uop.edu ( Todd/Dr. Nethack ) writes: >> yea, yea...space station "Fred Om", or "Fred" for short... >The "Fred-Om" was from a suggestion by Eddie "Superfrog" Caplan. Is there any truth in the rumor that he is to develop the next generation of US launch vehicles for servicing the space station? :-> :-> :-> Ducks quickly to avoid the bricks. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 88 16:48:03 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net (Bob Gray) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <1988Aug9.205520.5911@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >As somebody wrote in Aviation Week a few months afterward (roughly, from >memory): "If the same thing had happened to the Soviets, they would have >swept the debris off the launch pad, hoisted the next launcher onto the >pad, and started the countdown. Much more importantly, they don't scrap the old launch system until the new one is working reliably, and can do all that the old one could. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 88 03:59:18 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Re: Seti In article <75@forsight.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> roston@robotics.jpl.nasa.gov (Gerry Roston) writes: >Working with some assumptions: >1) Intelligent life forms elsewhere have life spans that are similar in > magnitude to ours (say 50-500 years) This is debatable, especially for mature technological civilizations. Things like nanotechnology, genetic engineering, the ability to load/backup the state of a nervous system could all affect this estimate. A spacefaring society, even one restricted to a single stellar system, could have many trillions of members (but technology may make the concept of an individual obsolete), and each member could have a productivity orders of magnitude greater than 20th century Americans. I would be very careful when proclaiming limits on what technological advances such a society might accomplish given millions of years. >2) Advanced civilizations are energy bound (I know, fusion might solve > that, but...) Solar (stellar?) energy is more than adequate, although I suppose one could call that fusion. One trillionth of the output of the sun for four years equals the kinetic energy of a 100,000 tonne spacecraft travelling at 0.1 c. This is a trivially small fraction of the available energy. Using this energy is an engineering exercise -- one with many solutions, I'm sure. >3) Advanced societies have limited budgets and would expect a return on > investment The cost of building a starship, for a sufficiently advanced society, will be a very small fraction of the total available wealth. Small projects don't necessarily have to have a ROI in the usual sense. What's the ROI of charitable contributions, for instance? Also, for a mission that returns information, the value of the information is proportional to the number of consumers of the information. There could be very many such consumers. A 10 trillion population civilization that was 1% scientists would have 100 billion scientists -- and NSS/L5, if scaled proportionally from a 250M to a 10T population, would have some 800 million members! >1) Financially feasible; if they are so advanced, what would the hope to get > from us? > If it is raw materials, wouldn't they be better off getting them from a > planet not inhabited by intelligent life forms? Arguments that aliens wouldn't visit this solar system that depend on some property of the human race miss the point: why didn't the aliens colonize the solar system hundreds of millions of years ago? Why haven't they colonized nearby star systems? Where are all the Dyson spheres? The disassembled stars? The Kardashev type-III civilizations? >2) Politically practical; what would be the point of an interstellar > (commerce, trade agreement, cultural exchange, etc. ), if it takes tens > to hundreds of years for messages to get from on civilization to the other. > >3) Easily understandable from an individual perspective; what individual would > leave behind FOREVER, everything he/she/it knows about on the very remote > possibility of discovering another intelligent species? And would this > being possess the necessary skills to communicate, etc. Why should communicating with other intelligent be the only reason for going to another stellar system? This seems odd coming from a person working at an organization that devotes great effort to understanding and visiting the apparently sterile bodies of our own solar system. Also, it is not obvious to me that colonizing another stellar system requires sending anyone. One might imagine, for example, a very sophisticated machine that, on arrival, manufactures an incubator from local materials and grows colonists. To summarize, it seems to me that the pro-SETI, anti-interstellar travel viewpoint suffers from excessive timidity in projecting the capabilities of alien civilizations. Assessments based on comparisons to current technology or current rates of energy use are worthless, considering our technological immaturity and what a tiny fraction of the available energy and material resources we currently use. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #340 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Aug 88 23:49:01 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Mon, 29 Aug 88 22:25:03 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 29 Aug 88 22:24:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 29 Aug 88 22:15:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 29 Aug 88 22:05:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 29 Aug 88 22:04:24 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04306; Mon, 29 Aug 88 19:05:45 PDT id AA04306; Mon, 29 Aug 88 19:05:45 PDT Date: Mon, 29 Aug 88 19:05:45 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808300205.AA04306@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #341 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 341 Today's Topics: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? Brian Eno's _Apollo_ soundtrack Space Station funding... Re: Ozone layers Re: Seti Re: SETI Re: red-shift Re: Ozone layers SETI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Aug 88 17:07:36 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? In article <561@unisv.UUCP> vanpelt@unisv.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >There's lots of talk about making self-replicating explorers to >go through all the galaxy collecting data and eventually returning it >to Earth -- Suppose a sufficiently xenophobic civilization decided >to use the technique for eliminated threats/rivals? ... > ... and it only has to happen once for us all to be in >deep yoghurt. This, the "berserker" theory (after Saberhagen's fictional self-replicating nasties), is actually one of the more unsettlingly plausible theories about the Great Silence. It's not a very sensible thing to do, and one would not consider it very likely *for a single civilization*... but as Mike says, it only has to happen *once* to keep the whole damn galaxy silent and lifeless for billions of years. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 88 08:26:09 GMT From: pixar!pixar.uucp!brighton@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bill Carson) Subject: Brian Eno's _Apollo_ soundtrack Having just read the liner notes of Brian Eno's 1983 album, _Apollo_, it mentions that most of this music was composed for a movie/documentary of the Apollo space missions. Directed by Al Reinert, it is supposed to have been compiled from the some 6 million feet of film shot by NASA during this fantastic and mystical period of space exploration. My question is, does this film exist as a released production? And if so, who could I contact to obtain more information about it? I truely hope that the project was not scrapped! Thank you for any pointers you can provide. -- Bill Carson ...!{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!brighton ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 88 23:00:54 GMT From: tk@cvl.umd.edu (Tharakesh Siddalingaiah) Subject: Space Station funding... I haven't seen this mentioned so... The Washington Post reported (last week sometime) that Congress approved ~$10.5B budget for NASA. The space station project is to receive ~$900M with ~$350M in Oct. and the remainder within ~6 months unless the President decides otherwise. Also $200M is to be cut from the shuttle funding, but there is some provision to have money transfered from defense. -tk -- Tharakesh Siddalingaiah --- University of Maryland Computer Vision Lab, (301) 454-5858 ARPA:tk@cvl.umd.edu UUCP:{seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!mimsy!cvl!tk ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 88 17:43:31 GMT From: rochester!ritcv!ritcsh!ultb!awpsys@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Andrew W. Potter) Subject: Re: Ozone layers In article <880815101630.000009021E1@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: >Can someone please explain why ozone produced as a component of smog is >apparently not a factor in regenerating the ozone layer that everyone's >so worried about? I know ozone is poisonous; is it just the case that >smog-ozone is trapped under the inversion layer? How? > Ozone is a volatile compound. It readily breaks down into O2. This is why so little of ozone at the lower atmosphere makes it up to the upper atmosphere Ozone is formed in the upper atmosphere by the action of Solar Uv light on oxygen. Chlorinated Flouro-carbon (CFC) is a very non-reactive gas (making it popular gas for lots of commercial uses.) This stability allows free CFCs to eventually make their way to the upper atmosphere where it it DOES break down under the bombardment of solar UV. One of the constitutents of CFCs (Florine) then becomes the catalyst in a chemical reaction which dramaticly increases the rate of natural breakdown of ozone. Solution: Put all of our ozone poluting devices on towers at 110,000 feet. :-) - Andy -- Andrew W. Potter Email: awpsys@ritvax.BITNET Systems Programmer awp8101@ritcv.UUCP Information Systems and Computing Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY, 14623 (716) 475-6994 ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 88 15:35:40 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!warper.jhuapl.edu!trn@mimsy.umd.edu (Tony Nardo) Subject: Re: Seti In article <75@forsight.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> roston@robotics.jpl.nasa.gov (Gerry Roston) writes: >To throw in my two cents: > >Working with some assumptions: >[credible assumptions deleted] > >Then: >To answer the question, why haven't we been visited, the simple answer is that - >it is not: >1) Financially feasible;... >2) Politically practicle;... >3) Easily understandable from an individual perspective;... > >Any takers? You're reasons are all fine from the human viewpoint. But isn't there the possibility that an alien viewpoint could be so skewed from ours that they *would* have a reason to come here. A somewhat facetious example: suppose there is a species Out There which 1) has a fairly developed technological civilization, 2) believes that their deity (or deities) commune by radio, and 3) actively encourages investigations into the Nature of their God. Now let's say said species picks up a stray broadcast or three from Earth. They can't understand it, but they do recognize that a certain star seems to be putting out an abundance of (potentially) intelligible radio signals. In this case, I can see that species finding political reasons for wanting to travel here, and individuals willing to make the journey. Of course, when they get here and see that Earth is not their idea of Heaven they'll be awfully disappointed... :-) Or, on a more grim note, let's say that there's a species which 1) has a fairly developed technological civilization, 2) has developed very effective weapons that only pollute the environment for a few years, 3) is getting a bit overcrowded, 4) is exceedingly ethnocentric, believing themselves to be the "roughest, toughest, most adaptable being that Nature ever produced," (and the *only* intelligent species worthy of survival), and 5) believes that life can only be sustained under the conditions which they currently live. This species picks up some radio waves. "Hmmm. There must be life on that planet. *We* could live on that world. All we have to do is remove the current infestation. Let's send some probes to see how bad it is..." Seriously, who knows how another intelligent species will think? ============================================================================== ARPA: @aplvax.jhuapl.edu:trn@warper \ nardo%str.decnet@capsrv.jhuapl.edu } one of these should work UUCP: {backbone!}aplvax!warper!trn / USnail: c/o Johns Hopkins University/APL, Room 7-53 Johns Hopkins Road Laurel, Md. 20707 "...But he knew that was ethnocentric thinking. A kzin would think, 'Now I can claim the universe, as is my right.'" some story or other by Larry Niven, badly quoted ============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Aug 88 12:26 EST From: Subject: Re: SETI Ingemar.Hulthage@cs.cmu.edu writes >I don't think one can assume that advanced civilizations do broadcast >signals with the purpose to make themselves known, for the following >reason. > >Suppose there exist some incredibly vicious species somewhere out >there, a race that routinely seeks out intelligent civilizations and >exploit them rutlessly. Now, if that is so, any civilization that >broadcasts its existence would soon be found and silenced, but even if >it is wrong it is still irresponsible to take the risk of broadcasting >unless the horror scenario can be ruled out with 100% certainty and >that may be hard or impossible. > >I therefore think that its more likely that some advanced civilizations >deem regular wide angle transmission safe and useful for some purposes, >as we do on earth. Hence, I don't think there is much hope of SETI >being successful until a capacity to detect regular transmissions is >developed. I give this one a big, "Huh?". While I can agree with the last statement, I find that the fears attempted to be invoked in the second paragraph to be excessive. Any alien civilisation that has the capablility of "silencing" another, through violent means one would assume, would have the capability of receiving, identifying, and located the source of broad band, omni-directional transmission such as our TV, radio, military radars, etc. If he is suggesting that we be 100% safe from such a scenario, he must also be suggesting that all non-cable, non-satellite, narrow-beam transmissions be stopped immediately. Especially since the power capacity and number of such stations is one the rise. However, according to the above scenario, even that is not enough. We may have already signed our "death warrant" with the transmissions of the last 40 years. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I don't believe that such vicious civilizations exist, or even if they did, that they could actually traverse space to come here and "silence" us. The energy requirements are just too great. Besides, mankind has already made one long-distance transmission of the SETI variety, even if it was over 10 years, just repeated once, and sent not to the centre of the Galaxy, but to a globular cluster (M15, if I remember correctly). And finally, if such an alien civilisation does come visiting, maybe they won't find anything left but insects and weeds anyway, the way that we are going. (Oh yes, forgot about the Big Mac containers!) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Arnold Gill | If you don't complain to those who | Queen's University at Kingston | implemented the problem, you have | gill @ qucdnast.bitnet | no right to complain at all ! | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 88 18:09:54 GMT From: hp-pcd!hplsla!deanp@hplabs.hp.com ( Dean Payne) Subject: Re: red-shift >From: Marc.Dantonio@ankh.FIDONET.ORG (Marc Dantonio) >Dean >Why would the red-shift value be outdated? It would not be changing? >What did you mean? By 'out-dated', I meant that by the time the new S&T arrives in the mail, it is likely that there will be a new story in a local newspaper stating "Astronomers Today Announced the Discovery of the Most Distant Known Galaxy/Quasar/Whatever". This galaxy/quasar/whatever will likely be 15 billion lightyears distant. There will probably be no reference to the previous most distant object, or how much of an increase the new discovery represents. There will be a small chance that the story will include a picture of the Sombrero galaxy or some other relatively nearby object, with the caption claiming that it is the newly discovered object. Meanwhile, I will spend a couple more months wondering whether the discovery is a major jump or just a small increment. If someone would publish the red shift, I could look back at the similar discoveries of that class of objects over the past year and compare for myself. Dean Payne ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 88 15:40:08 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!milano!banzai-inst!wex@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Alan Wexelblat) Subject: Re: Ozone layers In article <34@ultb.UUCP>, awpsys@ultb.UUCP (Andrew W. Potter) writes: > In article <880815101630.000009021E1@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: > >Can someone please explain why ozone produced as a component of smog is > >apparently not a factor in regenerating the ozone layer that everyone's > >so worried about? > > Ozone is a volatile compound. It readily breaks down into O2. This is why > so little of ozone at the lower atmosphere makes it up to the upper atmosphere O3 is also 'heavier than air.' That is, it tends to sink rather than rise. I'd be surprised to find that any ground-produced ozone made it up into the stratosphere. -- --Alan Wexelblat ARPA: WEX@MCC.COM UUCP: {rutgers, uunet, &c}!cs.utexas.edu!milano!wex "I am not a stranger. Just a friend you haven't met yet." ------------------------------ Posted-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 88 16:00:28 PST From: "Craig E. Ward" Subject: SETI Date: Thu, 18 Aug 88 16:00:28 PST Sender: cew@venera.isi.edu [Below is an article I wrote for the OASIS chapter newsletter, the OASIS Odyssey. I know this a bit late, the meeting took place last September, but somebody out there my find it interesting. I have some more that will follow. If there's enough interest, I will post such articles in a more timely manner. OASIS is the chapter of the National Space Society serving Los Angeles and Orange Counties in California. - CEW] The Search for Fellow Travelers By Craig E. Ward For the September general meeting, OASIS hosted a presentation by Dr. Thomas McDonough, a lecturer in engineering at Cal Tech, on the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Dr. McDonough is the coordinater of the SETI project for the Planetary Society. The doctor began the presentation by reminding the audience that, for a time, we had a United States Senator who had walked on the moon, then asked how that would have sounded to people's ears fifty years ago. So much science fiction. But it's true. Just as moon walking senators would have sounded like science fiction in 1927, the notion of extraterrestrial intelligence is the stuff of today's science fiction and fantasy, but it may also be true. We cannot assume that we even know all of the life forms on Earth, let alone the universe. Just recently, tube-like worms were discovered living around hot water vents on the ocean floor. Life in an area once thought lifeless. Dr. McDonough went on to describe the possibilities for life on the planets of our solar system. Mars is a big MAYBE. The positive results from the Viking landers are now thought to be from strange, inorganic chemical reactions. However, Dr. McDonough pointed out that the landers had to land in a safe place instead of an interesting place, sort of like landing in the Gobi Desert. Russian probes that tried to land in more promising areas crashed. What is needed is a roving probe that can land in a safe area and travel to the interesting ones. Jupiter cannot be left out. At some altitudes, the atmosphere is much the same as Earth's. Some of the planetary moons also offer possibilities. Titan and Triton are known to contain organic compounds and Europa is believed to have liquid water under its icy crust. However, what is most intriguing to Dr. McDonough is the recent discovery of organic compounds in inter-stellar space. The building blocks of life could be spread all over the universe. Having established the possibilities of life out there, Dr. McDonough began to talk about how we might communicate with them. Due to the great distances involved, any communication with extraterrestrials would be very one-sided. The exchange of pleasantries could take 100,000 years. Even with that, we have sent several messages into the deep space. Pioneers 10 and 11 and Voyagers 1 and 2 all contain messages for some inter-stellar traveler to find. The radio telescope at Arecibo has been used to send a similar message to the stars. The emphasis in SETI, however, is in listening for tell-tale signals of intelligent life. When enough interest developed in the project, NASA went to Congress with a plan; however, a certain senator, whom Dr. McDonough represented with a slide of Darth Vader, pushed through a measure forbidding NASA to spend any money on the project. While the moonwalking senator led the fight to restore NASA funding (a bit of irony there), the Planetary Society received a proposal for a cheap but effective method for conducting a search. The Society funded the project and the Arecibo antenna was used to listen to a variety of frequencies. After the allotted time at Arecibo was over, the researcher found out about an old navy antenna located near Harvard University that was being decommissioned. He was able to transfer his operation to this antenna and has been searching ever since. Plans are currently underway that will bring NASA back into the picture. The NASA program will add significantly to the capabilities of the project. Dr. McDonough ended the formal part of the talk by reviewing some of the aliens that science fiction has created for us. Most have been monsters of one sort or another who like to carry off beautiful women (gee -- what's wrong with that?). Reality is more likely to be like our friend Mr. Spock (although he looks too human). Any species which survives long enough to develop interstellar space travel will likely have controlled its more violent urges, something Humanity has not yet done. Copyright 1987 Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrialization and Settlement (OASIS) Used by permission ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #341 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Aug 88 05:45:09 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Tue, 30 Aug 88 04:32:07 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 30 Aug 88 04:32:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 30 Aug 88 04:24:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 30 Aug 88 04:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Tue, 30 Aug 88 04:15:35 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04450; Tue, 30 Aug 88 01:05:31 PDT id AA04450; Tue, 30 Aug 88 01:05:31 PDT Date: Tue, 30 Aug 88 01:05:31 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808300805.AA04450@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #342 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 342 Today's Topics: American Rocket Company Re: Brian Eno's _Apollo_ soundtrack Re: SETI (was Re: Time dilation affecting SETI) Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? Re: Kettering Boys School Re: Seti Re: Space Station power supply ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 88 16:14:00 PST From: "Craig E. Ward" Subject: American Rocket Company Date: Thu, 18 Aug 88 16:14:00 PST Sender: cew@venera.isi.edu [Below is the article I wrote for the OASIS Odyssey summarizing a lecture meeting last November. Soon after this talk, AMROC lost its financial backers and had to lay off almost all of its workers. Earlier this year, AMROC found new backers and they are back in business, though they have yet to launch anything. (OASIS may get invited!) The July 88 issue of Discover mentions AMROC in the article "The Launch Gap." Has a picture of AMROC founder and NSS board member George Koopman. - CEW] A Slingshot Heard Round the World By Craig E. Ward The force of Friday the 13th was felt by OASIS when the scheduled speaker for the November general meeting, James Bennett, was unable to attend due to out-of-town business commitments; however, his place was more than adequately filled my James R. French. Mr. French is Vice President of Engineering and Chief Engineer for American Rocket Company, AMROC. His background includes a BSME from MIT (1958); nineteen years with JPL working on the Mariner, Viking and Voyager programs; four years with TRW working on the Lunar Module Descent engine and advanced propulsion experiments; and five years with Rocketdyne working on H-1, F-1 and J-2 engines for the Saturn Launch Vehicles. He is an Associate Fellow of AIAA and a Fellow of the BIS. He is also a Civil Air Patrol Search Pilot. AMROC is one of several small, startup companies trying to fill the current gap in the nation's launch capabilities with privately financed launch services. The company was founded in 1985 by George Koopman, James Bennett and Bevin McKinney. Originally, the company was located in Menlo Park but was moved to Camarillo, California to be closer to the launch site at Vandenberg Air Force Base and to take advantage of a more varied technical workforce. This has been a year of major growth for the company, at the beginning of 1987 it had only 15 employees, now that number is 84. One of the young company's biggest problems has been molding this group of people into a team. They feel they have succeeded. The key word in AMROC's approach to launches is "service". Unlike the way todays launches are run, AMROC will not be selling the actual rocket but the service of putting a certain payload at a certain location at a certain time. Payment for the service will be after it has been successful, not before. (The concept of payment after-the-fact has proven to be very popular with potential launch customers.) The shift from selling rockets to selling services is AMROC's method of reducing the amount of paperwork associated with most rocket manufacture. Current government procurement policies require that each component conform to a particular agency's standards and that there be miles of papertrails to prove it. Instead of going this route, AMROC goes out to the various suppliers with a set of requirements and then buys the best priced component that meets or exceeds those requirements. AMROC is basing its first series of vehicle on clusters of a hybrid rocket engine. A hybrid engine uses a mixture of a solid fuel and liquid oxygen. The fuel is a rubber-like substance that is so stable it can easily be handled in standard light-industry facilities. (The Camarillo Fire Marshal considers AMROC's factory to be less of a fire hazard than a neighboring packaging plant.) Under a 1984 National Security Decision Directive by the Reagan administration, AMROC has been able to use certain government facilities. The directive allows government agencies to lease unused facilities to private companies. AMROC has refurbished an engine testing facility at the Rocket Propulsion Laboratory on Edwards Air Force Base and an old Thor launch pad at Vandenberg. In December of 1986, a successful half-thrust test of the engine design was conducted. (The video tape shown by Mr. French showed the test sequence being controlled with an Apple Macintosh.) Plans are currently in the works for a full power test in mid-November. This test is behind schedule because of production problems and the planed February 1988 launch of AMROC's first rocket has been postponed at least three months. The first planned orbital vehicle is dubbed "The Slingshot". The configuration consists of three engines clustered as a first stage, a single hybrid engine as the second and a Star 48 rocket motor as the third stage. (The Star 48 is the motor seen at the bottom of satellites spin-launched from the shuttle.) Depending on where the customer wants it, this configuration can orbit between 400 and 700 pounds. While AMROC has secured the use of a launch site, the site has several problems. The only clear track goes west. The tracks for polar orbits would take any rocket over important sections of Vandenberg (like the runways). One promising new site does exist at the southern end of the base; however, AMROC has encountered the standard problem that any new building on the base encounters. Vandenberg is located on the ancient home of the Chumash Indians and any and all construction on the base must be okayed and supervised by the Chumash Shaman. AMROC hopes to overcome this obstacle and build a new launch complex there. Some more serious obstacles have been encountered with mid- level bureaucrats within the Air Force, NASA and other government agencies. Most of this is due to inertia; AMROC is doing something differently and this pushes these people out of their normal day-to-day routines. Sofar, nothing catastrophic has happened. This may be because the top-level people at NASA and the Air Force think AMROC's approach has great merit. Another source of support from within the government comes from the people with small, scientific payloads to launch. Even before the grounding of the shuttle fleet, these spacecraft were receiving such a low priority that they could not get launch space. It is worse now. All things considered, the future of AMROC and private enterprise in space looks very good. None of the problems sofar seem insurmountable. (Although no one, including this writer, thought to ask about the liability insurance problem.) In the future, we may find the nation's space activities better balanced between private industry and government. Copyright 1988 Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrialization and Settlement (OASIS) Used by permission. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 88 23:18:15 GMT From: thakur@eddie.mit.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur) Subject: Re: Brian Eno's _Apollo_ soundtrack In article <2291@pixar.UUCP> brighton@pixar.uucp (Bill Carson) writes: > Having just read the liner notes of Brian Eno's 1983 album, _Apollo_, it > mentions that most of this music was composed for a movie/documentary of > the Apollo space missions. Directed by Al Reinert, it is supposed to have > been compiled from the some 6 million feet of film shot by NASA during this > fantastic and mystical period of space exploration. This is a fascinating album, and I love listening to it. My favorite piece is the track called "Deep Blue Day" (track nine on the CD). It's a brilliant piece of music that eptiomizes what film music is all about. The higher frequencies have beautiful and ethereal synthesizer sounds on it that are "spacey" without being sappy or evoking the negative connotations of "new age" music. That's a welcome acomplishment. But what's absolutely amazing is that the lower frequencies are dominated by a twangy guitar and a slow, walking bass that impart a country/western music feel to the piece -- which is the last thing one would expect to hear in a film about the Apollo moon missions. But it works, and it works splendidly. The point of the piece -- which can be discerned entirely from the music itself and the title of the film -- is that humankind is now as suited to outer space as it is used to sitting in a rocking chair on the front porch and watching the world go by. The purpose of the film is to convey the awe, mystery, beauty, and most of all the new familiarity of human presence in space. And this piece of music is central to that goal. It succeeds wonderfully. > My question is, does this film exist as a released production? > And if so, who could I contact to obtain more information about it? > I truely hope that the project was not scrapped! Unfortunately, though, Eno's artistry was for naught. Al Reinert never finished the film. I looked into finding a copy of the film when I gave a talk on film music last January at MIT. A person at EG & G Records said Reinert either ran out of money or interest (or perhaps both), and the film was never completed. Eno had already written enough music for an album, so the record label decided to release the soundtrack anyway. It's a shame that the project was scrapped. But the music exists, and stands on it own merits as well as a poor -- but welcome -- substitute for the film. There is at least one other film where a track from "Apollo" was indeed used. It is a 1985 film called STATIC, directed by Mark Romanek and starring Keith Gordon. The music in that film was generally well suited to the film, and in particular, the Eno piece used near the end of the film is perfect. It's the "Weightless" track (track 10 on the CD). If you're at all curious as to how this track was used in a offbeat film about an eccentric young inventor who claims to have made a TV set that can tune into heaven, see this film. (I posted a brief review of STATIC to rec.arts.movies last December, and I have more info about the film and its distributor at home. Write me if you want to know more.) Getting back to Eno, he is one of the few popular musicians who can truly claim to be an artist. His ambient series continues to advance the techniques and theories of musique concrete, and his 1975 album "Discrete Music" is particularly interesting in that regard. And of course, in the rock genre, he's produced some interesting stuff too. He has also put out two albums called "Music for Films" (Vol. 1 and 2), which are precisely that: prerecorded bits of music suitable for insertion in a film. I don't know of any other music composed by Eno for a film, per se. There can be no doubt, though, that the tracks on "Apollo" are worthy of being called great film music and great music. Manavendra K. Thakur {rutgers,decvax!genrad,uunet}!mit-eddie!thakur thakur@eddie.mit.edu thakur@athena.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 88 08:29:33 GMT From: tektronix!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: SETI (was Re: Time dilation affecting SETI) In article <2470@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: , jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes: <> Want to kill 2 birds with 1 stone? Dump all the weapons-grade plutonium <> into the sun! < <> 1. Weapons-grade plutonium is not that great thing to have on earth. < seds@ariel.unm.edu.UUCP (SPACE EXPLORATION) writes: >Hello. Does anyone have some information on Geoffrey Perry and activities >at the Kettering Boys School in England? This is the group that listens to >satellite radio transmissions and uses them to find newly launched Soviet >sats... The Kettering Group still exists, but is no longer affiliated with the school, I believe. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 88 19:13:55 GMT From: ndsuvax!nekinsel@uunet.uu.net (Peter Kinsella) Subject: Re: Seti In article <1685@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu>, trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo) writes: > > Or, on a more grim note, let's say that there's a species which > 1) has a fairly developed technological civilization, > 2) has developed very effective weapons that only pollute the > environment for a few years, > 3) is getting a bit overcrowded, > 4) is exceedingly ethnocentric, believing themselves to be the "roughest, > toughest, most adaptable being that Nature ever produced," (and > the *only* intelligent species worthy of survival), and What prevents a race from using its own ineffcient weapons that will mess up a world for a couple hundred years ? Moreover, if they are bright enough to engineer these weapons, why not show just how bright they are and overhaul a planet. Finally if they are that ruthless as a race to exterminate other life forms, why don't they turn on themselves in an overcrowded condition. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Aug 88 22:16:36 EDT From: Peter Allsop Subject: Re: Space Station power supply >>Main power on the space station is specified as 220 VAC at 20 kHz. >>AC? Why AC? > >AC is easy to convert to whatever voltage you want by means of >a transformer. DC is obtained with a simple rectifier. A >high frequency is used because the transformer needed is >smaller and higher frequencies are easier to filter out when >DC is needed. > In addition AC is safer. High tension DC creates two problems: 1) Unidirectional magnetic fields. 2) The "grab-hold" effect if a person touches a bare wire. The first property results in such annoyances as permanently magnetized tools, walls, watchs, etc. It can even pick-up goodly sized objects and toss them around. The second property results from the fact that you can force a muscle to contract by applying an external DC voltage. This means that if you accidently touch a live conductor your hand (arm, whatever) will tend "grab" the cable ... and you can't let go! To make matters worse anybody that grabs you to pull you away may well end up stuck to you. Have you ever touched a 115V AC line and felt a "pulsing" effect? The pulses are when the power crosses zero, and if they weren't there you couldn't have let go! This is a fairly well known danger in certain Chemical and and Metallurgical industries. Before anyone rushes to point out the dangers of AC I admit they exist, but I haven't met a high-tension electrician yet who hasn't preferred working with AC over DC. Peter Allsop Real Programmers don't comment their code. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #342 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 31 Aug 88 05:03:02 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Wed, 31 Aug 88 04:42:01 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 31 Aug 88 04:41:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 31 Aug 88 04:26:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 31 Aug 88 04:17:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 31 Aug 88 04:16:18 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05446; Wed, 31 Aug 88 01:06:52 PDT id AA05446; Wed, 31 Aug 88 01:06:52 PDT Date: Wed, 31 Aug 88 01:06:52 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808310806.AA05446@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #343 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 343 Today's Topics: Re: How does NASA detect a Hydrogen leak Skinsuits for Space Sentient Behavior Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: RE: skintight suits (worn in space station) Re: Skintight space suits Re: SETI WESPACE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 88 23:21:47 EDT From: Peter Allsop Subject: Re: How does NASA detect a Hydrogen leak There are several methods available for finding Hydrogen leaks all of which depend on "sniffing" the air for gasseous H2. While I'm not sure which method NASA uses the most likely is Thermal Conductivity... they draw a constant velocity gas stream past a heated wire (or film) and measure the current required to maintain the wire (film) at a set temperature. This is a commonly used method for detecting various gasses (actually, changes in local gas composition) in refineries and occupational health surveys, hand held units being available. Alternate methods include fuel cells, Gas Chromatographs, Pt-MOSFETs, and Mass Spectrometers. The first 3 of these are available as hand held units, although the MOSFET stuff is pretty new technology and Platinum is an ignition source for Hydrogen. One contributor suggested that NASA uses portable Mass Spectrometers. While this is possible I think TC is more likely due to cost and weight. The problem is that a MS requires a *very* good vacuum to work, and down here on Earth that means pumps. I have seen some quite nice MS's which wouldn't fill a briefcase *if* you exclude the vacuum pumps, but add the pumps and you have a (heavy) pullman bag. In addition most systems opt for turbo pumps, which run at very high rev's and hence don't like to be moved around while running (as in gyroscopes don't like to be moved). That reminds me of something a friend once pointed out. The reason that movement causes head crashes on disk drives is not because you make the heads flap around, it's because moving a spinning disk causes it to precess! Peter Allsop The determined Real Programmer can write FORTRAN programs in any language. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 88 05:28:04 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Skinsuits for Space I can put on a pair of tights in about two minutes. I have lived in a single change of clothing for eight days on the trail. I can spray-paint an irregular surface satisfactorily. 1 + 1 + 1 = 4 [synergy!] Put on the special underwear, then pull on the supporting tights. Pull on the turtle-neck, gasketed, long-sleeve leotard. Pull on the supporting gloves. Spray on the layer to seal up the whole ensemble. Add the college T-shirt and gi pants, life support pack, helmet, and tool belt with lifeline, and step out the lock. Any good spray-on films suitable for space skinsuit use? Also, good solvents, preferably two-part to avoid accidental dissolution of the suit? If it were transparent, perhaps the last thing to do before stepping out the airlock for an extended shift would be to take a quick swim. Any fellow brainstormers game? [Including polymer chemists!] -- Joe Beckenbach beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu Caltech 1-58, Pasadena CA 91125 Mars Observer Camera Project Caltech Planetary Sciences Division Ground Support Equipment Programmer And God said, let there be a life.... :-) ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 88 05:12:23 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Sentient Behavior >>The fact is, we *don't know* why they aren't here now, and it's a major >>puzzle. >[Chris Munschy:] > Actually, the puzzle isn't quite that complex; we as a race have >proven ourselves to be capable of the most pernicious acts directed against >ourselves for some fairly modest differences of opinion. Religious >and racial intolerance are still at the top of the list of "causes" that we >are willing to kill each other for. As an open question to all of you in >Netland, how do you think we as a race would react to somebody as wildly >different as an Extraterrestrial form of life? I feel that if their tech- >nology allows for inter-stellar or even intergalactic travel, it must >certainly allow for some form of remote surveying or monitoring of our planet >and it's people. And given our fairly unimpressive track record, their >elusive behavior could be due to a desire not to contact us. After all, >how we treat ourselves is a mirror of how we would treat others. This all >may sound a little trite, but surely not too far off the mark. And assuming that any other species which is sapient is driven by the same or similar motivations, such as self-preservation, self-interest, and diversity of opinion, I would not blame then one bit for standing off. I personally have no inclination yet to go rushing to the Iran-Iraq border to help oversee the truce efforts, but then I [think I] have the wisdom to know that I haven't seen enough of the world to do this without acquitting myself passably. The global perspective is VERY hard to develop; few people have the requisite skills and aptitudes to bring themselves about their own positions for a considerable amount of time, and THINK / use WISDOM. This seems to be the result of many factors, most of which I could mention individually and getting royally flamed for. And since competence in the thinking / wisdom / decision process cannot be guaranteed, I believe that Homo sapiens and other space-able species will manage to muddle by, very much like we have managed to do so far here on Terra: history and wisdom are either examined and ignored, shit happens, and more history results. Civilizations breathe, live, and occasionally die. Life continues. Lest I be accused of preaching to the converted, let me pre-emt it: this is the one forum of the few I have had extensive experience on which I see concern above the normal "me first" myopia. I guess that's because I don't take any of the talk.* newsgroups. :-) :-) -- Joe Beckenbach beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu Caltech 1-58, Pasadena CA 91125 Mars Observer Camera Project Caltech Planetary Sciences Division Ground Support Equipment Programmer And God said, let there be a life.... :-) ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 88 06:34:40 GMT From: oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson@ames.arc.nasa.gov (phil nelson) Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? In article <568@unisv.UUCP> vanpelt@unisv.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >In article <1123@ndsuvax.UUCP> nekinsel@ndsuvax.UUCP (Peter Kinsella) writes: >>In article <561@unisv.UUCP>, vanpelt@unisv.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >>> [description of the "berserker hypothesis" > >Understand, my arguments here are of a "devil's advocate" nature. >I do not think that this is the answer to the silence problem. >(Maybe I'm being overly optimistic...) > ..stuff deleted >>If we assume that the galaxy is as expansive as most people claim. > >This supports the Berserker Hypothesis. If the galaxy (or universe >if we allow for intergalactic travel) is so big, it almost doesn't >matter how fantastically improbable the Berserker Hypothesis is. It >only has to happen ONCE in fifteen billion years of the history of >the entire galaxy/universe. If anyone, anywhere, anytime, built >self-replicating robots programmed to seek out and destroy all life >(Saberhagen's version) or even all technological civilizations >(Benford's version), they could fill the galaxy in on the order of >a million or two years. That what makes it so scary. > ...more stuff deleted I hope you will pardon me any errors of etiquette, this is my first posting to this group, though I have been reading with interest for some time. I think that the problem of creating these "self-replicating robots" may be more difficult than we imagine, perhaps too difficult even for our hypothetical "advanced" xenophobes. These "robots", to be effective in their mission, might require so many of the characteristics of living creatures that the problem of creating them is essentially the problem of creating life. That, in my opinion, is a very difficult problem. But, maybe it is possible, in that case; Among other lifelike qualities this race of robots might require is the ability to adapt to new conditions. Assuming for a moment that these robots can be (and are) created, isn't it likely that they would either evolve into something more benevolent or (perhaps more likely) devolve into something much less terrible? hopefully, -- {ames|pyramid}oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson | Contains one or more of the OnTyme: QSATS.P/Nelson POTS: (408)922-7508 | following: Pleas for help, Free Disclaimer: Not officially representing | advice, Opinion, Misc. rambling. McDonnell Douglas Corporation policy. | * Use at your own risk * ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 88 15:02:00 GMT From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!irwin@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: >my opinion: >The best reason for 220 VAC at 20 KHz is that it provides the contractors >with the opportunity to engineer custom parts at great profit. It seems >unlikely that the savings in size by 20 KHz power are worth the trouble. The above is untrue. Parts for 20KHZ power supplies are hardly custom parts. Chopping supplies at the above approximate frequency are about the only kind used any more, in the computer world. With the higher frequency, physical size is reduced and you can put in a lunch bucket what would require a bushel basket at 60HZ. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Aug 88 10:17:17 CDT From: linnig@skvax1.csc.ti.com To: 2space@tilde.csc.ti.com, linnig@tilde.csc.ti.com Subject: RE: skintight suits (worn in space station) > * Dale Amon speculates that the inhabitants of a space station might want > to wear skintight suits all the time as a safety precaution. However, > when the suit is worn with ambient atmospheric pressure, the ambient > pressure and the elastic pressure of the suit are *added*. Assuming > something can be done to alleviate breathing difficulties, the problem > remains that the the pressure exerted on the extremities is comparable > to the systolic blood pressure. Since this is the technique used in a > blood pressure test to cut off the flow of blood to a limb entirely, > I consider it very likely that the suit worn indoors would significantly > interfere with the normal functioning of the circulatory system. This > might or might not be a problem for a person "suiting up" to go outside, > but I doubt that it would be a good idea for these suits to be worn all > the time indoors. (What is the "tightness" of the Soviet indoor suits?) Wait a minute, if the effect is additive the wearer is subjected to two atmospheres. Isn't this the same horrible pressure that a earthbound diver would experience under 33 feet of water? Doesn't sound too deadly to me.. if it is not concentrated over one spot (like a blood pressure cuff does). Mike Linnig, Texas Instruments ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Aug 88 09:28:55 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: Re: Skintight space suits X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@angband.s1.gov" >John Roberts : >* Kevin Ryan summarizes an article by Jerry Pournelle, based on NASA Report > CR-1892, describing tests of the suit. It is stated that the pressure is > maintained at 170mm Hg for the central part of the body (matching the > pressure of the breathing air), dropping to 100-120mm at the extremities, > the difference being maintained by a gasket. This could be interpreted to > mean that gas is normally present between the extremities and the fabric > of the suit at this pressure, but I interpret it to mean that this is the > pressure exerted by the fabric against the skin, with vacuum outside the > skin. There is a considerable difference between the implications of > these two interpretations. The fabric can support the skin overall, but > not on a microscopic basis. At the microscopic level, the skin, rather than > being a continuous sheet of dead tissue, is full of pores, and the pores > contain important living, wet cells exposed to the outside pressure. At > body temperature, the partial pressure of water is ~50mm, meaning that if > the ambient pressure falls below this point, rapid boiling of water at and > for a short distance below the surface will begin. It seems highly unlikely > that these living cells could be directly exposed to vacuum without a > considerable number being killed. I was the original poster asking for references, so when I got the information I went and looked at the article on microfiche. I don't recall all of the details necessary to answer your questions, so suggest you read the article for yourself. I do remember that they found that a spandex-derivative fabric with mesh holes of 0.5mm**2 was what they used, in several layers. Sweat evaporation was considered an asset since the suit did not need a cooling system as a result of this. >* Henry Spencer states that the suit has been tested and it works. The > problem lies in the interpretation of the word "works". The loosest > interpretation is that "the test subject, exposed to these conditions > for an unspecified period of time, did not split open and gush blood, > and survived the experiment without any observed permanent damage". > I would like to know about the results of long-term exposure, which I > suspect would at least cause the skin to become dry and brittle, and > might kill the hair follicles, oil and sweat glands. It would be very > inconvenient to use the suit six hours a day for three weeks and then > have your skin fall off. As far as I recall, the tests were for at least twenty minutes at an equivalent altitude of 80,000 feet (that's pretty thin), and the subjects showed no ill-effects whatsoever. The authors concluded that there were no fundamental design issues to be resolved, that the only remaining problems were, in their words, purely mechanical. I now agree with the original posting, i.e., why isn't this thing being developed further? Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 88 17:10:48 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) Subject: Re: SETI In a good article <8808190000.AA15832@venera.isi.edu> reporting on a SETI lecture, cew@VENERA.ISI.EDU ("Craig E. Ward") writes: > > Jupiter cannot be left out. At some altitudes, the atmosphere > is much the same as Earth's. In temperature and pressure yes, but the composition is radically different. Jupiter's atmosphere is "reducing", consisting mostly of hydrogen, water, methane, and ammonia. Earth's atmosphere is "oxidizing", as we all know. Being reducing doesn't mean Jupiter's atmosphere cannot contain life; on the contrary, it may be better for life than Earth's because the poison gas oxygen is not present. Most Terrestrial life forms are adapted to oxygen, of course, but divers and others who breathe high pressure "air" must take care that the oxygen content is not too high. (Don't worry, it's not a problem for recreational SCUBA divers. The problem starts around depths of 300 feet or so. Nitrogen poisoning also becomes a problem at about the same depth.) > After the allotted time at Arecibo was over, the researcher found > out about an old navy antenna located near Harvard University that was > being decommissioned. He was able to transfer his operation to this > antenna and has been searching ever since. The researcher is Paul Horowitz, and the antenna belongs to the Harvard College Observatory. It was built with privately donated money from the Agassiz family. The connection with the Navy is that they were the last funding source for operation of the antenna, for solar observations. That funding ended, and HCO had planned to decommission the antenna, when the grant from the Planetary Society came through. > Plans are currently underway that will bring NASA back into the > picture. The NASA program will add significantly to the capabilities of > the project. The NASA program is far larger. It will use several antennas, all with better receivers, but the biggest gain will come from searching many more frequencies at once. Even the NASA search, as currently proposed, will not come close to covering the entire "search space". > Any species which survives long enough to develop interstellar > space travel will likely have controlled its more violent urges, > something Humanity has not yet done. Obviously we have no experimental evidence concerning advanced civilizations. Probably all that should be said is that any species that lives a long time will have controlled any violent urges that threaten _its own_ survival. (Otherwise, it's unlikely to live a long time, "long time" meaning a significant fraction of the 10^10 year age of the Galaxy.) -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1988 15:17-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: WESPACE I've been informed that WESPACE is going into suspended animation. They are laying off about 30 engineers and will retain only about 5 managers. If the finance situation changes with respect to the ISF, they will attempt a restart. I presume they are hoping to do it entirely with private capital now that government assurances seem unlikely. If it works, they will be better off in the long run. I have not heard what Max Faget is up to at this time. Perhaps Steve Abrams or someone else down in Houston can tell us. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #343 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 1 Sep 88 01:57:22 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Wed, 31 Aug 88 22:16:37 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 31 Aug 88 22:16:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 31 Aug 88 22:13:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 31 Aug 88 22:06:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 31 Aug 88 22:04:12 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06414; Wed, 31 Aug 88 19:05:41 PDT id AA06414; Wed, 31 Aug 88 19:05:41 PDT Date: Wed, 31 Aug 88 19:05:41 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809010205.AA06414@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #344 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 344 Today's Topics: Re: Space Station power supply Life on Jupiter (was: Re: SETI) Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? RE: SETI Condensed CANOPUS - July 1988 Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 88 16:55:10 GMT From: Portia!Jessica!paulf@labrea.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) Subject: Re: Space Station power supply Not too many moons ago, I was hacking pdp-11 code for a biomedical research lab, which was looking into the question of electrical tissue damage. They had some interesting experiments, and conclusions; for example, that 60 Hz was probably the most lethal frequency possible. "As I recall", ventricular fibriliation is the most common cause of death; this probably does not occur at 20 KHz (although burns probably would). 20 KHz also means smaller (less massive) transformers... -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | "There is no distinctly American criminal class ->paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU | except Congress." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 88 18:41:57 GMT From: rochester!dietz@bbn.com (Paul Dietz) Subject: Life on Jupiter (was: Re: SETI) willner@cfa250.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes: >> Jupiter cannot be left out. At some altitudes, the atmosphere >> is much the same as Earth's. > >In temperature and pressure yes, but the composition is radically >different. Jupiter's atmosphere is "reducing", consisting mostly of >hydrogen, water, methane, and ammonia. Earth's atmosphere is >"oxidizing", as we all know. > >Being reducing doesn't mean Jupiter's atmosphere cannot contain life; >on the contrary, it may be better for life than Earth's because the >poison gas oxygen is not present. At high pressure and temperature, hydrogen reacts exothermically with organic compounds to form methane, ammonia and water. Vertical circulation in Jupiter's atmosphere carries any given parcel downward to great depth every few days or so. It is unlikely that life could have originated or could survive there. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 88 18:59:54 GMT From: vsi1!unisv!vanpelt@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? In article <1948@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Well there are quite a few options, each with interesting implications: (several options deleted) >b) There's something inherently wrong with the V.N. machine idea: That's what I think: Self-replicating machines are too difficult or perhaps even not possible. (To point at an animal as a counterexample is to beg the question. Maybe the reductionist worldview is wrong...) Many of the AI people take it as Revealed Truth that there's nothing to intelligence that can't be done with a little hardware and some software. I'm not convinced. The more you look at it, the problem of making a machine that can do even what a cockroach does is not as easy as it may appear at first glance. (Which is one of the brick walls I think the nanotechnology folks are going to run into.) -- Mike Van Pelt Here lies a Technophobe, Unisys, Silicon Valley No whimper, no blast. vanpelt@unisv.UUCP His life's goal accomplished, Zero risk at last. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 88 18:10:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Peter Nelson) Subject: RE: SETI >> Presumably it wouldn't be all that difficult for an advanced >> civilization to build probes that would be more than a match for >> any civilization that had only a few years before mastered the use >> of radio, on which the probes would home in. > >If it is possible for an advanced civilization to build and deploy >self-reproducing, interstellar probes, probes could be continuously >resident in each solar system. If the civilization constructing the >probes were irrationally hostile to other life forms, the probes >could be programmed to detect life and sterilize any planets long >before radio could be developed. Obviously this has not happened, so >at least one of the assumptions is wrong (or else we are just >incredibly lucky that all the probes in our solar system have >malfunctioned). Wrong. We're it, or them, I mean. WE are the self-reproducing probes programmed to sterilize all life before the true intelligent life can arise on this planet. And it's working! --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 88 22:29:58 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) Subject: Condensed CANOPUS - July 1988 Here is the unabridged CANOPUS for July 1987. There are three articles. All are highly condensed, and the first is frequently rephrased. Material in {braces} is from me and is signed {--SW} when it represents an expression of opinion. CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Send correspondence about its contents to the executive editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu; e-mail to canopus@cfa.uucp will probably be forwarded). Send correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA, 1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019. Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS widely, either electronically or as printout copies. If you do, however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many others receive copies. CANOPUS is partially supported by the National Space Science Data Center. SPACE SCIENCE IN THE 21st CENTURY, N.R.C. Report Issued - can880701.txt - 7/6/88 [Report to NASA from National Research Council on scientific goals in space. Requested by NASA in 1984. The report is a comprehensive wish list rather than a setting of priorities. Setting priorities may not be possible until some current missions are completed.] In his cover letter, National Academy of Sciences Chairman Frank Press, calls attention to two severe problems that must be faced. 1) Challenger accident has deprived us of access to space, and 2) available funding and talent are insufficient. Here are the categories and some of the missions suggested. PLANETARY AND LUNAR EXPLORATION For the terrestrial planets: landers, rovers and sample return missions For the outer planets: atmospheric probes For primitive bodies (comets and asteroids): rendezvous and sample-return missions Search for planets around other stars (Even planets as small as Uranus and Neptune should be detectable.) "A Mars-focused program is recommended in parallel with the general program" and not as a substitute. Venus, Earth and Mars present a great potential payoff in comparative planetology. SOLAR SYSTEM PLASMA PHYSICS An ultraviolet and X-ray telescope to give 1-100 km resolution images of the Sun's surface. (The planned High Resolution Solar Observatory will have 70-km resolution, but the UV capability has been cancelled.) Plasma observations as part of outer planet missions Remote sensing of magnetospheric plasmas in the Earth-moon system Active experimentation {I think this means missions like particle releases in the Earth's ionosphere.--SW} Solar Probe (sometimes called Star Probe), a mission to fly within 1.9 million km of the visible surface of the Sun {This is about 1.4 solar diameters.} An Interstellar probe (also called TAU, for Thousand Astronomical Units) would enter the interstellar medium 10 years after launch. ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS o Imaging interferometry, comprising large arrays of telescopes for optical and radio VLBI observations, o Large-area and high-throughput telescopes, including a 20- to 30-m large deployable sub-mm reflector, an 8- to 16-m optical telescope, a large 20 to 20,000 keV X-ray telescope, and a large 0.1-10 meV Compton telescope, and o Astro-Mag, a massive cosmic ray analyzer using a superconducting magnet spectrometer. FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY (relativistic gravitation and microgravity sciences) o Laser hetereodyne interferometer to attempt detection of gravitational waves below 10 Hz, o Microwave ranging to a Mercury orbiter to measure the time rate of change in gravitational coupling, o A Precision Optical Interferometer in Space to measure the second order effect of the Sun on electromagnetic radiation. o A hydrogen maser clock aboard Solar probe or Star Probe to measure the gravitational red shift to second order. o A free-flying spacecraft to test the weak principle of equivalence to one part in 1,000 more than a planned Shuttle experiment, and o A large-area X-ray detector (possibly from the astrophysics category) for microseceond timing to allow detection of X- ray pulsars. HUMAN PRESENCE IN SPACE The SSB study found no category of space science depends on manned space flight other than space medicine. Rather than falling into the man-vs-machine argument that has divided the space community for decades, the study team wrote that, "At present, we lack enough information to judge where the balance between manned and unmanned missions should lie." PRECONDITIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE To train the next generation of scientists, the SSB said that Explorers, Spartans, Observers, and suborbital programs "must be allowed to flourish." Projects that take one to three years are needed to match the training of graduate and post-doctoral students. FRED SCARF, NOTED SPACE SCIENTIST, DIES AT 57 - CAN990702.txt - 7/19/88 Frederick L. Scarf, a chief scientist for research and technology at TRW, died Sunday, in Moscow. Dr. Scarf, 57, was part of an international delegation attending the launch of two Russian probes designed to investigate one of the moons of Mars, Phobos. He was a co-investigator of an instrument aboard each of the spacecraft. RESTORING COMMITMENT TO OUR FUTURE IN SPACE - CAN880703.TXT - 7/26/88 A Joint Statement by American Astronomical Society, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers {highly condensed}: We believe NASA's program is neither sufficiently understood nor adequately supported. It is our responsibility to call to the nation's attention the great value of NASA's historic contributions to education, science, exploration, and leadership. We urgently recommend restoring national commitment to purposeful civilian space programs and policies. >From both the manned and unmanned space programs, we and the world community have received manifold benefits that range from the practical to the intellectually sublime. Observing the earth from space has put within our grasp the ability to understand and stabilize this--the only known--environment of life. We can now study the earth's interior, global atmosphere, oceans, and landmasses as whole entities. In our time, heavenly bodies have moved into the realm of human experience. These discoveries stimulate a deeper understanding of the earth itself. New classes of objects and phenomena have been discovered by past telescopes in space. In the future, space astronomy can open for study new wavelength ranges and new volumes of the universe. NASA's scientific achievements are echoed in space applications such as satellite communications... and remote sensing from space, which has revolutionized weather forecasting and the assessment of our planet's resources. Life sciences research ... The future of these beneficial space activities is at risk. The problem is that budgetary growth is required through the remainder of the century to exploit the technology and infrastructure created by NASA. That is the conclusion of the May 1988 report by the Congressional Budget Office entitled "The NASA Program in the 1990s and Beyond." We urge the leadership of the United States to reverse this nation's current retreat from exploration and development in space by providing adequate resources to NASA. We have serious business in space. Other nations recognize the benefits of civilian space activities, and they are creating their own opportunities. If the United States can be a reliable partner, we might travel with them -- but we cannot stay home. The space frontier is no less significant to our future than our terrestrial boundaries: through each will come the new knowledge, fresh challenges, economic strength, and the critical resources that will spur us on and secure our place in the competitive future. We call for a restored commitment to space. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 88 14:45:41 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? >From article <1123@ndsuvax.UUCP>, by nekinsel@ndsuvax.UUCP (Peter Kinsella): > In article <561@unisv.UUCP>, vanpelt@unisv.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: > >> Presumably it wouldn't be all that >> difficult for an advanced civilization to build probes that would be >> more than a match for any civilization that had only a few years >> before mastered the use of radio, on which the probes would home in. > > Why would would the get along fine with each other but be afraid of a > a little puny underdeveloped planet. If we assume that the galaxy is as > expansive as most people claim. And if we assume that the Race is > suffiently developed to send probes to wipe out other planets, wouldn't ^^^^^^^^ > they also be advanced enough to harvest resources from uninhabited worlds. > Wouldn't the later also be more economically efficent, especially if the > world be taken over detonates atomic weapons in its self defense. ^^^^^^^^^^ wipe out != taken over. In fact, they might want us to use our own nuclear weapons. It might help them wipe us out. Flame ON! Did you ever hear about phobias? Individual humans can develop irrational fears that can drive them to extreme behavior. Did you ever hear of WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Afganistan, or Iraq, and Iran? Human cultures can also exihbit irrational behavior. And then you ask why members of another species, the result of independant evolution in a different environment would not act like we HOPE human beings might act some day? Humanity is an example of a species with high technology and irrational behavior. If the wrong mass insanity sets in, WE could be the ones launching the sterilizer probes! Flame OFF! Look, my neighbor spent about 3 days with a bubble level and bags of sand making sure that his front lawn was absolutely level. Every month or so he goes out and checks to make sure it is still level. His side and back yards are weed covered dirt. He is considered to be sane. But, his behavior makes no sense to me at all. Beyond a few basics, like maybe reproduction, what can we really claim to know about what an alien intelligence might do? Bob P. -- Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet Alternate: utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet I am solely responsible for what I say. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #344 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 1 Sep 88 07:26:43 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 1 Sep 88 06:32:39 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 1 Sep 88 06:32:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 1 Sep 88 06:19:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 1 Sep 88 05:29:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 1 Sep 88 04:06:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Thu, 1 Sep 88 04:04:27 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06589; Thu, 1 Sep 88 01:05:43 PDT id AA06589; Thu, 1 Sep 88 01:05:43 PDT Date: Thu, 1 Sep 88 01:05:43 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809010805.AA06589@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #345 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 345 Today's Topics: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST Self-reproducing probes (was: SETI: Why don't we hear anything?) Satellite brightness Re: ET phone home? (SETI) RESPONS Re: Seti Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: Seti Re: space news from Aug 1 AW&ST nutrition Re: Ozone layers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Aug 88 15:57:21 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST >From article <1988Aug16.040406.5434@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer): > ... Earliest full operational date > for ALS is about the year 2000. There is also a great deal of skepticism > about whether ALS can really achieve its goal of a factor of 10 reduction > in launch costs, and some doubt about whether it is really wise to pack > many small payloads together into one launch. A recent issue of Aerospace America had an article on ALS. It seems that one of the main problems they are having is convincing engineers that COST not performance is the major design factor. (A problem I'm all too aware of.) Sexy technical solutions are not always the most cost effective solutions. A lot of people don't think that ALS can meet its cost goals. Just as a reality check I put together this table. The numbers are all from memory so acurracy is doubtful. It is based on the space shuttle. Assuming a max payload weight of 43K lbs., an orbitor weight 150k lbs., and an external tank weight of 75K lbs. I wanted to compute costs of a pound in orbit counting just the payload weight, the orbitor plus the payload, 193K lbs., and the orbitor plus the payload plus the ET, 268L lbs., as delivered weight in orbit. I used three different costs for a shuttle launch. They are all close to figures I've heard, but I'm not sure anyone really knows what a shuttle launch costs. So I've used $100M, $200M, and $300M. $100M $200M $300M P 2325 4651 6976 P+O 518 1036 1554 P+O+ET 373 746 1119 Nothing about the shuttle was designed to be cheap. It was designed to be reusable, and designed to have the very highest perfomance. It looks like an expendable vehicle based on shuttle technology should be able to put a payload of something less than P+O, say 150K lbs. into orbit for a cost less than $2000/lb assuming $300M per launch. (shades of Shuttle-C!) It seems to me that a reduction in launch preparation cost, without a reduction in vehicle cost, might be able to get you under $1000 dollars per pound. If you through in enough mights and maybes you can convince yourself that $300 a lb. is achievable. For a further reality check look at the Soviet proton and energia boosters. I'm starting to believe that the main reason ALS will have trouble reaching its design goals is the "performance is everything", "high tech or nothing" mind set of the companies doing the work. Bob P. -- Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet Alternate: utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet I am solely responsible for what I say. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 88 18:04:57 GMT From: tektronix!orca!tekecs!blast!kendalla@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Kendall Auel) Subject: Self-reproducing probes (was: SETI: Why don't we hear anything?) In article <1063@cfa183.cfa250.harvard.edu> Steve Willner writes: >If it is possible for an advanced civilization to build and deploy >self-reproducing, interstellar probes, probes could be continuously >resident in each solar system. If the civilization constructing the >probes were irrationally hostile to other life forms, the probes >could be programmed to detect life and sterilize any planets long >before radio could be developed. I'm curious what a self-reproducing interstellar probe would be like. We tend to think of Voyager and the like, but genetic engineering may change our definition of "machine". Maybe WE are the self-reproducing probe :-). There is a sci-fi story called "The Seed", where a scientist discovers the true origin of life. It was planted on Earth by a highly advanced civilization that prizes smooth, shiny planets. The alien race knew that eventually the seed would grow to build H-bombs that melt the planet's crust. I can't remember who wrote it, but I found it very entertaining. Kendall Auel ^ ^ /O O\ Tektronix, Inc. | V | Information Display Group / """ \ Graphics Workstations Division / """"" \ (kendalla@blast.GWD.TEK.COM) /|\ /|\ ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 88 18:32:04 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: Satellite brightness Here is a short list of the brightest artificial earth satellites: Mag Satellite --- --------- -2.5 Space Shuttle -2.0*` KH-11 -2.0 Cosmos 1870 -0.5* MIR/Kvant/Soyuz TM/Progress complex 0.0 Cosmos 1900 (to decay soon) +1.0* Salyut 7/Cosmos 1686 +1.0 Cosmos 1834 +1.0 Cosmos 1890 +1.0 Cosmos 398 (highly elliptical orbit) +1.0 LDEF +1.5 Cosmos 56 +1.5 Cosmos 206 *=Confirmed by my observation. Others are estimates. Comments? Additions or Corrections? ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 88 21:00:36 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: ET phone home? (SETI) RESPONS In article <96500002@datacube> chris@datacube.UUCP writes: >... given our fairly unimpressive track record, their >elusive behavior could be due to a desire not to contact us... The problem with this is that it assumes that the galaxy is culturally homogeneous, so this argument applies to all intelligent species. It is not hard to construct any number of plausible arguments about why one species would not contact us. It is much harder to make those lines of argument apply to *all* species in a galaxy that ought -- by what we know -- to be teeming with them. One would expect a certain amount of variation in the behavior of intelligent species. There are also moderately good biological arguments indicating that if Earth is in quarantine, it has been in that state for several billion years. Not only must the galaxy be culturally homogeneous, it must have been so for rather a long time. This *could* be the explanation of the Great Silence, but it requires rather a lot of assumptions. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 88 21:28:07 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Seti In article <20315@cornell.UUCP> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul F. Dietz) writes: >A spacefaring society, even one restricted to a single stellar system, >could have many trillions of members (but technology may make the concept >of an individual obsolete), and each member could have a productivity orders >of magnitude greater than 20th century Americans. I would be very careful >when proclaiming limits on what technological advances such a society might >accomplish given millions of years. I second this comment. Consider: There are people alive today who remember a time when radio did not exist, man could not fly, and the total electrical generating capacity of the world was measured in megawatts. Today... We get live TV from Halley's Comet. There is never a time, day or night, when FEWER than a hundred thousand people are airborne. And one gigawatt is a single power plant, and not a really big one at that. Our own world, and our own society, has changed beyond recognition in a single human lifetime. Never mind the millions of years; extrapolating our capabilities a measly *thousand* years is quite impossible. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 88 18:24:01 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <579@proxftl.UUCP> greg@proxftl.UUCP (Gregory N. Hullender) writes: >I imagine they would also have sent various officials from Morton Thiokol >and Nasa off to the Gualag, if not had them shot. Sounds like a fine idea to me. A good many of them deserved it. >As I recall, a fair amount of the pressure for putting safety first came >from the astronauts themselves... True... but it's also true that there would have been no shortage of volunteers to fly high-priority missions before definitive fixes were made. Bear in mind that you've seen a biased sample: the safety-first astronauts like Sally Ride were the ones who got the publicity. >Fortunately, we don't live in the Soviet Union; however, considering your >callous disregard for human life and warm regard for the power of a police >state to stifle dissent, perhaps you should consider relocating. Tsk, tsk, let us avoid name-calling. I don't consider it "callous disregard for human life" to suggest that it is sometimes appropriate to let volunteers take risks in a good cause. (Especially since, given the chance, I'd be at the head of the line.) Nor do I think it to be "warm regard for the power of a police state to stifle dissent" to suggest that current US politics give too much weight to dissent -- any dissent -- and to endless debates about contentious issues, and not enough to making decisions in a timely way and getting the job done. 2.5 years after the Apollo fire, Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the Moon. Today, 2.5 years after Challenger, we're still waiting. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 88 21:20:31 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Seti In article <75@forsight.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> roston@robotics.jpl.nasa.gov (Gerry Roston) writes: >1) Intelligent life forms elsewhere have life spans that are similar in magnitude > to ours (say 50-500 years) A poor assumption; our own lifespan is likely to increase dramatically within the next century or so. >2) Advanced civilizations are energy bound (I know, fusion might solve that, but...) Have you looked at a graph of the energy available to mankind over the last century? It's difficult for people today to realize just *tiny* mankind's resources were a mere half-century ago. There is no obvious reason for the trend to change, either; certainly there are no technological barriers visible in the near future. Capturing a small but significant fraction of the total energy output of the Sun would be enormously expensive (by 1988 standards) but appears to present no fundamental difficulties. >3) Advanced societies have limited budgets and would expect a return on investment Again, check out the pattern in our immediate past. Emigrating to North America -- just the passage and the necessary startup supplies -- took every cent the Plymouth Rock colonists had, and drove them so deep into debt that it was 20 years before they were in the black again. The Mormons merely had to spend their entire life savings to emigrate to Salt Lake City. I went to Australia for Christmas last year; it was expensive enough to be annoying. See the trend? The maximum-probability projection is that future human societies will be enormously wealthier than our own. >4) Einstein's theory of general relativity is true Actually, if you're thinking of the speed-of-light limit, you want special relativity, not general relativity. >... the simple answer is that - >it is not: >1) Financially feasible; if they are so advanced, what would the hope to get from us? What's the financial return on climbing Mount Everest? Or on operating Fermilab? The simple answer to your question is "knowledge". >2) Politically practicle; what would be the point of an interstellar (commerce, > trade agreement, cultural exchange, etc. ), if it takes tens to hundreds of > years for messages to get from on civilization to the other. In earlier times on Earth, it wasn't uncommon for trade to take place along routes where travel from one end to the other (a trip made by goods and money but seldom by people) would take years. >3) Easily understandable from an individual perspective; what individual would > leave behind FOREVER, everything he/she/it knows about on the very remote > possibility of discovering another intelligent species? ... If one can assume robot precursors that would establish where intelligent life is to be found, then the uncertainty largely vanishes. As for who would leave everything he/she/it knows behind forever, essentially everyone who settled North America did just that. And as Forward has pointed out, the opportunity to spend the rest of your life studying a new solar system is one that would attract an ample supply of volunteers among scientists. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 88 07:17:11 GMT From: beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu (Joe Beckenbach) Subject: Re: space news from Aug 1 AW&ST VIMS is off the Mars Observer. The radar altimeter will be replaced by a laser altimeter, leaving a bit more room on the nadir panel. High on the Mars Observer Camera wish list is extra area for all the fun memory chips needed for the on-board processing, the megabit chips [MOC requires 12 Mbytes] and the radiation-hard microprocessors, and all the other electronics for instrument high performance. MOC wants to fly several previously unflown [and, until now, untested] ICs; this should open up the sophistication of instrumentation onboard future craft. Quick expansion on the instrument shuffle: the intent to include a Russian receiver on the Mars Observer in support of an intended 1994 Russian mission with a French balloon experiment, forced the decision to not delay launch until 1994. Besides, NASA HQ thought it wiser to cut back on one instrument than to throw several instruments into a two-year funding hold. [I believe the balloon is French: the faxed information came in from Nice under the auspices of one of the French space research groups.] Other brief notes: the engineering model of the Camera housing went quite well, despite higher resonance amplitudes than expected. The graphite-epoxy structure looks good in the photos I've seen; a show last weekend [forget which one] had it on display. Fabrication of the electronics and focal plane linear-array charge-coupled devices [CCDs] are part of the next few months' efforts towards the production of the engineering model. And even a cleanroom on campus by Thanksgiving for putting the engineering model together [and flight model as well, if I remember the schedules rightly]. If the other teams are going along the way this team is, the Mars Observer should be a solid piece of engineering ready in plenty of time for the scheduled launch. Too bad I won't be in on this after the start of September.... -- Joe Beckenbach beckenba@csvax.caltech.edu Caltech 1-58, Pasadena CA 91125 Mars Observer Camera Project Caltech Planetary Sciences Division Ground Support Equipment Programmer [until 6 Sept, but can contact them much later] ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 88 13:04:40 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!Lee_-_Wells@uunet.uu.net Subject: nutrition maybe i'm just fishing for a job here but.... Is there a nutritionist at NASA that does stats on all the space jocks? I mean here these people are on the cutting edge of science, and when it comes to monitering what they eat, I hear nothing. I mean Scientific American has had some VERY interesting articles on what happens to the brain with intake of protein vs. carbos... There are serveral articles on MEDLINE about nutrients and immune system simulation...they don't want a cold while they are up there...it would seem to me. Have there EVERY been any studies made on nutrition vs. performance at NASA? [I checked with their library and found very little] I have hear about the bed rest deal for potential astronauts, any of them take any extra vitamin c? just wondering lee wells ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 88 15:50:51 GMT From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Keith Lofstrom) Subject: Re: Ozone layers Chlorine and Flourine are reputed to act as a catalyst in the O3 -> O2 reaction. One of my sources suggests that, as a catalyst, it also facilitates the other reaction. The result: at night, ozone decreases "more than normal", and during the day, ozone INCREASES "more than normal". Thus, the amount of daytime UV decreases (this is borne out by measured data) and the amount of nighttime UV increases. But since twice nothing is still nothing, who cares? Important question - the "ozone hole" in Antarctica increase was measured DURING THE WINTER, when there is no sunlight near the pole. Has the same decrease been measured during the SUMMER? Do the instruments even work in sunlight? Keith -- Keith Lofstrom ...!tektronix!vice!keithl keithl@vice.TEK.COM MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #345 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 2 Sep 88 05:17:51 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Fri, 2 Sep 88 04:36:28 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Fri, 2 Sep 88 04:36:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 2 Sep 88 04:20:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 2 Sep 88 04:05:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Fri, 2 Sep 88 04:04:45 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07729; Fri, 2 Sep 88 01:06:32 PDT id AA07729; Fri, 2 Sep 88 01:06:32 PDT Date: Fri, 2 Sep 88 01:06:32 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809020806.AA07729@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #346 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 346 Today's Topics: energy usage and thermal runaway Space telescopes (Was: space news from July 4 AW&ST) Re: energy usage and thermal runaway Re: SETI Re: Seti Re: access to space; how to deny Re: energy usage and thermal runaway NASA Prediction Bulletins 112th Scout rocket launch set (Forwarded) Re: energy usage and thermal runaway Re: Ozone layers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Aug 88 19:46:57 GMT From: spdcc!eli@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Steve Elias) Subject: energy usage and thermal runaway In <1988Aug19.212031.24023@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Have you looked at a graph of the energy available to mankind over the last >century? It's difficult for people today to realize just *tiny* mankind's >resources were a mere half-century ago. There is no obvious reason for the >trend to change, either; certainly there are no technological barriers >visible in the near future. Capturing a small but significant fraction of >the total energy output of the Sun would be enormously expensive (by 1988 >standards) but appears to present no fundamental difficulties. One difficulty may be the inability to use all our available energy as we like, without somehow re-rediating some energy back into space. (Or perhaps making a tad of matter out of some of our plentiful energy). Using all this energy, whether it turns out to be solar or not, could be as much of a worry as is the production of greenhouse gases is today. The greenhouse effect is theoretically a feedback cycle which is sensitive to either excess heat or excess CO2 and methane. so we had best be spacefaring folk if we're to have good reason to use thousands of times the energy we require now... ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 88 16:34:18 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net (Bob Gray) Subject: Space telescopes (Was: space news from July 4 AW&ST) In article <1988Aug15.021047.12532@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >.... At risk of schedule slip are the Hubble >telescope, the Astro ultraviolet astronomy mission,.... The hubble space telescope is still on the ground long after it was supposed to be flying. Meanwhile, the soviets are talking about building an observatory in space 1.5 million Kilometers away at a stable point in Earth orbit diametrically opposite the sun. It would consist of a radio telescope with a 400 metre dish, over quarter of a mile, and a 10 metre optical telescope. These telescopes are the largest launchable on their Energia heavy launcher. The whole observatory would be assembled in orbit by cosmanauts or robots. Total cost estimated at 1 billion roubles. (about 1 billion pounds sterling). See the latest issue of "New Scientist" page 25 for the full story. OK, it is just talk at the moment, but would anyone bet that this, or something like it, won't be flying before the end of the century? (that originally said before the HST but that is too pessimistic. Isn't it?) Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 88 04:40:58 GMT From: apple!well!pokey@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Jef Poskanzer) Subject: Re: energy usage and thermal runaway Amazing. He still doesn't get it. The stubborness of this fellow's ignorance is World Class. In case anyone missed the flame-fest in April, I saved 133,745 bytes of it, in which Steve's thermal balance fears are dispelled over and over and over and over and he just keeps right on flaming. Really interesting reading, if you're into psychopathology. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@rtsg.ee.lbl.gov ...well!pokey "i may have bullshitted my flux claim" -- Steve Elias ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 88 22:13:37 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!water!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SETI In article <8808181628.AA05092@angband.s1.gov> GILL@QUCDNAST.BITNET writes: > Maybe I'm an optimist, but I don't believe that such vicious >civilizations exist... I don't believe that they exist. On the other hand I don't believe that they don't exist, either. There is no evidence to justify either belief. > or even if they did, that they could actually >traverse space to come here and "silence" us. The energy requirements >are just too great... An 1888 electrical engineer would have said the same thing about the energy requirements of any large 1988 city. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 88 22:45:38 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!water!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Seti In article <1140@ndsuvax.UUCP> nekinsel@ndsuvax.UUCP (Peter Kinsella) writes: > What prevents a race from using its own ineffcient weapons that will > mess up a world for a couple hundred years ? Intelligence? >Moreover, if they are > bright enough to engineer these weapons, why not show just how bright > they are and overhaul a planet. Compare the amount of effort invested in weaponry here with the amount invested in planetary overhaul here and you will have at least one reason. > Finally if they are that ruthless as > a race to exterminate other life forms, why don't they turn on themselves > in an overcrowded condition. Racial prejudice is an obvious possibility. There is nothing remarkable or unbelievable about a race respecting its own members while considering other races to be useless animals cluttering up prime real estate. Humans have been doing this for a long time. Note also that the two are not mutually exclusive. The Western Europeans managed to largely depopulate Australia and the Americas, without even particularly intending to (most of the time...), despite going at it hammer-and-tongs back in Europe meanwhile. In fact, one can make a case for the long history of organized warfare in Europe being an important cause of the Europeans' devastating military superiority over the native Americans. Survival of the fittest... -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 88 22:34:12 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!water!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: access to space; how to deny In article <2039@pompeii.cs.swarthmore.edu> schwartz@swatsun.UUCP () writes: >... Is a full scale SDI system (exact definition >of that left unspecified) required to deny country X access to space? No. Launch sites are predictable, as are trajectories. Times are somewhat predictable. Launches come one at a time and ascent is rather slower than a modern ICBM. >... What if the cubans (say) stood by >with some MiG's off the coast of florida and fired air to air missiles >at the shuttle as it lifted off. Think they could shoot it down? Definitely... assuming that the USAF didn't do something about the matter. The airspace around the Cape is well watched at launch time. >What if they used surface to air missiles launched from cuba? Might be possible. I think the range is rather long and the time available is rather short (assuming one does not know the exact launch time in advance), but a long-range SAM might be able to do it. This would, of course, be tantamount to declaring war... >Would the danger be enough to say that they had denied the US access to >space? I don't know much about the capabilities of the relevent >weapons. Maybe someone who does could fill us in. Assuming that you could get close enough for the particular weapon to be useful, yes, it would be a real concern. The USAF is concerned enough about Stinger-class shoulder-launched SAMs that they are tightening security at both the Cape and Vandenberg. A launcher in its first minute or so of flight is an excellent target: big, fragile, conspicuous on radar, emitting huge quantities of infrared, flying a very predictable path from a known starting point. It's accelerating quickly and continuously, and after the first minute or two it will be high enough and moving fast enough to be a very difficult target, but early on it's a sitting duck if you can get to the right place at the right time (and are prepared for the consequences). The problem of getting within range and surviving there is bad enough to make space-based interceptors rather more attractive, but there's nothing impossible about shooting down a launcher with more mundane weapons. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu [I'm leaving this message in the Digest w/ extreme trepidation, but as usual Henry sounds so damn reasonable... -Ed] ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 88 14:31:55 GMT From: spdcc!eli@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Steve Elias) Subject: Re: energy usage and thermal runaway In article <6871@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer writes: >Amazing. He still doesn't get it. The stubborness of this fellow's >ignorance is World Class. hopefully some cogent replies to my posting will be provoked, rather than those like those of Jef "Ed" Hominem. >In case anyone missed the flame-fest in April, I saved 133,745 bytes of >it, in which Steve's thermal balance fears are dispelled over and over >and over and over and he just keeps right on flaming. who is keeping right on flaming, here ? the gist of the argument months ago was that we could start running into thermal runaway when we started importing or using thousands of time the power we use now. Henry made a comment about plentiful energy... so here we go again. if i recall correctly, the bottom line was that thermal troubles could begin at thousands of times current energy usage, rather than the tens of times i originally claimed... > Jef Poskanzer jef@rtsg.ee.lbl.gov ...well!pokey > "i may have bullshitted my flux claim" -- Steve Elias oh well. we're not all perfect, like some folks think they are. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 88 16:50:49 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!tskelso@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (TS Kelso) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins For those of you who are interested in satellite tracking, the most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times weekly. As a service to the amateur satellite community, the most current of these elements are uploaded weekly to rec.ham-radio. The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. Note: The number above is the new number in Fairborn, Ohio. Unfortunately, the system is down temporarily due to equipment failure. - TS -- TS Kelso, PhD ARPA: tskelso@emx.cc.utexas.edu The Center for Space Research The University of Texas at Austin UUCP: {ihnp4,allegra}!ut-emx!tskelso ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 88 18:58:50 GMT From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: 112th Scout rocket launch set (Forwarded) James Cast Headquarters, Washington, D.C. August 19, 1988 Jean Drummond Clough Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va. RELEASE: 88-116 112TH SCOUT ROCKET LAUNCH SET NASA will launch two U.S. Navy navigational satellites aboard a Scout rocket August 24 from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. The 24-minute launch window for the SOOS-4 (Stacked Oscars On Scout) mission opens at 11:59 p.m. PDT. The two Oscar satellites, each weighing 141 pounds, will be placed into a 600- nautical-mile circular polar orbit. The Oscars are part of the Navy's all-weather, global navigation system. The Navy Navigation Satellite System has served the military and more than 60,000 civilian users for more than 2 decades by providing position information within one-tenth of a nautical mile anywhere in the world. Over the years, the spacecraft have been adapted for diverse uses such as commercial shipping, charting of offshore oil and mineral deposits and land survey programs. The SOOS-4 mission will mark the fourth and final Scout launch for 1988. Successful missions this year were: Scout San Marco D/L, launched from the San Marco range platform in the Indian Ocean on March 25; SOOS-3, launched April 25 from Vandenberg; and the Navy NOVA-II, launched from Vandenberg on June 15. The Scout program is managed by NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va. The four-stage, solid-propellant rockets are built by the Missiles Division of LTV Missiles and Electronics Group, Dallas, Texas. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 88 02:06:43 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: energy usage and thermal runaway In article <1705@spdcc.COM> eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: >>... Capturing a small but significant fraction of >>the total energy output of the Sun would be enormously expensive (by 1988 >>standards) but appears to present no fundamental difficulties. > > One difficulty may be the inability to use all our available > energy as we like, without somehow re-rediating some energy back > into space... Capturing more than a miniscule fraction of the Sun's output requires going off Earth anyway, since Earth doesn't intercept very much of it. There is no reason to bring the energy down to Earth unless there is some specific use for it here. For powering starships, we would be using it for making antimatter or powering big lasers or something on that order, all of which is better done in space. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 88 05:41:54 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Ozone layers In article <2774@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> keithl@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Keith Lofstrom) writes: >Chlorine and Flourine are reputed to act as a catalyst in the O3 -> O2 >reaction. One of my sources suggests that, as a catalyst, it also >facilitates the other reaction... I'm afraid this is chemically naive. Ozone is not normally formed (in any significant amount) by the reverse of the ozone-destruction reactions. Purely chemical reactions strongly favor destruction of ozone, since it is an unstable high-energy state of oxygen. Chlorine, flourine, etc. do *not* catalyze the photochemical reaction that forms essentially all of the atmospheric ozone in the first place. In other words, your source is both right and wrong. Yes, the catalyst is greasing the Chemical Railway's wheels for both directions, but those wheels are on a steep incline and the net result is faster downward motion. The oxygen gets to the top (turning it into ozone) via the Photochemical Railway, which is an entirely different line. The Sun doesn't turn the mountain into a valley (which would indeed make the Chemical Railway run in reverse); the Sun's role is that it powers the Photochemical Railway. Greasing the Chemical Railway's wheels makes things worse, day *and* night. (The railway analogy here actually is pretty close to the truth of chemical energy diagrams.) -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #346 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 3 Sep 88 05:44:43 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sat, 3 Sep 88 04:43:57 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat, 3 Sep 88 04:43:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 3 Sep 88 04:28:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 3 Sep 88 04:17:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sat, 3 Sep 88 04:16:47 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08817; Sat, 3 Sep 88 01:06:09 PDT id AA08817; Sat, 3 Sep 88 01:06:09 PDT Date: Sat, 3 Sep 88 01:06:09 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809030806.AA08817@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #347 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 347 Today's Topics: Soyuz TM-6 mission launched to Soviet Mir space station Soyuz TM-6 mission - more information Los Angeles Area Space Talk, 10 Sep 88, 7:30 PM Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST RE: Space Exploitation/Exploration Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 88 17:12:10 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soyuz TM-6 mission launched to Soviet Mir space station The USSR launched the Soyuz TM-6 "Afghan" mission to the Mir space station between 8:23-8:25 am Moscow Daylight Time (0:23-25 EDT) today (Aug 29). On board were Col. Vladimir Lyahkov, mission commander (age 47; Soviet Air Force; 2 previous flights: Soyuz 32 in Feb '79 for 175 on Salyut 6 and Soyuz T9 in June '83 for 149 days on Salyut 7), Dr. Penkov? (Age 36; first flight - sorry the radio was noisy so that is the best guess at his name), and Capt. Abdol Ahad (Afghanistan Air Force guest cosmonaut). The Mission will dock with Mir on Aug. 31, and be returning to earth on Sept. 6. The purpose is to observe Afghan territory for the Afghans (the joke running around is that he to observe the Soviet troop withdrawal). On the Mir/Kvant complex they will be joining Vladimir Titov and Musahi Manarov who have now been up for more than 9 months (253 days). This already makes them the 2nd longest duration space crew, exceeding the Soyuz T-10B crew 237 mission on board Salyut 7 in Oct. 1984 (set by Leonid Kizim, Validimir Soloyev and Oleg Atkov). The are closing in on the 326 day record set by Yuri Romanenko last December. By comparison the maximum space time of any active US astronauts is held by John Young with 34 days experience and Paul Weitz (Skylab 2 & STS-9) with 33 days (all higher time ones have left the program). The longest US time ever was the 84 days of the Skylab 4 three man crew in Nov. '73. Indeed Manarov and Titov have individually accumulated more time than the combined total Skylab 4 crew. Note: the beginning of August marked the 10th anniversary of the date when Soviet cosmonauts exceeded the US in manned space experience. There are several interesting things about this mission. First the actual crew makeup was not announced in advance. Indeed the Afghan who flew, Capt. Ahad, was second in line several months ago behind Col. Mohammad Dauran. Does this mean this Soyuz TM-6 group was the backup crew? Next they did not broadcast the flight live on short wave, though the announcement was made about 2 minutes after takeoff. CNN showed the flight about 10 minutes later. Most recent flights have gone out live - suffering from lack of audience? Also has been statements to the effect that the doctor will not be coming down on Sept 6, but will stay up to check over Manarov and Titov. But when will he come down? The guest cosmonaut - French mission is set for Nov. 21 (date just announced). They will come down about Dec 23, with Manarov and Titov plus Jean-Loup Chretien (the probable Frenchman). That leaves no room for the doctor, who would have to come down about two months later, at the next landing window in late February (ie. a 5 month mission minimum). Two other points. First they have said now several times on short wave that a new Energia is on the pad (without the shuttle). Launch date is not given, nor is the cargo. Secondly, there is the tale that singer John Denver is about to purchase a mission to Mir for himself for $10 million (with the first live TV special by a "star" from space?). That is the current going rate for a manned flight to their station. The Soviet space program is clearly into the operational space station phase. Their crews carry out the business of a permanently manned outpost in orbit without much fanfare. Here we get lovely paintings of what tomorrows space station will look like. Yet only now is Congress giving the funds to do some of this work (the $900 million for this year). Still there are those calling for us to study yet again what to build. While others act we debate. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Aug 88 14:08:56 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Soyuz TM-6 mission - more information Some additional information about the Soyuz TM-6 mission that was launched on Aug. 29th. The Physician is named Dr. Valery Polyakov (Age 47) while some reports (the New York Times) are giving the Afghan cosmonaut's full name as Capt. Abdol Ahad Mohmand (Age 29). The statements of when the doctor will come down are confusing. The NYT report said Dr. Polyakov will return on Dec. 21 with Valadimir Titov and Musa Manarov (the long duration space crew). However, that would leave the French spaceman, Jean-Loup Chretien, on board. Hence, 5 current possibilities are: Polyakov stays at least until a Feb. '89 mission (none has been announced) or later; Chretien stays longer than 1 month (rather unlikely); one of Titov or Manarov stay longer (also unlikely) or they play some tricks with Soyuzs' (bring down two capsules at once, while sending up a replacement etc.); or finally Polyakov comes down on Sept 6th (unlikely as they have already stated he will not). With these partial crew changes and combinations of short and long duration people following these Russian flights is starting to get rather difficult. This may be my last posting for this mission - I am heading off to New Orleans until after the mission ends. I will fill people in after that. Glenn Chapman MIT Lincoln Lab ------------------------------ Posted-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 88 16:31:44 PDT To: BBoard@venera.isi.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Los Angeles Area Space Talk, 10 Sep 88, 7:30 PM Date: Wed, 31 Aug 88 16:31:44 PDT From: rogers@venera.isi.edu Galileo: Passage to Jupiter Mr. Robert B. Gounley will talk about the upcoming Galileo mission to Jupiter. He will present a "travelogue" of its extended journey through the inner solar system and Jovian space, including mission objectives, spacecraft design and anticipated scientific return. He'll also give a short history of the delays the project has faced, and the efforts taken to overcome them. Mr. Gounley is a member of the technical staff in Spacecraft Systems Engineering at JPL. He has worked extensively with the design, testing and flight operations of Galileo, as well as system engineering issues affecting the science instruments. Mr. Gounley has been a member of the National Space Society (formerly the L5 society) since 1977. This lecture is one of many activities sponsored by the Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrialization and Settlement (OASIS), the Los Angeles and Orange County chapter of the National Space Society. The organization is a non-profit educational group which promotes space development. The public is invited; there is no admission charge. For more information about this lecture or other OASIS activities call the OASIS Message Machine at (213) 374-1381 or send email to Craig Milo Rogers (DoD Internet address ). When: Saturday, September 10, 1988 Where: Von Karman Auditorium Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA Directions: Get to the Foothill Fwy (I-210) travelling towards Pasadena. Get off on Berkshire Pl., near the Pasadena/La Canada Flintridge border. Go east 1 block to Oak Grove Drive. Turn left and drive north, less than a mile, to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory main gate. Free parking is available in the lot to the left of the gate. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 88 09:18:23 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!watdcsu!smann@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Shannon Mann - I.S.er) Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? In article <561@unisv.UUCP> vanpelt@unisv.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: - large chunk left out to conserve bandwidth - > (After all, >we've been broadcasting like mad for decades, and haven't been >blasted yet.) But then again, there's all those Biilyons and >Biilyons * of stars out there, for all those Biilyons and Biilyons * >of years ... and it only has to happen once for us all to be in >deep yoghurt. >-- >* "Biilyons and Biilyons" is a trademark of Carl Sagan Enterprises, Inc. >-- >Mike Van Pelt When the fog came in on little cat feet >Unisys, Silicon Valley last night, it left these little muddy >vanpelt@unisv.UUCP paw prints on the hood of my car. To be serious for just one minute, I don't believe that we will be likely to have visitors from some other star in the near future. Our radio envelope has been travelling out from our solar system for less than 100 years. This means that only stars within that *radiosphere* will have had any notification of our presence. This sphere encompasses very few stars when compared to the billions in the rest of the galaxy. Chances are that there are no advanced lifeforms in that sphere capable of galactic space travel. (Or we would have had some contact by now :-) Furthermore, as the radiosphere expands, the transmissions become more and more weak, disrupted by background noise, etc. Although the calculation is beyond me, I believe that, after a certain distance, the signals would be so weak as to become part of the background noise. All of these factors indicate that we have little to worry about, at least for the time being. As for the *probe* question, I think Fred Saberhagen has said it best in his series of stories about *berserkers* (self-replicating, life-destroying, intelligent war machines), and, in a better light, Clarke's 2001/2010/2061. Being a science fiction reader, and not yet a writer, I will leave full treatment to the above authors. I will say that, there is a much greater chance of stumbling upon a probe than the real beings. Machines can search without stopping for things like having children, growing old, eating, etc. All the above is, of course, a gross generalization, but I believe, a safe one. Please no flames. I have a naive enthusiasm for this topic that I would like to keep. Any comments, please E-mail. -=- -=- Shannon Mann -=- smann@watdcsu.UWaterloo.ca -=- ------------------------------ Date: 22 Aug 88 00:31:17 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!water!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST In article <952@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes: >I'm starting to believe that the main reason ALS will >have trouble reaching its design goals is the "performance is >everything", "high tech or nothing" mind set of the companies doing >the work. Don't forget the performance-is-everything, high-tech-or-nothing mindset of the *customer*. ALS is already supposed to be (a) the spur for the development of new expendable-launcher technology, (b) a rapid-reaction launcher for military crises, (c) a hardened launcher for use in a hostile wartime environment, and (d) a cheap launcher. If a serious effort were made to meet *one* of these objectives, I have no doubt it could be done... -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Aug 88 11:02:20 CDT From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (My desk is an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics) Subject: RE: Space Exploitation/Exploration **********WARNING: NEW KID ON THE BLOCK WITH A CHIP ON HIS SHOULDER******** Forearmed is forewarned (play football?) Space is not some natural resource which can or should be controlled by an governmental or extra-governmental entity. Instead, it is a resource much like the "New World", claimable by whomever wanted to (obviously this was the governments), but exploited by those with the brains, bucks and balls to go out and do something. Any private organization which decides that there is good reason for them to be in space should have no prohibition to doing so. Correction, the restrictions should be on what they do to Earth while getting there. Of course, this all gets to my reason for being. One of the best candidates for space industrialiation is the power utilities. I've disliked (hate is a nasty word) TU Electric for years, but if they said they were going to put the plants in space, I'd walk to DC to testify on their behalf! Why? Mankind needs room, we need to get off each other's shoulders. The sooner we spread out in this system (and beyond, but that happens MUCH later) the sooner we, as a race, can start believing that we might survive our own stupidity. There's plenty of room out there for Palestine or Armenia or even White South Africa. And something for the misfits in our society who would have been trappers and explorers and miners in a previous era. About the only group that wouldn't fit in would be our hypothetical anarchists, since anarchy and a hard vacuum don't seem well suited for each other. Basically, though, none of this will happen if some Mickey Mouse (sorry Walt) third world country claims co-soveriegnty by virtue of some "natural right to share". On the other hand, if I'm up there (and I plan to be), then any one who disputes me is welcome to come up with me. By the time this Third Worlder gets there, they will have so much invested in it that they will (I hope) want to preserve the new status quo by taking the same stance. Afterall, space is an awful damn big place. Ain't no reason to fight over it. Love and kisses Dillon Pyron My employer knows not whereof I speak, therefore and accept all criticizms and adulation on my own. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Aug 88 12:12:49 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@angband.s1.gov" >clyde!watmath!water!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com (Henry Spencer) quotes: >NASA is studying an internal proposal to launch Columbia unmanned next year >using old SRBs. [...] The problem is that NASA >has about 13 pre-Challenger SRBs left, containing about 11 million pounds >of oxidizer that cannot be recovered, and the oxidizer shortage is looking >worse and worse. I seem to remember that one of the problems with ICBMs (also solid-fuelled) is that they have a finite and relatively short `shelf' life due to the propellant perishing, such that when old missiles are fired, this is by far the most likely reason for their failure. These SRBs are at least 2 years old, isn't this problem likely to be a consideration? Unmanned or not, we can't exactly afford to lose the Columbia... Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #347 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 4 Sep 88 05:39:00 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sun, 4 Sep 88 04:23:48 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 4 Sep 88 04:23:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 4 Sep 88 04:21:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 4 Sep 88 04:04:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sun, 4 Sep 88 04:04:16 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09543; Sun, 4 Sep 88 01:06:12 PDT id AA09543; Sun, 4 Sep 88 01:06:12 PDT Date: Sun, 4 Sep 88 01:06:12 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809040806.AA09543@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #348 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 348 Today's Topics: Congresscrittercommittees SETI Evolution and "vicious tendencies) Feasibility of interstellar colonization Why *THEY* might want to eat our lunch. Re: Space Shuttle spare parts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 88 12:15:52 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: Congresscrittercommittees X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@angband.s1.gov,space-activists@turing.cs.rpi.edu" >From NASA Activities, July/August 1988, comes a list of NASA-related congressional committees: U.S. SENATE: COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS: John C. Stennis (D-MS), Chairman Mark. O. Hartfield (R-OR), Ranking Minority SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUD-INDEPENDENT AGENCIES: Democrats: William Proxmire (WI), Chairman John C. Stennis (MS) Patrick J. Leahy (VT) J. Bennett Johnston (LA) Frank R. Lautenberg (NJ) Barbara A. Mikulski (MD) Republicans: Jake Garn (UT), Ranking Minority Alfonse M. D'Amato (NY) Pete V. Domenici (NM) Charles E. Grassley (IA) Don Nickles (OK) COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION: Democrats: Ernest F. Hollings (SC), Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (HI) Wendell H. Ford (KY) Donald W. Riegle (MI) J. James Exon (NE) Albert Gore, Jr. (TN) John D. Rockefeller, IV (WV) Lloyd D. Bentsen (TX) John D. Kerry (MA) John B. Breaux (LA) Brock Adams (WA) Republicans: John C. Danforth (MO), Ranking Minority Bob Packwood (OR) Nancy Landon Kassebaum (KS) Larry Pressler (SD) Ted Stevens (AK) Bob Kasten (WI) Paul S. Trible, Jr. (VA) [Could be a soft touch for furry E.T.s...] Pete Wilson (CA) John R. McCain (AZ) SUBCOMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SPACE: Democrats: Donald W. Riegle (MI), Chairman Albert Gore, Jr. (TN) John D. Rockefeller, IV (WV) Lloyd D. Bentsen (TX) John D. Kerry (MA) Brock Adams (WA) Republicans: Larry Pressler (SD), Ranking Minority Nancy Landon Kassebaum (KS) Paul S. Trible, Jr. (VA) Pete Wilson (CA) U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY: Democrats: Robert A. Roe (NJ), Chairman George E. Brown, Jr. (CA) James H. Scheuer (NY) Marilyn Lloyd (TN) Doug Walgren (PA) Dan Glickman (KS) Harold L. Volkmer (MO) Bill Nelson (FL) Ralph M. Hall (TX) Dave McCurdy (OK) Norman Y. Mineta (CA) Buddy MacKay (FL) Tim Valentine (NC) Robert G. Torricelli (NJ) Rick Boucher (VA) Terry L. Bruce (IL) Richard H. Stallings (ID) James A. Traficant, Jr. (OH) Jim Chapman (TX) Lee H. Hamilton (IN) Henry J, Nowak (NY) Tom McMillen (MD) David E. Price (NC) David Nagle (IA) Jimmy Hayes (LA) David E. Skaggs (CO) Paul E. Kanjorski (PA) George J. Hochbrueckner (NY) Republicans: Manuel Lujan, Jr. (NM), Ranking Minority Robert S. Walker (PA) F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) Claudine Schneider (RI) Sherwood L. Boehlert (NY) Tom Lewis (FL) Don Ritter (PA) Sid Morrison (WA) Ron Packard (CA) Robert C. Smith (NH) Paul B. Henry (MI) Harris W. Fawell (IL) D. French Slaughter, Jr. (VA) Lamar Smith (TX) Ernest L. Konnyu (CA) Jack Buechner (MO) Constance A. Morella (MD) Christopher Shays (CT) SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS: Democrats: Bill Nelson (FL), Chairman George E. Brown, Jr. (CA) Harold L. Volkmer (MO) Norman Y. Mineta (CA) Robert G. Torricelli (NJ) James A. Traficant, Jr. (OH) Jim Chapman (TX) Carl C. Perkins (KY) Tom McMillen (MD) David R. Nagle (LA) James H. Scheuer (NY) Ralph M. Hall (TX) David E. Skaggs (CO) Republicans: Robert S. Walker (PA), Ranking Minority Ron Packard (CA) Robert C. Smith (NH) D. French Slaughter, Jr. (VA) Ernest L. Konnyu (CA) Jack Buechner (MO) Joel Hefley (CO) Constance A. Morella (MD) Tom Lewis (FL) SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, AVIATION AND MATERIALS: Democrats: Dave McCurdy (OK), Chairman Dan Glickman (KS) Bill Nelson (FL) Tom McMillen (MD) Jimmy Hayes (LA) Republicans: Tom Lewis (FL), Ranking Minority Robert S. Walker (PA) F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT: Democrats: Robert A. Roe (NJ), Chairman Harold L. Volkmer (MO) David E. Price (NC) George E. Brown, Jr. (CA) James A. Traficant, Jr. (OH) (Vacancy) Republicans: Don Ritter (PA), Ranking Minority F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) Ron Packard (CA) Ernest K. Konnyu (CA) SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION: Democrats: Ralph M. Hall (TX), Chairman Marilyn Lloyd (TN) Buddy MacKay (FL) Robert G. Torricelli (NJ) James H. Scheuer (NY) Richard H. Stallings (ID) Republicans: F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI), Ranking Minority Sherwood L. Boehlert (NY) Ron Packard (CA) Harris W. Fawell (IL) COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS: James L. Whitten (D-MS), Chairman Silvio O Conte (R-MA), Ranking Minority SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUD-INDEPENDENT AGENCIES: Democrats: Edward P. Boland (MA), Chairman Bob Traxler (MI) Louis Stokes (OH) Lindy Boggs (LA) Alan B. Mollohan (WV) Martin Olav Sabo (MN) Republicans: Bill Green (NY), Ranking Minority Lawrence Coughlin (PA) Jerry Lewis (CA) Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Aug 88 13:24:57 PDT From: hairston%23666%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov Subject: SETI X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"space@angband.s1.gov" Edwin Hoogerbeets suggested (V8 #329) sending message towards the center of the galaxy in order to reach the most prospective planets. The problem here is that there probably aren't many planets in the center of the galaxy. Think of our galaxy as a disk of stars with a big bulge in the middle (a golf ball stuck in the middle of a pancake gives you an idea of the relative sizes) with the solar system about two-thirds of the way out to the edge. Most of the stars in the central bulge are first-generation stars born in the early stages of galactic formation when only the hydrogen and helium from the big bang were around, so there were no heavier elements to make planets (at least terrestrial-like planets). The stars out in the disk are the second-, third-, etc. generation stars that formed out of the processed material from the supernovae of earlier stars, so they did have the heavier elements necessary to form planets and carbon/hydrogen/oxygen/ nitrogen (CHON is the jargon term) based life. So sending a signal in a narrow beam to the center of the galaxy won't intercept any possible civilizations unless the beam happens to cross a civilization in the disk that's on a direct line between here and the center. A better idea would be to broadcast only along the plane of the Milky Way, thus the signal would pass through most of the star systems in the disk. Early SETI searches were planning to do an "all sky" survey, but I would imagine that later ones might concentrate on the region along the plane of the galaxy. If there was a power restraint on the project and you wanted an even more restrictive direction, then the best bet would be to start with broadcasting in both directions along our arm of the galaxy. That would get the highest densisty of stars (and possible planets) within a certain distance (say around 5000- 10,000 light years) in our "local" region. Marc Hairston (also an Amiga (reg. TM) enthusiast) Center for Space Sciences--University of Texas at Dallas SPAN adress UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTD750::HAIRSTON Any resemblance between my opinions and those of my employers (living or dead) is purely coincidental. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Aug 88 04:23:02 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov (MacLeod) Subject: Evolution and "vicious tendencies) >>In article <1628@spdcc.COM> eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: >>> a species which survived its >>> own nuclear self destruct phase would have evolved past >>> any vicious tendencies long before the reach into deep space. Well, just to be contrary...I'd say that there probably is a positive correlation between danger-to-other-species and evolution. Some naturalists claim that we're eliminating hundreds of species of life from tropical rain forests as we mow them down. We don't consult with them first, anymore than the Neanderthals did with Mammoths, Smilodons, and the other runners-up in the Great Pleistocene War Games. I'd guess that from a communications point of view the first step is making contactees aware that we are worth talking to before they raze the whole planet for its resources. As far as radio emissions go - bees buzz, but do we bother to listen? I'd assume that any spacefaring race has technology that end-runs the limitations of the Newtonian universe, making radio communication at most an interplanetary medium. Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod) ------------------------------ Date: 22 Aug 88 04:43:19 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov (MacLeod) Subject: Feasibility of interstellar colonization In article <255@heurikon.UUCP> lampman@heurikon.UUCP (Ray Lampman) writes: >What are the prerequisites for human colonization for a nearby solar system? >Forget for a moment that we can not do this at present, and think about why >not. What must come first? Changes in governments? Economies? Technology? >Do we need any basic scientific advances? How about long range sensors? >From a purely technological viewpoint, I think we are either at or near an adequate understanding of human biology in interplanetary conditions. This may or may not be enough; we still are not certain what happens to humans in more normal surroundings. As far as materials technology goes, I think we could build a multigeneration ship. I doubt that we understand the principles of ecological systems well enough to support a 250-year voyage; such trips would require taking all kinds of refining and other industrial tooling, and might be impossible. And the longer the ship was en route, the greater the possibility of the whole culture going off its rails, ala Heinlein's "Universe". I also doubt that current chemical propulsion schemes would suffice, but I'll leave that to the experts. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Aug 88 05:09:26 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov (MacLeod) Subject: Why *THEY* might want to eat our lunch. The last I heard (in lay articles) there were several theories that best seemed to fit observed facts about the genesis of the Moon and Earth planetary pair. One of these called for a collision between the Earth and another body, carving out the Moon as a result. This also explained the abundance of heavy elements near the top of the Earth's crust. In Sunday supplement fashion, one article brayed: "The Gold In Your Ring is From Another Planet!" If this is so, and such metal dispositions are rare in the universe (perhaps most planets turn out to be Jupiter-size gas giants), then any kind of mining survey is going to be of interest to those looking for accessible heavy elements. In (forgive me) L. Ron Hubbard's otherwise trashy _Battlefield Earth_, remote drones intercepted a human probe several hundred years after leaving the solar system, deduced that the Earth had significant quantities of tungsten (which was in demand for some reason), and moved in the mining machines. Given the unlikelihood of cheap transmutation of elements, even spacefaring races will probably continue to be interested in rare elements. If Earth's crust is abnormally rich in these, we may be in for interesting times ahead. Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Aug 88 18:06:25 EDT From: John Roberts Subject: Re: Space Shuttle spare parts I read somewhere that one of the things that came out in the investigation after the Challenger explosion was that NASA, in an effort to stay more within budget limitations, had been forced to carry on with *fewer* of certain parts than required to supply four shuttles, and that as a result, when a shuttle landed, a surprisingly high percentage of its components were stripped out and installed in the next shuttle to be flown. Assuming this to be true, it meant there was no chance of launching a shuttle to rescue the crew of a disabled shuttle in orbit, no matter how rapid the refurbishing process became. It also meant that the explosion of the Challenger destroyed these vital components, and no shuttle could possibly be launched until they had been replaced. Given these circumstances, it would make sense to wait at least until the remaining shuttles were fully stocked and a full set of spares available, or, possibly, to strip one of the three remaining shuttles to provide a stock of parts for the other two. Recovery from the accident would provide justification for spending money and time to improve systems the designers had not been been pleased with before. Note that there may be spares of some components and at the same time an inadequate supply of others. John Roberts roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #348 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 5 Sep 88 05:30:35 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Mon, 5 Sep 88 04:27:13 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 5 Sep 88 04:27:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 5 Sep 88 04:23:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 5 Sep 88 04:09:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 5 Sep 88 04:08:17 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00303; Mon, 5 Sep 88 01:04:59 PDT id AA00303; Mon, 5 Sep 88 01:04:59 PDT Date: Mon, 5 Sep 88 01:04:59 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809050804.AA00303@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #349 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 349 Today's Topics: RE: SETI Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? Re: Brian Eno's _Apollo_ soundtrack Inverse SETI (Was: ET phone home?) Re: Inverse SETI (Was: ET phone home?) Re: How does NASA detect a Hydrogen leak Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? Re: Inverse SETI (Was: ET phone home?) Re: Life on Jupiter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Aug 88 17:22:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu (Peter Nelson) Subject: RE: SETI Shannon Mann posts: >Being a science fiction reader, and not yet a writer, I will leave full >treatment to the above authors. I will say that, there is a much greater >chance of stumbling upon a probe than the real beings. Machines can search >without stopping for things like having children, growing old, eating, etc. Well, I agree. I would love to see us take a long-range view of things and launch some true deep-space probes even if it may be centuries before we get anything back from them. Several questions: One risk is we may put a lot of work and money into making a probe which may be passed on it's way to Alpha Centauri or Tau Ceti 50 years later by a faster probe. Has anyone done any realistic calculations of what the fastest spacecraft we could build with something like existing technology? How much is that figure likely to change a few decades down the road? At 1,000,000 miles an hour (i.e., pretty damn fast by today's standards) it would take about 2900 years for a probe to get to Alpha Centauri. The electronics and other systems are not likely to last anywhere near that long. With a lot of rendundancy and careful design and choice of material we *might* be able to make a probe last a hundred years. So to get to Alpha Centauri in that time would require going at 4% of the speed of light (not counting acceleration/deceleration time). How powerful a radio signal would the spacecraft have to send to be receivable with today's technology? Would it be wise to use a much weaker signal and assume our descendents will have better receivers? --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 88 00:22:04 GMT From: jpl-devvax!lwall@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Larry Wall) Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? I have no difficulty (logically, not morally) with the assumption that advanced races will always prevent primitive races from developing. All this would prove is that we are the first, by some kind of modified anthropic principle. In a universe in which we weren't first, we simply wouldn't exist. Somebody had to be first here, so it might as well be us. Culturally we are quite environmentally conscious at the moment, but I think this may be because we aren't in any kind of frontier expansion at the moment. Morals and ethics seem to get looser at the frontier, if you believe all the Westerns. Even where people are trying to do the right thing, mere economic growth tends to usurp ecological niches into which future sentient beings could fit. If you travel 50 light years to colonize another planet, are you going to turn around and go back because there are some sad-eyed lemurs there when you arrive? I think not. This is not to say that we wouldn't "uplift" the sad lemurs or dolphins or whoever. But they'd be a part of our expansion, not someone else's. I don't think you can calculate the probability of our being first. It depends too much on what kind of an expansion rate we can attain. We don't even know enough to calculate the probability of life itself, really. We just know it can happen at least once out of n tries, where n is the number of universes that were "tried". Larry Wall lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 88 00:38:25 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: Brian Eno's _Apollo_ soundtrack In article <2291@pixar.UUCP> brighton@pixar.uucp (Bill Carson) writes: >Having just read the liner notes of Brian Eno's 1983 album, _Apollo_, it >mentions that most of this music was composed for a movie/documentary of >the Apollo space missions. Directed by Al Reinert, it is supposed to have >been compiled from the some 6 million feet of film shot by NASA during this >fantastic and mystical period of space exploration. > >My question is, does this film exist as a released production? >And if so, who could I contact to obtain more information about it? >-- >Bill Carson ...!{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!brighton Could you be talking about the film "The Space Movie"? It was done several years ago, and ended up a real hodge-podge of clips mostly dealing with Apollo, but including some Skylab. It looks like very little thought went into what scenes were chosen, or their ordering. (Except for the Apollo 11 launch sequence which is magnificant!!) It has a lonnnnnggg, droning, rhythmic soundtrack, interesting at spots, and very repetitive at others. Virtually no talking at all, just music and a little air-to-ground. I don't remember if it was Eno who wrote the music, I was told it was supposed to have been the same guy who did The Exorcist soundtrack (was that Eno?). It's interesting viewing, I would recommend trying to get a tape of it for a space-party or some such thing. (I got a copy off of an LA cable system.) -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool Mom". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: 22 Aug 88 13:27:00 CDT From: "Pat Reiff" Subject: Inverse SETI (Was: ET phone home?) To: "space" Cc: eos Reply-To: "Pat Reiff" With regards to the observation of earthlings from just the carrier of the TV transmission: I read an interesting article in *Science* (I believe) several years ago, and the author pointed out several interesting things that could be inferred by a nearby (~20 Lightyears) observer, listening only to our TV carriers: 1. They could tell the earth's rotation speed, since the carriers are beamed parallel to the local horizon, giving a daily modulation of the signal. 2. Since this "day" would be the synodic day relative to the observer, it would basically be our sidereal day (24 hours less 4 minutes). Since many TV transmitters are turned off at night (solar day), the observer could tell the "beat frequency" between the solar day and the sideral day, and thus tell how long our year is. 3. Knowing our year, and with a guess of our sun's mass (easy since at that distance they can see its color and from the HR diagram estimate its mass), they can tell how far we are from the sun and thus our mean temperature, etc. 4. From the daily modulation of the signal, they could tell the concentration of population centers on the continents, and perhaps infer the existence of oceans or uninhabited regions. My apologies to the writer for forgetting his name - it was a good piece. ------ >From the First Space Physics Department (celebrating its 25th anniversary): : Patricia H. Reiff : Not only are my Department of Space Physics and Astronomy : opinions solely my Rice University, Houston, TX 77251-1892 : own, I reserve the internet: reiff%spacvax.rice.edu@rice.edu : right to change my SPAN: RICE::REIFF : mind occasionally! telemail: [preiff/edunet] mail/usa : ------ ------ ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 88 04:31:11 GMT From: agate!soup.ssl.berkeley.edu!gckaplan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (George Kaplan) Subject: Re: Inverse SETI (Was: ET phone home?) In article <8808230315.AA01644@angband.s1.gov> "Pat Reiff" writes: [on what nearby ET observers could infer from our TV signals] >1. They could tell the earth's rotation speed, since the carriers are >beamed parallel to the local horizon, giving a daily modulation of the >signal. >2. Since this "day" would be the synodic day relative to the observer, it >would basically be our sidereal day (24 hours less 4 minutes). Since many >TV transmitters are turned off at night (solar day), the observer could >tell the "beat frequency" between the solar day and the sideral day, and >thus tell how long our year is. Wouldn't it be simpler just to use the Doppler shift due to the Earth's orbital velocity to determine the length of our year? (Assuming there is enough structure to the Earth's radio spectrum to determine a Doppler shift). It seems to me that using the measured "beat frequency" requires a major assumption about the cause of the second frequency (ie. broadcasters shutting down at night). If the extraterrestrial observers' TV stations customarily transmit continuously, for example, this may not be an obvious conclusion. > Patricia H. Reiff : Not only are my > Department of Space Physics and Astronomy : opinions solely my > Rice University, Houston, TX 77251-1892 : own, I reserve the > internet: reiff%spacvax.rice.edu@rice.edu : right to change my > SPAN: RICE::REIFF : mind occasionally! > telemail: [preiff/edunet] mail/usa : --------------------------------------------------------------- Standard disclaimers apply --------------------------------------------------------------- George C. Kaplan Space Sciences Lab University of California Berkeley CA, 94720 gkaplan@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: 22 Aug 88 18:18:16 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: How does NASA detect a Hydrogen leak In article <8808190326.AA12350@watdcsu> allsop@watacs.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Allsop) writes: >... the most likely is Thermal Conductivity... >One contributor suggested that NASA uses portable Mass Spectrometers. >While this is possible I think TC is more likely... I think AW&ST has explicitly mentioned portable mass spectrometers as NASA's hydrogen-hunting technology, but I could be wrong (I don't save my back issues, so I can't easily check). My understanding is that TC isn't sensitive enough to trace amounts to be really good for leak-hunting, but it's not a technology I keep up with, so my information may be obsolete. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 22 Aug 88 18:35:00 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? In article <127@antares.UUCP> pnelson@antares.UUCP (phil nelson) writes: > I think that the problem of creating these "self-replicating robots" may >be more difficult than we imagine, perhaps too difficult even for our >hypothetical "advanced" xenophobes. If so, the difficulties must be in an area we can't foresee today. People have looked at building self-replicating robots. The conclusion has been that we can't do it today, but it doesn't look that far off. There don't seem to be any fundamental barriers. Given that we haven't done it yet, it's always possible to speculate that there is some bogeyman lurking hidden somewhere, but I for one am reluctant to accept this without some more specific suggestion of where the obstacle lies. > Among other lifelike qualities this race of robots might require is the >ability to adapt to new conditions. Assuming for a moment that these robots >can be (and are) created, isn't it likely that they would either evolve into >something more benevolent or (perhaps more likely) devolve into something >much less terrible? Well, it's not clear why they would require the ability to evolve -- their job is pretty well-defined and their environment is not a particularly variable one. The ability to evolve might be useful, especially in the long term, but it would not seem essential. And assuming that evolution is provided for, why would they evolve in the direction of benevolence? It seems to me that evolution the other way is much more likely: unless one postulates a mutation so radical that it converts the machines into friends, it is in the machines' interests to be the most efficient enemies possible, to prevent the development of a race capable of destroying them. In the long run, "time and chance happen to us all", but for a well-crafted self-replicating machine, "the long run" might be a very long time indeed. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 88 08:12:29 GMT From: haque@UMN-CS.ARPA (Samudra E. Haque) Subject: Re: Inverse SETI (Was: ET phone home?) regarding aliens receiving our television carrier signals and inferring all sorts of nasty opinions about us. It was mentioned that the aliens (Big Green WoMen?) could receive TV carriers at a distance of 100 LY. They would have to have tremendously good recievers for that feat. Also, once they received such a "carrier" signal from the electromagnetic spectrum, what would they do with it? They coudn't possibly know the modulation parameters (i.e., bandwidth, modulation techniques or even chrominance and luminance coding mechanisms in that TV signal once they get it - if at all they do. What I'm trying to get it that SETI don't stand a chance of getting ANY useful information from our radio/tv carriers - unless they take some really good guesses. Maybe they'd just think that we're some random noise generating solar system with systematic characteristics. ******************************************************************************** **Who knows, all the pulsar and quasar radio signals that we pick up all **over the place may actually be the equivalent TV stations of the **galaxy. ******************************************************************************** All you'd have to do is to design a power source that could modulate the orbital parameters of a large body - say the size of a M or N class sun. Couple of chained fusion reactors could do it. -- Samudra E. Haque Computer Science Laboratories, Computer Science Department University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. (1)-(612)-625-0876 || haque@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu || haque@umn-cs.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 88 10:42:34 GMT From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Subject: Re: Life on Jupiter > [Someone:] Jupiter cannot be left out [from the list of planets > that may harbor life]. At some altitudes, the atmosphere is > much the same as Earth's. > [Paul F. Dietz:] Vertical circulation in Jupiter's atmosphere > carries any given parcel downward to great depth [hence high > temperatures and pressures] every few days or so. It is > unlikely that life could have originated or could survive > there. I would not bet on it either, but... Imagine a small particle floating in Jupiter's atmosphere, on the ascending side of a convection cell, at an altitude where liquid Water condenses out. Imagine that the particle consists of a Cheese core surrounded by a Glue solution. (Please substitute your favorite substances for Water, Cheese, and Glue, and your favorite gas giant for Jupiter.) If the particle is too light, it will be lifted to cooler altitudes, where it will gain more Water by condensation and become heavier. Conversely, if the particle is too heavy, it will sink, get hotter, lose some Water by evaporation, and become lighter. Conceivably, this mechanism might lead to equilibrium: a particle whose dry weight falls in some relatively broad range will be able to hover indefinitely at a more or less constant altitude. Of course, this assumes the circulation pattern is reasonably stable. Modest changes in the speed of rising air can be compensated for by the same mechanism: a stronger/weaker updraft will only shift the equilibrium point to higher/lower altitudes. Lateral drift may be a problem, but if the equilibrium altitude lies somewhat below the center of the convection cell, I believe that the horizontal component of the air flow will tend to push the particle towards the center of the rising column. Particles that are VERY big or VERY small will eventually fall or be carried down to the very hot levels where the Cheese and Glue are vaporized. Presumably, as these vapors are carried up by the convecting atmosphere they will condense again into particles of random sizes, which will go through the same cycle. So, even if particles of the right size to stay up are rare to begin with, they will be naturally selected for, and with time their numbers may grow by many orders of magnitude. The result would be a relatively stable cloud of relatively uniform particles, hanging somewhere along the lower part of every rising air column. I may be wrong, but I belive this is the same mechanism that creates the sharply defined, flat-bottomed cumulus clouds here on Earth. In our turbulent atmosphere, the convection cells change constantly, and therefore our cumulus clouds have lifetimes measured in hours. In contrast, Jupiter's large-scale convection patterns last for hundreds of years (Thousands? Millions? Billions?). Unless the convection cells are too turbulent on a small scale, it may be possible for a sizable population of Wet Sticky Cheese particles to survive indefinitely as cumulus-like clouds in the rising zones. Assuming such such particles exist, they may survive long enough for life to have spontaneously evolved on them. Natural selection would favor particles whose composition provides better altitude feedback, so certain "weird" droplets that _a priori_ would seem highly improbable may actually become quite common. Furthermore, any particle able to "reproduce" --- i.e., able to somehow promote the formation of similar particles --- would eventually dominate its cloud. Even if the Wet Sticky Cheese particles survive only for a few thousand years, we shouldn't rule out the possibility of life evolving on them. We still haven't got the foggiest idea of how long it took to go from Earth's primordial soup to something that could pass for life; and even if we did, there is no reason to believe that the answer would be in any way relevant to Jupiter's chemistry and physics. Even is such particles do not last long enough to support the evolution of life, they may still provide a suitable habitat for organisms that evolved elsewhere. For example, microscopic lifeforms evolved on Europa could have been lifted by meteorite impacts, rained onto Jupiter, and found themselves a new home in Jupiter's Cheese clouds. I would not bet more than a nickel on this theory; I am presenting it mostly as an example of the kind of things that are easy to overlook in this subject. My point is that Life may have more aces up its sleeve than we can imagine, and we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss planets as "too hostile" for life or evolution. In my opinion, the tropical region of the Moon is the only solid place off the Earth where there is persuasive scientific evidence for the lack of life. Everywhere else the question is still wide open. Jorge Stolfi @ DEC Systems Research Center stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi PS. > [Paul:] At high pressure and temperature, hydrogen reacts > exothermically with organic compounds to form methane, ammonia > and water. Shouldn't this be "ENDOthermically"? (Just asking) DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer, my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #349 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 5 Sep 88 23:40:48 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Mon, 5 Sep 88 22:34:00 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 5 Sep 88 22:33:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 5 Sep 88 22:16:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 5 Sep 88 22:03:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 5 Sep 88 22:02:50 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01144; Mon, 5 Sep 88 19:04:53 PDT id AA01144; Mon, 5 Sep 88 19:04:53 PDT Date: Mon, 5 Sep 88 19:04:53 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809060204.AA01144@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #350 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 350 Today's Topics: Initials for the Uninitiated Orbital Mech Algorithm Interstellar Mining (?) RE space expoitation/exploration TRW selected to develop Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (Forwarded) Re: Why *THEY* might want to eat our lunch. Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? RE: space exploitation/exploration ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Aug 88 07:53:06 GMT From: amdahl!nsc!taux01!taux02!amos@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Amos Shapir) Subject: Initials for the Uninitiated Would it be too much to ask of posters in this group not to assume everybody understands the initials they use? I guess most readers know what NASA or SDI mean, and in this group it's pretty safe to use ESA or USAF, but I'm sure many readers are bewildered by AXAF, FRF, AW&ST, NRC, OMV, SRB, RCS or SSME, to quote just a few used in the referenced article. No, don't rush to post or mail me explanations of these, I have already taken the trouble to look them up; all I ask is that future posters use the full text of the initials, at least the first time they are mentioned. -- Amos Shapir amos@nsc.com National Semiconductor (Israel) 6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel Tel. +972 52 522261 34 48 E / 32 10 N (My other cpu is a NS32532) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 88 10:09:23 PDT From: greer%23666%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov Subject: Orbital Mech Algorithm X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"SPACE@angband.s1.gov" Re: Orbital Mechanics questions asked by Munck, answered by Mueller >I'd like to call on the combined expertise of the net for something I've >been unable to find; it's entirely on a "hobby" basis, no connection >with anything commercial. > >I want a simple, fast subroutine that will compute orbital motions... >>You are attacking a non-trivial problem. The triviality of a mathematical task depends on the accuracy desired and the compute power available. A general orbital mech algorithm can be very simple, e.g.: Do a = -G*M*r/|r|**3 v = v0 + a*dt r = r0 + v*dt + 0.5*a*dt**2 Loop Where r, v, and a are vectors, G is the gravitational constant, and M is the mass of the body being orbited. This algorithm may not do well to figure when MIR will next be overhead, but it's good enough to give a feel for orbital mechanics. More stuff can be added to the acceleration: a = -G*M1*r1/|r1|**3 - G*M2*r2/|r2|**3 - ... + thrust + any_other_acceleration The accuracy, for *spherically symmetrical* bodies, depends on the ratio v*dt:rM, since the algorithm assumes the acceleration is constant over the period dt. In a highly eccentric orbit, for example, the inaccuracy will be greater near the periapsid than near the apoapsid. Interestingly, this effect is completely conservative over the period of an orbit, since the errors on one one half of the orbit negate the errors on the other half. The orbit keeps its shape but precesses at a rate dependent on the ratio v*dt:r_periapsid. Oops! I guess that means it isn't *completely* conservative if there is precession, but the semi-major axis stays the same, even if the line of apsides moves around. The algorithm is plenty fast enough to do an engaging and enlightening simulation on the Mac, i.e., Orbital Mech (TM), even without the use of the floating point unit of the Mac II. I wrote Orbital Mech to run on any Mac, and had to assume no FPU would be available. I think you could do a pretty hot orbital simulator with an 80386 and FPU. "I feel like somebody strapped a | Dale M. Greer couple of jet engines on my back | Center for Space Sciences, and we're ready to take off!" | UT at Dallas -- Pat Robertson ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 88 17:04:25 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!willner@husc6.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) Subject: Interstellar Mining (?) >From article <3695@drivax.UUCP>, by macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod): > Given the unlikelihood of cheap transmutation of elements, even spacefaring > races will probably continue to be interested in rare elements. If Earth's > crust is abnormally rich in these, we may be in for interesting times ahead. Transmutation of elements typically takes about 0.1% of the rest mass energy. This amount of energy corresponds to a speed of about 3% of light or about a 100 year trip to alpha Cen. (Note: Piddly factors of 2 and such are ignored. The calculation implicitly assumes that the mass of the interstellar vessel is mostly payload.) The energetics thus suggest that interstellar travel and element transmutation are about equally difficult. Speculating on the economics of advanced societies is a dubious proposition, but it seems to me that transmutation would be economically more attractive because of the shorter payback period and thus the lower cost of capital equipment. In fact, I would turn the argument around and say that any interstellar-travelling society is likely to use element transmutation routinely. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa 60 Garden St. FTS: 830-7123 UUCP: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 88 15:18:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu (Peter Nelson) Subject: RE space expoitation/exploration > **********WARNING: NEW KID ON THE BLOCK WITH A CHIP ON HIS SHOULDER******** > Space is not some natural resource which can or should be controlled by an > governmental or extra-governmental entity. Instead, it is a resource much [ ... ] > Why? Mankind needs room, we need to get off each other's shoulders. The > sooner we spread out in this system (and beyond, but that happens MUCH > later) the sooner we, as a race, can start believing that we might survive > our own stupidity. There's plenty of room out there for Palestine or > Armenia or even White South Africa. And something for the misfits in our > society who would have been trappers and explorers and miners in a previous > era. Sure if you don't mind living in lo-grav, crowded quarters and never going to the beach. I don't know what you mean by 'room' but unless you like living in a pressure suit you're going to be living 'indoors' all the time. Sounds cramped to me. Besides you miss the entire point of what the Palestinians, white South Africans, et al, want. Currently the world's population is growing at about 75 million people a year. Even if we could slow our population growth to 50 million a year, we'd have to ship a million people a week into space just to break even. It's not like shipping colonists to the New World. The shelter, food, and life-support systems for them would have to be waiting when they arrived. > Basically, though, none of this will happen if some Mickey Mouse (sorry > Walt) third world country claims co-soveriegnty by virtue of some "natural > right to share". On the other hand, if I'm up there (and I plan to be), > then any one who disputes me is welcome to come up with me. What do you mean by 'plan' to be? My wife and I plan to take a vacation soon in Australia. I've charted out my route, made airline arrangements, computed costs, determined how long I can stay, etc. What does your 'plan' consist of? What have you *actually done* to further your plan? One of the (many) reasons why our space program is going nowhere fast is that we have too many romantic dreamers who spend their time reading Omni and watching reruns of Star Trek and too few pragmatists. Do you have any idea what it costs to even put a *handful* of people into space for a few days and keep them there safely? Do you have any concept of what would be required to create even a *small* self-sustaining colony of even a few hundred people? Lots and lots of money and an enormous technological, industrial and academic base. Do you really think they're going to waste those resources and training putting 'misfits' up there? --Peter Nelson > Dillon Pyron ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 88 22:16:05 GMT From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: TRW selected to develop Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (Forwarded) Charles Redmond August 22, 1988 Headquarters, Washington, D.C. 4:00 p.m. EDT Bob Lessels Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. RELEASE: 88-118 TRW SELECTED TO DEVELOP ADVANCED X-RAY ASTROPHYSICS FACILITY NASA announced today that TRW, Inc., has been selected for final negotiations leading to the award of contracts for extended definition and development of the space-based Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF). The development contract will include a mirror development phase and a priced-option for spacecraft development and completion of the observatory. Exercise of the option by NASA will require congressional approval and will be based upon the successful fabrication of the largest of six mirror pairs to the required resolution. The principal place of performance will be the TRW plant, Redondo Beach, Calif., and that of the major subcontractor, Kodak Federal Systems Division, Rochester, New York. The proposed cost of the contracts is approximately $508 million. The facility will be the third in NASA's series of space- based great observatories, following the Hubble Space Telescope and the Gamma Ray Observatory, into orbit in the mid-1990's. These observatories, as well as the Space Infrared Telescope Facility, which is to follow the X-ray observatory, will permit simultaneous, complementary observations of astrophysical phenomena over different wavelengths of the spectrum. The objective of this project is to develop a high-quality, X-ray telescope to be used by the international scientific community in conjunction with NASA for an operational period of 15 years. The observatory will be designed for on-orbit maintenance in order to extend its life and to upgrade its scientific capability. The X-ray telescope will be used to gather data to expand our knowledge of quasars, black holes and the geometry and mass of the universe. The Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., has management responsibility for the telescope and will manage the contract. The AXAF program is under the direction of NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications, Washington, D.C. Also proposing was Lockheed Missiles and Space, Co., Sunnyvale, Calif. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 88 22:38:24 GMT From: tektronix!teklds!mrloog!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Dan Tilque;1893;92-101;) Subject: Re: Why *THEY* might want to eat our lunch. Michael MacLeod writes: >The last I heard (in lay articles) there were several theories that best >seemed to fit observed facts about the genesis of the Moon and Earth planetary >pair. One of these called for a collision between the Earth and another >body, carving out the Moon as a result. This also explained the abundance >of heavy elements near the top of the Earth's crust. In Sunday supplement >fashion, one article brayed: "The Gold In Your Ring is From Another Planet!" The gold in your ring probably owes more to hydrologic and biologic action than it does to a collision 4 billion years ago. >If this is so, and such metal dispositions are rare in the universe (perhaps >most planets turn out to be Jupiter-size gas giants), then any kind of mining >survey is going to be of interest to those looking for accessible heavy >elements. 1) There are 5 terrestrial (rocky) type planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon and Mars) in our solar system. Relative to the gaseous and icy planets in the outer solar system, these all have a high percentage of metals (probably including heavy ones) in their crusts. There are also thousands of asteroids for which the same is also true. 2) The rocky nature of the inner solar system bodies is not an accident. It's probably safe to assume that many (if not most) single stars and some double star systems have many rocky bodies in their inner planetary system. 3) While veins of heavy metals are not likely on the other terrestrial planets (no biological or hydrologic action), it's still possible to mine them if you're given sufficient energy. 4) Iron and stoney-iron asteroids have many of their metals differentiated out (probably at least as well as many veins of ores). >Given the unlikelihood of cheap transmutation of elements, even spacefaring >races will probably continue to be interested in rare elements. If Earth's >crust is abnormally rich in these, we may be in for interesting times ahead. Seems to me that it would take a lot more energy to travel several light-years than to take an asteroid apart for its materials. --- Dan Tilque -- dant@twaddl.LA.TEK.COM ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 88 16:39:04 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST In article <880822121249.000001030E1@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@grouch.jpl.nasa.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: >I seem to remember that one of the problems with ICBMs (also solid-fuelled) >is that they have a finite and relatively short `shelf' life due to the >propellant... These SRBs are at least 2 years old, >isn't this problem likely to be a consideration? Unmanned or not, we can't >exactly afford to lose the Columbia... Yes, solid fuels do have a limited shelf life; this is one reason why the USAF can justify a steady stream of Minuteman test launches from Vandenberg, since the missiles won't last forever anyway. But two years isn't enough to make anyone really worry much. And yes, rationally speaking, the unmanned nature of the proposed flights is almost irrelevant, since the orbiters are a lot harder to replace than the crews. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 22 Aug 88 20:38:11 GMT From: ndsuvax!nekinsel@uunet.uu.net (Peter Kinsella) Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? In article <4989@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>, smann@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Shannon Mann - I.S.er) writes: > In article <561@unisv.UUCP> vanpelt@unisv.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: > - large chunk left out to conserve bandwidth - > Furthermore, as the radiosphere expands, the > transmissions become more and more weak, disrupted by background noise, etc. > Although the calculation is beyond me, I believe that, after a certain distance, > the signals would be so weak as to become part of the background noise. I don't suppose background noise could actually be transmissions from various developed cultures ? any comments ? ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 88 14:43:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu (Peter Nelson) Subject: RE: space exploitation/exploration In the mailbag today another dreamer writes... >By room, those of us who believe in space and would invest in space mean room >for mankind to thrive with independent societies. This is becoming impossible >on earth, with the spread of the welfare state, etc. We do not want these >statists to do anything more than get out of the way so man can live in space >as free people. I might point out that the society today with with the most advanced space program is also the the most 'statist' society on Earth: the USSR. Talk is cheap (except maybe on Usenet). Results are what count. The U.S. has not had a space program to speak of for over 2 1/2 years and it isn't clear how much of one we're going to have in the future. Yet I haven't seen private industry clamoring to provide an alternative. >The greatest immorality of all is to impose ones morality on others. You don't say? . I thought it was torturing babies but let's not quibble over details... > We need independent societies in space; you would impose your > standards, while I say only that if you do not wish to support me, > do not hinder me. Where have I offered to impose my standards??? All I said to the other guy, and I'll say it to you too, is: What have you *actually done* to further this dream of yours of going into space to start a new society? You're talking about a project that would absolutely dwarf any previous engineering or technical achievement in cost and scale! If you want something like that to happen in your lifetime you had better be working real hard on it now. BTW, I'm actually very fond of dreamers and eccentrics, as I am sometimes one myself ;-) America has a rich tradition of utopianism and there is an excellent book on the subject by Dover Press called 'Heavens on Earth' (by Mark Hollowell, I believe). But one thing to remember is that there have been hundreds (if not thousands) of utopian communities started with grand visions of how their particular philosophy would transform life and attract millions of followers. Most of them fizzled within a year or so and even those that lasted for many years ultimately either died out or adopted mainstream values and lifestyles. This notion that 'if only we could create a society of like-minded individuals we could all be free/happy/whatever has NEVER panned out. And by the way, to my Libertarian friends: Historically, the most successful of the utopian experiments have, by far, been those which adopted communist (NOTE THE SMALL 'c'!!) principles rather that individualist ones. --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #350 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 6 Sep 88 06:06:31 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Tue, 6 Sep 88 04:25:08 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 6 Sep 88 04:25:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 6 Sep 88 04:15:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 6 Sep 88 04:09:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Tue, 6 Sep 88 04:08:35 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01269; Tue, 6 Sep 88 01:05:29 PDT id AA01269; Tue, 6 Sep 88 01:05:29 PDT Date: Tue, 6 Sep 88 01:05:29 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809060805.AA01269@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #351 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 351 Today's Topics: status of Mars Observer Re: How does NASA detect a Hydrogen leak Transmutation (was: Interstellar Mining (?) Re: Satellite brightness Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: Initials for the Uninitiated Re: Inverse SETI (Was: ET phone home?) A request: forwarded NASA press releases Fuel Cells--How do they work? Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: Orbital Mech Algorithm International Space University ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Aug 88 12:39:00 CDT From: "ASUIPF::MC" Subject: status of Mars Observer To: "space" Reply-To: "ASUIPF::MC" Henry Spencer talks about the deletion of VIMS and the descope of the altimeter from the Mars Observer mission: > [NASA is being politically naive here: what they ought to do is punt the > decision to the scientists, which would probably have the same result but > without the uproar being directed at NASA.] Henry, you have a touching faith in the ability of the scientific community to make non-political decisions. However, as it turns out in this case, the community was consulted, and these two instruments were the ones recommended for deletion or descope. Some of us with instruments having less political support from the big guns in the community were pleasantly surprised by this. As of today as far as I know, VIMS is off completely though people are looking at few-channel descopes of it, and the radar altimeter is being replaced with a laser altimeter. All the other instruments are still OK, and the launch is still scheduled for 1992. (Now that I think about it I don't remember if part of the radio science experiment was taken off or not.) AvWeek has been doing a really terrible job of covering the mission. By the way, it's funny how nobody on the net seems to *know* anything about Mars Observer: too busy whining about how the Soviets are doing everything on Mars these days :-( Mike Caplinger, ASU/Caltech Mars Observer Camera Project mc@moc.jpl.nasa.gov ------ ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 88 06:27:21 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!Paul_L_Schauble@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: How does NASA detect a Hydrogen leak I don't know about hydrogen, but for a scale, your typical air conditioning repairman has a hand-held leak detector for freon leaks. These will reliably detect a leak of one ounce freon per 10 (ten) years. These are cheap enough to be a regular took kit item. --PLS ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 88 18:30:53 GMT From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Knudsen) Subject: Transmutation (was: Interstellar Mining (?) In article <1073@cfa183.cfa250.harvard.edu>, willner@cfa250.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) writes: > Transmutation of elements typically takes about 0.1% of the rest mass > energy. This amount of energy corresponds to a speed of about 3% of > light or about a 100 year trip to alpha Cen. (Note: Piddly factors > Speculating on the economics of advanced societies is a dubious > proposition, but it seems to me that transmutation would be > economically more attractive because of the shorter payback period > and thus the lower cost of capital equipment. In fact, I would turn Unless I'm missing something, we should be able to transmute small quantities of elements with current technology. The FermiLab accelerator pushes protons to very near c, enough to make them much "heavier." Accelerating nuclei of heavier elements is more difficult, since the neutrons makes the charge/mass ratio go down, so you need stronger magnets or larger circular paths to store the particles in while accelerating them a bit at a time (they want to build a 10-mile diameter ring here in Illinois, and they're already using superconducting magnets!). However, that's just numbers. A society with enough energy, superconducting magnets, and payoff money for the farmers could push any of the lighter elements to .03c whenever they wanted to. The trouble is that you don't manufacture very much matter at a time this way, so you have to have lots of patience as well as electricity. I once read that the Atomic Energy Commission built a huge machine to make Pu out of U by bombarding it with protons, using simple electrostatic acceleration. I no doubt have the above all wrong, but the thing was run for several years. Of course a spacefaring civilization making tungsten by Casey-Jonesing a couple starships full of carbon would make a heck of a good movie... ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 88 07:20:17 GMT From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) Subject: Re: Satellite brightness >Comments? These seem a bit high. I don't know how you are measuring these magnitudes nor when. Sirius, the brightest star in the sky isn't even -2 in magnitude. I hope you are not naked-eye balling them, a less than reliable method. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: 22 Aug 88 17:30:09 GMT From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <1988Aug19.182401.20602@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <579@proxftl.UUCP> greg@proxftl.UUCP (Gregory N. Hullender) writes: >>I imagine they would also have sent various officials from Morton Thiokol >>and Nasa off to the Gualag, if not had them shot. > >Sounds like a fine idea to me. A good many of them deserved it. Yaw vol, mein herr, vhere do you vant us to line up? Das thou plan to pull the trigger, thein self? >there would have been no shortage of >volunteers to fly high-priority missions before definitive fixes were made. >Bear in mind that you've seen a biased sample: the safety-first astronauts >like Sally Ride were the ones who got the publicity. Well, we can see there's not schedule pressure in this newsgroup. No one has brought up loss of a second craft if the first problem had not be isolated. I'm surprised to the contribution to greater loss of "investment." Also what ever happened to making making space safe for every one [i.e., eventually doing away with astronaut requirements] which everyone was interested for such a time? Just a progression...... >>Fortunately, we don't live in the Soviet Union; Oh! Am I on the wrong side of the Pacific? Anyways, let's get back on track shall we? Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 88 19:20:20 GMT From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) Subject: Re: Initials for the Uninitiated If there is enough interested, I will contact Ted Flinn (the Associate Director of the Geodynamics program who used to read sci.space) for his list of NASA acronyms (some in humor), and will place these on a machine which should be FTP'able and I can try a crontab daemon as well. If I get 5 AYs, I will do this. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 88 16:43:17 GMT From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Inverse SETI (Was: ET phone home?) In article <6878@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> haque@umn-cs.UUCP (Samudra E. Haque) writes: >Also, once they received such a "carrier" signal from the >electromagnetic spectrum, what would they do with it? They coudn't >possibly know the modulation parameters (i.e., bandwidth, modulation >techniques or even chrominance and >luminance coding mechanisms in that TV signal once >they get it - if at all they do. Assuming they can get the full signal (i.e. modulation, not just carrier), the basic RF modulation shouldn't be hard to sort out. That will get them a video signal. The sync pulses will be pretty obvious; if they have any notion of video signalling at all, that will give them the basic line structure of the signal. Some of the distinctive stuff in the vertical interval will give them the line count per frame. If they use interlace -- they might not -- it won't be hard to figure that out either. And given the basic structure, it should not be difficult to get a *monochrome* image out of it, although they might have trouble deciding black/white polarity. Sound and color are a different story: they'll probably realize that there is extra information there, but without some idea of what it is or how it's encoded, sorting it out could be quite difficult. In general, there are only so many ways to modulate things, and one can study the signal rather than having to guess. The tricky parts come when the information is modulated or encoded in complex ways -- e.g. color -- *and* the information itself isn't very predictable. (Color is a bad case because our color-TV systems are very much tied to the color-perception systems of our bodies. An alien race might, for example, need more than three primary colors to perceive a full-color image.) -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 88 01:37:46 GMT From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) Subject: A request: forwarded NASA press releases In article <4863@hplabsb.UUCP> dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes: >Peter E. Yee writes: Peter isn't writing these. He's only forwarding them. The real authors (men [like Hugh Harris] and women you occasionally hear on the TV or radio) have their names noted in the upper left hand corner. Cite them. Contact them. Don't blame Peter. He's just trying to do you a favor. Please edit accordingly. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 88 06:02:59 GMT From: stolaf!pierce@UMN-CS.ARPA (henry m. pierce) Subject: Fuel Cells--How do they work? What I know: fuel cells have been used to power manned space craft. They produce electricity to run the space craft's electrical systems. They work by reacting hydrogen and oxygen. What I want to know: To they produce an electic charge through acid-base reaction of hydrogen and oxygen--or is heat water produced from such a reaction used to run some sort of turbine? What voltage/amprage are they able to produce? Are the analogus to a battery? thanks, Allways to have one more life than cats. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 88 07:32:51 GMT From: agate!stew.ssl.berkeley.edu!link@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability >Well, we can see there's not schedule pressure in this newsgroup. Yo! Careful with that axe, Eugene! I live and die according to NASA schedules. We can get our experiments delivered on time. You wanna know how many launch dates have slipped? Dr. Richard Link Earth and Planetary Atmospheres Group Space Sciences Laboratoy University of California, Berkeley link@ssl.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 88 18:14:29 GMT From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Knudsen) Subject: Re: Orbital Mech Algorithm In article <880823100923.550@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV>, greer%23666%utadnx%utspan.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV writes: > Do > a = -G*M*r/|r|**3 > v = v0 + a*dt > r = r0 + v*dt + 0.5*a*dt**2 > Loop > > Where r, v, and a are vectors, G is the gravitational constant, and M > is the mass of the body being orbited. This algorithm may not do well to > figure when MIR will next be overhead, but it's good enough to give a feel for > orbital mechanics. More stuff can be added to the acceleration: > > a = -G*M1*r1/|r1|**3 - G*M2*r2/|r2|**3 - ... > + thrust + any_other_acceleration Hmmm, nice to see the extra 0.5*a*dt^2 term added to r. This makes the integration by paralleograms instead of rectangles, and more accurate. I forgot to try that way back when. To explain it, factor out the above equation to get r = r0 + (v + 0.5*a*dt) * dt = r0 + (average velocity this epoch) * time duration > The algorithm is plenty fast enough to do an engaging and enlightening > simulation on the Mac, i.e., Orbital Mech (TM), even without the use of the > floating point unit of the Mac II. I wrote Orbital Mech to run on any Mac, and > had to assume no FPU would be available. I think you could do a pretty hot > orbital simulator with an 80386 and FPU. Some years ago I did the above on a Color Computer 1 in Basic09 (a sort of Pascal). It ran amazingly fast even with the grahics plotting. I intended to add multiple bodies to it (as the original poster mentions). A nice feature of these basic simulations is that multiple-body problems are obvious extensions of the procedure, whereas analytical solutions (usually giving elliptical orbits) can't even handle a 3rd body. Anyway, everybody should try something like the above once, if only to prove to wives, parents, etc. that graphics on home computers are good for something besides games and pie charts. PS: I recall working out some cute algebraic tricks to reduce redundant computations for multiple bodies; maybe I got around the damned square root needed to compute |r| in Cartesian. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Aug 88 10:12 EDT From: Matt Subject: International Space University [Boston Globe, August 21, 1988] A space college launches its grades Stars from 20 nations end 8 weeks at MIT studying the final frontier By Alexander Reid Globe Staff CAMBRIDGE - For nine weeks this summer, more than 100 young visionaries from 20 counries cloistered themselves in the labyrinth of classrooms and laboratories at the Massachusetts lnstitute of Technology to research and discuss mankind's prospects in space. They are all in their 30s and 2Os and are considered the best and the brightest in space research and exploration. And they are all, in the words of Maria Antonietta Perlno, a nuclear engineer from Italy, ``exhilarated by the future in space.'' In a short, ebullient ceremony yesterday morning, this group - participants in the first academic Session of the International Space University - marked the end of their time together in a graduation ceremony at MIT. They talked of their experiments, of their late-night debates over the virtues of Marxism and capitalism, of the frequent parties - but mainly, they praised the spirit of international cooperation that was nurtured by the nine-week session. Peter H. Dimandis, 27, director and a cofounder of ISU, called it ``the university's hidden agenda.'' ``Besides the research, the technology and the ideas, we think we've begun to create a close network of future world leaders in space exploration and development. Space travel should not be a one-nation endeavor. The intensity of the bonds and the friendships we've seen here will eventually take us - mankind - Into space.'' Dimandis and Todd B. Hawley, 27, began the university at MlT last year after raising more than $1.3 million through donations from government, foundations and corporate sponsors. The 104 students were drawn from 350 applicants. They are considered leaders in their fields of expertise, such areas as rocket propulsion, political science and space architecture. The intent, explained Dimandis, himself pursuing a medical degree at Harvard and a doctorate in aerospace engineering at MlT, is to ``create a cross-disciplinary approach. The engineers and scientists should see space travel from a political and legal standpoint and vice versa. Anyone with a vision of space exploration should not be ignorant in any of these areas.'' The session was no picnic. Students, most financed by scholarships, attended 240 hours of classes over the nine-week period. Lectures were given by experts from several of the most inifluential organizations in the world space establishment. ``I'm here because I was impressed with the gall of an upstart group of people to do something like this,'' said Daniel Norton, one of ISU's 30 faculty members and a specialist in space engineering at the Houston Area Research Center. ''I was called by Peter last October and didn't know him from Adam, but he seemed to represent a bunch of bright young people with imaginative ideas, so I signed on. Their vision sold me on this.'' Perino, 28, was chosen by her fellow classmates to deliver one of seven addresses during yesterday's ceremony. ''The only sad thing about this is this ceremony,' she said. ''It's over. We enjoyed it so much. I have never seen such a high concentration of the best information on space in one place at one time. I don't profit by this. Neither does my country. The whole world profits.'' Next year's session will be held in West Germany or France. By 1992, said Dimandis, he hopes ISU will stand as an independent, fulltime university. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #351 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 7 Sep 88 05:08:12 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Wed, 7 Sep 88 04:31:01 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 7 Sep 88 04:30:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 7 Sep 88 04:17:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 7 Sep 88 04:09:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 7 Sep 88 04:09:01 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02596; Wed, 7 Sep 88 01:07:09 PDT id AA02596; Wed, 7 Sep 88 01:07:09 PDT Date: Wed, 7 Sep 88 01:07:09 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809070807.AA02596@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #352 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 352 Today's Topics: plutonium RE: space exploitation/exploration Aerospikes/plug nozzles Space Station Future??? Re: Why no aliens moon buggy as robot rover SKYLAB yay! Re: Transmutation Re: Aegis, SDI Re: space exploitation/exploration ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 88 13:09:44 EDT From: =3545*** Subject: plutonium Someone wrote in suggesting that we dump plutonium into the sun and kill two birds with one stone: getting dangerously radioactive stuff off of the Earth and also once the plutonium was in the sun it would be ionized and therefore be detected by an alien race (if they are equipped with a damn good s[ppectro- meter). I see two problems: one is that you'd have to decelarate your load of Pt by the orbital speed of the Earth to have it drop into the sun, and that speed is 18.5 miles per second, which is as far as I know a damn sight faster than we can go right now. The second problem is that to be seen as an emission line from several light years away you'd have to dump a lot (A LOT!!) of the stuff into the sun. I haven't actually done the calculation (line intensities are difficult to get) but I would think you're talking about billions if not trillions of tons of plutonium. If someone out there can do this calculation, I'd love to see it. I don't trust my numbers all that well. But I'm pretty sure we don't have enough plut onium on the planet to be seen. \ {Phil Plait/pcp2g@cdc.virginia.acc.edu/UVa Astronomy Dept.} ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 88 15:11:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu (Peter Nelson) Subject: RE: space exploitation/exploration from the mailbag today: > The libertarians are perfectly willing to put in their money if the government > would let them. ...This in reference to my statements about building a colony in space. 1. What makes you think there are enough Libertarians in the whole country to come up with the kind of money it would take to put up a space-colony? If there were a million Libertarians in the country and they *all* agreed that this was a worthwhile venture and they *all* agreed to put up a thousand dollars a year, this would only come to a paltry billion dollars, hardly adequate for the scale of the task. You need to interest serious investors and this requires a business plan and I don't see any serius motion in that direction. 2. How is the government stopping you? Because they have a lock on the launch facilities? It will be YEARS before you will need any launch facilities!! If you want to have a self-sustaining colony in space there is an enormous amount of technology and science to be developed first. How about experimenting with closed ecosystems? I only know one major project about to startup for this and it only involves life- support for 8 people. The government isn't stopping the Libertarians from doing this research on a larger scale. It's not stopping them from developing the technology for hollowing out asteroids. It's not stopping them from breeding special varieties of plants adapted for growth in space-colony conditions. It's not stopping you from doing the engineering designs for the system. Talk, as I said before, is cheap. So are excuses. --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ Date: 25-AUG-1988 14:32:27 GMT From: F026%CPC865.UEA.AC.UK@cunyvm.cuny.edu Subject: Aerospikes/plug nozzles > > What is an aerospike? What is meant by its being (or not being) > "plugged"? > The business end of a conventional rocket engine is a bell shaped nozzle. This has some disadvantages, among which are the fact that (for best efficiency) it should be narrow in dense atmosphere and wide in vacuum, and you can't re-enter with it pointing forward because it won't be there when you've landed. Some company (can't remember which) started experimenting with ways round this, and came up with the idea of turning the nozzle inside out, so you have a thing shaped [ ABS(COS(X)), X=0,PI ] (ha! that solves the problem of no graphics!) with a ring of fuel injectors round it. In atmosphere, the air acts as the 'other side' of the pseudo-nozzle, making it narrow. In vacuum, it's infinitely large. You still can't re-enter with this thing, but if you cut most of the spike off to leave a thing shaped like [ MAX(.5,ABS(COS(X))), X=0,PI ] and then blow a small jet of gas down through some holes in the flat bit, which is now called a "plug", you can create a spike, hence "aerospike". If the plug is made of suitably solid material, or covered with replaceable ablator, you can use it as a heat-shield when you re-enter. It's also lighter than a spike. If you keep a small reserve of fuel on board, you can re-ignite your engine and slow the craft down enough to soft-land without a parachute (a la LEM descent stage). Because the engine is efficient you now have a small, 100% re-usable VTOL spacecraft. That company made some research models in 1966, and declared the whole thing viable. A man called Gary Hudson designed an aerospike-driven craft called PHOENIX (presumably cos it lands in flames, then can be refueled and take off from its own ashes) for which he needed $300M development. Nobody took it on, so he set up the Pacific American Corporation, and started building conventional engines to raise the money for PHOENIX. You may have heard of the LIBERTY booster, which has just got a demonstration contract from the SDIO. They're already bending metal for it, so hopefully it won't be too many years before PHOENIX rises. For a better description of aerospikes, read Bono & Gatland's "Frontiers of Space". * Mike Salmon, Phone +44 603 56161 x2875 Time GMT+1 * * Climatic Research Unit, JANET m.salmon@uea.cpc865 BIX msalmon * * University of East Anglia, BITNET f026@cpc865.uea.ac.uk * * Norwich, Norfolk, ARPA f026%cpc865.uea.ac.uk@cunyvm.cuny.edu * * United Kingdom Elsewhere f026%cpc865.uea@ukacrl.bitnet * * - - - - "How far can you comfortably spit a mail gateway?" - - - - * ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Aug 88 13:26:24 PDT From: palmer%hbvb.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov (Gary Palmer) Subject: Space Station Future??? X-St-Vmsmail-To: SPACE,PALMER I am considering applying for work at one of the contractors working on the space station. My specialty is Human Factors in computer software design. I have recognized a lack of information while trying to determine how current politics and the elections will effect the future of this project. What I have found so far is the both Bush and Duke claim they will keep the program at some level, but they don't say where cuts will occur. One source tells me that they will eliminate the idea of it being a constantly manned station. This would increase the need for powerful (I hate saying intelligent) computer control, which increases the need for a highly functional interface etc... If anyone out there has heard, or knows, anything about the future of the space station please let me know. If this is the wrong forum, I appologize and need to be directed to the correct one. I will be most happy to summarize and post the results. PLEASE send responses to me directly, do not burden the net. Thankyou, Gary Palmer Science Applications International Corp. (213) 781-8644 SPAN: hbva::palmer INTERNET: palmer%hbva.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov Any necessary disclaimers apply! ------------------------------ Date: MON AUG 29, 1988 10.30.15 EST From: "Richard Mauren - RAM9" Subject: Re: Why no aliens To: "Richard Mauren" The reason for us not having had extraterrestial contact may be simply that it is too dangerous. Assuming that there is no feasible reliable shield against nuclear devices(even if it got most of them the radioactivity would be fierce) no "intelligent" intelligent life would risk it. Say beyond all hope--etc, there is life on mars. They would be stupid to contact us because it would be so easy for us to annihilate the planet with nukes. ------------------------------ Date: 29-AUG-1988 11:51:20.85 From: LUCAS@sage.psy.cmu.edu Subject: moon buggy as robot rover Reply-To: LUCAS@MESCAL.PSY.CMU.EDU Vaxnotes_Export: MESCAL I have a question concerning what seems to have been a missed opportunity in the Apollo program. The "moon buggy" lunar rover vehicle used on the last few Apollo flights was, as I recall, used to take those nice videos of the lunar module liftoffs. Further, the camera was controlled from the ground (I remember discussions of the fact that, when tracking the rising LM, the earth-bound operator had to anticipate the camera motion to account for the propogation delay). These facts seem to imply that (a) there was a direct video downlink from the rover to earth and (b) there was at least some kind of data uplink for the camera controls. Given this, it would seem that it would have been a small matter to also permit ground control of the rover itself. This would have permitted the abandoned rover to be sent out on a one-way camera safari over the hills and far away. Why wasn't this done? I can think of several possible reasons: 1) Nobody thought of it (hard to believe). 2) There wouldn't have been enough battery power left to get very far (but surely they must have planned a healthy reserve when the buggy was occupied). 3) There might have been difficulties tracking the earth with the dish on the back of the buggy (How was this handled during the normal use of the vehicle?). 4) Insufficient time/funds (I seem to remember that the whole rover vehicle project was something of an afterthought). Anybody know the facts? -pete lucas (lucas@psy.cmu.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Aug 88 14:50 N From: "Rob A. Vingerhoeds / Ghent State University" Subject: SKYLAB On 16 Aug 88 Bob Gray wrote: > Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability > In article <1988Aug9.205520.5911@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) > writes: > >As somebody wrote in Aviation Week a few months afterward (roughly, from > >memory): "If the same thing had happened to the Soviets, they would have > >swept the debris off the launch pad, hoisted the next launcher onto the > >pad, and started the countdown. > > Much more importantly, they don't scrap the old launch system > until the new one is working reliably, and can do all that > the old one could. > Bob. Yes, had NASA kept on using the Apollo, then not only would they be able to use them now, while the Shuttle is out of service (by the way, is a firm new launch date available yet?), but also would they have been able to save Skylab in the late 1970's. Then they could have started from Skylab to build the new Space Station. Rob ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 88 17:45:41 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: yay! We finally got something up there! 2 TRANSIT (navy navigation satellites) just made it up from Vandenberg AFB to 600 mile orbits!! Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 88 19:03:00 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: Transmutation In article <6413@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: }In article <1073@cfa183.cfa250.harvard.edu>, willner@cfa250.harvard.edu (Steve Willner P-316 x57123) writes: } }> Speculating on the economics of advanced societies is a dubious }> proposition, but it seems to me that transmutation would be }> economically more attractive because of the shorter payback period }> and thus the lower cost of capital equipment. In fact, I would turn } }Unless I'm missing something, we should be able to transmute }small quantities of elements with current technology. Guess what - current technology allows large-scale transmutation! There is no such thing as "natural" plutonium. Well, maybe a pound or two, but not enough to go out and mine. ALL of the stuff in our bombs and such is the result of transmutation. Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 88 07:55:42 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Re: Aegis, SDI I think the groups most likely to smuggle an atomic weapon into the US are countries along the lines of Lybia and Iran, or terrorists backed by them. Who sent tthe bomb might be hard to prove. -- Doug Reeder USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!douglas 10 Cyclopedia Square from BITNET: douglas@reed.UUCP Terminus City from ARPA: tektronix!reed!douglas@berkley Terminus,The Foundation Box 502 Reed College,Portland,OR 97202 ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 88 22:30:09 GMT From: l.cc.purdue.edu!cik@k.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) Subject: Re: space exploitation/exploration In article <3e123d31.ae47@apollo.COM>, nelson_p@apollo.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > > from the mailbag today: > > > The libertarians are perfectly willing to put in their money if the government > > would let them. > > ...This in reference to my statements about building a colony in space. > > 1. What makes you think there are enough Libertarians in the whole > country to come up with the kind of money it would take to put up > a space-colony? If there were a million Libertarians in the country > and they *all* agreed that this was a worthwhile venture and they > *all* agreed to put up a thousand dollars a year, this would only > come to a paltry billion dollars, hardly adequate for the scale of > the task. A lot of people would support the space program besides Libertarians. Many people believe in space in the near future. Possibly there are 50 million Americans who believe in space, and how many in the rest of the world. I would not be surprised to get 20 million putting up 5-10 thousand a year, hardly chicken feed. > You need to interest serious investors and this requires a business > plan and I don't see any serius motion in that direction. I believe it will be possible to interest investors. > 2. How is the government stopping you? Because they have a lock on the > launch facilities? It will be YEARS before you will need any launch > facilities!! If you want to have a self-sustaining colony in space > there is an enormous amount of technology and science to be developed > first. How about experimenting with closed ecosystems? I only know > one major project about to startup for this and it only involves life- > support for 8 people. The government isn't stopping the Libertarians > from doing this research on a larger scale. It's not stopping them from > developing the technology for hollowing out asteroids. It's not stopping > them from breeding special varieties of plants adapted for growth in > space-colony conditions. It's not stopping you from doing the engineering > designs for the system. The non-theoretical work must be done in space. It is much harder to build a closed ecosystem on earth with all of the external pollutants and inter- ferences, including gravity, than in space. How can one possibly develop the technology for hollowing out asteroids when you are operating under one g and the waste disposal problem is totally different? I suspect that 0 g construction techniques will look nothing like what can be done on earth. How can one breed plants which will thrive in space-colony situations on earth? No one knows the effects of weightlessness on plants for any lenght of time. Only materials research is possible on earth, and not too much of that. So we have to get out in space to do the development. The problem is not that the government controls all of the existing launch facilities. The problem is that _the government restricts the launching by Americans_. The best the government can do for man in space is to desocialize the American space effort by removing its restrictions, and in addition to declare space to be free of usurpation by earth governments and to prepare to back its citizens. If the government does this, the investment will come. If it sits on private space development which the bureaucrats find objectionable, right now there is no place to make the investments. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #352 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 7 Sep 88 23:24:20 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Wed, 7 Sep 88 22:19:01 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 7 Sep 88 22:18:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 7 Sep 88 22:15:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 7 Sep 88 22:06:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 7 Sep 88 22:04:54 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03658; Wed, 7 Sep 88 19:06:39 PDT id AA03658; Wed, 7 Sep 88 19:06:39 PDT Date: Wed, 7 Sep 88 19:06:39 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809080206.AA03658@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #353 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 353 Today's Topics: NASA radio programs for September (Forwarded) Re: Initials for the Uninitiated Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft new list (aviation-theory) Re: Where's Dani Re: plutonium Re: Seti NASA Select New mailing list: space-tech Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: Solar Sails The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Aug 88 02:00:40 GMT From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA radio programs for September (Forwarded) FROM: Debbie Rivera The September radio programs, the "Space Story & Frontiers" will be aired on NASA Select, Mon. Aug. 29th from 1-1:30 p.m. Eastern. This month's shows feature: Analyzing the Greenhouse Effect Ichitiaque Rasool, Hdqts. The Biosphere II Project Carl Hodges, Univ. of Arizona The NASA Arctic Boundary Layer Experiment Robert Harris, LaRC STS-26 The Space Shuttle Returns Astronauts Rick Hauck and Mike Lounge ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 88 17:17:46 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Initials for the Uninitiated In article <95@taux02.UUCP> amos@taux02.UUCP (Amos Shapir) writes: >Would it be too much to ask of posters in this group not to assume >everybody understands the initials they use? ... >... all I ask is that future posters use >the full text of the initials, at least the first time they are >mentioned. The first time I mentioned those various sets of initials was (for most of them, anyway) several years ago, at which time I did supply the full expansion. :-) I try to include the expansions occasionally. But I'm afraid that if you want to read the AW&ST summaries, you're going to have to get used to it. The things are rather a chore to type up; using a terse, telegraphic style with relatively-infrequent longer explanations shortens the task noticeably. Given that this is an unpaid volunteer effort, the style is not going to change. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 88 03:37:54 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Re: Automated vs. personned spacecraft Another work of fiction on the subject is the short story "Becalmed in Hell" by Larry Niven, my favorite author. There is a short story followup to "The Ship Who Sang" in Anne McCaffrey's collection "Get Off The Unicorn". McCaffrey is my other favorite author. -- Doug Reeder USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!douglas 10 Cyclopedia Square from BITNET: douglas@reed.UUCP Terminus City from ARPA: tektronix!reed!douglas@berkley Terminus,The Foundation Box 502 Reed College,Portland,OR 97202 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Aug 88 08:37:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Anderson X-Andrew-Message-Size: 2279+0 Subject: new list (aviation-theory) Cc: ROB@BGERUG51.BITNET New Special Interest Group Aviation-Theory ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Originated from the AVIATION list, a new list has been created a short time ago. The new list, called AVIATION-THEORY, is meant to be for scientific discussions on Aeronautical and Space Technology Engineering topics. Space Technology and Aeronautical Engineering have always been closely related. I would like to point out that the new list is, despite the name AVIATION-THEORY, is meant for both aeronautical and space technology engineering topics, so that is AEROSPACE ENGINEERING. Apart from discussions between subscribers also calls for papers, announcements for seminars, etc. can be sent to the list, because it should become a real scientific list, similar to the AI-list, the Connectionists list etc. Topics open for discussion are: Calls for papers Aerodynamics Aircraft Structures Anouncements seminars Flight Mechanics Aircraft Materials Books to be published Stability and Control Thermal Control Re-entry aerodynamics Propulsion and others. At the moment we are looking for someone to start a USENET bulletin board for this new list. But, because we have not found someone to guide the USENET side, all messages coming from USENET should be sent to the special adress mentioned below. People who want to subscribe the new list, can send a message to Chris Maeda (address below). For any questions, remarks, etc. please mail me. Rob A. Vingerhoeds ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Moderator: Rob A. Vingerhoeds, Ghent State University, Automatic Control Laboratory ROB@BGERUG51.BITNET ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To be added to/deleted from/corrections made to list, send message to: AVIATION-THEORY-REQUEST@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Chris Maeda, MIT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ All messages should be sent to: AVIATION-THEORY@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (from BITNET / INTERNET) AVIATION-THEORY-IN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (from USENET) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 88 17:10:55 GMT From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Where's Dani In article <285@telesoft.UUCP>, roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes: > the hoi polloi, and, BTW, announce which camp YOU're in). Looked > kind of like a giant Apollo capsule. Where's Dani? > > - Roger Arnold ..ucsd!telesoft!roger I finally got a net connection back. The Space Station program at Boeing outgrew the building I was in. We now occupy a brand {_new building called the "Trade Zone Center", which we call the Twilight Zone for numerous reasons. (when I say "we" I refer to the group I work in, the Program is now spread over three locations in the Marshall Space Flight Center area.) I'll be at the Worldcon in New Orleans over Labor Day weekend. I look forward to seeing some of you sci.space folks there. D. -- Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder (205)461-2606(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, AL 35824 34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 88 15:36:29 GMT From: iscuva!jimk@uunet.uu.net (Jim Kendall) Subject: Re: plutonium In article <880825130944.0000072C.ABAY.AA@Virginia> pcp2g@CDC.ACC.VIRGINIA.EDU (=3545***) writes: >Someone wrote in suggesting that we dump plutonium into the sun and kill >two birds with one stone:[] >I see two problems: I'll add a third; the likelyhood of a mishap during launch. Imagine a rocket full of Pt exploding over Florida............ Cheers! -- Jim Kendall Send all prank mail My boss is in full jimk@iscuva.ISCS.COM to: /dev/null agreement with all uunet!iscuva!jimk of my opinions.... ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 88 11:09:52 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!reading!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiit-sh@uunet.uu.net (Steve Hosgood) Subject: Re: Seti I've been reading the discussions about SETI, the silence we seem to be receiving, etc. It seems, however, that we're up against some pretty stiff problems dealing with ETs, partly technological and partly due to the fact that we may not be able to comprehend an ET's message if we *did* receive such a thing. Wouldn't it be sensible to spend some effort looking nearer to home? The seas contain several species of (presumed) intelligent life, yet I don't know of any sucess at communicating with them short of training dolphins to poke messages into computers on giant keyboards! This can hardly be regarded as communicating with the creatures can it? I would suggest that we have little chance at dealing with ETs until we can talk to the other intelligent life on *this* planet. Comments, anyone? ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 88 19:51:54 GMT From: att!mtuxo!mtgzy!rlf@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (r.l.fletcher) Subject: NASA Select I have seen repeated references to NASA Select, can someone please explain what it is and how do I get it? Thanks, Ron Fletcher AT&T Bell Laboratories Middletown NJ ------------------------------ Date: 27 Aug 88 03:51:02 GMT From: DAISY.LEARNING.CS.CMU.EDU!mnr@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Marc Ringuette) Subject: New mailing list: space-tech ============= "Space-tech" will be a small technical mailing list. We will discuss new concepts for space development. We are interested in taking ambitious new ideas, bouncing them around the net, and working out the details. Topics will include solar sails, orbiting tethers, lunar manufacturing, robotics, and anything that would benefit from some technical brainstorming. We won't shy away from ideas that seem too difficult to implement right now, as long as we can have a basis for working out whether or not they can really work. We will not discuss politics at all. We welcome everyone to the group, with one provision: you should be willing to sit down with a paper and pencil and try to work out some details. We don't mean to discourage asking questions, but this isn't intended as a "chat off the top of your head" list. We will also provide a digested list for those who prefer less mail volume and a more organized discussion. To join the list, send your name and net address to: space-tech-request@cs.cmu.edu We'd also appreciate hearing about your background and interests. Please specify whether you want the normal list or the digested list. ================= The organizers: Marc Ringuette (mnr@cs.cmu.edu) I am a CS PhD student at Carnegie-Mellon in Pittsburgh. I am currently participating in the CMU Mars Rover project, doing software for a walking rover prototype. My interests include AI, robotics, amateur physics, orbiting tethers, and small business applications of research. Steve Abrams (sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu) I am a Physics PhD student at the University of Texas at Austin. I am currently a member of the National Executive Board of the Students for the Exploration and Devlopment of Space (SEDS). My interests include solar sails, electro-dynamic tethers for power generation, space education, mission design, and gravitational radiation observatories. ================= -- Marc Ringuette CMU Computer Science ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 88 18:07:43 GMT From: att!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability In article <1366@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes: >Yaw vol, mein herr, vhere do you vant us to line up? Das thou plan to >pull the trigger, thein self? Line up in vront of der nozzle of der next SRB tezt. I schall push der button myzelf iff nezezzary. If du canst not liff honorably, putting der interests ovf your profession and your country -- not to mention a zertain zeven aztronauts -- ahead of zose of your company und your career, at leazt you can die honorably vhen your venality und cowvardice cauze disaster! >No one has brought up loss of a second craft if the first problem had not >be isolated... If one evaluates the loss of another orbiter as absolutely unacceptable, then one must ground the entire fleet permanently. >... Also what ever happened to making making space safe >for every one [i.e., eventually doing away with astronaut requirements] >which everyone was interested for such a time? I'd be willing to settle for making space only mildly dangerous for everyone. You don't need to meet astronaut requirements to be able to look at the risk and say "yes, this is worth taking". >Oh! Am I on the wrong side of the Pacific? Well, the way the US space program is going lately, it's starting to look like all of us in North America are on the wrong side of some ocean or other... -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 27 Aug 88 08:55:14 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Re: Solar Sails One way to consider the redshift problem is to perform the following thought experiment: Stand in front of a mirror. Move the mirror forward and back. The image of you (the photons bouncing off your surface) appears twice as far away as mirror. When you move the mirror away at velocity v, your image move away at an apparant velocity of 2v, at slow velocities. Now move the mirror away at a relativistic speed (I TOLD you it was a thought expertiment!) Your image move away from you at a higher relativistic speed. Since it it moving at relativists speed, it appears redshifted. Replace yourself with the sun and the mirror with a solar sail. -- Doug Reeder USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!douglas 10 Cyclopedia Square from BITNET: douglas@reed.UUCP Terminus City from ARPA: tektronix!reed!douglas@berkley Terminus,The Foundation Box 502 Reed College,Portland,OR 97202 ------------------------------ Date: 27 Aug 88 14:04:33 GMT From: mcvax!unido!tub!tmpmbx!netmbx!alderaan@uunet.uu.net (Thomas Cervera) Subject: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) This is a reply to a posting someone left here some hours before (lost the origional message, sorry) He said, he heard from one of his friends (dunno exactly), that it would be better to dump all the dangerous Plutonium into the sun to 'catch two birds with only one stone'. On one hand, his friend said, you would get rid of all the Pt on Earth in a clean way, on the other hand, you could send out some signs of live (Pt isn't normal in the Sun's spectrum, I guess) because of emissions caused by ionisized Pt. He replied, that it wouldn't be possible to leave terrestial orbit (if I understood right), because spacecrafts would be too slow to do the job, and all the Pt wouldn't be enough to send recognizable signals. In my eyes the idea to dump Plutonium into the sun could become reality. If we can send spacecrafts to the inner planets of our solar system, I think, it must be possible to let something like that crash into the sun, or not ? But if it's possible, why don't we send all our dangerous (radioactive) garbage to the sun ? Here in Germany, they don't know where to go with it. At this time, U.S.A. and USSR destroy their expensive short range missles 'cause they are (thankgod !) no longer needed to respond the 'threat from the other side'. Why don't they modify them to be able to leave the earth's gravity field ? The payload could be Pt or other dangerous stuff ... Sending recognizable signals to other civilizations with those few tons of Plutonium we have on Earth isn't possible, I think. You won't find enough Pt in the whole solar system. And if you would dump so much of this stuff into the sun that there would be a possible success, this should affect the Sun's physics in a negative way, I guess. -- alderaan OP RKOpdp (RSTS/E) FB Mathematik/Informatik RKO Berlin Dieffenbachstrasze 60-61 1000 Berlin 61 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #353 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 8 Sep 88 05:04:33 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 8 Sep 88 04:27:14 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 8 Sep 88 04:27:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 8 Sep 88 04:17:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 8 Sep 88 04:06:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Thu, 8 Sep 88 04:04:31 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03790; Thu, 8 Sep 88 01:06:15 PDT id AA03790; Thu, 8 Sep 88 01:06:15 PDT Date: Thu, 8 Sep 88 01:06:15 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809080806.AA03790@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #354 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 354 Today's Topics: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) Re: Seti Re: Seti Re: Seti Re: Seti Re: access to space; how to deny Re: plutonium ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Aug 88 14:44:44 GMT From: cat.cmu.edu!dep@pt.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) In article <1255@netmbx.UUCP> alderaan@netmbx.UUCP (Thomas Cervera) writes: >.... >In my eyes the idea to dump Plutonium into the sun could become reality. >If we can send spacecrafts to the inner planets of our solar system, >I think, it must be possible to let something like that crash into the >sun, or not ? >But if it's possible, why don't we send all our dangerous (radioactive) >garbage to the sun ? Here in Germany, they don't know where to go with >it. >At this time, U.S.A. and USSR destroy their expensive short range missles >'cause they are (thankgod !) no longer needed to respond the 'threat from >the other side'. >Why don't they modify them to be able to leave the earth's gravity >field ? The payload could be Pt or other dangerous stuff ... >.... Unfortunately, it is much harder to drop something into the sun than is it have it orbit Mercury or Venus. Someone mentioned that the required delta-V was about 18 kilometers per second. Even ignoring this problem, though, there are other problems with dumping nuclear waste into space. The IRBM's (Pershing II's & SS-20's) simply don't have enough power to reach a nice stable orbit. You also have a problem in that you have to consider the possibility of a booster failing. The easiest way to get rid of nuclear waste would probably be to use hard land it on the moon. Would it be possible to build a railgun/mass-driver/etc. which could launch small (1kg) payloads to crash land on the moon? -- David Pugh ....!seismo!cmucspt!cat!dep ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 88 01:05:09 GMT From: jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) In article <2818@pt.cs.cmu.edu> dep@cat.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes: >Unfortunately, it is much harder to drop something into the sun than >is it have it orbit Mercury or Venus. Someone mentioned that the >required delta-V was about 18 kilometers per second. I don't have the necessary data handy, but it should be possible to send something to the sun by shooting it near Mercury (or maybe Venus). You might have to do some boosting near the planet, but this is much more efficient than trying to do a drop (like in _Aliens_). >The easiest way to get rid of nuclear waste would probably be to >use hard land it on the moon. Would it be possible to build a >railgun/mass-driver/etc. which could launch small (1kg) payloads >to crash land on the moon? Please don't do this! --Joe ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 88 00:28:14 GMT From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) Subject: Re: Seti In article <430@gt-ford.gtisqr.UUCP> kevin@gtisqr.UUCP (Kevin Bagley) writes: >In article <1685@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu>, trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo) >writes: >> Or, on a more grim note, let's say that there's a species which > [Highly abbreviated] >> 1) fairly developed civilization, >> 2) developed very effective weapons >> 3) bit overcrowded, >> 4) believing themselves to be the "roughest, toughest > [stuff deleted] > >I do **not** believe this garbage, but lets say there is a civilization >out there with the above type of mentality, (I personally think that >type of mentality is far more obnoxious than our own and that our >civilization is teetering on the brink of self destruction.) Why do you think it is more obnoxious than our own? We seem to meet all four qualifications to degrees ranging from fairly (#1, #3, and #4) to excellently (#2). > why >couldn't this super tough highly teched civilization did exist, they >may be capable of doing severe damage simply through communcation. >i.e. > 1) They could communicate to us a cure for cancer that was > actually a very subtle poison that was airborn and did > not take affect for n years. Fred Hoyle (and maybe a co-author, I don't remember) had the same idea in _A is for Andromeda_ and another book, in which aliens in the Andromeda galaxy send instructions on how to build a self-aware computer with a mission to convert Earth to be like the aliens' planet or destroy it if the inhabitants (us) see through the plot and quit cooperating. While the scientific premises in this particular dilogy are less than sound, it is impossible to prove that the same sort of thing could not be accomplished by better-thought-out methods of the same general idea. > [. . .] > 3) Mass hypnotism followed by mass suicide. > > 4) Help me here folks. How else do you cause genocide by remote control? An elaboration of #3 is as follows: send over a religion or a political ideology which will spread to everyone on the planet and which preaches lethal intolerance of anyone not converted, and then optionally does a Jim Jones job on a massive scale, or sets up something like that portrayed in George Orwells _Nineteen Eighty-Four_. To ensure that it takes hold, tempt the original recipients (most likely to be scientists, the government, and the military) with means to great power (insights into how to build superweapons, etc.) which can be used most effectively if they participate in the religious and/or ideological program. >I find this no more bizarre than the concept of this type of >civilization and a hell of a lot cheaper than sending their >starfleet. You could be right. The problem with this kind of approach is that (unless the perpetrators travel considerably from their home to broadcast the message, thus negating at least some of the savings), they give away their location. And if the plot doesn't work, they run the risk that their intended victims might be sufficiently enraged or feel a sense of duty sufficient to cause them to take the trouble to come over physically and do their very best to blow the perpetrators out of existence -- and if they have their act together, they will do everything to keep their own home planet secret, so that the perpetrators will not know who is taking revenge on them if they tried this in more than one direction. If responses are expected, they wouldn't be too hard to fake. -- Lucius Chiaraviglio chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu lucius@tardis.harvard.edu (in case the first one doesn't work) Villainy knows no bounds. . . . ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 88 16:22:41 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!etive!hwcs!adrian@uunet.uu.net (Adrian Hurt) Subject: Re: Seti In article <1988Aug19.212031.24023@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > A poor assumption; our own lifespan is likely to increase dramatically within > the next century or so. During a series of TV programmes last Christmas, it was demonstrated that life expectancy has been levelling off. I can't remember exactly why; something to do with the cells making up the body. I think it may have been that they can only be replaced a certain number of times, but I' not sure there. Anyway, the conclusion was that lifespan would probably not exceed 100 by much. Diseases can be beaten, but old age is much more difficult. > >3) Advanced societies have limited budgets and would expect a return on investment > > Again, check out the pattern in our immediate past. Emigrating to North > America -- just the passage and the necessary startup supplies -- took > every cent the Plymouth Rock colonists had, and drove them so deep into > debt that it was 20 years before they were in the black again. But did anyone launch a multi-year enquiry when a ship was lost? People were much more willing to risk their lives then. Having challenged this optimism about the human species, I should also say that these examples do not necessarily indicate what an alien culture might see in space exploration and/or colonisation. Science fiction provides such options as exterminating life, assisting fledgeling races, escape from a doomed world, and more. Finally, to try to open a few minds, who says we haven't been visited? Would you believe anyone who said we have? Would you believe anyone who claimed to have seen or met the visitors? In other words, how do you react to people who believe in UFO's? Simply saying "They're nuts" or "They were fooled by something" isn't open-minded. As Henry said somewhere else, I don't believe and I don't disbelieve. Can anyone conclusively prove whether we have been visited or not? -- "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk ------------------------------ Date: 28 Aug 88 00:00:49 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Seti In article <1944@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk> adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) writes: >> A poor assumption; our own lifespan is likely to increase dramatically within >> the next century or so. > >During a series of TV programmes last Christmas, it was demonstrated that life >expectancy has been levelling off... Our *natural* life expectancy is unlikely to increase much further. That wasn't what I was talking about. >Diseases can be beaten, but old age is much more difficult. Agreed. On the other hand, there is a lot more motive for tackling it. Old age is 100% fatal and happens to everyone; AIDS is insignificant by comparison. Understand, I don't expect major improvements in lifespan tomorrow, or next year, or even next decade. But we are starting to understand the detailed biochemical functioning of a few very small portions of our physiology. It is fairly safe to predict massive progress in this within a few decades. The biggest problem with old age is simply that we don't understand the details of why it happens. That will change. >> Again, check out the pattern in our immediate past. Emigrating to North >> America -- just the passage and the necessary startup supplies -- took >> every cent the Plymouth Rock colonists had, and drove them so deep into >> debt that it was 20 years before they were in the black again. > >But did anyone launch a multi-year enquiry when a ship was lost? People were >much more willing to risk their lives then. Nonsense. You're looking at a pathological phenomenon in a persistently- underfunded branch of the US government, not a general trend. If access to space were adequate to permit an attempt at, say, a lunar colony to be made *without* having to beg approval from government bureaucrats and a Congress full of fat lawyers, there would be half a dozen of them already, risks notwithstanding. There is no shortage of people willing to risk their lives for what they see as a worthwhile cause; the problem is that spaceflight is currently too expensive for such people to fund it from their own resources. >... who says we haven't been visited? Would >you believe anyone who said we have? Would you believe anyone who claimed to >have seen or met the visitors? In other words, how do you react to people who >believe in UFO's? Simply saying "They're nuts" or "They were fooled by >something" isn't open-minded. As Henry said somewhere else, I don't believe and >I don't disbelieve. Can anyone conclusively prove whether we have been visited >or not? "It is good to have an open mind, but not one that is open at both ends." It is not possible to state definitely whether we have been visited or not. However, the weight of the evidence is against it. Clearly, if we *are* being visited, the visitors are being very furtive and cryptic about it. This is quite peculiar behavior by our standards (and we have no others to judge it against). It is possible to imagine explanations for it, but they are sufficiently strained that good evidence would be needed to justify them. None is on hand. For all the reports of UFO landings, contacts, etc., *NOT ONE* unquestionably extraterrestrial artifact or hitherto- unknown-but-verifiable fact has come out of them. There have been sightings of phenomena that are arguably difficult to explain, but there are plenty of natural phenomena that are still poorly understood; it is not necessary to invoke extraterrestrial spaceships as the reason for our inability to explain such sightings. There are people who claim to have seen or been contacted by extraterrestrials, but people have been known to lie or be mistaken before; it is not necessary to take such claims at face value to explain them. The most prosaic -- and hence, most probably correct -- theory is that we are not being visited, and have not been in the past. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 88 23:18:49 GMT From: tikal!sigma!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Kevin Bagley) Subject: Re: Seti In article <1685@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu>, trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo) writes: > Or, on a more grim note, let's say that there's a species which [Highly abbreviated] > 1) fairly developed civilization, > 2) developed very effective weapons > 3) bit overcrowded, > 4) believing themselves to be the "roughest, toughest [stuff deleted] I do **not** believe this garbage, but lets say there is a civilization out there with the above type of mentality, (I personally think that type of mentality is far more obnoxious than our own and that our civilization is teetering on the brink of self destruction.) why couldn't this super tough highly teched civilization did exist, they may be capable of doing severe damage simply through communcation. i.e. 1) They could communicate to us a cure for cancer that was actually a very subtle poison that was airborn and did not take affect for n years. 2) Tell us of a new and safe energy source that is actually a quark bomb. (Kills / destroys buildings etc. but does not destroy atmosphere or produce radiation.) 3) Mass hypnotism followed by mass suicide. 4) Help me here folks. How else do you cause genocide by remote control? I find this no more bizarre than the concept of this type of civilization and a hell of a lot cheaper than sending their starfleet. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Aug 88 19:26:51 GMT From: dasys1!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: access to space; how to deny All this chatter about how to take out a shuttle is going to have ears waggling at NSA, folks. Watch your backs! That said, I second Jim Meritt's concern - was just about to say the same thing. You don't need to wait for boost phase. Once cryos are aboard, STS is a huge bomb. It wouldn't take much to do the job right there on the pad. Nor do you really need such direct technicolor methods to "deny" the US access to space. There are a zillion failure points in the whole system. How many people wondered where the ammonium perchlorate came from until last month? Do we have another crawler handy? How's the guard on the OPF or VAB during off-mission cycles? Are things pretty stable politically in, say, Dakar? As we know from nail-biting current experience, a stray puff of H2 or an out-of-round clamp can set the schedule back days or weeks. You have just got to believe that if some sinister Unseen Presence ever gave the order, we could be set back half a year or more. Maybe a critical half year depending on what's going on. Nor would there likely be any conveniently incriminating Cuban SAM tailfin lying around afterwards. More likely you'd have yet another "terrorist incident" with no one to go to war against. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding) ------------------------------ Date: 27 Aug 88 01:00:27 GMT From: amdahl!ems!nis!meccts!meccsd!mvs@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Michael V. Stein) Subject: Re: plutonium In article <880825130944.0000072C.ABAY.AA@Virginia> pcp2g@CDC.ACC.VIRGINIA.EDU (=3545***) writes: >Someone wrote in suggesting that we dump plutonium into the sun and kill >two birds with one stone: getting dangerously radioactive stuff off of the Earth >and also once the plutonium was in the sun it would be ionized and therefore >be detected by an alien race (if they are equipped with a damn good s[ppectro- >meter). Plutonium is far too valuable of an energy source to go throw it away. Even if we could, which as Mr. Plait later explains is probabally impossible, it would be one of the most stupid ideas ever implemented by anyone on this planet - or probably any other planet for that matter. -- Michael V. Stein - Minnesota Educational Computing Corp. - Technical Services {bungia,cbosgd,uiucdcs,umn-cs}!meccts!mvs or mvs@mecc.MN.ORG ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #354 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 9 Sep 88 05:23:38 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Fri, 9 Sep 88 04:29:03 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Fri, 9 Sep 88 04:29:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 9 Sep 88 04:22:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 9 Sep 88 04:04:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Fri, 9 Sep 88 04:04:11 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04926; Fri, 9 Sep 88 01:06:20 PDT id AA04926; Fri, 9 Sep 88 01:06:20 PDT Date: Fri, 9 Sep 88 01:06:20 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809090806.AA04926@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #355 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 355 Today's Topics: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) Re: Time travel Re: Transmutation (was: Interstellar Mining (?) Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability Re: Berserker hypothesis Nanotechnology and roaches "Violent urges..." Re: Why no aliens Plutonium Re: plutonium Re: Why *THEY* might want to eat our lunch. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Aug 88 01:06:18 GMT From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) Actually, I don't think we HAVE to get the dangerous stuff all the way to the sun. An orbital radius of maybe .7 AU (just inside Venus) should be plenty far enough away. Of course any orbital decay would be gratefully accepted. Still prohibitively expensive to launch the stuff on chemical rockets, I suspect; and I'd hate to be the Range Safety Officer if a launch went awry.... How about an electromagnetic launch and a fission motor to boost to "final orbit"? Let the waste be its own propellant. Southern Indiana and the Love Canal in Albany, New York could contribute some toxic payload, as well. -- -- bob,mon (bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu) -- "Aristotle was not Belgian..." - Wanda ------------------------------ Date: 28 Aug 88 04:59:35 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!Dave_Ninjajr_Flory@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Time travel I dont think FTL time travel, if possible, will be anything like I have seen described so far. If an object goes the speed of light time does not stop for the universe, only for the object going the speed of light will time stop. So the only thing that going faster than light will do is make you younger. The universe around you will be the same old place and still in the same time. The only way to really go back would be to make the COMPLETE UNIVERSE go faster than light. (Now that would be something!) Otherwise the affect will only be on the object that is going FTL. Understand? It cant happen that way. The Party Pooper ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 88 16:44:53 GMT From: att!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Transmutation (was: Interstellar Mining (?) In article <6413@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: >Unless I'm missing something, we should be able to transmute >small quantities of elements with current technology. Remember that essentially all plutonium on Earth is made by transmutation. There's rather a lot of it about, too. (It is admittedly an unusually favorable case, since neutron bombardment of uranium suffices.) Many of the isotopes used in tracer work are also made by transmutation. >I once read that the Atomic Energy Commission built a huge >machine to make Pu out of U by bombarding it with protons, >using simple electrostatic acceleration... I'm not aware of that gadget, although it might have existed. There was, at one point, a proposal to build a large and specialized accelerator for making tritium; perhaps you saw a garbled report of that. Another possibility is that this was a garbled report of the Oak Ridge mass spectrometers, which were built to do uranium isotope separation (which they did quite successfully, but not as well as gaseous diffusion) but have been used since for gram-quantity isotope separation of other elements for research. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Aug 88 18:15:27 GMT From: dasys1!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST In article <1988Aug16.040406.5434@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >NASA is studying an internal proposal to launch Columbia unmanned next year >using old SRBs. It would carry one of the DoD satellites scheduled for an >early mission. Some modifications would probably be needed, notably a >braking chute to assist landing. JSC is opposed to the idea because of >the orbiter modifications; Marshall is in favor. The problem is that NASA >has about 13 pre-Challenger SRBs left, containing about 11 million pounds >of oxidizer that cannot be recovered, and the oxidizer shortage is looking >worse and worse. There are several schemes for minor mods to the old SRBs >to increase reliability. Unmanned shuttle flights have been considered >before, and generally rejected due to risks and lack of need. The proposal >is just an idea as yet. An alternative would be to buy more expendables >and shift payloads to them, since they use less ammonium perchlorate, but >NASA does not have the money for that. Excuse me, but are we really supposed to believe that omitting the flight crew makes using the old SRBs an acceptable risk? Challenger is every bit as "dead" as its crew, and we cannot afford to lose another orbiter under any circumstances, whether or not astronauts are killed in flight along with it. (Anyway, rocket accidents can kill people on the ground too.) As I recall, one of the options NASA originally studied was modifying the existing SRB fleet. This was rejected in favor of the redesign for cost and peace-of-mind reasons, BEFORE the perchlorate plant exploded. Why not just admit that the explosion changes the picture, and that SRB modification is now attractive? Toss in every safety mod we can think of and then use them for manned missions, perhaps only in warm weather. Trying to fly Columbia unmanned means tinkering dangerously with a vanishing resource, namely orbiters. Dammit Jim, that thing NEEDS a pilot! :-) -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding) ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 88 09:22:08 GMT From: agate!sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu!link@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Link) Subject: Re: 95% vs. 99.9% reliability > >Well, we can see there's not schedule pressure in this newsgroup. I didn't get any responses from my first posting, so I'm going to try again. I worked at the Max Planck Institut fur Aeronomy on the design of particle detectors for the Giotto (Comet Halley) and Galileo (Jupiter Orbiter) spacecraft. Giotto (a European Space Agency project) has returned some spectacular images of comets. Galileo has not been launched yet. I worked on these projects in 1980. Well, I can see there's not any pressure from NASA personnel in this newsgroup. Come on, Eugene, do you only readnews or do you NASA types also contribute to the space program? Dr. Richard Link Earth and Planetary Atmospheres Group Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley link@ssl.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 88 15:21:17 EDT From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu commenting on > Date: 17 Aug 88 23:53:42 GMT > From: vsi1!unisv!vanpelt@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Van Pelt) > Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? The bug in the Berserker hypothesis for the interstellar silence, in which roving interstellar machines stamp out any budding technological civilizations, is that the Berserkers themselves will the be a technological civilization inhabiting the galaxy, and their actions should be visible in the sky. Now maybe the Berserkers were originally programmed to be very quiet between executions, and carefully designed to prevent mutations in their goals. But they would be present in such large numbers across the galaxy that sooner or later a near fatal run-in with a comet, or radiation from a stellar flare would modify the program in one in such a way as to remove its inhibitions against change. That event would seed a Darwinian evolution of self-reproducing Berserker-derived machines that would acquire the survival-oriented goals of normal life. You can't fool Mother Nature forever. -- Hans Moravec ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 88 07:06:42 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov (MacLeod) Subject: Nanotechnology and roaches In article <572@unisv.UUCP> vanpelt@unisv.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: :...The more you look at it, the problem of making a :machine that can do even what a cockroach does is not as easy as :it may appear at first glance. (Which is one of the brick walls :I think the nanotechnology folks are going to run into.) This may just be a loose analogy, but I have to add that cockroaches are generalized creatures; even if the reductionists were correct, a description of their state machinery would probably come out to some nearly-infinite model that approached a complete mapping of all chemical reactions. The kinds of machines proposed by Drexler, as I read _Engines of Creation_, are >specialized< devices that are produced to address specific problems, like the machine that goes into cut out the Tay-Sachs gene in the ovaries. Later there will be a *more* generalized "doctrobe" that repairs a host of problems, but the problem is one of linear extensions to a program, not generalizing the behavior of something high up on the evolutionary scale. If problems in nanotechnology arise anywhere, I suspect it will be in implementation of ironclad error-correction algorithms. I have not kept up with developments in either subbranch of CS theory, but I believe that Error Correction is doing far better than Artificial Intelligence. Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod) ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 88 07:31:37 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov (MacLeod) Subject: "Violent urges..." In article <8808190000.AA15832@venera.isi.edu> cew@VENERA.ISI.EDU ("Craig E. Ward") quotes: : Due to the great distances involved, any communication with :extraterrestrials would be very one-sided. The exchange of pleasantries :could take 100,000 years. Even with that, we have sent several messages :into the deep space. Pioneers 10 and 11 and Voyagers 1 and 2 all :contain messages for some inter-stellar traveler to find. Using EM waves for interstellar communications is about as feasible as putting messages in a bottle and tossing them in the sea. Better minds than mine suggest that if interstellar communications traffic takes place with any regularity it must use some mechanism not bound by the speed of light. : Any species which :survives long enough to develop interstellar space travel will likely :have controlled its more violent urges, something Humanity has not yet :done. I'll bet this canard has been advanced at every juncture in human history. "We can't sail the Great Sea - men would fight and kill each other before we reached shore!" "The Germans could never develop jet planes - they're too evil!" We may not have "advanced" enough to please this foolish scientist, but somehow we made it this far. True, the game is not over, but I'm betting on spacefaring races as being pretty heterogenous groups. Back here on Earth we seem wedded to two archetypes: Peaceful Space Babies (ET, Close Encounters, etc.) or Nietzche's Nightmare (Alien and many other movies). Surely the truth will be somewhere in between. Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod) ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 88 16:40:37 GMT From: cat.cmu.edu!dep@pt.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) Subject: Re: Why no aliens In article RAM9@LEHIGH.BITNET ("Richard Mauren - RAM9") writes: > The reason for us not having had extraterrestial contact may be >simply that it is too dangerous. ... They would >be stupid to contact us because it would be so easy for us to >annihilate the planet with nukes. If ETI's are avoiding contact because they are afraid we might nuke them, then they are probably afraid enough to nuke just to be on safe the safe side (after all, we might find them even if they don't contact us). You may be half right, though -- it may be the case that any race "advanced" enough to make contact over interstellar distances always ends up destroying itself (either with nukes or something worse). Suppose, for example, that it is possible to build a weapon that would kill everyone on the planet. Now make it easy enough to build that any country/company/terrorists can build it. Any bets on how long we would survive? Don't laugh -- something like this may happen in the next 20 years (probably a biological weapon, but who knows). -- David Pugh ....!seismo!cmucspt!cat!dep ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Aug 88 15:47:22 EDT From: =3545*** Subject: Plutonium Well, it looks like I have to flame my own flame. I made several errors in my last mailing. 1) Plutonium is Pu, not Pt. Someone already e-mailed a correction to me. I'm an astronomer, not a chemist, dammit! 2) Replace "emission line" with "absorption line". Cold matter against a hot background absorbs radiation. 3) I was wrong about having to decelerate the package by 18.5 miles/sec to collide it with the Sun. Using Jupiter or the moon or even the Earth itself for a gravity assist (slingshot) would do the trick. It would still be difficult, but not impossible. 4) There are two problems I overlooked--one is that what happens if the rocket carrying the Pu blows up twenty miles up? Scratch one eco- sphere, that's what. A payload like that is too risky to launch. The other problem was pointed out to me by a friend: To create an absorption line, the absorber must be in the upper atmosphere of the sun, where the solar gas is tenuous enough to see through. A payload would tend to sink out of sight. Perhaps blowing up the payload might keep it in the upper atmosphere temporarily , but convection would eventually suck it down. And there still is the problem that you need a shitload of Plutonium to be visible even from the Earth, let alone from another star. So, I have fanned my own flame. Next time I'll open my brain before I open my mouth. PS- There may be another copy of this (a first draft, actually) that may get sent. The tin box I use to get Digest on tends to massively screw up e- e-mail, as that last line shows (the editor is about ten years old on this machine). {Philip Plait/PCP2G@cdc.Virginia.acc.edu/UVa Dept of Astronomy} [If you laid all statisticians end to end, they would all point in diferent directions] ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 88 16:54:40 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: plutonium In article <1909@iscuva.ISCS.COM>, jimk@iscuva.ISCS.COM (Jim Kendall) writes: > > I'll add a third; the likelyhood of a mishap during launch. > > Imagine a rocket full of Pt exploding over Florida............ Tell me when!! I'll be there!! (Unless you meant Pu, which is lots less useful in the bank than platinum.) ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 88 17:53:23 GMT From: att!ihlpf!lukas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (00704a-Lukas) Subject: Re: Why *THEY* might want to eat our lunch. In article <3695@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: >Given the unlikelihood of cheap transmutation of elements, even spacefaring >races will probably continue to be interested in rare elements. If Earth's I think that cheap transmutation of elements is actually MORE likely then routine interstellar mining of metals. The first problem is more-or-less well understood from a physics standpoint, and is held up by mere engineering difficulties :^). The latter is much less well understood. -- John Lukas ihnp4!ihlpf!lukas 312-510-6290 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #355 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Sep 88 04:48:55 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sat, 10 Sep 88 04:33:14 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat, 10 Sep 88 04:33:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 10 Sep 88 04:16:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 10 Sep 88 04:05:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sat, 10 Sep 88 04:04:44 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06162; Sat, 10 Sep 88 01:06:27 PDT id AA06162; Sat, 10 Sep 88 01:06:27 PDT Date: Sat, 10 Sep 88 01:06:27 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809100806.AA06162@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #356 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 356 Today's Topics: Mir elements Cosmonauts trapped in orbit Cosmonauts Is a PHOBOS Mars probe in trouble? Another Titan failure? Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) Re: NASA Select Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) Re: Seti Re: Inverse SETI (Was: ET phone home?) Re: access to space; how to deny ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Sep 88 22:02:00 GMT From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu Subject: Mir elements These are from before Soyuz TM-6 hard-docked, so take them with a grain of salt... Two-line elements for Mir 1 16609U 88242.75924734 0.00028130 22000-3 0 00 2 16609 51.6187 49.6431 0019216 349.7518 10.2758 15.72217965 00 Object: Mir NORAD catalog number: 16609 Element set: Unavailable Epoch revolution: Unavailable Epoch time: 88242.75924734 (Mon Aug 29 18:13:18 UTC) Inclination: 51.6187 degrees RA of node: 49.6431 degrees Eccentricity: 0.0019216 Argument of periapsis: 349.7518 degrees Mean anomaly: 10.2758 degrees Mean motion: 15.72217965 revs / day Mean motion acceleration: 0.00028130 * 2 revs / day**2 B* drag term: Unavailable Derived figures: Semimajor axis: 6730.4 km. Perifocal radius: 6717.46 km. Apogee height: 365.186 km. Perigee height: 339.32 km. Mean longitude at the epoch: 0.8669 degrees. Magnitudes of short-period perturbations of the second harmonic: Radius vector magnitude: +/-1.01 km. True anomaly: +/-0.0118 degrees. RA of node: +/-0.0259 degrees. Inclination: +/-0.0203 degrees. Secular perturbations of the second harmonic: Argument of perigee: 3.8282 degrees/day RA of node: -5.1252 degrees/day Mean anomaly: included in published mean motion. Long-period perturbation of the third harmonic: X=-1.640e-03, Y=-8.710e-04 Source: NASA Goddard via NSS Mir Watch Hotline NOTE: Apogee and perigee heights are referred to a mean equatorial radius of 6378.145 km, and not to the local radius of the geoid. All derived quantities are calculated using the NORAD SGP model of Hilton and Kuhlman. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1988 18:27-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Cosmonauts trapped in orbit I have just heard that the two Russian cosmonauts have had a computer failure after undocking from MIR. They are too far away to return and cannot fire their retros. They have two days of food/air. I have no furthur info, and this is second hand. Anyone who can give me more info, please do so. I HOPE they can get a rescue off in 2 days, or come up with a workaround. I hardly expect anybody at the NASA has the balls to try to put Discovery up in 2 days, even to save lives. I wish them luck. They need it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1988 14:31-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Cosmonauts As most of you probably know by now, the Cosmonauts are down. James Oberg was on Nightline and discussed the problems. Apparently the USSR uses some sort of limb sensor. They were attempting a night de-orbit and their software got confused and refused to work. They eventually solved the problem. I'm sure Glen will have a DETAILED report for us real soon! ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 88 14:11:40 GMT From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) Subject: Is a PHOBOS Mars probe in trouble? According to the September 7 BOSTON GLOBE newspaper from anonymous U.S. sources, one of the two PHOBOS probes to Mars (it was not specified which one) is allegedly having problems which are hampering communications with Soviet Mission Control. There were no further details in the article. Can someone post more on this situation as things develop? I sincerely hope this is just a rumor, and that it is quickly fixed if it is not. The Soviets have not had much luck with their unmanned Mars probes. At least the Soviets still have the good sense (and the budget) to launch two probes per planetary mission in case one probe has problems instead of just one probe per mission as seems to be the case with NASA these days in their misguided attempts to "save" money. Larry ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 88 14:59:27 GMT From: nyser!cmx!anand@itsgw.rpi.edu (Rangachari Anand) Subject: Another Titan failure? I just heard on radio news (mutual) that the Vortex spy satellite launched from Vandenberg on a Titan 4 has failed to reach the correct orbit. Apparently the third stage failed. Does anyone have more details? I am sure the Military must be getting pretty desperate by now. I remember that a Titan carrying a KH11 exploded right after Challenger. I also remember a TV news broadcast where they mentioned that only one KH11 is left in orbit. R. Anand Internet: anand@amax.npac.syr.edu Bitnet: ranand@sunrise ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 88 16:25:33 GMT From: bungia!datapg!viper!dave@umn-cs.arpa (David Messer) Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) In article <2821@pt.cs.cmu.edu> jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) writes: >In article <2818@pt.cs.cmu.edu> dep@cat.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes: >>Unfortunately, it is much harder to drop something into the sun than >>is it have it orbit Mercury or Venus. Someone mentioned that the >>required delta-V was about 18 kilometers per second. > >I don't have the necessary data handy, but it should be possible to >send something to the sun by shooting it near Mercury (or maybe >Venus). You might have to do some boosting near the planet, but this >is much more efficient than trying to do a drop (like in _Aliens_). Actually, the easiest way (the minimal delta-v orbit) is to do a flyby past Jupiter (you can get some boost from Mars on the way if you really want the minimum). Jupiter has enough mass to totally cancel the payloads heliocentric momentum and let it fall right in. Of course, if you are going to go all the way to Jupiter, why not let it drop right into the planet? -- If you can't convince | David Messer - (dave@Lynx.MN.Org) them, confuse them. | Lynx Data Systems -- Harry S Truman | | amdahl --!bungia!viper!dave | hpda / Copyright 1988 David Messer -- All Rights Reserved This work may be freely copied. Any restrictions on redistribution of this work are prohibited. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 88 14:33:10 GMT From: pitstop!sundc!hadron!klr@sun.com (Kurt L. Reisler) Subject: Re: NASA Select In article <4135@mtgzy.att.com> rlf@mtgzy.att.com (r.l.fletcher) writes: >I have seen repeated references to NASA Select, can someone >please explain what it is and how do I get it? Well, NASA Select is a service that is (can) be provided to lcoal cable companies. If you are currently a cable TV subscriber and are not sure if you get NASA Select, you might try calling your cable company. In the DC area (DC, Northern Virginia and Maryland), NASA Select is carried on channel 40 by Media General Cable. Usuallt it just shows a blue and black screen, with the logo "NASA SELECT" and the date and time. However, when there is activity, such as the recent FRF and SRB test firings, and missions, the coverage is LIVE and via more camera angles then the networks show you. In fact, it seems that the networks get most (not all) of their camera angles from NASA Select. Kurt ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 88 02:58:06 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) In article <1255@netmbx.UUCP> alderaan@netmbx.UUCP (Thomas Cervera) writes: >If we can send spacecrafts to the inner planets of our solar system, >I think, it must be possible to let something like that crash into the >sun, or not ? Getting to the Sun is harder than getting to the inner planets. The problem is velocity, not distance. It is necessary to nearly cancel Earth's orbital velocity to put a payload into an orbit that intersects the Sun. This is beyond the capabilities of current Western rockets for any useful payload. Energia might be able to put perhaps 100 kg into the Sun, with suitable upper stages. [This is a very rough guess based on some recollections of Saturn V performance examples.] So it is marginally possible but ruinously expensive. >But if it's possible, why don't we send all our dangerous (radioactive) >garbage to the sun ? ... It's too expensive and the quantities are beyond current launch systems. Current launch systems also are not reliable enough for such dangerous cargo. Actually, if one must get the stuff off Earth, a better approach might be to crash it into some selected crater on the Moon. This would be a good deal cheaper and easier, and would permit recovery if the stuff later turned out to be useful. >At this time, U.S.A. and USSR destroy their expensive short range missles >Why don't they modify them to be able to leave the earth's gravity >field ? The payload could be Pt or other dangerous stuff ... [Two nits: these are medium-range missiles, not short-range ones, and the chemical symbol for plutonium is Pu, not Pt.] The payloads would be very limited, since these are not large missiles. In addition, the current treaty does not permit this use, and requires destruction of the missiles quite soon. In theory the treaty could be amended, but nobody wants to mess with what is (correctly) seen as a major triumph of arms control. The idea of using missiles as space launchers will be considerably more interesting if agreement is reached on major reductions in ICBM forces. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 88 18:18:20 GMT From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Knudsen) Subject: Re: Seti In article <430@gt-ford.gtisqr.UUCP>, kevin@gtisqr.UUCP (Kevin Bagley) writes: > 1) They could communicate to us a cure for cancer that was > actually a very subtle poison that was airborn and did > not take affect for n years. > > 2) Tell us of a new and safe energy source that is actually > a quark bomb. (Kills / destroys buildings etc. but does > not destroy atmosphere or produce radiation.) > > 3) Mass hypnotism followed by mass suicide. > > 4) Help me here folks. How else do you cause genocide by remote control? Carl Sagan's not-too-bad SF novel _Contact_ alludes to this problem. The signals we receive give detailed instructions to build a complex machine whose construction lies within our capabilities but whose operation we cannot fathom. Some opposition groups raised the fear that this machine, once built and turned on, might blow up/sterilize/poison/jam all TV channels with "Love Boat" reruns or otherwise destroy human civilization. Just as home computer users who download programs from bull boards have toworry about Trojan Horses and viruses. I think that in this novel's case, these fears were very justifiable. The machine was benign but did play a dirty old trick (no spoilers here). BTW, a perfectly well-intentioned set of technological messages could end up killing us -- we could screw it up and/or leave out some "assumed/taken for granted" safety feature. If all our lawyers died we couldn't even sue 'em. I'd also be very careful about anything instructions of a biological nature (like cancer cure) -- how much can "they" know about our body chemistry? Half the folks over on rec.pets are trying to convince the other half that chocolate can kill a dog. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 88 20:07:15 GMT From: larson@unix.sri.com (Alan Larson) Subject: Re: Inverse SETI (Was: ET phone home?) In article <6878@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> haque@umn-cs.UUCP (Samudra E. Haque) writes: >It was mentioned that the aliens (Big Green WoMen?) could >receive TV carriers at a distance of 100 LY. > >They would have to have tremendously good recievers for that feat. > >Also, once they received such a "carrier" signal from the >electromagnetic spectrum, what would they do with it? They coudn't >possibly know the modulation parameters (i.e., bandwidth, modulation >techniques or even chrominance and >luminance coding mechanisms in that TV signal once >they get it - if at all they do. When the author said they would receive the carriers, he no doubt realized that the carriers contain far more concentrated energy than is availiable in the modulation. While they may be able to detect the carriers, it is unlikely that they could receive the modulation. Those parts of the signal are quite a bit weaker. (Most of the 'power' is in the carrier.) A quick calculation indicates that a TV station would need about 10E9 watts effective power before it would have a chance of being seen on the moon with a normal antenna. A 100 foot dish would probably be required for a normal quality picture. At 93E6 miles, the dish would have to be about 1000 feet in diameter just to 'sort of' see the picture. These assumptions have been based on a 10 BILLION watt TV station on channel 14. There are not many TV stations that come close to 10^10 watts Effective Radiated Power. >What I'm trying to get it that SETI don't stand a chance of getting >ANY useful information from our radio/tv carriers What I am pointing out is that the carriers are all they might have. The modulation will have faded into the noise. By the way -- to the person who suggested using the doppler on the carriers to determine things about us -- it may be possible, but it may be that the carrier frequency stability is not that good over the long term. Alan ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 88 17:26:58 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: access to space; how to deny In article <6138@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >... Do we have another crawler handy? There are two of them, as I recall. >How's the >guard on the OPF or VAB during off-mission cycles? Fairly tight, and getting tighter. Not perfect, there are too many people in and out, but getting in there isn't trivial. Actually, I think the major remaining single-point failure mode in the system is the VAB itself. This wouldn't be a significant issue, were it not that the shuttle design requires live SRBs within the VAB. (NASA used to have an ironclad no-fuel-in-the-VAB rule.) An accidental ignition could really make a mess of the place. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #356 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Sep 88 02:27:09 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Mon, 12 Sep 88 01:07:18 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 12 Sep 88 01:07:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 12 Sep 88 00:54:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 12 Sep 88 00:46:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 12 Sep 88 00:44:07 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06930; Sun, 11 Sep 88 01:06:04 PDT id AA06930; Sun, 11 Sep 88 01:06:04 PDT Date: Sun, 11 Sep 88 01:06:04 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809110806.AA06930@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #357 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 357 Today's Topics: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) Re: SOlar System trashcans (Was:The Sun as a trashcan) Were the Russians right about 007? [New stuff on KAL 007 from CBC] Re: SOlar System trashcans (Was:The Sun as a trashcan) Re: SPACE Digest V8 #340 Re: Seti ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Aug 88 17:21:04 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST In article <6137@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >Excuse me, but are we really supposed to believe that omitting the >flight crew makes using the old SRBs an acceptable risk? Rationally, you have a point. Congress is not rational. Losing hardware is troublesome, but it would not be anything like the political disaster that more dead astronauts would be. >Challenger is >every bit as "dead" as its crew, and we cannot afford to lose another >orbiter under any circumstances... Then we'll have to ground the shuttle permanently. There is no way to fly it without risking loss of another orbiter. The NRC report on shuttle frequency put it even more strongly: if the shuttle continues flying, another orbiter *WILL* be lost eventually. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 88 00:54:23 GMT From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) In article <2821@pt.cs.cmu.edu> jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) writes: >I don't have the necessary data handy, but it should be possible to >send something to the sun by shooting it near Mercury (or maybe >Venus). You might have to do some boosting near the planet, but this >is much more efficient than trying to do a drop (like in _Aliens_). Actually it has to be Venus, because our current boosters can't reach Mercury directly. (Mariner 10 got to Mercury via Venus.) I suspect it doesn't help enough. The best way to get really close to the Sun, in fact, is a Jupiter flyby (!). Remember, velocity is what counts, and Jupiter's gravitational field is so hefty that it does a much better job on velocity changes than Venus would. The problem with any such scheme, though, is that suddenly our trashcans can't be just inert lumps of metal. Now they need precision navigation equipment, plus power, plus communications, plus a propulsion system for course corrections. New failure modes also appear: what happens if you lose guidance on a trashcan before Jupiter flyby? >>The easiest way to get rid of nuclear waste would probably be to >>use hard land it on the moon... > >Please don't do this! Why not? Assuming you have enough control to put them down within, say, 50 km of a specific aiming point, of course. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 88 15:44:31 GMT From: rebel!didsgn!till@gatech.edu (didsgn) Subject: Re: SOlar System trashcans (Was:The Sun as a trashcan) In article <2821@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) writes: ] >The easiest way to get rid of nuclear waste would probably be to ] >use hard land it on the moon. Would it be possible to build a ] >railgun/mass-driver/etc. which could launch small (1kg) payloads ] >to crash land on the moon? ] ] Please don't do this! Seriously, the idea doesn't seem that stupid. Is your objection one of principle, or do you have specific reasons? (I am not flaming- honestly! Just would like to know your opinion...) ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 88 14:46:12 GMT From: attcan!lsuc!maccs!gordan@uunet.uu.net (gordan) Subject: Were the Russians right about 007? [New stuff on KAL 007 from CBC] [followups directed to the politics groups only] In article <8808281629.AA12686@columbia.edu> in misc.headlines, dare@EEVLSI.EE.COLUMBIA.EDU (Gary Dare) writes: -I was listening to CBC's "Sunday Morning" on my shortwave this -morning and they had an incredible documentary on new evidence -of KAL 007 being purposefully sent into Soviet airspace. Among -the points that have surfaced over the past five years: - - [numerous points omitted] "In the early hours of September 1, 1983, a Soviet fighter plane shot down Korean Airlines flight 007 as it flew without authorization over the Soviet Union's airspace. The Boeing 747 plunged into the Sea of Japan, killing all 269 passengers and crew." It is now exactly five years since KAL 007. An interesting and somewhat disturbing book on the subject is: SHOOTDOWN, Flight 007 and the American Connection, by R. W. Johnson (ISBN 0-670-81209-9). Briefly, the author proposes the unthinkable: that KAL 007 was in fact on a passive surveillance mission. According to this premise, the aircraft itself would have carried no surveillance equipment; rather, it would merely have overflown Soviet territory as a passive probe in order to trigger the Soviet radar network and air defense system into action. Regardless of whether it was intentional or not, electronic monitoring of Soviet defense installations during KAL 007's overflight apparently did indeed yield a gold mine of intelligence information. Although it is difficult to accept the author's final conclusion, this is not a typical "conspiracy theory" book. The exposition is lucid and the arguments are cogent and to the point; it does not have the outward appearance of merely jumping to conclusions. On the whole, it seems to have been carefully written and argued, and at the very least, it brings up a number of interesting points: o The seemingly inexplicable behavior of William Clark, who resigned as National Security Adviser just six weeks after KAL 007. In the weeks after the shootdown, he had failed to attend Cabinet meetings and "did not attend the special Presidential briefing of leading Congressmen and Senators on the 007 affair -- which even far junior Cabinet members attended." [p. 222] The implication seems to be that these were the actions of a man with a guilty conscience. o Japanese military radar tapes from the Wakkanai installation clearly show KAL 007 made mysterious changes in course and altitude in the last few minutes of its flight. While out of civilian radar range, KAL 007 radioed ground control and announced a climb to 35 000 ft, but actually dove to 29 000 ft and then rose again to 32 000 ft; furthermore, it made a change of course that actually took it deeper into Soviet territory over Sakhalin. [pp. 24--27] This information from the radar tapes was read into the records of the Japanese Diet (parliament) in May 1985. Nevertheless, the New York Times, among others, failed to print it. [p. 221] Meanwhile, the key USAF radar tapes of 007's flight were destroyed, according to US Justice Dept. attorney Jan K. von Flatern, after being kept for just fifteen days and then routinely recycled (i.e. wiped). [p. 289] o The routine civilian tapes of 007 talking to its ground controllers at Anchorage and Narita were not released until September 13, a lengthy and inexplicable delay. By contrast, the top-secret transcripts of the Soviet fighter pilot's conversation with his ground control were produced with a great flourish at the UN on September 6. There is in fact some question as to whether the civilian tapes are genuine in their entirety. In particular the final words spoken by KAL 007's crew are rather odd. A full 38 seconds after the plane was hit, 007 called Tokyo, but gave only the standard call signal rather than a Mayday distress signal, with no mention of an attack. After waiting for an acknowledgement from Tokyo, the final, fragmentary "rapid decompression" message was sent out. [p. 27] Thus Flight 007 was still on the air a full 56 seconds after it was hit, which, given the tremendous damage found to have been inflicted on both bodies and wreckage recovered later, seems remarkable. This is in contrast to both the Air India flight of June 1985 (destroyed by an on-board bomb) and the recent Iranian Airlines incident, in which there were no radio transmissions at all after the explosion. Finally, the author makes a fairly strong case that intelligence recordings of Soviet ground-to-air conversations were also made (not just air-to-ground), but that these have not been released and their existence has never been admitted to (except for one instance in which Japanese Cabinet Secretary Masaharu Gotoda inadvertently confirmed their existence in a press conference). Curiously, the American press apparently never followed up this story. [pp. 169--171] o "Under US law, because 007 was an American-built plane, with American passengers aboard, leaving from an American airport, there had legally to be an investigation into the disaster by the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The NTSB did indeed open just such an investigation but was summarily (and illegally) ordered by the State Department to halt it and turn over all its documentation on the disaster. This was the last ever heard of these documents, or of the legally necessary inquiry in the US." [p. 227] o The ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) report on the affair devoted only eight lines of a 113-page report to the question of whether KAL 007 might have been on a surveillance mission [p. 231], and concluded that navigation error may have been responsible. However, the ICAO Air Navigation Commission (a specialist technical body) delivered its own report in February 1984, which "rejected the accident scenarios postulated by the first report". Although it did not establish the exact cause of the aircraft's `diversion from its flight plan track', "the ANC's report did not make comfortable reading and it received remarkably little press coverage." [pp. 235--236] o There is a chapter on the search effort for the black box. The author discusses US deep-sea retrieval technology, including recoveries of lost US and Soviet submarines [pp. 198--199]. A comparison is made with the Air India crash, for which the black box was recovered with relative ease. The possibility is left open that KAL 007's black box may in fact have been found (and suppressed). o In 1978, KAL flight 902 strayed over Soviet territory at Murmansk. The pilot, Kim Chang Kyu, ignored Soviet fighters until they fired at his plane (with some loss of life) and forced it down at a Soviet airfield. All passengers and crew were soon released, and there were no lasting international repercussions. [pp. 249--250] Several Soviet military officials, however, were reportedly purged or even shot as a result of the incident. There certainly seems to be no lack of a precedent for KAL aircraft straying into Soviet territory and ignoring attempts to force them to land until fired upon. o Two flights took off from Anchorage in roughly the same time slot -- KAL 007 and KAL 015 (with Sen. Jesse Helms aboard the latter). Oddly enough, KAL 007 almost immediately ceased direct communication with Anchorage ground control, and despite several direct requests to the contrary, simply relayed messages through KAL 015. Also, from times of arrival at various waypoints over the Pacific, there appear to have been some anomalies in the flight speeds of both 007 and 015. The pilot of KAL 015, Captain Y. M. Park, did not testify in the lawsuit brought by relatives of American victims; apparently, he has never answered questions about the incident. [pp. 291--293] Probably the most ironic passage in the book reads, in part, "There is, in a word, some reason to believe that risky schemes could get hatched in a milieu like this..." Here [p. 257] and elsewhere [p. 271], the author argues, essentially, in favor of the notion that covert operations could have been planned and executed by a small group of people and kept secret from the American public and even from Cabinet officials like Secretary of State George Shultz. Ironic, because when the book was written a few years ago, this was mere speculation; after the Iran-Contra affair came to light, it is known to be documented fact. If KAL 007's overflight of Soviet territory was indeed a deliberate passive surveillance probe, the worst-case scenario envisaged by the planners would probably have simply been a forced landing on Soviet territory, much like what happened after the Murmansk incident in 1978, with no lasting effect on international relations. However, the pilot, who had a reputation as a "human computer" for being meticulous and painstaking, may have decided at the end not to take the fall and the blame for what would inevitably be explained as an incredibly careless navigational error. At the end, he was just minutes from international airspace, and may have been tempted to take a chance (in any case, the Japanese military radar tapes leave little doubt that some sort of evasive action was attempted at the end of the flight). Naturally, the Soviet reaction to the incident did not incline anyone to believe them. Incredible as it seems in today's era of glasnost, it took them several days to even admit they had shot down a civilian airliner. They told a number of blatant lies and withheld information, which did much to turn world opinion against them even further than the original incident. Furthermore, the Soviet Union has for most of its existence been an evil empire in the literal sense, a terrorist state (no smileys). Any Soviet statement about a spy mission naturally sounds like a lame, belated, and incredibly cold-blooded excuse to avoid responsibility for an atrocity. And yet, there are still questions. Yes, anyone who says "the US is just as bad as the Soviet Union" is a fool; yes, the American people would never tolerate placing innocent lives at risk (even if the worst-case scenario had merely been a forced landing). But the American people would never have tolerated selling arms to the Ayatollah, either... _if_ they had known about it at the time. Can we really be sure that the shadow foreign policy pursued by a small, self-appointed group was limited to just Iran-Contra, or did William Casey and Co. have their fingers in filthier pies? Will we ever know? -- Gordan Palameta uunet!ai.toronto.edu!utgpu!maccs!gordan ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 88 10:06:27 GMT From: agate!stew.ssl.berkeley.edu!link@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) Subject: Re: SOlar System trashcans (Was:The Sun as a trashcan) In article <387@didsgn.UUCP> till@didsgn.UUCP (didsgn) writes: >In article <2821@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) writes: >] >The easiest way to get rid of nuclear waste would probably be to >] >use hard land it on the moon. > >Seriously, the idea doesn't seem that stupid. The idea is SILLY! since: (1) it would cost WAY! too much (2) nobody in their right mind would allow hazardous! launches of very hazardous waste. Doesn't anyone out there remember the Challenger? It is much less costly and much less dangerous to bury the stuff in the arctic. ...Dr. Richard Link Space Sciences Laboratory University of California, Berkeley link@ssl.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Aug 88 11:22:31 EDT From: Richard Layton Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #340 If a highly developed intelligent life recognizes that we exist, and is able to monitor our airways, then what more would it have to gain by making its presence known to us? --i.e. What do we have to offer, that it would not already be aware of? Wouldn't it be much smarter to sit back and watch us develop a little longer to see in which directions we move. For any technology we may have developed that it had not, it would be able to view at its own discretion. For I am sure it would have better viewing (both audio and optical). Indeed, it would have seen how we developed that technology. *====================================*================================* * Richard Layton * Bitnet: Rich@Tifton * * Computer Systems Programmer * "To know about computer * * Coastal Plain Experiment Station * intelligence and like it is * * Tifton, Ga 31794 * to be doomed ..." * * 912-386-3385 * (P. H. Winston) * *====================================*================================* ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 88 18:51:14 GMT From: eagle!icdoc!tgould!iwm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Ian Moor) Subject: Re: Seti There may only be a small time interval during which a civilization radiates RF at an easily detectable frequency. How long before we all have cable tv over fibre optic links ? Or maybe satellites which direct all their output at the planet. Should we be looking for something else like Infra-red from power plants? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #357 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Sep 88 05:10:39 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Mon, 12 Sep 88 04:29:33 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 12 Sep 88 04:29:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 12 Sep 88 04:18:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 12 Sep 88 04:06:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 12 Sep 88 04:04:11 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07624; Mon, 12 Sep 88 01:06:01 PDT id AA07624; Mon, 12 Sep 88 01:06:01 PDT Date: Mon, 12 Sep 88 01:06:01 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809120806.AA07624@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #358 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 358 Today's Topics: Pioneer 10 Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) Re: Plutonium space exploration/exploitation Re: Seti Re: Inverse SETI (Was: ET phone home?) Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? Re: Were the Russians right about 007? [New stuff on KAL 007 from CBC] Re: space exploration/exploitation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Aug 88 16:41:57 GMT From: math.ucla.edu!hgw@locus.ucla.edu Subject: Pioneer 10 Greetings, I've always wondered about this so I'm finally asking. Is Pioneer 10 still sending information back to earth? Not just information on its well being but space data. I'm sure it's too dark to take pictures (not much to take pictures at either). But are there other data gathering devices working and sending back information? Is there anybody here on earth analysing these data? Can these data be distributed to people like you and me and crunched by our own computers? If Pioneer passed by an alien spacecraft will we ever know about it? Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Harold Wong (213) 825-9040 UCLA-Mathnet; 3915F MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555 ARPA: hgw@math.ucla.edu BITNET: hgw%math.ucla.edu@INTERBIT ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 88 13:52:08 GMT From: jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) In article <1988Aug30.005423.20005@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >The best way to get really close to the Sun, in >fact, is a Jupiter flyby (!). Right. A random asteroid might be even better (do any go backwards?). Let's write _How to get to the sun in 170 (km/sec)^2_. >>>The easiest way to get rid of nuclear waste would probably be to >>>use hard land it on the moon... >> >>Please don't do this! > >Why not? Assuming you have enough control to put them down within, say, >50 km of a specific aiming point, of course. Someone will curse the fools who sprayed plutonium on her land. --Joe -- ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 88 14:24:59 GMT From: jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) Subject: Re: Plutonium In article <880829154722.000008A8.ABBF.AA@Virginia> pcp2g@CDC.ACC.VIRGINIA.EDU (=3545***) writes: >4) There are two problems I overlooked--one is that what happens if > the rocket carrying the Pu blows up twenty miles up? Scratch one eco- > sphere, that's what. A payload like that is too risky to launch. Launches won't always use explosives. Maybe an ice cube, or a launch loop, or a skyhook. Of course you embed the plutonium in ceramic and concrete. If something fails, find the pieces and re-launch them. --Joe -- ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 88 13:53:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu (Peter Nelson) Subject: space exploration/exploitation > The problem is >that _the government restricts the launching by Americans_. The best the What are the precise nature of these restrictions? Why can't the promoters of these ventures take the launch part of the operation offshore, like to some Caribbean Island? Many of those islands would be thrilled to have the revenue and added influx of tourists, reporters, technicians, etc. The R&D and other facilities of this space corporation could still be in the 'states. And BTW, don't try the argument that the governemnt restrictions consist of unfair competition because they are tax-supported and therefore aren't competing on a level-playing-field. There *is* no competition for the space-colony/asteroid-mining/solar-power- in-space/..etc ventures these wannabe space capitalists propose. You're not competing with the government in those ventures; they have no plans to do those things. The bottom line remains that this notion of free-enterprise in space is just a pipe-dream with a lot of conveeenient excuses by it's proponents. --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 88 15:48:33 GMT From: mailrus!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!jco@nrl-cmf.arpa (Dumpmaster John) Subject: Re: Seti In article iwm@asun3.ic.ac.uk (Ian Moor) writes: >There may only be a small time interval during which a civilization radiates >RF at an easily detectable frequency. How long before we all have cable tv >over fibre optic links ? Or maybe satellites which direct all their output >at the planet. Should we be looking for something else like Infra-red >from power plants? I don't think you have to worry about RF comming to an end in very soon. There are many things that you can use Radio for that you can't use Fiber Optics for. (like in your car, but then in any advance form of transportation you will have a tape deck or CD player :-) And while having satellites broadcast down on the planet might be what big stations will do. Little ones (WRAG here in town) will still broadcast out (unless someone wants to donate a Transponder to them.) (The rest comes from my 1000 level astronomy course.) As for IR you have to be off planet to pick it up. Because the H2O in the air absorbs most of the incoming IR radiation. And until we get a space program again we can't talk about off planet things. :-( later jco -- "And the sun is eclipsed by the moon" -- Pink Floyd In Real Life: UUCP: ...ihnp4!codas!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!jco John C. Orthoefer Internet: jco@beach.cis.ufl.edu University of Florida Floyd Mailing List: eclipse-request@beach.cis.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 88 14:23:44 GMT From: nsc!taux01!taux02!amos@decwrl.dec.com (Amos Shapir) Subject: Re: Inverse SETI (Was: ET phone home?) About receiving radio signals from earth on near stars - doesn't the Sun's radiation at these frequencies completely drown anything generated on earth? -- Amos Shapir amos@nsc.com National Semiconductor (Israel) 6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel Tel. +972 52 522261 34 48 E / 32 10 N (My other cpu is a NS32532) ------------------------------ Date: 28 Aug 88 21:05:15 GMT From: oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson@ames.arc.nasa.gov (phil nelson) Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? In article <1988Aug22.183500.6536@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <127@antares.UUCP> pnelson@antares.UUCP (phil nelson) writes: >> I think that the problem of creating these "self-replicating robots" may >>be more difficult than we imagine, perhaps too difficult even for our >>hypothetical "advanced" xenophobes. > >If so, the difficulties must be in an area we can't foresee today. People >have looked at building self-replicating robots. The conclusion has been >that we can't do it today, but it doesn't look that far off. There don't >seem to be any fundamental barriers. Given that we haven't done it yet, >it's always possible to speculate that there is some bogeyman lurking >hidden somewhere, but I for one am reluctant to accept this without some >more specific suggestion of where the obstacle lies. > Creating machines that can replicate themselves within a simple environment will not be difficult, creating machines that can survive and reproduce in the real world is another matter. I would be very interested to hear who has concluded that it "doesn't look that far off", I hear practically no speculation in this area. I prefer not to be too specific about the obstacles, but consider that there are no examples of self-maintaining machines in our entire technology, and no evidence (beyond talk) of a trend in that direction. Consider the problem of re-making the Shuttle so that it operated without Human intervention. It will have to find it's own fuels, mine it's own metals, plastics, glass, etc., refine them all, manufacture each one of it's replacement parts, replace them as needed _and know when the parts need replacement_ etc. etc... The difficulty of the above should be obvious after some consideration. I submit that the only working example of the self-replicating machine (life) is poorly understood and is apparently constructed in fundamentally different way than the machines we know how to build, therefore, we can not predict when (or if) our technology will be able to build such machines. >> Among other lifelike qualities this race of robots might require is the >>ability to adapt to new conditions. Assuming for a moment that these robots >>can be (and are) created, isn't it likely that they would either evolve into >>something more benevolent or (perhaps more likely) devolve into something >>much less terrible? > >Well, it's not clear why they would require the ability to evolve -- their >job is pretty well-defined and their environment is not a particularly >variable one. The ability to evolve might be useful, especially in the >long term, but it would not seem essential. I used the wrong word, I really meant _mutate_, not evolve. It is not a question of whether the machine would "require the ability", rather, how well will it maintain it's functionality and _purpose_ after being damaged and having repaired itself for the Nth time, and how faithfully will it replicate it's functionality and purpose in each of it's offspring? I cannot agree that the environment is not particularly variable, the environment was defined in the hypothesis as the universe, which, since it includes everything that is, has to be about as variable as you can get. >And assuming that evolution is provided for, why would they evolve in the >direction of benevolence? It seems to me that evolution the other way >is much more likely: unless one postulates a mutation so radical that >it converts the machines into friends, it is in the machines' interests >to be the most efficient enemies possible, to prevent the development of >a race capable of destroying them. > Well, the most obvious change that might occur (apart from simply losing interest in the original purpose) is that a machine designed to destroy might begin to destroy other such machines. If the machines had something like intelligence (probably required in order to have any chance of achieving the purpose) they might easily organize into warring camps, each group could become so absorbed dealing with the immediate threat (each other) that they would be delayed indefinitely from pursuing the original purpose. >In the long run, "time and chance happen to us all", but for a well-crafted >self-replicating machine, "the long run" might be a very long time indeed. I agree, given that the machines can be built, that they might be very dangerous for a long time, but I define 'long' by our standards, maybe 100K years. not even enough time to kill a Galaxy, let alone the whole universe. Having said all the above, I would like to point out that our luck might be bad, the hypothetical nasty race might live (or have lived) only tens or hundreds of light years from us, and we might be making a very serious (as in our last) mistake by broadcasting to the universe. I am all for listening, we should do more of it, though we will need to be very careful if we ever receive anything, as has been pointed out here recently. I am not kidding about the broadcasting, I wish it would stop. >-- >Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology >they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu -- {ames|pyramid}oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson | Contains: Potentially hazardous OnTyme: QSATS.P/Nelson POTS: (408)922-7508 | questions, Potentially hazardous Disclaimer: Not officially representing | opinions, Potentially hazardous McDonnell Douglas Corporation policy. | comments, Virtual Carcinogens ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 88 15:35:53 GMT From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com (David Smith) Subject: Re: Were the Russians right about 007? [New stuff on KAL 007 from CBC] In article <1397@maccs.McMaster.CA>, gordan@maccs.McMaster.CA (gordan) writes: > [followups directed to the politics groups only] Right. Post to irrelevant groups to get maximum exposure for the conspiracy theory, then limit replies. I won't debate your 007 information(?), as I have no independent checks on it, but given the mistakes in the description of the 1978 incident, I have to doubt. > o In 1978, KAL flight 902 strayed over Soviet territory at Murmansk. The > pilot, Kim Chang Kyu, ignored Soviet fighters until they fired at his plane > (with some loss of life) and forced it down at a Soviet airfield. Published reports had it that the fighter pilots indicated "follow me", then lead-footed it toward the base so that the 707 could not keep up. They came back and fired a missile into the wing root, the plane went down out of control, and the fighters went home, saying the target was destroyed. The 707 pilot managed to regain control at low altitude, and flew around for quite some time before finding a frozen lake to put down on. > If KAL 007's overflight of Soviet territory was indeed a deliberate > passive surveillance probe, the worst-case scenario envisaged by the > planners would probably have simply been a forced landing on Soviet > territory, much like what happened after the Murmansk incident in 1978, > with no lasting effect on international relations. Humph. They would have known that the Soviet pilots had intended to destroy the airliner, and thought they had succeeded. -- David Smith HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 88 17:48:55 GMT From: kevin@csvax.caltech.edu (Kevin Van Horn) Subject: Re: space exploration/exploitation In article <3e2b1c47.ae47@apollo.COM> nelson_p@apollo.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > Why can't the promoters of these ventures take the launch > part of the operation offshore, like to some Caribbean Island? Sorry, but the Commercial Space Launch Act specifies that all United States Citizens, *anywhere*, are subject to its provisions. And one of the most fiendish parts of this Act is the authority it gives the Secretary of Transportation to deny permission to launch if a launch is deemed not to be in the best interests of "national security" or "national policy". Such a wide authority to deny permission to launch contributes to an atmosphere of uncertainty and scares potential investors away from commercial space ventures. > And BTW, don't try the argument that the governemnt restrictions > consist of unfair competition because they are tax-supported and > therefore aren't competing on a level-playing-field. There *is* > no competition for the space-colony/asteroid-mining/solar-power- > in-space/..etc ventures these wannabe space capitalists propose. But before anyone can think about doing those things, we need cheap, reliable space transportation. And governmental obstacles to entrepeneurs attempting to provide such cheap transportation include the provisions of the Commercial Space Launch Act, demands by the State Department that a *munitions export license* must be obtained before one can launch a rocket, problems with the FCC (once they refused to allow Gary Hudson a self-destruct frequency needed for range safety, and they have tripped up SSI by refusing to allow a would-be customer any frequencies for their satellites), etc. > The bottom line remains that this notion of free-enterprise > in space is just a pipe-dream with a lot of conveeenient > excuses by it's proponents. Tell that to American Rocket Company, the Hercules-Orbital Sciences Corporation partnership, and Pacific American Launch Systems. All three are pushing on to provide new launchers in spite of governmental obstacles. AMROC has a hybrid vehicle (solid fuel + liquid oxidizer) called the Industrial Launch Vehicle, has built and tested several engines, and (last I heard) is planning their first suborbital flight for later this year. Hercules and Orbital Sciences Corporation are building Pegasus, a solid-fuel rocket dropped from an airplane; as of May (when they first announced Pegasus) they were half-way through its two-year development and had spent a third of the funds they had allotted for it. Pacific American Launch Systems is building the Liberty IA, a liquid-fuel rocket designed to be as simple as possible, and will be providing complete launch services (using a portable launch pad that can be put up in two days); they have built the first stage and are in the process of testing it. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #358 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Sep 88 01:20:19 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Tue, 13 Sep 88 00:35:19 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 13 Sep 88 00:35:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 13 Sep 88 00:13:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 12 Sep 88 23:10:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 12 Sep 88 22:05:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 12 Sep 88 22:04:00 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08518; Mon, 12 Sep 88 19:05:50 PDT id AA08518; Mon, 12 Sep 88 19:05:50 PDT Date: Mon, 12 Sep 88 19:05:50 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809130205.AA08518@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #359 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 359 Today's Topics: Re: Skintight space suits (long) Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) Re: moon buggy as robot rover eyewitnesses to history Re: Using up old SRBs Re: SETI Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST Re: Why no aliens ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 88 16:05 EDT From: KEVIN@a.cfr.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Skintight space suits (long) I tried to post this directy to the arpanet space bboard, but it appears that the mailer screwed it up. Hence the repost... There appear to be some points of confusion about the 'skintight space suit'. I hope this clears some of these up... First, I got my information from NASA CR-1892, _The Development Of A Space Activity Suit_, by Annis and Webb. I was pointed to this by a J. E. Pournelle article; I got the real thing from my congresscritter, as well as a few extras (including a NASA book of predictions from 1980 to 2000, hopelessly outdated now). I have since lost the document in one of my many apartment moves (sorry to those who wanted to borrow the thing), but I have an excellent memory (Who? Huh? What's my name? :-), and studied the thing rather carefully. The 'gasket' referred to in several postings may be leading to some mistaken impressions. This is a seal around the neck of the wearer, which separates the air-filled portion of the suit (helmet and a 'chest-bag') from the nasty cold vacuum. Note that the only skin kept in atmosphere is the head and neck. In short: the suit is a multilayer elastic garment. It is there to assist the skin (the real container) by keeping it from stretching. The skin provides the vacuum barrier - it is exposed through the pores of the suit. The elastic provides ~100 torr to the extremities, ~170 torr to the torso. As the torso of the average human changes volume when breathing, there is a 'chest-bag' attached via a rather large channel to the helmet. This fits down and around the torso, so that when the wearer breaths in the chest-bag deflates by the same amount, maintaining volume. Thus the wearer need not fight the suit to inhale. Note that the space between the bag and the torso is vacuum. I recall one comment in the report about how the wearer experienced quite a chill for a second when the chamber pressure went below the partial pressure of water - the sweat under the bag boiling off! The suit was tested in vacuum - the best that chambers can maintain at zero altitude, well below partial pressure of water. These tests extended for hours, including full mobility tests to compare the SAS to the current hard suits. No skin problems were noted. Some swellings were observed, due to imperfect fit of the suit. Note that the skin is a high quality fine grade leather - it's tougher than one might think. In other words, the blarsted thing _works_! And the wearer didn't explode... As to wearing the suit under ambient conditions inside - the chest bladder would of course deflate without the helmet, but I don't think that would relieve all the pressure on the torso. The people who noted the difficulty of breathing with a pressure differential are quite correct. Also, I suspect that an extra 100 torr on the extremities would be bad. ("Just a sec, Houston, my arms and legs just fell asleep...") Perhaps if they were unzipped? The suit did have problems: tailoring had to be _exact_, and people do change shape over time. More work was needed on 'rounders' that filled out areas that were too concave to receive pressure from the elastic, such as the flats of hands and feet, armpits, and them places where the sun don't shine. The ones they worked up functioned, but could have been better. Putting on seven layers of _tight_ suit was a b***h, and required assistance. A single layer suit would be that much worse. Annis and Webb suggested work in zipper pulls, donning aids, and creative tailoring for this. Perhaps the addition of pressure tubes akin to those on G-suits so that the elastic didn't do all the work? Note that none of these are showstoppers. Development problems, yes, but not too bad in my opinion. Also note that the authors estimated the suit cost if in production at 2000 1974 dollars, quite a bit cheaper than the 200K 1980 dollars shuttle suit. Hope this clears up some of these questions. If you want more information, I suggest you see if you can get hold of a copy of the (not in print) report. kwr kr0u@andrew.cmu.edu "Jest so ya know..." ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 88 20:28:06 GMT From: polya!crew@labrea.stanford.edu (Roger Crew) Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) In article <1988Aug30.005423.20005@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <2821@pt.cs.cmu.edu> jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) writes: > >>The easiest way to get rid of nuclear waste would probably be to > >>use hard land it on the moon... > > > >Please don't do this! > > Why not? Assuming you have enough control to put them down within, say, > 50 km of a specific aiming point, of course. But if the stuff gets too concentrated, it's going to start emitting mysterious waves of magnetic energy (... without heat, mind you), and then it's going to explode and the moon will be thrown out of its orbit to go wandering about the galaxy. This would be a really bad thing to have happen (for a number of reasons). :-) -- Roger Crew Usenet: {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!crew Internet: crew@polya.Stanford.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 88 21:25:02 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: moon buggy as robot rover In article <8808291551.AA03755@angband.s1.gov> LUCAS@MESCAL.PSY.CMU.EDU writes: >I have a question concerning what seems to have been a missed opportunity in >the Apollo program. [deleted stuff about remote capabilites] >These facts seem to imply that (a) there was a direct >video downlink from the rover to earth and (b) there was at least some kind >of data uplink for the camera controls. Yup, sure was. >Given this, it would seem that it >would have been a small matter to also permit ground control of the rover >itself. This would have permitted the abandoned rover to be sent out on a >one-way camera safari over the hills and far away. > >Why wasn't this done? I can think of several possible reasons: >1) Nobody thought of it (hard to believe). You're right. There was, at one time, pretty serious thought given to making this a fully remote controlled vehicle. >2) There wouldn't have been enough battery power left to get very far (but > surely they must have planned a healthy reserve when the buggy was > occupied). The batteries lasted only a few days after LM liftoff. The flight rules stated that the crew was not to travel further than they could walk in case of a major rover failure, so super-powerful batteries were not a prime concern. >3) There might have been difficulties tracking the earth with the dish on > the back of the buggy (How was this handled during the normal use of the > vehicle?). The dish was hand pointed by one of the astros after each traverse. This is one reason why we never saw any video while the Rover was in motion, as the antenna would quickly bounce away from it's earth orientation. (Actually, the crew on Apollo 15 once left the TV on when they started up, the camera in it's stowed position was looking straight down at the ground. But none of the networks broadcast that. I only saw it on a screen behind Uncle Walter as he was babbling about something else. Curiously, it isn't on the 10 hours or so of videotape I have of the Apollo 15 downlink) >4) Insufficient time/funds (I seem to remember that the whole rover vehicle > project was something of an afterthought). > >Anybody know the facts? > I'm not really sure whether these are the true facts, but what I heard was that the additional weight of the automatic electronics, pointing devices, higher power transmitter, and solar-cells was just too much to ask for. I do have a book from the 1967 Summer Conference on Lunar Exploration which gives the geoligists wish list for Apollo. One scenerio has a later Apollo carrying a fully remote controlled rover landing in the crater Alphonsus. After that mission, the rover would be directed on about a several hundred mile trek, collecting samples, taking photos, to a later manned landing site. In the back of the book we even get a map of the proposed rover route out of the crater. Sigh. If only. . . On to another barely similar subject, here's a bit of Apollo trivia. Here's a list of landing sites for Apollo, before flights 18-20 were axed: Apollo 13 - March 1970, Fra Mauro Apollo 14 - July 1970, Crater Censorinus (on the southern boarder of Tranquility) Apollo 15 - Nov 1970, Taurus Littrow (Apollo 17's landing area) Apollo 16 - April 1971, Northern hills of Tycho [!!!!] (at the Surveyor VII landing site) Apollo 17 - Sept 1971, Marius Hills (in the middle of the Ocean of Storms) Apollo 18 - Feb. 1972, Schroter's Valley (a big rille near Aristarchus) Apollo 19 - July 1972, Hyginus Rille/Linear Rille Apollo 20 - December 1972, the floor of Copernicus (that's right! Copernicus! The most spectacular crater on the moon!) double sigh! -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool Mom". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 88 22:04:02 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: eyewitnesses to history [] I thought I'd start something not so serious here. . . How many of you guys out there in net.land have ever attended a launch? I have had the priviledge of going back to Florida for the Apollo 11, 15 and 17 launches. I have yet to go back for a shuttle launch, since they're so often postponed, but I hope to sometime in the near future. I did have the good fortune to be at the VIP site for the STS-1 landing (standing right in front of Dr. Keith Glennan the first NASA administrator), and later at the ceremonies welcoming the astronauts home. (I'll never forget the moment with Govenor Jerry Brown awarded Crippen and Young the "Order of California". I heard that it was some medal he had picked up at a trophy shop a couple of days earlier.) The daytime Apollo launches were visible for a few seconds after the second stage ignition. But Apollo 17 launch at nite, was clearly visible thru the S-IV-B ignition, until it went below the horizon. On a similar note, did anyone observe the Apollos outbound to the moon? I saw the Apollo 14 S-IV-B LOX dump without a telescope. It hit about first magnitude, and looked like a small comet for about 1/2 hour. Afterwards we were able to follow it for hours thru the night with a 16" reflector. Sun glinted off the LM panels, and the 4 LM adapter panels were flashing once every couple of seconds, as they were tumbling. -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool Mom". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 88 20:08:57 GMT From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: Using up old SRBs Another way to use up the SRBs is to use them as boosters one at a time. Simply strap a second stage on top of one solid motor. You will have to add an adapter over the current motor nose. If the motor leaks a little, you don't care, because there is nothing next to the motor to be bothered. No bending loads either, since there are no SSMEs thrusting at an angle. -- Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder (205)464-4150(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, AL 35824 34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 88 18:41:38 GMT From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: SETI In article <3e039c4b.ae47@apollo.COM>, nelson_p@apollo.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > > One risk is we may put a lot of work and money into making a probe > which may be passed on it's way to Alpha Centauri or Tau Ceti 50 years > later by a faster probe. Has anyone done any realistic calculations > of what the fastest spacecraft we could build with something like > existing technology? How much is that figure likely to change a > few decades down the road? One way to get a feel for the problem is to consider interstellar travel as an energy problem. The kinetic energy of a probe goes up as the square of its velocity (neglecting relativistic effects). The total energy used by mankind has increased at roughly 7% (give or take a few percent) per year in this part of the century. If we assume that a fixed fraction of annual energy use by mankind is allocated to powering space probes, then the final velocity of the probe goes up by 3.5% per year. Thus, if a probe takes 30 years to get to it's destination, we could wait a year and launch a faster probe that takes 28.985 years to arrive and thus beat the earlier probe by five days. So, until your trip time is under 30 years, you might as well wait to launch. This gets even shorter if you assume that as technology progresses, you can get more functionality from a given weight of probe. In other words, the later probe is a better probe and it arrives faster too. The result for Alpha Centauri, at 4.3 light years, is it pys to wait until we have 0.15c velocities. A for the fastest ship we could build with existing technology, full fissioning of a kilogram of uranium releases 2.7E13 joules. Assume 25% of this ends up used effectively for propulsion. The caracteristic velocity resulting from this is 3.6E6 meters/second. If the initial ship consists of 50% uranium and 50% everything else, then the final velocity will be 2.5E6 meters/second (0.0085c). -- Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder (205)464-4150(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, AL 35824 34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 88 02:03:04 GMT From: mailrus!eecae!nancy!usenet@nrl-cmf.arpa (Usenet file owner) Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST In article <1988Aug29.172104.10823@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Then we'll have to ground the shuttle permanently. There is no way to >fly it without risking loss of another orbiter. The NRC report on >shuttle frequency put it even more strongly: if the shuttle continues >flying, another orbiter *WILL* be lost eventually. Unfortunately, in the wake of the Challenger explosion, no one has done the necessary *political* work to get the message out to the US public and Congress that spaceflight entails risks, and there are reasons for taking these risks. Instead, we've been fed a steady diet of "Safety first!" messages, and the public has been led to believe that there will be no more shuttle accidents. What I fear this means is the next shuttle accident will be the *last* US manned spaceflight, at least for several decades. --Ken Josenhans UUCP:...{uunet,rutgers}!umix!itivax!msudoc!krj (maybe...) BITNET: 13020KRJ@MSU Internet: krj@frith.egr.msu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 88 16:08:01 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Why no aliens In article <2826@pt.cs.cmu.edu> dep@cat.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes: >You may be half right, though -- it may be the case that any race "advanced" >enough to make contact over interstellar distances always ends up destroying >itself (either with nukes or something worse). Suppose, for example, that it >is possible to build a weapon that would kill everyone on the planet... Could be done now, probably, if one of the superpowers wanted to spend enough money and effort on it. >... something like this may happen in the next 20 years ... Don't forget that if things had happened differently, we might already have a small lunar colony. Based on our own experience, it would seem that a species acquires space travel and planetary-sterilization capability at about the same time, so it's anybody's guess which would become a major factor in species survival first. This isn't very satisfactory as a *universal* explanation for the lack of visitors. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #359 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Sep 88 05:26:35 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Tue, 13 Sep 88 04:28:09 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 13 Sep 88 04:28:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 13 Sep 88 04:19:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 13 Sep 88 04:04:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Tue, 13 Sep 88 04:04:02 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08666; Tue, 13 Sep 88 01:06:07 PDT id AA08666; Tue, 13 Sep 88 01:06:07 PDT Date: Tue, 13 Sep 88 01:06:07 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809130806.AA08666@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #360 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 360 Today's Topics: Are we ready for terraforming??? Re: Pioneer 10 Re: Space Station power supply Naming the new Shuttle SETI and Prudence Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? spce exploration/exploitation space exploration/exploitation Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Aug 88 22:53:17 GMT From: vsi1!daver!mfgfoc!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Thompson) Subject: Are we ready for terraforming??? Subject: Are we ready to terraform??? Newsgroups: sci.space Keywords: terraforming earth mad scientist In todays San Jose Mercury News (Monday August 10th) in the Science and Medicine section there is an interesting article about extordinary measures some scientist are proposing to repair the Earth's ailing environment. Among the proposals mentioned to reverse the depletion of ozone and excess amounts of Carbon Dioxide: 1. Mount giant infra-red lasers on mountain tops and zap the CFC's (chlorofluorocarbons) while they are still in the lower atmosphere. I guess if that doesn't work then can point the lasers at the factories causing the CFC's. ( many :-} ) 2. Use rockets and balloons to dump massive amounts of ozone in the upper atmosphere to replace what is being lost. 3. Dump millions of tons (35M to be exact) of Sulfer Dioxide into the upper atmosphere a year so that it would increase the Earths reflectivity and thus cool us down. Say good-bye blue sky, hello acid rain. 4. Covering the ocean with white styrafoam chips and our roofs with mirrors to reflect more radiation back to space. Better check with the dolphins and whales first though. 5. Errecting huge, but very thin, orbiting satellites shaped like huge umbrellas to reflect up to 2% of the suns light away from the earth before it ever reaches the atmosphere. I wonder if property values in the shadows of these umbrellas will go up or down. 6. Brief mention of re-planting new forrest to replace the ones we have already destroyed and increase pressure on the major polluters to curtail their evil ways. I do have to admit that these ideas are to crazy and radical for even me to accept. :-} What I am wondering is that if each of these solutions are considered technically feasible (albeit dangerous), can we not apply these techniques to terraforming Venus or Mars. I think the cost of transportation would be only a minor expense when one considers the magnitude of such proposals. I would rather practice with these planets than the Earth, although the Marsians and Venusians may disagree. On the serious side though, I believe that it is incredibly sad that mankinds first attempts at terraforming will be on the Earth just to keep it habitable. I feel that we will have to eventually implement some type of global scheme to clean up the earth and the longer we wait, the more drastic it will be. Just thought I would post the above ideas to let everyone know that there are many people out there thinking of ideas to make your tomarrow a little brighter. (or dimmer if you live under a space umbrella) Mike Thompson Disclaimer: The article mentions that these proposals are not meant to spark concrete plans, but to inspire thought. I only worry that a politician may think that styrafoam chips spread across our oceans and dumping Sulfer Dioxide into our atmosphere may sound like good ideas. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael P. Thompson FOCUS Semiconductor Systems, Inc. net: (sun!daver!mfgfoc!engfoc!mike) 570 Maude Court att: (408) 738-0600 ext 370 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 88 23:50:50 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Pioneer 10 In article <46@sunset.MATH.UCLA.EDU> hgw@MATH.UCLA.EDU () writes: >I've always wondered about this so I'm finally asking. Is Pioneer 10 still >sending information back to earth? Not just information on its well being but >space data... Yes, it's still returning data from some of its particles-and-fields instruments. There is considerable interest, in particular, in finding out where the boundary between the Sun's atmosphere (aka the solar wind) and the interstellar medium is. It was originally thought that there was a good chance that P10 would have passed it by now; nope. >I'm sure it's too dark to take pictures (not much to take pictures >at either). Pioneer 10 didn't have a particularly spiffy camera anyway. >... Can these data > be distributed to people like you and me and crunched by our own computers? You could probably get it, if you knew where to ask and were willing to pay duplication costs. (Actually, some of it may be covered by the usual sort of "prime investigator gets one year's use of the data before it goes public" rules, but it's all public domain eventually.) Most of it will be singularly boring. >If Pioneer passed by an alien spacecraft will we ever know about it? Hmm, someone more familiar with P10's instruments than I would have to answer that one. I suspect the answer is "maybe" -- it depends on whether the alien spacecraft's propulsion systems, etc., show up on any of the instruments. They weren't designed for alien-spacecraft detection... -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 88 01:07:46 GMT From: island!robert@uunet.uu.net (Robert Leyland) Subject: Re: Space Station power supply In article <8808190216.AA11489@watdcsu> allsop@watacs.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Allsop) writes: > > ... > In addition AC is safer. High tension DC creates two problems: > > 1) Unidirectional magnetic fields. > 2) The "grab-hold" effect if a person touches a bare wire. > >The second property results from the fact that you can force a muscle >to contract by applying an external DC voltage. This means that if >you accidently touch a live conductor your hand (arm, whatever) will tend >"grab" the cable ... and you can't let go! To make matters worse anybody >that grabs you to pull you away may well end up stuck to you. Have you >ever touched a 115V AC line and felt a "pulsing" effect? The pulses are >when the power crosses zero, and if they weren't there you couldn't have >let go! .... While I agree with Peter's assertions about the benefits of AC over DC. The "grab hold" effect is *NOT* one of them. AC is more dangerous here, as those "pulsations" happen to fast for your nerves to react, and you can't let go! With DC you at least have the possibility of "peeling" off your hand without the muscles continually being re-stimulated and gripping tighter. Naturally this is not something that one *wants* to experience.... PS. the grab hold effect is why you should always approach something that may be carrying an electric current with the back of your hand, so that if the charge is present your muscles will contract pulling your hand AWAY from the conductor. Robert Leyland [Professional Stunt Performers - Do Not Attempt This At Home] ------------------------------ Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 88 09:04:19 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: Ted Anderson Resent-To: Space Return-Path: Date: 30 Aug 88 15:15:00 EDT From: "DURDA" Subject: Naming the new Shuttle To: "ota" I realize that this is highly unoriginal but I want to get people thinking about it - PLEASE, the new shuttle orbiter *must* be named Phoenix! There are two reasons that this may not come about. First, as I understand it, NASA has given the name selection process over to the nation's school children. (Nothing wrong with this at all! I just hope someone would plant the seed of the idea in their minds.) Second, (and this is the main problem), shuttle orbiters must be named after maritime research vessels. My question, then, is 'Were there or are there any maritime research vessels named Phoenix?' I don't think we need to ask HAL why this would be a good name! Dan Durda ------------------------------ Subject: SETI and Prudence Date: Wed, 31 Aug 88 10:06:26 -0400 From: "F.Baube" Perhaps ridiculous, but .. It wouldn't have taken much for Hitler to still be firmly entrenched in Europe; my basis for believing this belongs in alt.history, not here, but What If .. it were *his* type leading our species into space. Maybe his brand of mass insanity would expire before the advent interstellar travel, maybe not, but .. I for one would not want to be found out by a space-faring "civilization" led by Hitler's ilk. #include ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 88 20:42:43 GMT From: mcvax!unido!tub!tmpmbx!netmbx!alderaan@uunet.uu.net (Thomas Cervera) Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) In article <2818@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, dep@cat.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes: > ... > > The easiest way to get rid of nuclear waste would probably be to > use hard land it on the moon. Would it be possible to build a > railgun/mass-driver/etc. which could launch small (1kg) payloads > to crash land on the moon? I think the moon isn't the right place to drop Pu garbage to. Look, I hope that sometimes men will be able to live on extraterrestrial places. Moon could be a first step on this way, because it's the nearest 'planet' to us. But, what about two other suggestions : 1) We could send Pu garbage *out* of our solar system. 2) We could use the Space Shuttle to get spacecrafts payloaded with Pu to orbit and then out of our solar system. The problem I see is the danger if an accident occurs during launch. The costs of dumping radioactive stuff into space, I think, wouldn't be higher than keeping it here on earth under expensive security measures, because time is money, as you know. -- alderaan OP RKOpdp (RSTS/E) FB Mathematik/Informatik RKO Berlin Dieffenbachstrasze 60-61 1000 Berlin 61 ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 88 18:14:40 GMT From: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? >From article <404@mfgfoc.UUCP>, by mike@mfgfoc.UUCP (Mike Thompson): > > 3. Dump millions of tons (35M to be exact) of Sulfer Dioxide into the > upper atmosphere a year so that it would increase the Earths reflectivity > and thus cool us down. Say good-bye blue sky, hello acid rain. Millions of tons is not far off the present volcanic loading of the atmosphere with sulpher dioxide. Well over 90% of the global atmospheric loading of sulpher dioxide is volcanic. This makes you wonder why acid rain is such a recent problem (and it is). Could it be that _other_ pollutants are mainly responsible? J. Giles ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 88 19:39:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu (Peter Nelson) Subject: spce exploration/exploitation In response to my suggestion that a private company could be formed and even launch offshore if necessary, I got email from one individual (whose anonymity I wiil protect)-- >It is against the law to launch. It's against USA law for you >(a USA citizen) to launch *anywhere*. >Launch offshore, and get arrested when you return. >(The ostensible reason is that the space treaty provides that the >USA is liable for damages that its spacecraft create, where "its >spacecraft" include launches by its citizens.) Perhaps the poster could cite specific legislation. The D.O.T. has an office of Space Commercialization which licenses companies who want to do this sort of thing. I talked to people on both the House and Senate committees on science & technology and none of them claimed to be aware of any unreasonable restrictions. Of course, building a spacecraft can be very risky, both from a business standpoint and from the standpoint of anyone who happens to be on the ground where it falls out of the sky. So one can understand why the government may prefer to license such things. I can also understand why a Libertarian, especially, might resent such government paperwork but a lot of other industries are buried under paperwork and manage to turn a profit. Granted it's a pain in the ass! I also might remind the readership that profits are only a secondary issue here. Several people (who have yet to followup) were waxing poetic about the 'freedom' that space offered and how they 'planned' to be there someday. I assumed they'd be willing to PAY money for this privelege. Unless there are some other pertinent facts, which you may care to bring to the fore, then by your definition running an airline or a hospital is also against the law. On the other hand, if you can demonstrate that the DOT's office is really a clever ruse to keep Libertarians and others of their ilk out of space and that companies making good-faith efforts to comply with the licensing rules are still being denied then please present more details. --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 88 20:17:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu (Peter Nelson) Subject: space exploration/exploitation A followup to my previous posting: > In response to my suggestion that a private company could > be formed and even launch offshore if necessary, I got email > from one individual (whose anonymity I wiil protect)-- > >>It is against the law to launch. It's against USA law for you >>(a USA citizen) to launch *anywhere*. >>Launch offshore, and get arrested when you return. >>(The ostensible reason is that the space treaty provides that the >>USA is liable for damages that its spacecraft create, where "its >>spacecraft" include launches by its citizens.) > > Perhaps the poster could cite specific legislation. > > The D.O.T. has an office of Space Commercialization which > licenses companies who want to do this sort of thing. I talked > to people on both the House and Senate committees on science > & technology and none of them claimed to be aware of any unreasonable > restrictions. > [...] I talked to the D.O.T. and they said that they've issued 2 licenses so far, one to Conatec and one to McDonnell Douglas. She also said that they have quite a long list of other applicants. I sure hope they don't send McDonnell-Douglas to jail for this; they're a customer of ours (Apollo). --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 88 18:25:48 GMT From: cat.cmu.edu!dep@pt.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) In article <1280@netmbx.UUCP> alderaan@netmbx.UUCP (Thomas Cervera) writes: >In article <2818@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, dep@cat.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes: >> The easiest way to get rid of nuclear waste would probably be to >> use hard land it on the moon. >I think the moon isn't the right place to drop Pu garbage to. >Look, I hope that sometimes men will be able to live on extraterrestrial >places. Moon could be a first step on this way, because it's the nearest >'planet' to us. I hope so too, but that doesn't mean we can't get target practice in now. There's no (well, virtually no) atmosphere/ground water to carry the Pu from the impact site. So, provided the impact area is "small," colonies won't be affected. Remember, the Moon is a big place. In fact, the colonists might find the Pu useful -- scrape it up and use it as a power source during the 2-week nights (or, for that matter, scrape it up, turn it into bombs to attack the greedy Terrestrial imperialists -- maybe using the Moon as a dump isn't such a good idea after all). -- David Pugh ....!seismo!cmucspt!cat!dep ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #360 ******************* Received: from ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Sep 88 06:32:00 EDT Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Wed, 14 Sep 88 04:52:52 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 14 Sep 88 04:52:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 14 Sep 88 04:20:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 14 Sep 88 04:07:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 14 Sep 88 04:06:29 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09810; Wed, 14 Sep 88 01:08:36 PDT id AA09810; Wed, 14 Sep 88 01:08:36 PDT Date: Wed, 14 Sep 88 01:08:36 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809140808.AA09810@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #361 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 361 Today's Topics: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) Re: access to space; how to deny Re: plutonium Re: SDI, Asats, and access to orbit Re: SETI Re: Berserker hypothesis NASA Select Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST) Overpopulation is not our problem Re: SDI Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? Re: Orbital Mech Algorithm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 Aug 88 22:50:05 GMT From: watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov (John S. Watson) Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? People should stop trying to cure the symptoms and realize what the problem is: (In my best Sam Kenasen (sp?) voice ) THERE'S TO MANY PEOPLE! OVERPOPULATION IS THE PROBLEM! HAVE FEWER BABIES! Actually, I don't think all our current environmental problems are caused by overpopulation ... just a big hunk. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 88 14:37:46 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) Dumping nuclear waste in space is one of the repeating topics in this news group. It turns out that hard landing the stuff on the moon is the most cost effective way of getting rid of the stuff in space. The real question is why would anyone want to spend the money and take the risks involved in launching the stuff? I can almost see why fear of high level nuclear waste would make people want it off the planet, but spending billions of dollars to throw away a multibillion dollar resource like the worlds plutonium supply seems simply insane. If we do decide to dump the stuff in space (and what ever ocean we launch over), I hope we are smart enough to dump it on the moon or in orbits that don't go too near the sun. At least then we can retrieve it after we realize what we've done. Bob P. P.S. The US government has paid for many studies of the "proper" way to dispose of high level nuclear waste. The same technique has been proposed many times. Simply put, bury it deep in large blocks of basalt, where large is roughly the size of your average mountain. Back filled with ceramics and crushed basalt the decay heat of the waste should fuse the surrounding material into an extremely hard nodule. To the best of my knowledge this has not been tested. Nor has it ever been seriously considered as a waste disposal technique by the federal government, it seems it costs too much. I'll bet it costs less than launching the waste into space. -- Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet Alternate: utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet I am solely responsible for what I say. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 88 04:15:00 GMT From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: access to space; how to deny /* Written 12:26 pm Aug 29, 1988 by henry@utzoo.uucp in m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */ Actually, I think the major remaining single-point failure mode in the system is the VAB itself. /* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */ Uh, isn't NASA 905 also a single point of failure? Seems that the STS is pretty useless without the carrier aircraft to herd it around the country -- and the mods to a stock 747 are non-trivial. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 88 18:00:00 GMT From: necntc!primerd!bree!tomc@ames.arc.nasa.gov Subject: Re: plutonium OK - I've imagined it. Is it possible to build explosion proof containers? There is certainly technology to keep flight recorders intact through a plane crash. Would more of the same work for a rocket explosion? Was anything that survived the Challenger explosion meant to? ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 88 06:41:14 GMT From: tektronix!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: SDI, Asats, and access to orbit In article <687@etive.ed.ac.uk> bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: GILL@QUCDNAST.BITNET writes: <> Maybe I'm an optimist, but I don't believe that such vicious <>civilizations exist... < or even if they did, that they could actually <>traverse space to come here and "silence" us. The energy requirements <>are just too great... < Hans.Moravec@ROVER.RI.CMU.EDU writes: > Now maybe the Berserkers were originally programmed to be very quiet >between executions, and carefully designed to prevent mutations in their >goals. But they would be present in such large numbers across the galaxy >that sooner or later a near fatal run-in with a comet, or radiation from a >stellar flare would modify the program in one in such a way as to remove its >inhibitions against change. That event would seed a Darwinian evolution >of self-reproducing Berserker-derived machines that would acquire the >survival-oriented goals of normal life. You can't fool Mother Nature >forever. Not necessarily. Expose a silicon chip to radiation and you have a useless chip. Expose vacuum tubes to radiation (let's keep an open mind here :-) and your vacuum tubes remain in the same state. Expose an optically-based circuit to radiation and - hmm, anyone out there got an optical circuit to try this on? Software/hardware doesn't mutate. Fail, yes. Mutate, no. As far as a near fatal run-in with a comet, why would that cause change? Fear? Instinct for self-preservation? Of course, if the "berserkers" are organically-based computers then I'd concede your point - but then, they'd just be another life form (a vicious one, but still a life form) and wouldn't really fit the berserker role. ============================================================================== ARPA: @aplvax.jhuapl.edu:trn@warper \ nardo%str.decnet@capsrv.jhuapl.edu } one of these should work UUCP: {backbone!}aplvax!warper!trn / USnail: c/o Johns Hopkins University/APL, Room 7-53, Johns Hopkins Road Laurel, Md. 20707 50% of my opinions are claimed by various federal, state and local governments. The other 50% are mine to dispense with as I see fit. ============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 88 16:19:20 GMT From: wylbb%cunyvm.BITNET@jade.berkeley.edu (Michael Linn) Subject: NASA Select I've heard a lot of mention about "NASA Select", which is presumably some sort of cable TV channel. How can one get access to it? Is it available nationwide or only in certain regions? Is there a fee to subscribe to it? Would someone please fill me in on the details? Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 88 21:43:56 GMT From: dasys1!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST) In article <1988Aug29.172104.10823@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <6137@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >>Excuse me, but are we really supposed to believe that omitting the >>flight crew makes using the old SRBs an acceptable risk? > >Rationally, you have a point. Congress is not rational. Losing hardware >is troublesome, but it would not be anything like the political disaster >that more dead astronauts would be. OK, but remember something else I said in the >> article: you don't have to be sitting in the crew module to die in a Shuttle accident. Wouldn't NATO airshows still have gotten the kibosh if all 3 pilots had ejected safely at Ramstein? >>Challenger is >>every bit as "dead" as its crew, and we cannot afford to lose another >>orbiter under any circumstances... > >Then we'll have to ground the shuttle permanently. There is no way to >fly it without risking loss of another orbiter. The NRC report on >shuttle frequency put it even more strongly: if the shuttle continues >flying, another orbiter *WILL* be lost eventually. Yes, but the NRC doesn't really have any better basis for making a statement like that, than NASA does for implying we won't lose one. Sure, if we used the fleet for 30+ years and expanded it to 10 orbiters, losses would be inevitable. They would also be easier to take. What we cannot afford to do is ace one of the remaining three right now. Playing games with unmanned flights for the sake of getting some use out of the flawed-design SRBs strikes me as unwise. (As your AW&ST synopsis noted, I'm hardly alone.) It would certainly tie up Columbia for more months of retrofit downtime, for one thing. And it would introduce another untried component into the system. If we must use the old SRBs, I say let's strap them onto an ELV core and get some iron up there. Our precious orbiter fleet, AND the people who make them go, deserve only the safest hardware available. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding) ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 01:34:21 GMT From: sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jsalter@oberon.usc.edu (The Math Hacker) Subject: Overpopulation is not our problem In <14147@ames.arc.nasa.gov> csustan!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!watson proclaims: >THERE'S TOO MANY PEOPLE! >OVERPOPULATION IS THE PROBLEM! >HAVE FEWER BABIES! >Actually, I don't think all our current environmental problems are caused >by overpopulation ... just a big hunk. You're talking to the wrong people. The U.S. is NOT currently overpopulated. It just seems that way because of overcrowded cities. Also, the big reason for a lot of our environmental problems is that we've become a very urban nation, and crowd ourselves into places like Seattle, Los Angeles, New York, Dallas, etc., subjecting ourselves to problems that go with them. In fact, we may have a problem with the size of our gene pool. There is a fine line about when a population's gene pool is large enough and diverse enough to continue advancing genetically. With not enough babies being born, we're treading that fine line now, but since we allow so much immigration thats not a great problem, yet. Mexico on the other hand... This is off the top of my head from books I've read. Please correct me if some of it is wrong. Also, in a space-related note, does anyone have the revised shuttle manifest. If it has already been posted I must have missed it. Could someone send me a copy? -- James A. Salter -- Yes, math majors can use UNIX(tm), too... jsalter@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU | sin(x)/n = 6 (Cancel the n's!) ...!ucbvax!voder!polyslo!jsalter | "Type h for help." -- rn ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 88 16:05:40 GMT From: att!ihnp4!twitch!hoqax!lmg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (LARRY GEARY) Subject: Re: SDI In article <1259@mit-caf.MIT.EDU> hamilton@mit-caf.UUCP (David P. Hamilton) writes: >In article <549@unisv.UUCP> vanpelt@unisv.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >>In article <6618@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> David P. Hamilton writes: >>>Another argument (sorry, I'm not being as brief as I'd promised) has >>>undoubtedly been raised before, although I haven't heard a plausible >>>response to it. Any SDI system worth its salt will be capable of >>>controlling access to orbit at the whim of its owners. Do SDI >>>advocates really want to place this power in the hands of a single >>>government, even our own? You don't need an SDI to control access to orbit. The Iranians could deny the U.S. access to space by placing one of their speedboats with sailors with shoulder launched missiles off Cocoa Beach. In fact, anyone else with the desire to do this could probably pull it off, even an individual. Isn't the Ariane launch site near the ocean? How about Vandenberg AF base? Only the Soviets have a reasonably secure, inland launch site. -- Larry Geary | Bush 49 | att!hoqax!lmg Think globally ... Post locally | Dukakis 47 | lmg@hoqax.att.com | Public 0 | ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 06:05:45 GMT From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? Sulfur dioxide is only one cause of acid rain. The other is nitric acid, formed from nitrogen oxides and water. Nitrogen oxides are byproducts of almost any high temperature combustion in air, even when "clean" fuels like hydrogen are burned. They are also formed naturally by lightning, although I suspect this is a relatively minor amount. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 05:54:25 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Re: Orbital Mech Algorithm I, too wrote an orbital simulation using the simple equasions. The spacecraft was accelerated by the sun and as many planets as you wanted to add, so no adjustment was needed to go into orbit around planets. You could fly around from planet to planet and find out how long it took you. Especially fun is flying around the Earth moon system, because of the wierd orbits you can do. It's lots of fun to write such a program. -- Doug Reeder USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!douglas 10 Cyclopedia Square from BITNET: douglas@reed.UUCP Terminus City from ARPA: tektronix!reed!douglas@berkley Terminus,The Foundation Box 502 Reed College,Portland,OR 97202 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #361 ******************* Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Sep 88 23:00:05 EDT Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Wed, 14 Sep 88 22:26:04 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 14 Sep 88 22:25:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 14 Sep 88 22:18:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 14 Sep 88 22:06:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 14 Sep 88 22:05:12 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10943; Wed, 14 Sep 88 19:07:24 PDT id AA10943; Wed, 14 Sep 88 19:07:24 PDT Date: Wed, 14 Sep 88 19:07:24 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809150207.AA10943@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #362 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 362 Today's Topics: Re: Berserker hypothesis Re: Berserker hypothesis Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? Re: Solar System trashcans (Was:The Sun as a trashcan) Re: SDI Re: space exploration/exploitation Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anythin Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Pluton Re: The sun as a trashcan Re: Inverse SETI (Was: ET phone ho ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Sep 88 07:30:31 GMT From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis In article <1789@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> trn@aplvax.UUCP (Tony Nardo) writes: >In article <8808291927.AA04059@angband.s1.gov> Hans.Moravec@ROVER.RI.CMU.EDU >writes: >> Now maybe the Berserkers were originally programmed to be very quiet >>between executions, and carefully designed to prevent mutations in their >>goals. But they would be present in such large numbers across the galaxy >>that sooner or later a near fatal run-in with a comet, or radiation from a >>stellar flare would modify the program in one in such a way as to remove its >>inhibitions against change. That event would seed a Darwinian evolution >>of self-reproducing Berserker-derived machines that would acquire the >>survival-oriented goals of normal life. You can't fool Mother Nature >>forever. > >Not necessarily. Expose a silicon chip to radiation and you have a useless >chip. Not necessarily. Expose a silicon chip to a very small amount of radiation, or a GaAs chip to a slightly larger amount of radiation, etc., and you have a chip with with one or more altered bits. Now, it is true that evolution-inhibiting measures can be designed -- these range from simple error-correction to directives to destroy mutant units, and could for all practical purposes (at least as far as we are concerned) prevent evolution; however, no simple physical law will prevent evolution of berserkers (or anything else that is alive). > Expose vacuum tubes to radiation (let's keep an open mind here :-) >and your vacuum tubes remain in the same state. [. . .] Not necessarily. Ever hear of (or better yet, hear) a Geiger counter? Even though vacuum tubes for radiation-hardened electronics would be designed to have no gas in them for easy ionization by any piddling radiation, a strong cosmic ray might be able to knock enough ions out of the solid material to create ionized vapor sufficient for a transient arc to the cathode. Of course, radiation shielding will reduce or prevent this problem for vacuum tubes, silicon, GaAs, DNA, and whatever else might be useful for specifying berserker genome/programs. >Software/hardware doesn't mutate. Fail, yes. Mutate, no. Actually, I have personally witnessed hardware and software mutation (only 1/2 :-) ). As noted above, no simple physical laws prevent mutation. However, measures can be taken to slow mutation rates even to the point of -- for all practical purposes -- eliminating it. In other words, you can fool nature forever -- but you had better be real good at it. >As far as a near fatal run-in with a comet, why would that cause change? >Fear? Instinct for self-preservation? Possibly knock out all but one of a set of redundant and mutually- correcting memory units (-: as well as causing maintainance problems :-). Designing a berserker to destruct if wounded this badly (as well as if data concerning prime directive becomes too corrupted to regenerate with certainty) rather than risk mutation will alleviate this problem. >Of course, if the "berserkers" are organically-based computers then I'd >concede your point - but then, they'd just be another life form (a vicious >one, but still a life form) and wouldn't really fit the berserker role. Why must berserkers be necessarily non-living? Saberhagan's berserkers, which are completely inhibited with respect to primary goal (the destruction of all life, but themselves and other "goodlives" last), but which evolve in a controlled manner otherwise (with respect to sophistication of form and means of going about their goal), count as a sort of life, even though they are inorganic, but nevertheless they constitute the original definition of berserker in the sense used in the postings in this newsgroup. As a corollary to this, if humans acquired a religion and/or political ideology directing them to spread as much as possible and exterminate all life not required for their own support (and also exterminate all humans not conforming to this religion/ideology), they would count as berserkers, even though they are not machines. -- Lucius Chiaraviglio chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu lucius@tardis.harvard.edu (in case the first one doesn't work) Villainy knows no bounds. . . . ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 08:23:37 GMT From: agate!stew.ssl.berkeley.edu!link@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis In article <2196@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> chiaravi@silver.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes: >In article <1789@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> trn@aplvax.UUCP (Tony Nardo) writes: >>In article <8808291927.AA04059@angband.s1.gov> Hans.Moravec@ROVER.RI.CMU.EDU >>writes: >>> Now maybe the Berserkers were originally programmed to be very quiet Forget this inane discussion. According to all known laws of physics, Berserkers will be discovered. If you have an alternative explanation, submit your response to Physical Review Letters. Dr. Richard Link Space Sciences Laboratory University of California Berkeley, California, 94720 ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 06:53:35 GMT From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (P Douglas Reeder) Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? The greenhouse effect warms the earth up. Particulate matter, from burning coal, etc. cuts down on sunlight. It has been suggested that we may need to balance these effects against one another. -- Doug Reeder USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!douglas 10 Cyclopedia Square from BITNET: douglas@reed.UUCP Terminus City from ARPA: tektronix!reed!douglas@berkley Terminus,The Foundation Box 502 Reed College,Portland,OR 97202 ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 88 18:08:09 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@flash.bellcore.com (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? In article <141@antares.UUCP> pnelson@antares.UUCP (Phil Nelson) writes: >Creating machines that can replicate themselves within a simple environment >will not be difficult, creating machines that can survive and reproduce in >the real world is another matter. I would be very interested to hear who >has concluded that it "doesn't look that far off", I hear practically no >speculation in this area. There was a NASA study on the whole issue of self-replicating machines a couple of years ago; unfortunately I do not have references handy. If you look at things like the automated-factory work, the manufacturing proper is nearly a solved problem. >I prefer not to be too specific about the obstacles, but consider that there >are no examples of self-maintaining machines in our entire technology... As I said, we aren't quite there yet. Incidentally, "self-maintaining" and "self-replicating" aren't quite the same thing. Reproduce vigorously enough and the maintenance doesn't need to be too effective. >I cannot agree that the environment is not particularly variable, the >environment was defined in the hypothesis as the universe, which, since it >includes everything that is, has to be about as variable as you can get. Planets are highly variable. Space is not. Space itself is a very boring place that hasn't changed a lot in billions of years and probably won't change a lot for the foreseeable future. >Well, the most obvious change that might occur (apart from simply losing >interest in the original purpose) is that a machine designed to destroy >might begin to destroy other such machines. Depends on whether it's a general-purpose destruction system or simply a planet-sterilizer. On the whole, though, the argument is reasonable. >If the machines had something >like intelligence (probably required in order to have any chance of achieving >the purpose) they might easily organize into warring camps, each group could >become so absorbed dealing with the immediate threat (each other) that they >would be delayed indefinitely from pursuing the original purpose. Not if they're reasonably intelligent. The most surprising alliances can occur against a common threat. (Ask any policeman what it's like to try to break up a family quarrel. If you want another example, consider that the Western democracies spent much of WW2 allied with the biggest mass murderer in human history. [Stalin -- Hitler was only number two.]) Remember also that with self-replication, it's no big deal to pursue two objectives simultaneously. The nations of Western Europe managed to colonize the Americas despite putting a much higher priority on killing each other; once a colony got started it didn't need much support. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 88 18:56:25 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!sq!msb@bellcore.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Solar System trashcans (Was:The Sun as a trashcan) > (2) nobody in their right mind would allow hazardous! launches of > very hazardous waste. Doesn't anyone out there remember the > Challenger? It is much less costly and much less dangerous to > bury the stuff in the arctic. Exactly whose territory in the arctic did you have in mind -- Canada, the USSR, the USA, or Greenland/Denmark? Seems to me that, hazardous wastes of whatever kind should stay within the country of origin except by specific agreement to the contrary. You have perhaps heard of the ship from Italy which has so far tried three countries to unload its hazardous waste cargo? With regard to nuclear waste specifically, I think it was Arthur C. Clarke who pointed out that future generations might regard destruction of this material (by any use of space) as one more instance of a valuable energy resource being wasted... Please do not follow this article up in sci.space unless you keep the topic relevant to space. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com We can design a system that's proof against accident and stupidity; but we CAN'T design one that's proof against deliberate malice. -- a spaceship designer in Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey" ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 10:53:57 GMT From: lim@csvax.caltech.edu (Kian-Tat Lim) Subject: Re: SDI Something that has been bugging me throughout this "denying access to space via Stinger" discussion. How much is the warhead of a shoulder-fired weapon going to disturb an SSME/Ariane/whatever, considering that the hottest target is the exhaust plume? With all that energy spewing out, it would seem to me that the extra "bump" from a 50-pound explosive (to be generous) would be negligible. -- Kian-Tat Lim (ktl@wagvax.caltech.edu, KTL @ CITCHEM.BITNET, GEnie: K.LIM1) ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 88 22:10:15 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@ucsd.edu (John Pantone) Subject: Re: space exploration/exploitation (Peter Nelson) writes: > Why can't the promoters of these ventures take the launch > part of the operation offshore, like to some Caribbean Island? > Many of those islands would be thrilled to have the revenue ... They could - especially if the Island isn't too fond of the U.S.A (and doesn't care when pressure is put on them to kick the guy back out). They may even do it - when and if there is any demonstratable profit in it - probably after the Europeans and Japaneese have begun to make Francs and Yen launching satellites, etc. Now my question: What will NASA and the U.S. Govt. say/do when a prominent space scientist LEAVES THE US AND GOES TO THE SOVIET UNION BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE ACTION IS? Does anyone really think that this is not inevitable - given the deplorable state of the US space non-program? -- These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer. John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, 9805 Scranton Rd., San Diego, CA 92121 ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.GE.COM GEnie: J.PANTONE ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 88 17:47:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk!william@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anythin >To be serious for just one minute, I don't believe that we will be likely to >have visitors from some other star in the near future. Our radio envelope >has been travelling out from our solar system for less than 100 years. This >means that only stars within that *radiosphere* will have had any notification >of our presence. This sphere encompasses very few stars when compared to the >billions in the rest of the galaxy. Chances are that there are no advanced >lifeforms in that sphere capable of galactic space travel. Worse than that. Powerful wide-band transmissions have been going on for less than that time, and this race will (may) have to spend half that time getting to us. At 100 l.y., we won't hear from them for another 100 years. Unless they know better ... ... Bill ************************************************************************ Bill Witts, CS Dept. * Nel Mezzo del cammin di nostra vita UCL, London, Errrp * mi ritrovai per una selva oscura william@uk.ac.ucl.cs(UK) * che la diritta via era smarrita. william@cs.ucl.ac.uk(US) *********************************************** ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 88 18:43:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk!william@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Pluton Listen you fools, if you REALLY want to get rid of all this nasty radioactive junk, you can sell it to any one of thousands of hungry buyers who would just *love* to have some decent fissionable material to play volleyball with. On a more serious note, (not difficult), wouldn't it be easier to send the stuff away from the sun and detonate it when it entered interstellar space? This assumes that you are prepared to put the stuff into space in the first place, but it sounds better than using mega-boosters just to sun-dive it. ... Bill ************************************************************************ Bill Witts, CS Dept. * Nel Mezzo del cammin di nostra vita UCL, London, Errrp * mi ritrovai per una selva oscura william@uk.ac.ucl.cs(UK) * che la diritta via era smarrita. william@cs.ucl.ac.uk(US) *********************************************** ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 88 19:41:32 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!newcastle.ac.uk!kelpie!pgc@uunet.uu.net (P. G. Cutting) Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan Judgeing by the comments raised by this subject a large number of people seem to be scared s**tless by what is simply an element. And are willing to consider hair-brain ideas like chucking the worlds Plutonium in the Sun. This seems to me , to be completely irational. Peter_Cutting@uk.ac.newcastle ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 88 18:16:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk!william@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Inverse SETI (Was: ET phone ho >Understand, I don't expect major improvements in lifespan tomorrow, or >next year, or even next decade. But we are starting to understand the >detailed biochemical functioning of a few very small portions of our >physiology. It is fairly safe to predict massive progress in this within >a few decades. The biggest problem with old age is simply that we don't >understand the details of why it happens. That will change. This is a matter that I always find deeply disturbing. Suppose that old age could be cured, and *there is no proof that it can't*, and that it is suddenly all solved in, say 50 years time. Then I could be one of the last people ever to have to die of it. People 10 years younger than me will last for ever, and I just missed the boat. Wow. >>But did anyone launch a multi-year enquiry when a ship was lost? People were >>much more willing to risk their lives then. > >Nonsense. You're looking at a pathological phenomenon in a persistently- >underfunded branch of the US government, not a general trend. If access >to space were adequate to permit an attempt at, say, a lunar colony to >be made *without* having to beg approval from government bureaucrats and >a Congress full of fat lawyers, there would be half a dozen of them already, >risks notwithstanding. There is no shortage of people willing to risk their >lives for what they see as a worthwhile cause; the problem is that >spaceflight is currently too expensive for such people to fund it from >their own resources. Airflight is a better example. Enquiries are launched if a flight fails, but they only last any time if it is believed that something really serious is at fault. People risk their lives doing all sorts of things, *and know the risk*. I would imagine most of us know someone who has died on the roads, yet I know few people who are actually prepared to avoid driving on account of it. ... Bill ************************************************************************ Bill Witts, CS Dept. * Nel Mezzo del cammin di nostra vita UCL, London, Errrp * mi ritrovai per una selva oscura william@uk.ac.ucl.cs(UK) * che la diritta via era smarrita. william@cs.ucl.ac.uk(US) *********************************************** ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #362 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Sep 88 06:23:19 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 15 Sep 88 04:29:51 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 15 Sep 88 04:29:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 15 Sep 88 04:16:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 15 Sep 88 04:07:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Thu, 15 Sep 88 04:05:09 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11092; Thu, 15 Sep 88 01:07:00 PDT id AA11092; Thu, 15 Sep 88 01:07:00 PDT Date: Thu, 15 Sep 88 01:07:00 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809150807.AA11092@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #363 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 363 Today's Topics: energy production on Earth Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST Re: access to space; how to deny more TV viewing Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST STS-26 sim More on SETI Re: Skintight space suits Re: space exploration/exploitation Re: space exploration/exploitation Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Sep 88 14:37:07 GMT From: spdcc!eli@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Steve Elias) Subject: energy production on Earth followups default to sci.misc. Dani Eder mentioned that the total energy production on Earth has gone up by 7% per year for the last 50 years or so. do folks out there think that this rate of increase will continue? if it does, we'll be producing 30 times as much energy as today in 50 years. and 900 times as much energy in 100 years. clearly, something will have to give. what are your thoughts on this? is there a point where we will have to worry about pure thermal effects from energy production/usage? (assuming we manage to get greenhouse gas production under control first). keep in mind that the greenhouse effect is theoretically a feedback cycle -- it might be started by either massive heat production or by greenhouse gas production. (i'm using the term 'production' loosely.) will the energy growth rate decrease?? will we have a significant portion of our energy production and use in space by 100 years from now?? stay tuned for more news -- next century, i suppose. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 13:47:58 GMT From: uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg@gatech.edu (Gregory N. Hullender) Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST In article <688@nancy.UUCP> krj@frith.UUCP (Ken Josenhans) writes: >What I fear this means is the next >shuttle accident will be the *last* US manned spaceflight, at least for >several decades. Well, my first reaction to that is "why wait? Cancel it now." As I've mentioned before, it makes me sick when I think how much interplanetary data we might have had if we'd been able to launch anything since Voyager, as contrasted to what scientific data we've got from the shuttle, which is exactly zero. -- Greg Hullender uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg 3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 16:37:19 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: access to space; how to deny In article <21900036@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >Uh, isn't NASA 905 also a single point of failure? Seems that the STS >is pretty useless without the carrier aircraft to herd it around the >country -- and the mods to a stock 747 are non-trivial. That's why NASA has just contracted with BOEING for another SCA (Shutle Carrier Aircraft). -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool Mom". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 16:59:42 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: more TV viewing [] Those of you with TVRO systems, circle Sept. 8 on your calenders. In the morning, (probably around 7:00 am Eastern), there will be a countdown demonstration test and on pad abort for the STS-26 crew. They've been broadcast in the past, so expect video from this one. NASA Select TV is on Satcom F2, xpndr 13. Also on Sept. 8 is the next Arianne launch. Expect a launch a month for the next year. This may be seen on Spacenet 1, most likley at about 7:00 PM eastern (video should start about an hour earlier). They are broadcast in NTSC video. On September 24 at about 3:00 AM Pacific is an Atlas-NOAA launch from Vandenburg which should be carried on Select. Happy viewing. -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool Mom". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 16:47:49 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST In article <688@proxftl.UUCP> greg@proxftl.UUCP (Gregory N. Hullender) writes: > > it makes me sick when I think how much interplanetary data >we might have had if we'd been able to launch anything since Voyager, as >contrasted to what scientific data we've got from the shuttle, which is >exactly zero. >-- A curious definition of "zero" to be sure. Obviously the researchers from 3 successful Spacelab missions might disagree. John Scully Power, the oceanographer on board STS-41D would likewise disagree, simply by the fact that he saw structures and currents in the ocean that no one had ever noticed before. If the data return is "zero" why would 3M continue to waste money on their CFES experiments flight after flight. While it remains a trade secret exactly what they're working on, one rumor has it that it may help cure 40% of all arthritis in the country once it is put into production. Hardly a zero in my book. Oh, say, what about that Solar Maximum Satillite? now since that is repaired, and returning data on what might be the greatest sun-spot peak ever, would you classify that as "zero"? Will the Hubble Space Telescope (made for the shuttle and astronaut servicing) return "zero" data?? > Greg Hullender uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg > 3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 > Go back to your dictionary. -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool Mom". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 16:34:49 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: STS-26 sim [] The guys at JSC Public Affairs felt that it was unncessary to broadcast the sim on NASA select. It was called a "monkey wrench" simulation, since the guys in the back room were to throw every conceivable malfunction at the crew and see it they could fix it. This included the left engine going out during launch, a TDRSS deployment failure requiring an emergency EVA to correct, along with a bunch of other goodies. What I am wondering is if it might have been broadcast locally in the Houston area on cable, and if so, is there anyone on The Net, who might have been able to videotape it? I always wanted to see one of these guys and would love to be able to get a tape of it. Next time I'll call up JSC and complain!! Yeah, that's the ticket. .. (a friend of mine slept through an early morning satellite deployment once, called them up and had it replayed just for him). P.S. Actually, a couple of small pieces were broadcast, the launch and a news conferences yesterday. The launch video was some previous Discovery mission, and was about 7 seconds behind the real sim. So the PAO was just announcing liftoff, and the engines hadn't even ignited. -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool Mom". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Sep 88 10:21:52 CDT From: "John Kelsey" Subject: More on SETI Some possible answers to the "where are they?" paradox: 1.) Singularity: (See Vernor Vinge's _Marooned In Realtime_!) Essentially, the theory here is that when a race reaches a certain point in its develop- ment, it becomes impossible for that race to be understood by critters like us. They might have no interest whatsoever in exploring stars, or they might like to explore, but may be able to do it from their home planet. Think of the Martians in RAH's _Stranger in a Strange Land_, would they have been interested in contacting us at all? 2.) What if the evolution of intelligence is a LOT rarer than we've thought? Suppose, for example, that the development of a central nervous system does not immediately pay off, but requires some further development. It may even be a hinderance in evolutionary terms, since it provides a vulnerable target for attack. Suppose the organism that went through the stage when central nervous system-equiped creatures are less likely to survive in some place of relative safety, or during a time when there was little to harm it? Any biologists out there want to trash this therory? 3.) What if life forms that develop are REAL different, like Niven's Outsider race? They might not be even vaguely interested in us. Or they might be here now, waiting for us to become intelligent enough to discover them. Is a beehive intelligent? Could one become self-aware, in some strange way? Would we realize it, if the beehive didn't want us to? (Could a beehive "want?") 4.) What if the things that develop have no particular curiosity, or are as a race cowards (Niven's Puppeteers)? They might know of us, but not wish to get involved, because "Ghod knows what those crazy ape-things might try!"? 5.) Suppose that, in order for a race of egocentric, fast-breeding creatures like us to get off world before our resourses die out, that race must learn somehow to control the unbounded expansion of its population? And suppose that the society that develops is one in which the idea of having more than one or two children is as revolting to them as canabalism is to us? Then, this race would never expand out and colonize the galaxy, but would simply re-engineer their star, and maybe move on when their star began to die out. Well, tell me what you think... -- John Kelsey C445585@UMCVMB.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 15:27:29 GMT From: kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) Subject: Re: Skintight space suits I understand that my last posting (which attempted to answer some questions about the Space Activity Suit) got garbled in transmission to sci.space. I have reposted the text to Space Digest - if this is not sufficient to reach those interested, please send me email and I will try to post it directly to you. kwr "Jest so ya know..." kr0u@andrew.cmu.edu kr0u%andrew@cmccvb.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 19:29:00 GMT From: kevin@csvax.caltech.edu (Kevin Van Horn) Subject: Re: space exploration/exploitation In article <3e2c73f2.ae47@apollo.COM> nelson_p@apollo.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > I talked to the D.O.T. and they said that they've issued > 2 licenses [to launch rockets] so far, one to Conatec and one to McDonnell > Douglas. She also said that they have quite a long list > of other applicants. The fact that they have "quite a long list of applicants" but have only issued 2 licenses so far sounds to me like obstructionism. Dragging your feet in issuing licenses is a good way to destroy promising startups, which can't afford to sit around cooling their heels while they wait for permission to launch. B.T.W., it's a sad commentary on the state of liberty in this country that, even with absolutely no evidence that your operation will harm or endanger anyone else, you can be fined and thrown in jail for providing a desperately-needed service -- the launching of satellites -- without Uncle Sam's prior permission. Kevin S. Van Horn ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 20:30:41 GMT From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) Subject: Re: space exploration/exploitation In article <48@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: >Now my question: What will NASA and the U.S. Govt. say/do when a >prominent space scientist LEAVES THE US AND GOES TO THE SOVIET UNION >BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE ACTION IS? Does anyone really think that this >is not inevitable - given the deplorable state of the US space >non-program? Okay, you want an answer? NOTHING. First, we are civilian, but we have lots of ex-military, this is quite a screen. You here it when people defect either way, sure. Second, there are ex-ESA people in NASA and ex-NASA people in ESA. We can't really coerce anyone except for the standard Oaths taken for all Government employment. It's not clear what you mean by prominent space scientist. The USA could care less if it were a planetary scientist, but a rocket designer, sure. You have to make the distinction between space as an application doing research to get into space versus during research in space. "Space science" usually means the latter (like planetary science). The US has never really had a strong space science program compared to the more visible "manned" programs (order of magnitude). Launching rockets and putting people are only part of the technology (and politics). Third, I think everyone here is largely aware of those other aspect of Soviet society which the West looks down on. (Again part of the ex-military would shun this). Now, economic competitiveness aside, there is JSA. The language barriers are immense as well as the cultural barriers, but this is a society with money burning in their pockets, and an interest in technology and (growing interest in space). What DO YOU want us to say? When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. Maybe we need a test case? Are you looking for a new test case like Sputnick? [Ya, but our Germans are better than their Germans...] Believe me when I saw that people have thought about this topic and its not on anyone's minds. Just because we can't lift people at ANY instant. Just wait until we have an in orbit disaster. (Or the Soviets for that matter) Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 23:09:51 GMT From: dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!dalex@bu-cs.bu.edu (Dave Alexander) Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? In article <3065@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: > Well over 90% of the global atmospheric loading of sulpher dioxide > is volcanic. This makes you wonder why acid rain is such a recent > problem (and it is). Could it be that _other_ pollutants are mainly > responsible? What about nitrates? I learned some interesting things on a visit this past spring to the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest. One is that, since the 1970's, the amount of acidity that seems to be caused by sulfates has diminished. What has taken up the slack has been an increased contribution of nitric acid from nitrates. The reason for this is that it people are burning less coal, but driving cars more, at least in the northeast. -- Buffalo Bill -- Why are there people like Frank? Why is there so much trouble in the world? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #363 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Sep 88 06:21:43 EDT Received: by po3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU (5.54/3.15) id ; Fri, 16 Sep 88 04:31:54 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Fri, 16 Sep 88 04:31:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 16 Sep 88 04:22:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 16 Sep 88 04:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ANDREW.CMU.EDU (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Fri, 16 Sep 88 04:03:34 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00541; Fri, 16 Sep 88 01:05:42 PDT id AA00541; Fri, 16 Sep 88 01:05:42 PDT Date: Fri, 16 Sep 88 01:05:42 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809160805.AA00541@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #364 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 364 Today's Topics: space news from Aug 15 AW&ST Re: NASA Prediction Bulletins NASA Prediction Bulletin Format Re: SOlar System trashcans (Was:The Sun as a trashcan) Re: SDI, Asats, and access to orbit Re: Life on Jupiter Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) Phoenix ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Sep 88 03:24:59 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Aug 15 AW&ST ESA engineers are investigating a LOX-arm retraction problem that almost aborted the July 21 Ariane launch: the third-stage LOX arm stopped partway through its retraction sequence, but moved clear just in time for the launch to continue. SDIO fails to meet its Aug 1 target for revised recommendations on the Space Based Interceptor. A major DoD review of SBI is imminent, and with SDIO not having got its own act together, SBI's supporters are not optimistic. Flight readiness firing of the shuttle, Aug 10, goes okay. Remaining milestones before a late-Sept launch are one more SRB test, complete data review of the FRF, SSME post-FRF checkout, and successful repair of the RCS nitrogen-tetroxide leak. The FRF slipped a week after a valve problem aborted the Aug 4 attempt, but the valve replacement was completed ahead of schedule. (It now looks like the problem may have been sensor error.) The only real problem noticed during the FRF countdown was a bit of nitrogen in a fuel line; this may be a minor leak or a measurement error. Analysis of SRB aft-skirt loads will continue for several days. Infrared and mass-spectrometer hydrogen- leak detector results look clean. The next job [completed successfully] will be sealing the RCS leak. This will be done by cutting through the aft wall of the cargo bay and the forward wall of the OMS pod, clamping a clamshell fitting around the leaking joint, and filling it with sealant under pressure. The wall cutouts will be closed by bolting aluminum plates over them; the plates will be removable in case this needs to be done again, and will in fact be stronger (although heavier) than the areas of wall removed. Chinese controllers prepare to command reentry of Chinese satellite carrying a secondary West German materials payload. Inmarsat to issue RFP for new-generation Inmarsat series using multiple spot beams for marine navigation and communication. Soviet cosmonaut Anatoly Levchenko dies Aug 6 of a brain tumor. He flew on the Soyuz TM-4 mission to Mir last December, and may have been meant to be commander for the first manned mission of the Soviet shuttle. Spacehab and NASA sign deal giving Spacehab six partial shuttle flights, starting 1991, with payment deferred until after each flight. SDIO begins work on "Super", a survivable solar array hardened against the Van Allen belts, lasers, particle beams, and nuclear explosions. It will be flight-tested in 1993, maybe from the shuttle, and the test might carry piggyback experiments that could benefit from having 5-10kW of power available. Super is not yet slated for any particular uses, but the Boost Surveillance Tracking Satellite is an obvious candidate. Also underway is a less ambitious project called Scopa, started by the USAF and now getting some SDI funding too. The idea here is to put small concentrators over the individual cells of a solar array, with the concentrators designed so that light coming in at an angle will not reach the cells themselves. This shields the cells against laser attack from any direction except precisely head on. A 500W Scopa panel will fly in FY1990. SDI studies methods of retrieving malfunctioning nuclear reactors from orbit. One possibility is using a modified OMV to tow a failing reactor satellite to higher orbit. The study will probably recommend modifications to SDI's space-reactor project, SP-100, such as standard grappling fittings. SDI says a joint effort in space-reactor rescue with the USSR would be sensible, although no formal approach has yet been made. Cosmos 1900, the ailing Soviet nuclear radarsat, is due to reenter early in Sept. Shuttle-C unmanned heavylift shuttle derivative is gaining support as an interim heavylift booster, specifically for space-station assembly. The interest is especially strong since ALS no longer includes the goal of a near-term "interim ALS" heavylift booster. Phase 2 study contracts for Shuttle-C were awarded recently. It could be ready in 1993-4, using SRBs, tank, and engine section identical to the shuttle, but with the rest of the orbiter replaced by a cylindrical payload shroud. Payload to low orbit could be 178 klbs. Five shuttle-C launches could replace thirteen shuttle launches (out of twenty) in station assembly. (There is a problem in that the station people must plan on using shuttle launches unless/until Shuttle-C is officially funded for development.) Initial Shuttle-C SRBs would probably be drawn from the stock of pre-Challenger SRBs still in storage but no longer considered safe for manned flight. No attempt would be made to recover Shuttle-C's SSMEs; they would be SSMEs that are near the end of their rated lives as shuttle engines. NASA is no longer hoping for more than about 10 flights per SSME, and this will create a substantial pool of "retired" engines by the early 1990s. SSME recovery for Shuttle-C is considered too complex and costly. Various payload masses could be accommodated by using either two or three SSMEs, running them at either 100% or 104% of rated thrust, and by using either ordinary shuttle SRBs or the new ASRMs which will be available in the 90s. A three-SSME, 104%, ASRM Shuttle-C could launch 190 klbs into low orbit from the Cape. Development costs including first flight are estimated at $1.9G, although NASA thinks that number (derived from general cost models rather than detailed analysis) is too high, given that the only major work needed is the payload shroud and the return to production of orbiter aft thrust structures. A generally-favorable OTA report said that $800M should be adequate; NASA is studying the issue. The OTA study said that Shuttle-C is not cost-effective if flight rate rises above 2-3 flights per year, given its high incremental costs ($235M per launch), but it could be quite cost effective at those rates as a way of offloading the shuttle. Inmarsat awards $8M contract to China Satellite Launch and Tracking Control General to provide tracking/telemetry/command services for the Pacific-area Inmarsat 2 satellites, starting in 1990. A dedicated tracking station near Beijing will be used. -- NASA is into artificial | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology stupidity. - Jerry Pournelle | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 88 20:37:00 GMT From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: NASA Prediction Bulletins Inasmuch as Dr. Kelso is now posting orbital elements regularly to sci.space instead of rec.ham-radio, I shall no longer be posting the elemnts for Mir and Salyut 7 separately, as it represents a duplication of effort. I urge the moderator of Space Digest to give the same consideration to Dr. Kelso's postings of the full prediction bulletins as he gave to my postings of the space station elements; since they are timely data, allowing them to spend several weeks on the queue would be A Bad Thing. During periods when Mir is known to be maneuvering, I may continue to make mid-week postings of its elements so that predictions may be updated. I shall attempt to give this higher priority during times that Mir is expected to make visible overfights at mid-northern latitudes. Many thanks to Dr. Kelso for an invaluable service to the net community. Kevin Kenny UUCP: {uunet,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny Illini Space Development Society ARPA Internet or CSNet: kenny@CS.UIUC.EDU P.O. Box 2255, Station A Champaign, Illinois, 61820 Voice: (217) 333-6680 ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 88 18:03:44 GMT From: ens@blackbird.afit.af.mil (Operational Sciences) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format As a service to the amateur satellite community, the following description of the NASA Prediction Bulletin's two-line orbital element set format is uploaded to rec.ham-radio on a monthly basis. ============================================================================== Data for each satellite consists of three lines in the following format: AAAAAAAAAAA 1 NNNNNU NNNNNAAA NNNNN.NNNNNNNN +.NNNNNNNN +NNNNN-N +NNNNN-N N NNNNN 2 NNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NNNNNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNNN NN.NNNNNNNNNNNNNN Line 1 is a eleven-character name. Lines 2 and 3 are the standard Two-Line Orbital Element Set Format identical to that used by NASA and NORAD. The format description is: Line 2 Column Description 01-01 Line Number of Element Data 03-07 Satellite Number 10-11 International Designator (Last two digits of launch year) 12-14 International Designator (Launch number of the year) 15-17 International Designator (Piece of launch) 19-20 Epoch Year (Last two digits of year) 21-32 Epoch (Julian Day and fractional portion of the day) 34-43 First Time Derivative of the Mean Motion or Ballistic Coefficient (Depending of ephemeris type) 45-52 Second Time Derivative of Mean Motion (Blank if N/A) 54-61 BSTAR drag term if GP4 general perturbation theory was used. Otherwise, radiation pressure coefficient. 63-63 Ephemeris type 65-68 Element number 69-69 Check Sum (Modulo 10) (Letters, blanks, periods = 0; minus sign = 1) Line 3 Column Description 01-01 Line Number of Element Data 03-07 Satellite Number 09-16 Inclination [Degrees] 18-25 Right Ascension of the Ascending Node [Degrees] 27-33 Eccentricity (decimal point assumed) 35-42 Argument of Perigee [Degrees] 44-51 Mean Anomaly [Degrees] 53-63 Mean Motion [Revs per day] 64-68 Revolution number at epoch [Revs] 69-69 Check Sum (Modulo 10) All other columns are blank or fixed. Example: NOAA 6 1 11416U 86 50.28438588 0.00000140 67960-4 0 5293 2 11416 98.5105 69.3305 0012788 63.2828 296.9658 14.24899292346978 Note that the International Designator fields are usually blank, as issued in the NASA Prediction Bulletins. Dr TS Kelso Asst Professor of Space Operations tkelso@icc.afit.af.mil Air Force Institute of Technology ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 00:37:51 GMT From: tektronix!percival!gary@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Gary Wells) Subject: Re: SOlar System trashcans (Was:The Sun as a trashcan) In article <387@didsgn.UUCP> till@didsgn.UUCP (didsgn) writes: >In article <2821@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) writes: >] >The easiest way to get rid of nuclear waste would probably be to >] >use hard land it on the moon. Would it be possible to build a >] >] Please don't do this! > >Seriously, the idea doesn't seem that stupid. >Is your objection one of principle, or do you have specific reasons? >(I am not flaming- honestly! Just would like to know your opinion...) Yes, it _does_ seem that stupid! We will be colonizing the moon _long_ before we are attempt to colonize on other bodies, especially the Sun. Assuming that all the technical problems could be solved (detailed previously) the Sol would be a good place for all kinds of wastes, especially nuclear, becuase that is the natural enviroment there. But until we have thuorghly explored the surface of the moon, and decided whether there are places that we absolutley don't want to use for anything else (can we meet either of those requirements on Earth, yet?), then I don't want ANY kind of trash splattered all over the surface. It _might_ be a nice gesture for us to throw all our unwanted items onto the surface of the Moon, which by all accounts will need all the help in the realm of raw materials it can get. But practically speaking, if we have the spare cash to to pay the "astronomical" (sort of a pun, huh?) entrance fee to the Lunar Landfill, I think I'd rather have those raw materials recycled right here. _Do_ try to engage your brain, before posting! (That is a mild flame, but you deserved it. Sorry) -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Still working on _natural_ intelligence. gary@percival (...!tektronix!percival!gary) ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 00:37:55 GMT From: aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: Re: SDI, Asats, and access to orbit leonard@bucket writes: In article <687@etive.ed.ac.uk> bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes: [Someone:] Jupiter cannot be left out [from the list of planets > that may harbor life]. At some altitudes, the atmosphere is > much the same as Earth's. Does somebody have a hypothetical gradient of pressure, temperature, and composition vs. altitude of the Jovian atmosphere? I'd be interested. Thanks -- John Gregor johng%ecrcvax.UUCP@pyramid.COM ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 22:05:02 GMT From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) Rather than dropping waste INTO the sun, how about hanging a big lightsail on it and letting it ride on out? Conversely, could a properly used lightsail provide the deceleration needed for a sun drop? -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding) ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 01:47:25 GMT From: aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: Phoenix > I realize that this is highly unoriginal but I want to get people >thinking about it - PLEASE, the new shuttle orbiter *must* be named Phoenix! There is already a spacecraft (design) named Phoenix, a single-stage to-orbit by Gary Hudson of Pacific American Launch Systems. It was first published in IEEE EASCON in 1985. The Phoenix is a VTOL single stage vehicle, which means it expects to land on its tail with rockets blazing. It looks not unlike an overgrown Gemini capsule, transports 10 to 30 k lbs to orbit at $10 to $40 per pound, and uses an "aerospike" engine (see recent discussion in this forum). Hudson has this to say about reusable vehicles: "Launch vehicles have evolved from the technology of artillery rockets, and unfortunately have carried the "ammunition" philosophy to regrettable extremes. Most designers of launchers have never worked in the other half of the aerospace business, building civil and military aircraft, and have thus not been exposed to the side of the business that emphasizes reuse and reliability. Modern vehicle designers like to think that they have a good "track record" when they complete 97% of their assigned missions. The other 3% of the time, missions are a complete failure. Such a record in civil aviation would not get a vehicle FAA certification, much less acceptance by the marketplace. "It is no argument to say that launch vehicles are more complex devices than, for example, an F-15 or 767. Clearly they are not. In addition, the argument that we sometimes have to go to great lengths for safety's sake with manned rockets is a poor excuse. While rockets are spoken of as "man-rated", transport airplanes are "man, woman, and child-rated". We would not think of testing a new aircraft unmanned, but it is standard procedure in the rocket business. "Understanding the philosophical gulf between the "ammunition" theory of boosters and the "aircraft" way of conducting business is vital to accepting the logic of Phoenix development, test, and operation..." --JoSH ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #364 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Sep 88 05:33:51 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sat, 17 Sep 88 04:29:36 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat, 17 Sep 88 04:29:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 17 Sep 88 04:12:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 17 Sep 88 04:05:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sat, 17 Sep 88 04:04:32 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01820; Sat, 17 Sep 88 01:06:42 PDT id AA01820; Sat, 17 Sep 88 01:06:42 PDT Date: Sat, 17 Sep 88 01:06:42 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809170806.AA01820@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #365 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 365 Today's Topics: NASA Prediction Bulletins Frequently asked SPACE questions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Sep 88 01:47:38 GMT From: ens@blackbird.afit.af.mil (Operational Sciences) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times weekly. As a service to the amateur satellite community, the most current of these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space. This week's elements are provided below. The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. Note: The number above is the new number in Fairborn, Ohio. Note: These bulletins were previously posted to rec.ham-radio but I no longer have access to that newsgroup at my new location. Please pass the word to rec.ham-radio concerning the location of these postings. - Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #375 - GOES 2 1 10061U 88248.55871669 -.00000007 10000-3 0 1415 2 10061 6.4406 71.8313 0005386 149.2752 210.7619 1.00263827 2518 GPS-0001 1 10684U 88245.76799810 0.00000013 0 9490 2 10684 63.4658 109.7712 0101164 197.8453 161.9413 2.00564024 62747 GPS-0002 1 10893U 88239.23920919 -.00000029 0 9097 2 10893 64.5663 350.7723 0142972 30.6653 330.1737 2.00564414 75437 GOES 3 1 10953U 88228.66805303 0.00000086 10000-3 0 5260 2 10953 5.0557 74.5535 0002616 160.6000 200.3414 1.00280276 38572 SeaSat 1 1 10967U 88244.35512614 0.00000349 16930-3 0 141 2 10967 108.0079 51.1656 0002138 268.6915 91.4071 14.33854985532535 GPS-0003 1 11054U 88240.55558513 -.00000029 0 9383 2 11054 64.1464 347.2868 0051834 119.9821 240.5545 2.00570050 72472 GPS-0004 1 11141U 88247.13942807 0.00000013 0 310 2 11141 63.4560 109.6285 0055233 325.5595 34.1637 2.00559714 71305 NOAA 6 1 11416U 88251.03823468 0.00000233 11484-3 0 7526 2 11416 98.4969 250.6548 0010879 217.9991 142.0440 14.25191367477566 Solar Max 1 11703U 88249.88148714 0.00014432 45209-3 0 6829 2 11703 28.5002 88.9539 0003448 84.6160 275.4832 15.31531608475973 GPS-0006 1 11783U 88245.10428240 -.00000029 0 7996 2 11783 63.9758 346.8814 0134629 64.3030 297.1187 2.00562257 61208 GOES 4 1 11964U 88245.38571501 -.00000239 10000-3 0 98 2 11964 4.7579 76.2714 0001751 109.7384 250.7295 1.00271361 44973 GOES 5 1 12472U 88247.46965142 -.00000248 10000-3 0 6234 2 12472 1.7605 86.9661 0002287 38.0516 322.6027 1.00263579 25737 UOSAT 1 1 12888U 88249.25190348 0.00014285 42597-3 0 2879 2 12888 97.6155 284.6321 0002864 121.5758 238.5923 15.34764576385014 RS-08 1 12998U 88248.40785558 0.00000012 10000-3 0 5375 2 12998 82.9566 31.6319 0018594 243.3246 116.5886 12.02965844294945 RS-05 1 12999U 88249.35875503 0.00000012 10000-3 0 5247 2 12999 82.9709 25.8971 0011539 179.2179 180.9046 12.05071616295579 RS-07 1 13001U 88249.34792947 0.00000013 10000-3 0 4038 2 13001 82.9606 16.3653 0023201 88.1594 272.2243 12.08707428296463 Meteor 2-08 1 13113U 88245.60005115 0.00000076 63463-4 0 5998 2 13113 82.5386 288.0994 0015973 147.1294 213.0868 13.83869004325321 Salyut 7 1 13138U 88250.73197755 0.00003988 13266-3 0 2220 2 13138 51.6124 255.6668 0001913 87.0239 273.0475 15.33491325364599 Meteor 2-09 1 13718U 88246.34377952 0.00000068 32742-4 0 7025 2 13718 81.2450 203.0640 0057637 96.9656 263.8086 14.12990820294909 GOES 6 1 14050U 88243.43219514 0.00000116 0 8203 2 14050 0.5267 83.9697 0003910 113.5667 162.2174 1.00268796 3696 OSCAR 10 1 14129U 88239.30510271 -.00000138 10000-3 0 3525 2 14129 27.1492 307.6972 6027104 331.5568 6.0030 2.05882335 11141 GPS-0008 1 14189U 88246.69426127 0.00000013 0 5468 2 14189 63.0797 108.3717 0128379 212.8617 146.4132 2.00554961 37677 Meteor 2-10 1 14452U 88236.05663704 0.00000159 66423-4 0 6473 2 14452 81.1621 232.2087 0094056 234.8858 124.3494 14.21829784250171 LandSat 5 1 14780U 88246.04793825 0.00000540 12998-3 0 5194 2 14780 98.2117 307.1577 0004215 67.5339 292.6299 14.57115054239607 UOSAT 2 1 14781U 88247.25632110 0.00000612 12999-3 0 3423 2 14781 98.0478 308.0125 0013502 138.6116 221.6102 14.62398684240590 LDEF 1 14898U 88246.06259631 0.00009264 24713-3 0 6155 2 14898 28.5050 20.2556 0001523 242.6440 117.4005 15.36288726246924 GPS-0009 1 15039U 88246.74840852 0.00000012 0 5733 2 15039 62.8080 107.7318 0014627 304.9586 54.9644 2.00565189 30951 Meteor 2-11 1 15099U 88245.40619560 0.00000029 20526-4 0 8978 2 15099 82.5275 235.9998 0013074 335.5419 24.5119 13.83540845210180 GPS-0010 1 15271U 88246.64385993 -.00000029 10000-2 0 5250 2 15271 63.4457 346.7318 0094746 314.8452 44.4108 2.00557989 28068 Cosmos 1602 1 15331U 88248.77321983 0.00001287 19190-3 0 9106 2 15331 82.5354 241.5060 0023581 294.9703 64.9112 14.73970056212159 NOAA 9 1 15427U 88246.04830122 0.00000178 11867-3 0 2744 2 15427 99.1080 221.9406 0016493 42.8626 317.3828 14.11629880191792 Meteor 2-12 1 15516U 88248.32303024 0.00000084 70453-4 0 204 2 15516 82.5369 172.1018 0015219 194.9274 165.1440 13.83974945181517 Cosmos 1686 1 16095U 88250.99265608 0.00013214 41263-3 0 157 2 16095 51.6109 254.4134 0001655 82.8670 277.2331 15.33498228166302 GPS-0011 1 16129U 88247.80237217 0.00000013 0 2689 2 16129 63.6099 108.0987 0113943 149.6294 211.1149 2.00568300 21290 Meteor 3-01 1 16191U 88236.60355629 0.00000043 10000-3 0 7742 2 16191 82.5481 86.1721 0020066 325.5455 34.4374 13.16933060136351 Meteor 2-13 1 16408U 88249.50807412 0.00000069 57167-4 0 4255 2 16408 82.5328 86.0609 0017389 23.4089 336.7855 13.84061098136177 PRC 18 1 16526U 88235.79404625 -.00000289 0 3085 2 16526 0.0232 262.9523 0001192 300.5890 156.4502 1.00263964 9379 Mir 1 16609U 88250.76688379 0.00083851 59887-3 0 3920 2 16609 51.6207 8.5973 0020002 21.6647 338.4855 15.72772110146670 SPOT 1 1 16613U 88250.76376181 -.00000609 -27775-3 0 1639 2 16613 98.7319 323.4188 0000614 141.9869 218.1478 14.20024526 44470 Meteor 2-14 1 16735U 88236.70113307 0.00000087 73456-4 0 2526 2 16735 82.5386 122.9197 0015263 121.9311 238.3320 13.83793438113311 Cosmos 1766 1 16881U 88250.18121203 0.00000567 84646-4 0 3527 2 16881 82.5257 300.1335 0022399 306.1774 53.7368 14.73825765113446 EGP 1 16908U 88236.71616084 -.00000039 -17789-6 0 1010 2 16908 50.0074 132.5539 0011097 308.4771 51.5067 12.44371843 92370 FO-12 1 16909U 88249.63229916 -.00000025 10000-3 0 1111 2 16909 50.0165 93.0176 0010729 340.2300 19.8116 12.44395793 93972 NOAA 10 1 16969U 88236.61251323 0.00000187 92153-4 0 1565 2 16969 98.6755 266.3377 0014675 36.0783 324.1382 14.22614074100361 Meteor 2-15 1 17290U 88248.37584500 0.00000052 41927-4 0 1862 2 17290 82.4700 22.9971 0012617 348.9118 11.1772 13.83601332 84093 GOES 7 1 17561U 88244.89999990 -.00000223 10000-3 0 1430 2 17561 0.0723 257.6470 0007402 291.5910 40.9660 1.00274314 2688 Kvant 1 17845U 88250.89392788 0.00037779 27439-3 0 5280 2 17845 51.6196 7.9516 0018657 19.5687 340.3843 15.72756839 82969 Cosmos 1834 1 17847U 88250.70543949 0.00030023 33101-5 14011-3 0 7530 2 17847 65.0322 338.8735 0106757 293.6535 65.2601 15.75574708 80347 RS-10/11 1 18129U 88251.06039941 0.00000046 44259-4 0 4988 2 18129 82.9227 87.2885 0012971 114.3028 245.9496 13.71903348 60576 Cosmos 1870 1 18225U 88250.67441540 0.00125406 90977-5 15842-3 0 6335 2 18225 71.9073 96.9776 0005258 177.4923 182.6440 16.07383180 65827 Meteor 2-16 1 18312U 88249.01516629 -.00000206 -19290-3 0 1373 2 18312 82.5756 85.5223 0011169 261.8197 98.1823 13.83355141 53088 Meteor 2-17 1 18820U 88236.91688678 0.00000087 72808-4 0 522 2 18820 82.5463 156.7693 0018029 27.7119 332.4997 13.84035719 28562 AO-13 1 19216U 88243.21393379 -.00000107 10000-3 0 185 2 19216 57.5718 241.3717 6562933 189.7644 145.2660 2.09702313 1622 1988 060A 1 19320U 88237.27233602 0.00023333 28175-3 0 202 2 19320 65.8349 313.9214 0035101 314.5673 44.5213 15.59956336 6360 1988 060B 1 19321U 88224.09665968 0.00029473 33367-3 0 382 2 19321 65.8379 357.3659 0040310 319.3918 40.3856 15.61284900 4316 1988 062A 1 19324U 88232.06942062 0.00000012 59698-5 0 165 2 19324 82.9506 279.0665 0033389 196.9270 163.0774 13.74906671 4282 1988 062B 1 19325U 88235.89428706 0.00000006 0 388 2 19325 82.9482 276.1859 0030244 173.2275 186.9296 13.76100183 4817 1988 063A 1 19330U 88237.81451544 -.00000228 10000-3 0 117 2 19330 0.1524 249.6747 0005190 150.5761 319.9145 1.00269604 166 1988 063B 1 19331U 88238.02981081 0.00000134 10000-3 0 87 2 19331 0.0499 242.0565 0003014 269.6917 208.4554 1.00273505 105 1988 063C 1 19332U 88233.35171945 0.00000110 10000-3 0 151 2 19332 7.3620 88.9581 7279433 202.0001 98.8893 2.25711161 659 Meteor 3-2 1 19336U 88248.76952014 0.00000391 10000-2 0 239 2 19336 82.5479 17.5490 0016515 171.9707 188.1326 13.16839230 5342 1988 064B 1 19337U 88232.42914487 0.00000068 15895-3 0 169 2 19337 82.5451 29.1003 0014623 217.4628 142.5440 13.17016256 3185 1988 065A 1 19338U 88237.75217522 0.00004978 20581-3 0 338 2 19338 65.8417 12.0359 0031720 330.9483 28.9914 15.24638558 4161 1988 065B 1 19339U 88234.51131458 0.00005387 21033-3 0 229 2 19339 65.8436 22.0368 0036745 345.2928 14.7139 15.26293504 3665 1988 066A 1 19344U 88244.86016608 -.00000082 10000-3 0 212 2 19344 1.4535 276.4654 0002512 315.9599 43.4861 1.00272948 308 1988 066D 1 19347U 88235.92952046 -.00000125 10000-3 0 103 2 19347 1.4795 275.0481 0025959 316.0749 43.7936 0.98656931 64 1988 067B 1 19369U 88232.25151577 0.37525208 43611-4 19200-3 0 508 2 19369 63.0017 318.3312 0007155 229.3769 130.6759 16.55237317 2232 1988 069A 1 19377U 88250.15590178 0.00000496 -82288-3 0 267 2 19377 62.8979 100.5620 7382124 288.5571 9.2965 2.00614467 491 1988 069B 1 19378U 88250.76179577 0.00840855 11298-4 11380-2 0 496 2 19378 62.8372 9.8709 0157305 122.5449 239.1413 15.86467255 3969 1988 069C 1 19379U 88250.72993749 0.00834389 38135-4 10155-2 0 503 2 19379 62.8357 10.2200 0176950 117.5205 244.3759 15.84028554 3959 1988 069D 1 19380U 88249.60511897 0.00000392 10000-3 0 54 2 19380 62.8224 100.8198 7455652 288.5150 8.9146 1.95681194 481 1988 070A 1 19384U 88250.97211244 0.00587231 34226-4 32698-3 0 526 2 19384 64.7614 116.0803 0126384 110.0224 251.8098 16.03355193 3459 1988 070B 1 19385U 88234.48412421 0.15755018 37646-4 46522-3 0 172 2 19385 64.7694 177.2040 0037929 70.6694 289.9520 16.40145636 806 1988 071A 1 19397U 88241.61923650 -.00000104 10000-3 0 174 2 19397 1.4980 280.7772 0009262 288.0349 70.5076 1.00282389 119 1988 071B 1 19398U 88234.14037509 0.25339526 61865-4 15063-3 0 123 2 19398 51.6124 261.8610 0003894 251.4721 108.7625 16.54040265 384 1988 071C 1 19399U 88232.43249464 0.42660829 60459-4 16546-2 0 57 2 19399 51.6047 271.5281 0005915 139.2186 221.0726 16.43704915 103 1988 071D 1 19400U 88236.58519663 -.00000295 10000-3 0 186 2 19400 1.4806 277.5016 0021157 19.7081 340.6227 1.00559668 559 1988 072A 1 19412U 88250.82357647 0.00094386 99648-4 0 240 2 19412 70.0000 111.5953 0038599 51.3755 309.1576 16.08184433 2327 1988 073A 1 19414U 88250.85306534 0.00090427 28078-5 14448-3 0 331 2 19414 82.3203 150.5869 0015438 256.2014 103.7731 16.03345037 2314 1988 074A 1 19419U 88245.13596039 0.00000004 0 79 2 19419 89.9682 140.3980 0096961 149.3905 201.0175 13.40085041 917 1988 074B 1 19420U 88246.18245507 0.00000004 0 23 2 19420 89.9695 140.3939 0098054 146.1428 214.6029 13.40252364 1055 1988 074C 1 19421U 88249.76384369 0.00000003 0 75 2 19421 89.9691 140.3832 0096054 135.6113 225.2891 13.40506899 1539 1988 075A 1 19443U 88244.15821852 0.00296580 53357-4 28340-3 0 122 2 19443 51.6160 42.4845 0019127 226.6333 133.3772 16.10806537 333 1988 076A 1 19445U 88250.58859721 0.00000074 18792-1 0 91 2 19445 62.9393 141.0662 7368941 318.1993 4.6875 2.00712562 150 1988 076B 1 19446U 88250.74326979 0.00575433 99235-5 10364-2 0 216 2 19446 62.8493 115.7965 0229427 121.1480 241.2418 15.68144894 1121 1988 076C 1 19447U 88250.73689541 0.01447059 37478-4 94862-3 0 177 2 19447 62.8558 115.7165 0251325 122.6871 239.8846 15.75245881 1133 1988 076D 1 19448U 88244.13418685 0.00000167 10000-3 0 20 2 19448 62.9146 142.0637 7343273 318.1465 4.8146 2.04038063 27 1988 079A 1 19462U 88250.93155472 -.00050600 11685-4 -44369-4 0 35 2 19462 72.8777 101.5465 0140755 87.6007 274.7054 15.95025324 100 1988 079B 1 19463U 88250.99378891 0.01194915 11249-4 99111-3 0 42 2 19463 72.8791 101.4242 0131699 85.2547 279.3034 15.97868467 114 1988 080A 1 19467U 88251.18767716 -.00000018 0 49 2 19467 99.1293 219.5016 0016396 40.5417 319.6977 14.00339723 51 1988 080B 1 19468U 88251.25893983 -.00000018 0 22 2 19468 99.1124 219.5740 0010521 338.5131 21.5761 14.00769866 62 Dr TS Kelso Asst Professor of Space Operations tkelso@icc.afit.af.mil Air Force Institute of Technology ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Sep 88 04:00:14 PDT From: Eugene Miya Subject: Frequently asked SPACE questions This is a list of frequently asked questions on SPACE (which goes back before 1980). It is in development. Good summaries will be accepted in place of the answers given here. The point of these is to circulate existing information, and avoid rehashing old answers. Better to build on top than start again. Nothing more depressing than rehashing for the 100th time. Initially, this message will be automatically posted once per month and hopefully, we can cut it back to quarterly. In time questions and good answers will be added (and maybe removed, nah). 1) Can't they use those Shuttle tanks as an orbiting resource rather than let them crash into the sea? Yes, this question was thought about and answered in the mid-late 70s. The problem is there is no sense in keeping an unguided object in space until you need it. There actually is a company devoted to developing them as a resource (Denver/Boulder area). These tanks are regarded as the Territory of the US so are treated like land area. 2) Fermi's paradox: [Why they have not heard us yet] Too open ended. ;-) 3) What can be done for Shuttle Crew escape systems: Good open ended question. Why there isn't one now: Cost (weight, complexity, dollars, explosive devices in crew area). Escape capsules have had a less than good history. The B-1 caspule was unstable after 350 MPH. It's a trade off. There is also a history of "ride the bird home." 4) Where can I learn about space computers: shuttle, programming, core memories? %J Communications of the ACM %V 27 %N 9 %D September 1984 %K Special issue on space [shuttle] computers 5) What about SETI computation articles? %A D. K. Cullers %A Ivan R. Linscott %A Bernard M. Oliver %T Signal Processing in SETI %J Communications of the ACM %V 28 %N 11 %D November 1984 %P 1151-1163 %K CR Categories and Subject Descriptors: D.4.1 [Operating Systems]: Process Management - concurrency; I.5.4 [Pattern Recognition]: Applications - signal processing; J.2 [Phsyical Sciences and Engineering]: astronomy General Terms: Design Additional Key Words and Phrases: digital Fourier transforms, finite impulse-response filters, interstellar communications, Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence, signal detection, spectrum analysis 6) SDI questions: these frequently appear all the time. They do not appear to be resolveable but the usual network shouting. The issues are: 7) What about blasting waste into space? Another frequently asked question (expensive solution looking for a problem). Have you considered recycling? n-1) How do I get a job in space? There are two different concerns here. 1) If seasonal like summer, you must start looking between the months of January-March, this means preparation in December. Reminders are posted at that time with addresses, etc. 2) Permanent, a list of contracting aerospace companies was assembled by Ken Jenks (now successfully working at Rockwell, but without a net address [see! space uses modern technology]). Send mail request such to one of the network personalities (Dale, Henry, Phil, etc., myself) we will try to update the list yearly. P.S. It helps to learn Russian and Japanese. n) Where do I find information about space? Try you local public library first. The net is not a good place for this. It's a better place for open ended discussions. Next trying writing real letters to the Public Relations or Public Information Offices of NASA, ESA, JSA, USAF, DOD, and their various contractors. They can inundate you. Also try the telephone (check a phone directory can all offices at various places [addresses posted occasionally]). We will also try to have designed net `experts' on where to get more information. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #365 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Sep 88 02:04:52 EDT Received: by po2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU (5.54/3.15) id ; Mon, 19 Sep 88 00:34:54 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 19 Sep 88 00:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 19 Sep 88 00:19:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 19 Sep 88 00:06:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ANDREW.CMU.EDU (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 19 Sep 88 00:04:57 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02481; Sun, 18 Sep 88 01:07:05 PDT id AA02481; Sun, 18 Sep 88 01:07:05 PDT Date: Sun, 18 Sep 88 01:07:05 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809180807.AA02481@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #366 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 366 Today's Topics: Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute. Re: Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute. Re: Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute. Information about Soviet Space program Starsailing Excellent book Books on the Soviet space program. Books and magazines on the Soviet space program. Re: Books and magazines on the Soviet space program. Re: plutonium Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Sep 88 18:20:45 GMT From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) Subject: Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute. The Soviet news agency TASS today announced that communications with the Mars probe PHOBOS 1 have been lost due to human error. The wrong code was sent up to PHOBOS 1, and it appears there is no possibility of getting signals back from the probe. This is sadly reminiscent of the code error sent to the VIKING 1 lander in 1982 which accidentally shut it down permanently. A communication session with PHOBOS 1 on September 2 failed when the spacecraft was 17 million kilometers from Earth. PHOBOS 2 is functioning smoothly and it is currently 19 million kilometers from Earth along a trajectory closed to the predicted one. If anyone has more information on this unfortunate incident and what extra tasks PHOBOS 2 will now have to perform as a result, please post it here. Thank you. Larry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 88 21:34:14 GMT From: oliveb!intelca!mipos3!martin@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Martin Harriman ~) Subject: Re: Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute. (This is probably only of interest if you don't have a newspaper, since I get all my incredibly technical understanding of this from that obscure source.) The major Phobos problem is said to be that the spacecraft pointing was screwed up, so it has lost some or all of its power (and thus will soon be dead as a doornail, just like Jacob Marley). This is distinct from the "commit messy internal suicide" option available in most probes. The probes I've heard about (through that source of all great technical knowledge, the newspaper) have a fair amount of internal redundancy, and can be reconfigured on signals from the ground (or on the absence of signals: see Voyager 2 and the radio from hell). Of course, this means that ground control can also go *oops, I didna really mean that* and cause the probe to turn into high speed modern interplanetary sculpture. Oh, well--but, on the balance, the stories I've seen would indicate that the reconfigurability is a Very Good Thing, and that we've gained much more (for instance: better data compression and transmission) than we've lost. (This seems painfully obvious and basic, but I thought it might be worth posting, since some apparently haven't figured it out.) --Martin martin@bashful.intel.com ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 88 20:24:08 GMT From: ftp!seven@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Benjamin Levy) Subject: Re: Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute. In article <3557@s.cc.purdue.edu>, ain@s.cc.purdue.edu (Patrick White) writes: > In article martin@bashful.intel.com (Martin Harriman ~) writes: >> The major Phobos problem is said to be that the spacecraft pointing was >> screwed up, so it has lost some or all of its power (and thus will soon >> be dead as a doornail, just like Jacob Marley). > > This seems like a stupid question, but why not just tell it to point the > right way.. and if they can't because it can't hear them, then can they > "bounce" a signal off another satellite/probe in the general vicinity? > -- Pat White There was an article in the Boston Globe which described the problem. Apparently someone accidently told the probe to turn its antenna away from Earth, which prevents us from talking to it. When it turned away from the Earth, it also moved its solar panels so they no longer face the sun. Also it was using a particular star for navigating, which it lost sight of when it turned way from the Earth. In other words everything that could go wrong, without actually damaging the probe, did go wrong. The probe is currently spinning randomly with its batteries slowly fading. So the only thing that will save the probe is if it accidently turns its antenna towards the Earth, while someone is transmitting the appropriate commands to fix the situation. -- ---Ben Levy FTP Software Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Member of the International Amoeba Society: "United We Stand, Divided We Multiply" ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 88 18:07:43 GMT From: linus!marsh@husc6.harvard.edu (Ralph Marshall) Subject: Information about Soviet Space program I have a request for the net.space.historians. I am starting a historical research project covering the history of the Soviet Union's space exploration. I am hoping to end up with an audio-visual presentation that would be interesting for high-school and college age students as well as adults who are unfamiliar with foreign space efforts. I am posting this because I am looking for any pointers to sources of material, especially places where I can get good still photographs, film clips, and audio tapes (I am willing to invest a few bucks in this, but not thousands). Any advice is welcome. I have written to the Soviet Embassy asking their public relations people to send me stuff, but I'm sort of stuck for where to look next. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Marshall (marsh@mitre-bedford.arpa, or ...att!linus!marsh) Disclaimer: Often wrong but never in doubt... All of these opinions are mine, so don't gripe to my employer if you don't like them. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 88 08:52:54 GMT From: mcvax!enea!erix!howard@uunet.uu.net (Howard Gayle) Subject: Starsailing >From the Books Received section of Science, 8 July 1988, p. 236: Starsailing. Solar Sails and Interstellar Travel. Louis Friedman, Wiley, New York, 1988, 146 pp., paper $9.95. Howard Gayle TN/ETX/TX/UMG Ericsson Telecom AB S-126 25 Stockholm Sweden howard@ericsson.se {mcvax, uunet}!enea!ericsson.se!howard Phone: +46 8 719 5565 FAX : +46 8 719 9598 Telex: 14910 ERIC S ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 88 05:18:52 GMT From: aterry@TEKNOWLEDGE-VAXC.ARPA (Stack Overflow) Subject: Excellent book There is an excellent book I have not seen mentioned in this group: Interstellar Migration and the Human Experience edited by Ben R. Finney and Eric M. Jones Univ. of California Press, 1985 I bought it about a year ago so it may still be in print. This is a collection of papers derived from a conference. The papers have been cleaned up, some new material published elsewhere has been added, and in some cases rebuttals and comments added. The book is an interdisciplinary look at what going to the stars might mean, accessable to the Scientific American type reader. There are some technical papers in the front to set the stage: e.g., what resources are there, what are the problems of interstellar travel? There is a section on demography and economics. Well, what about this genetic drift bugaboo, what IS a minimum colony size? (Smaller than you would think.) How would one plan the first few generations' economy and provide for their needs considering massive resupply will be impractical? Deciding what to pack is a non-trivial problem for a generation ship. There are sections discussing other societies (such as the Polynesians) who have culturally adapted to massive migration. There is even a section on what migration might mean to the future evolution of our species. Going to the stars is not just a matter of engineering, it will be a profound cultural enterprise. Reading this book gives some idea of the issues involved, and in doing so makes it all that much more real. I recommend this book highly. Allan ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 88 16:29:31 GMT From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) Subject: Books on the Soviet space program. Per Ralph Marshall's request for sources of information on the Soviet space program, here are some books which come to mind, and which I also own. I am writing on them from memory, since they are at home and I have no access to them at the moment. I believe they are still available to order through any good bookstore: THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SPACE TECHNOLOGY, one volume, first printed in 1980. It is an excellent source of material, photographs, and diagrams of every major space effort up to the present (the book is periodically updated). It contains quite a bit on the Soviet programs, including new material never before published outside of classified documents. RED STAR IN ORBIT by James Oberg, 1981. Oberg is an expert on the Soviet space program, and he provides a number of disclosures on Soviet space flights which have been hidden for years to the West. There is also an excellent bibliography which will lead you to numerous other works on Soviet space flights. An updated version of sorts on several space incidents can be found in Oberg's 1988 book, UNCOVERING SOVIET DISASTERS. These two books do expose the myths about a "secret" manned program in which ten cosmonauts supposedly died in space accidents before Yuri Gagarin's flight in VOSTOK 1 in 1961; in reality, there were eight or nine deaths of cosmonauts in training accidents on the ground which were only recently reported due to the reforms of glastnost. SPACE LOG, A Jane's Information Book, 1987. This book details thirty years of unmanned planetary probes, with excellent technical information and diagrams of the Soviet probes, many of which have had little disclosure before. A companion book, PLANETARY ENCOUNTERS, covers much of the same territory. A HISTORY OF ROCKETRY AND SPACE TRAVEL by Werhner Von Braun, 1985. This book has been updated three times since its first printing in 1966, the latest written by another author since Von Braun's death in 1977 (I have the 1969 version, thus my inability to mention the new author). Like the Space Encyclopedia first mentioned, it gives you an all-around view of the Soviet program in relation to the other international space programs. These books are accessible to the age and education group you desire, and will hopefully lead you to even more sources. If I think of or find any more, I will post them in this newsgroup. Good luck, and thanks for bringing space education to the general public! We need more of it to make people aware just how important space exploration is to our future. Larry ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 88 16:55:50 GMT From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) Subject: Books and magazines on the Soviet space program. In regards to my list of books on the Soviet space program, I would like to make one correction and addition: The Jane's book on planetary probes which I referred to as SPACE LOG is actually entitled SOLAR SYSTEM LOG. There is also a 1985 Jane's book on manned space flights entitled MANNED SPACE LOG, which gives the technical details on Soviet and American manned space flights. While I do not know of any periodicals which deal specifically with the Soviet space program (Are there any?), I can refer you to three magazines which do carry technical information on current developments in this area: AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY, FINAL FRONTIER, and SKY AND TELESCOPE, all of which should be available at any good library. Larry ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 88 22:00:39 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Books and magazines on the Soviet space program. >From article <8809141655.AA11300@decwrl.dec.com>, by klaes@mtwain.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283): (List of books on Sov space) For more detailed info, try Nicholas Johnson's "Soviet Space Programs 1980-85", an AAAS Science and Technology series publication at about $50, or Marcia Smith's 'Soviet Space Programs 1976-80', a US Congressional Research Service document available from US Govt Printing Office in DC. The latter is probably the 'primary' reference (short of reading Pravda and analysing NORAD's orbital elements) and an updated version is being published. Phillip Clark in London is writing a definitive book on the Soviet program which hopefully will emerge soon. The Journal of the British Interplanetary Society and Spaceflight News, both British publications, carry regular articles; there is also a privately published 'fanzine' called Zenit, also from England, which deals exclusively with current news in the Soviet program. Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 88 08:53:13 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: Ted Anderson Resent-To: Space Return-Path: <@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:U15305@UICVM.BITNET> Date: 6 September 1988 11:50:12 CDT From: U15305@uicvm (Tom Kirke 996-4961) To: Subject: Peter Nelson in V8 #350 mentioned a book "Heavens on Earth". The complete listing for this book is: Holloway, Mark 1917- Heavens on Earth: Utopian Communities in America 1680-1880 New York Dover Pub (1966) <2nd ed rev> HX653 .H66 1966 Tom Kirke ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 22:45:02 GMT From: tikal!sigma!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!rick@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Rick Groeneveld) Subject: Re: plutonium In article <951@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG>, mvs@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG (Michael V. Stein) writes: > Plutonium is far too valuable of an energy source to go throw it away. > Even if we could, which as Mr. Plait later explains is probabally > impossible, it would be one of the most stupid ideas ever implemented > by anyone on this planet - or probably any other planet for that > matter. When considering the current use of plutonium, it doesn't sound so stupid after all. :-> H. Groeneveld ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 01:46:21 GMT From: bungia!meccts!meccsd!mvs@UMN-CS.ARPA (Michael V. Stein) Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) In article <962@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes: >...If we do decide to dump the stuff in space (and what ever ocean we >launch over), I hope we are smart enough to dump it on the moon or in >orbits that don't go too near the sun. At least then we can retrieve >it after we realize what we've done. RIGHT!! >The US government has paid for many studies of the "proper" way to >dispose of high level nuclear waste. The same technique has been >proposed many times. Simply put, bury it deep in large blocks of >basalt, where large is roughly the size of your average mountain. You have the scale a bit high. The high level wastes for a 1000 Megawatt nuclear plant operating for one year will occupy no more than 2 cubic meters. (A volume that will fit nicely under a kitchen table.) In comparison a 1000 megawatt coal plant produces about 10 tons of waste - per _minute_. >Back >filled with ceramics and crushed basalt the decay heat of the waste >should fuse the surrounding material into an extremely hard nodule. > >To the best of my knowledge this has not been tested. Nor has it ever >been seriously considered as a waste disposal technique by the federal >government, it seems it costs too much. Nuclear waste disposal will be paid by a tax that is applied to all electricty generated from nuclear power plants. The reason that it hasn't happened already is simply that there is no urgent need for a repository right now. >I'll bet it costs less than >launching the waste into space. You are damn right it will cost less. It will also be several billion times safer. -- Michael V. Stein - Minnesota Educational Computing Corp. - Technical Services {bungia,uiucdcs,umn-cs}!meccts!mvs or mvs@mecc.MN.ORG ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 17:30:41 GMT From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!bturner@hplabs.hp.com (Bill Turner) Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? > On the serious side though, I believe that it is incredibly sad that mankinds > first attempts at terraforming will be on the Earth just to keep it > habitable. I feel that we will have to eventually implement some type of > global scheme to clean up the earth and the longer we wait, the more > drastic it will be. If you wish to look at it this way, we HAVE been terraforming Earth for quite a while now. Whether for good or not, you must admit that the environment has been effected substantially by our activities. And what is terraforming, other than changing the environment? --Bill Turner ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #366 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Sep 88 05:03:39 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Mon, 19 Sep 88 04:26:38 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 19 Sep 88 04:26:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 19 Sep 88 04:16:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 19 Sep 88 04:06:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 19 Sep 88 04:06:11 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03235; Mon, 19 Sep 88 01:08:27 PDT id AA03235; Mon, 19 Sep 88 01:08:27 PDT Date: Mon, 19 Sep 88 01:08:27 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809190808.AA03235@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #367 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 367 Today's Topics: Two space policies Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? Announcing the Plutonium Waste Trust Fund. Re: Naming the new Shuttle Re: Overpopulation is not our problem Solar System as a Trashcan Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST Re: Why no aliens Re: more TV viewing Re: Orbital Mech Algorithm Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim Date: Tue, 23 Aug 88 10:29:57 PDT From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery) To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space Subject: Two space policies Since Dale Amon is intimately familiar with both the Ron Paul (Libertarian presidential candidate) and the National Space Society space policies, I'm sure many of us would appreciate it if Dale would compare and contrast these two, vastly different, space policies in terms of their relative merits. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim Date: Sat, 27 Aug 88 11:14:52 PDT From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery) To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? I think the answer is obvious -- there is a galactic betting pool on how long it will take humanity to go belly-up. Anyone caught communicating with Earth in any way automatically loses their wager. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 08:33:40 GMT From: apple!well!pokey@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Jef Poskanzer) Subject: Announcing the Plutonium Waste Trust Fund. All you folks who want to launch the world's supply of Plutonium are hereby invited to put your money where your (extremely active) mouths are. In the tradition of such conservation groups as the Nature Conservancy and the Trust for Public Lands, I am starting a trust fund whose purpose is to waste all our Plutonium. We will purchase it at the market price and launch it into interstellar space. Current estimates are that the launch cost will be around $20 billion and the purchase cost will be around $100 billion. Purchases will start as soon as we have received enough donations to launch the first load. The suggested donation is equal to your monthly electricity bill, in return for which you get an attractive pin identifying you as a Plutonium Waster. Send your checks to: Plutonium Waste Trust Fund c/o John J. Poskanzer 1212 Kains Berkeley, CA 94706 Don't delay! The longer we wait, the more Plutonium there is! --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@rtsg.ee.lbl.gov ...well!pokey If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people? ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 21:23:14 GMT From: tektronix!percival!gary@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Gary Wells) Subject: Re: Naming the new Shuttle In article <8808301935.AA05210@angband.s1.gov> dddurda@PINE.CIRCA.UFL.EDU ("DURDA") writes: >thinking about it - PLEASE, the new shuttle orbiter *must* be named Phoenix! That's a good name, and appropreate, but... Don't you think it is time we realized that the Shuttle program is a zombie (ie: something basically dead, but still animated)? Let's go for a whole new program, which shall be seen to rise from the ashes of Challeanger and the shuttle program. We'll call _that_ Phoenix! -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Still working on _natural_ intelligence. gary@percival (...!tektronix!percival!gary) ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 17:54:40 GMT From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@ucsd.edu (John Pantone) Subject: Re: Overpopulation is not our problem (The Math Hacker) writes: >> csustan!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!watson proclaims: >>THERE'S TOO MANY PEOPLE! >>OVERPOPULATION IS THE PROBLEM! >>HAVE FEWER BABIES! >>Actually, I don't think all our current environmental problems are caused >>by overpopulation ... just a big hunk. >You're talking to the wrong people. The U.S. is NOT currently overpopulated. >It just seems that way because of overcrowded cities. You bet - the U.S. has a population distribution problem, not an overpopulation problem. Ever driven from Iowa through South Dakota, Montana, Idaho south through Nevada and or Utah into Arizona and much of California? You could count the people on the fingers of one hand. The gene pool stuff you mention, though, is probably off - we have plenty of people to keep our genetics going well - especially since we tend to move around so much, marry outside of our "group" so often nowadays, and allow so much immigration (legal and illegal). -- These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer. John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, 9805 Scranton Rd., San Diego, CA 92121 ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.GE.COM GEnie: J.PANTONE ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 08:14:33 GMT From: rebel!didsgn!till@gatech.edu (didsgn) Subject: Solar System as a Trashcan IN RESPONSE TO MY INQUIRY STEVE WAS KIND ENOUGH TO REPLY. I POST HIS EMAIL LETTER HERE, BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS COGENT AND TO THE POINT. From: Steve Hosgood Date: Thu, 1 Sep 88 18:10:33-0000 Message-Id: <25199.8809011710@pyr.swan.ac.uk> To: utexas.edu!uunet.UU.NET!didsgn!till@cs Subject: Re: SOlar System trashcans (Was:The Sun as a trashcan) Newsgroups: sci.space In-Reply-To: <387@didsgn.UUCP> References: <1255@netmbx.UUCP> <2818@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <2821@pt.cs.cmu.edu> Organization: Institute for Industrial Information Technology Status: R Well, I'd oppose the idea of chucking radioactive stuff onto the moon for 2 reasons. 1) The launchers aren't reliable enough. 2) In the future, someone's bound to want to use the moon's real-estate for something useful (like living space). Your grandchildren and mine are really going to respect you for using it as a radioactive dump! They're going to have to clean it all up. Once apon a time, Bikini Atoll looked like a good place to test H-bombs. Now, 30 years later, people are having to clean the mess up. Anthrax was tested on a remote Scottish island in WW2, the place is still a total no-go area - you aren't even allowed to overfly it within several nautical miles. What about Love Canal? I'm sure the list goes on for ever.... Jupiter or the sun, maybe, the moon - I say no! Please post a summary if many others cast their votes too. -----------------------------------------------+------------------------------ Steve Hosgood BSc, | Phone (+44) 792 295213 Image Processing and Systems Engineer, | Fax (+44) 792 295532 Institute for Industrial Information Techology,| Telex 48149 Innovation Centre, University of Wales, +------+ JANET: iiit-sh@uk.ac.swan.pyr Swansea SA2 8PP | UUCP: ..!ukc!cybaswan.UUCP!iiit-sh ----------------------------------------+------------------------------------- My views are not necessarily those of my employers! P.S. by Till: I agree with Steve's opinion, but would like to add that even Jupiter is not necessarily an acceptable target for disposal. If we absolutely need a planet to dump then, given orbital mechanics and energy expenditure etc maybe Mercury seems more appropriate. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 15:17:06 GMT From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu (Paul Dietz) Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST In article <1988Sep1.140800.1353@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > The compound they were originally playing with, >erythropoietin, is now being made by genetically engineered microbes >and should be on the market in a few years. I realized after writing this that some may have the misimpression that the work with CFES somehow led to a ground-based approach. It didn't -- the isolation and cloning of the gene for EPO was in no way helped by microgravity research, and was done by other companies (Amgen and Genetics Institute, I think). Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu Space is where to go, 'cause NASA tells me so. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 12:46:46 GMT From: haven!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg@purdue.edu (Gregory N. Hullender) Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST 1) What exactly did these "successful" spaceleb missions discover? I think they were just more "space junkets." 2) No one had to be up in space to see ocean currents; satellite pictures would have done as well. 3) What, exactly, is 3M launching on? Can't be the shuttle right now, and it can't be too important if they've tabled it for almost 3 years. 4) My understanding of the Solar Max mission was that it cost a lot more than it would have to simply launch a new one. 5) Hubble has so far returned zero data. There is nothing about a space telescope that intrinsically requires human servicing. Even though some of the items you mention have some merit, the shuttle has been at best irrelevant to them, at worst (and this is the usual case) inimical. I was being generous in giving it a zero. -- Greg Hullender uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg 3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 12:18:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk!william@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Why no aliens >simply that it is too dangerous. ... They would >be stupid to contact us because it would be so easy for us to >annihilate the planet with nukes. I think we are overestimating ourselves a little here. It would take us lots of years to get together an overwhelming nuclear attack force that we could get to Mars. We would have to find out what "annihilate" means - if all their buildings were hardened and underground, and the Martians routinely wore radiation proof clothing and were built like brick s***houses, then we would have to send a hell of a lot of explosive. Enough, say, to plough up the top mile or so of the whole planet? I don't think we can put together that sort of firepower, and we are never going to get that much into space on a shuttle. Right now we have great difficulty getting *anything* to Mars. We would need huge launchers to get this sort of force into inter- planetary space. I do not believe that mankind is a worthy space fighter yet, and our delivery mechanisms are so slow and unguidable that our opponents would have no trouble picking them off even if their technology was no more advanced than ours. Maybe in 50 years time?? ... Bill ************************************************************************ Bill Witts, CS Dept. * Nel Mezzo del cammin di nostra vita UCL, London, Errrp * mi ritrovai per una selva oscura william@uk.ac.ucl.cs(UK) * che la diritta via era smarrita. william@cs.ucl.ac.uk(US) *********************************************** ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 15:58:45 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: more TV viewing In article <14185@ames.arc.nasa.gov> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes: >[] > >Those of you with TVRO systems, circle Sept. 8 on your calenders. >In the morning, (probably around 7:00 am Eastern), there will be a ^^^^ Just got the sched, it'll be a 10:00 AM eastern, 7:00 Pacific. >countdown demonstration test and on pad abort for the STS-26 crew. >They've been broadcast in the past, so expect video from this one. >NASA Select TV is on Satcom F2, xpndr 13. (you know what this is for) -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool Mom". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 14:31:31 GMT From: att!ihlpa!lew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Lew Mammel, Jr.) Subject: Re: Orbital Mech Algorithm There was some mention of using the 1/2*a*t^2 term to gain increased accuracy in a simple F=ma calculation. This correction is of order delta_t^2 so that it becomes less and less helpful as the step size is decreased. There is a correction of order delta_t, which I learned from professor Robert Folk of Lehigh University when I was a teaching assistant there. This correction is of the calculation of the applied force at each step. Instead of evaluating F(x) at x=x_n for the nth interval, use x=x_n+v*delta_t/2 . This gives a value for F more nearly equal to its average value over the interval. An easy way to evaluate relative accuracy is to calcuate a closed eliptical orbit for a one-body central field problem and check for closure. You'll find that the "midpoint force term evaluation" method gives greatly increased accuracy. Lew Mammel, Jr. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 16:18:44 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST In article <691@proxftl.UUCP> greg@proxftl.UUCP (Gregory N. Hullender) writes: > >2) No one had to be up in space to see ocean currents; satellite pictures > would have done as well. We've had oceanographic studies via unmanned satillites, but whether you like it or not, the human eye is vastly more sensitive to some things than any of the cameras ever launched. John Scully-Power was simply able to witness very fine structures never detected in the years and years of earth resource satillite studies. >3) What, exactly, is 3M launching on? Can't be the shuttle right now, > and it can't be too important if they've tabled it for almost 3 years. It's called the Shuttle. The first CFES (Continuous Flow Electrophoresis System) flight was on STS-3, and it has flown on 7 or 8 missions since then. >4) My understanding of the Solar Max mission was that it cost a lot more > than it would have to simply launch a new one. NASA didn't happen to have a warehouse full of spare Solar Max satillites, to launch as needed. They would've had to construct a whole new one practically from scratch, at a cost of at least $150 million. Now double that to include the launch costs, and you end up with about $300 million or more in total costs. Not to mention a minimum of 5 years in construction. Alot of extra time and money when all that was needed to be done was to replace a burned out fuse. >5) Hubble has so far returned zero data. So has Galileo and Magellen. > There is nothing about a space > telescope that intrinsically requires human servicing. Can you say "repair"? If we're going to put up a $billion dollar plus, instrument in space, we damn well better be able to fix the thing if struck by a micro-meteroid, or suffers a system failure. Not to mention refueling it, cleaning the mirror, etc. Also, periodically, scientific packages will be swapped out for new ones. >Even though some of the items you mention have some merit, the shuttle has >been at best irrelevant to them, at worst (and this is the usual case) >inimical. Read the above. >I was being generous in giving it a zero. ^^^^^^^^ Nah, too easy. . . > Greg Hullender uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg > 3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 > > My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer. -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool Mom". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #367 ******************* Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Sep 88 23:40:13 EDT Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Mon, 19 Sep 88 22:28:47 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 19 Sep 88 22:28:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 19 Sep 88 22:14:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 19 Sep 88 22:06:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 19 Sep 88 22:04:50 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04238; Mon, 19 Sep 88 19:06:57 PDT id AA04238; Mon, 19 Sep 88 19:06:57 PDT Date: Mon, 19 Sep 88 19:06:57 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809200206.AA04238@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #368 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 368 Today's Topics: Re: space exploration/exploitation Re: Berserker hypothesis Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? space exploration/exploitation Re: eyewitnesses to history Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) Re: Seti Re: Why no aliens Re: Orbital Mech Algorithm Re: Naming the new Shuttle Survey results, and 'Why aren't they here?" Re: Inverse SETI (Was: ET phone ho Re: Why no aliens ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Sep 88 18:28:56 GMT From: jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) Subject: Re: space exploration/exploitation In article <48@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: >What will NASA and the U.S. Govt. say/do when a >prominent space scientist LEAVES THE US AND GOES TO THE SOVIET UNION >BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE ACTION IS? Maybe this belongs on talk.rumors, but i heard John Denver will pay the USSR $10M to go up into space. Can anyone confirm or deny this? --Joe -- ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 18:07:26 GMT From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Knudsen) Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis In article <2196@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>, chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes: > As a corollary to this, if humans acquired a religion and/or political > ideology directing them to spread as much as possible and exterminate all life > not required for their own support (and also exterminate all humans not > conforming to this religion/ideology), they would count as berserkers, even > though they are not machines. IF what? The ancient Hebrews, European CHristians, their New World descendants (Esp. Brazil), farmers, whalers -- all sorts of human races fit this definition perfectly. The US probably has a copyright on it. No smileys. Maybe we should be glad that the benign Russians have taken over space exploration (OK, a smiley on this one). Unfortunately, benign races don't bother going across the ocean, let alone into space, Vulcans notwithstanding. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 18:14:51 GMT From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Knudsen) Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? In article <10183@reed.UUCP>, douglas@reed.UUCP (P Douglas Reeder) writes: > The greenhouse effect warms the earth up. Particulate matter, from burning > coal, etc. cuts down on sunlight. It has been suggested that we may > need to balance these effects against one another. This reminded me to post my own theory on Nuclear Winter. After a year or so of freezing weather caused by all the particulates, the particles would settle out of the atmosphere. Then the excess of CO2 from all the burning cities, exacerbated by the lack of growing plants during the cold and cloudy "winter," would take over, and we'd go from the deep freeze into the oven. This overheating would continue until Earth recovered her pre-war balance, if ever. BTW, about volcanic contributions -- after Krakatoa blew up around 1880 (several 100 megatons' worth I believe), the dust in the air caused cooler temperatures than normal worldwide for two years. Sunsets were blood-red from the dust in the atmosphere. I don't recall hearing of any similar effects after World War II, during which all major cities of Germany and Japan were converted into soot and CO2. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 14:14:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu (Peter Nelson) Subject: space exploration/exploitation Kevin Van Horn posts >> The bottom line remains that this notion of free-enterprise >> in space is just a pipe-dream with a lot of conveeenient >> excuses by it's proponents. > >Tell that to American Rocket Company, the Hercules-Orbital Sciences >Corporation partnership, and Pacific American Launch Systems. All three are >pushing on to provide new launchers in spite of governmental obstacles. AMROC > [ ... ] We weren't talking about those kinds of ventures. I expect them to succeed. You've drifted from the original subject. Originally, several Libertarians or other idealists posted or emailed messages to the effect that they 'had plans' to move to commercially self-sustaining politically independent space colonies and we'd all better get out their way and let them through. I intimated that this was all pie-in-the-sky and that if they really expected to see it happen in their lifetimes they had better be working Real Hard on it now and what we they doing, etc. I got back messages saying, to the effect, 'Oh, well, we *would* be working on it 'cept for the government might try to stop us, etc. So as I expected, it's just a lot of talk and daydreams. I fully expect the aerospace companies, in cooperation with companies that can benefit from being in space (comm. satellites, pharmecutical companies, etc?) to be up there in some form in the next 10 - 15 years or so, though perhaps not with actual people on board. And, of course, the companies may be Japanese rather than American... --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 88 15:32:52 GMT From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Re: eyewitnesses to history >From article <14094@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, by mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick): > [] > > I thought I'd start something not so serious here. . . > > How many of you guys out there in net.land have ever attended a > launch? I have had the priviledge of going back to Florida > for the Apollo 11, 15 and 17 launches. My wife was given VIP passes to a February '84 launch of Challenger. The one carrying the Brighton High student experiments. So of course we went, even though she was 8 months pregnant at the time. During the tour of KSC I was struck by how small all the boosters seemed, compared to the image I'd had in my mind. Even a Saturn V is small compared to an ocean going ship. Tiny, compared to the old airships. We watched the launch from the VIP viewing stand, about as close as you can get. The LAUNCH! WOW! You feel the SSMEs in your ears and your guts, but the SRBs shake the world! The Challenger didn't lift off, folks she DANCED into the sky. Looked like she was going home, and damned glad to be on the way. It's silly, but writing this has brought tears to my eyes. Bob P. "We Pray for one last landing, On the globe that gave us birth. Let us rest our eyes on the fleecy skys And the cool green hils of earth." R. A. Heinlein, from "The Green Hills of Earth" Quoted from memory, so it might not be quite right. -- Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet Alternate: utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet I am solely responsible for what I say. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 16:54:59 GMT From: tektronix!tekig5!robina@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Robin Adams) Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) > The easiest way to get rid of nuclear waste would be to hard land it on > the moon. Would it be possible to build a railgun/mass driver/etc. .... A much better way to get rid of nuclear waste (from 1988) would be to encapsulate it (however big and expensive the container) - and keep it right here on earth. I'm quite sure that this stuff will one day be worth much more than it's weight in gold. --Consider even the possibility that future minds might be able to design small vessels which release the heat but zero radiation, and that an ordinary house with a central heating system incorporating this container could go at least one entire winter without paying for gas, oil, etc. Hopefully a design which, having used it's energy as heat radiation, would become harmless. Perhaps the vessel remaining useful (building block?) without emptying it's contents. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 14:31:32 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: Seti In article <430@gt-ford.gtisqr.UUCP> kevin@gtisqr.UUCP (Kevin Bagley) writes: } 4) Help me here folks. How else do you cause genocide by remote control? Oh, appear as one religious diety, then as another conflicting one. Sit back and watch the words, then blood, flow. Works real well, I would guess, based upon observations across time. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 23:19:24 GMT From: ndcheg!uceng!dmocsny@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (daniel mocsny) Subject: Re: Why no aliens In article <44600015@pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk>, william@pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk writes: > > I think we are overestimating ourselves a little here. It would take > us lots of years to get together an overwhelming nuclear attack force > that we could get to Mars. We would have to find out what "annihilate" > means - if all their buildings were hardened and underground, and the > Martians routinely wore radiation proof clothing and were built like > brick s***houses, then we would have to send a hell of a lot of explosive. > Enough, say, to plough up the top mile or so of the whole planet? > I don't think we can put together that sort of firepower, and we are > never going to get that much into space on a shuttle. If you want my advice on how to attack Mars (or even if you don't want my advice) we could probably find a fairly hefty Mars-grazing asteroid. Instead of nuking the Martian surface, we send those nukes to the asteroid and give it the ever-so-slight shove necessary to send it careening into the Martian surface on the next lap. You would get a lot more bang-per-buck that way for your trouble, especially if you had a convenient asteroid requiring only a small delta-v. Since Earth has a few like this, Mars must have more, being much closer to the asteroid belt. If the Martians were well dug-in, they could probably ride out the asteroid attack. However, I bet it would get their attention. Would any sci.spacers like to work out the details? Or has this gone around earlier, under the guise of asteroid mining? Dan Mocsny, u. of cincinnati I've got nothing against Martians, really... ------------------------------ Date: 3 Sep 88 01:47:47 GMT From: thorin!unc!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Orbital Mech Algorithm In article <9250@ihlpa.ATT.COM> lew@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Lew Mammel, Jr.) writes: >You'll find that the "midpoint force term evaluation" method gives >greatly increased accuracy. Also try Runge-Kutta. There are huge numbers of good techniques to be found in any decent numerical analysis book. Followups to sci.math.num-analysis, please. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 15:31:03 GMT From: pyramid!pyrnj!dasys1!tneff@decwrl.dec.com (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Naming the new Shuttle In article <8808301935.AA05210@angband.s1.gov> dddurda@PINE.CIRCA.UFL.EDU ("DURDA") writes: > ... PLEASE, the new shuttle orbiter *must* be named Phoenix! Or else what?! Gimme a break! >There are two reasons that this may not come about. First, as I understand it, >NASA has given the name selection process over to the nation's school children. >(Nothing wrong with this at all! I just hope someone would plant the seed of >the idea in their minds.) Damn these citizen participation things anyway. It can be SO tough making sure they come up with the right answer! > ... I don't think we need to ask HAL why this would be a good name! The mythological Phoenix was a fantastic bird, THE ONLY ONE OF ITS KIND, which was reborn from the ashes of its funeral pyre, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. Is this what you want for the Shuttle program? That the fleet never increase, while the ones we have are locked in an endless cycle of fiery death and rebuilding? If so, you and HAL picked the perfect name. Me, I go for Beagle or Nautilus, or whatever the kids think is best. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Sep 88 14:00 EST From: Subject: Survey results, and 'Why aren't they here?" Since a few of you were kind enough to respond to my survey question on Significant Accomplishments in Space, I thought it only fair to let you know what my results and responses were. In essence, almost zero! I got a grand total of 5 responses to my survey, which I don't consider a large enough statistical sample to demonstrate any kind of majority opinion. Of the 5 responses, however, the one common response was that we, as a race, should devote our space efforts to providing extraterretrial habitats for human beings so as to preclude our total annihilation. As a personal comment on my survey, I think it's pretty sad that of the estimated 7000 readers of the digest, that only five took the time and effort to respond. I will qualify this, by stating that maybe I was asking too much (assuming that spending 1/20 of the time most of you spend reading the digest to actually contribute to it is too much), but certainly I could have expected more than 5 responses. Perhaps, however, this is indicative of why our space program is in the sad shape it is currently in. What I mean is, if nobody is ever interested in helping out someone who asks them directly for something, then how much farther away would these same people be from actually doing something to enhance the progress of a more nebulous entity such as the space program? For those of you who did respond however, Thank You! Maybe sometime, I'll try it again and see if the response is any better. ON OTHER SUBJECTS, I think there is one aspect of the SETI discussion on 'Why aren't they here?" that has been overlooked. Maybe they aren't here because they ended up taking the same path towards space that it looks like we will, which is none. Just because a civilization develops the necessary technology for space travel, doesn't mean that it has any interest in accomplishing space travel. We falsely assume that because there are some of us that are interested in space travel, that any technological civilzation would have similar interests ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 10:08:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!etive!hwcs!adrian@uunet.uu.net (Adrian Hurt) Subject: Re: Inverse SETI (Was: ET phone ho > Airflight is a better example. Enquiries are launched if a flight > fails, but they only last any time if it is believed that something really > serious is at fault. People risk their lives doing all sorts of things, > *and know the risk*. I would imagine most of us know someone who has died > on the roads, yet I know few people who are actually prepared to avoid > driving on account of it. Air flight is indeed a good example. Where would it be if present day standards were applied in the early days of aviation? If, for example, the governments decided that only they could sponsor air travel? If, the first time an aircraft crashed, killing people, all aircraft were then grounded for a year or two? Air accidents are tolerated today because air transport has been around for so long that people are used to the risks. The same goes for cars. It's taking risks to develop new things that isn't allowed. -- "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 14:22:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk!william@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Why no aliens >>itself (either with nukes or something worse). Suppose, for example, that it >>is possible to build a weapon that would kill everyone on the planet... > >Could be done now, probably, if one of the superpowers wanted to spend enough >money and effort on it. > >>... something like this may happen in the next 20 years ... Very questionable with respect to the aliens, though. We would have to catch one to find out what can kill it - it may have a lead enriched armour shell which not only shields it from radiation, but collects radiodust and uses it to feed a sweat layer underneath to supply warmth. Dammit, Jim, these creatures *eat* radioactive fuel! And if they live deep underground, then we still have to plough the surface. The only other possibilities to nuclear attack are chemical and biological. Their habitat could make this questionable, and we would have to study them a *lot*. ... Bill ************************************************************************ Bill Witts, CS Dept. * Nel Mezzo del cammin di nostra vita UCL, London, Errrp * mi ritrovai per una selva oscura william@uk.ac.ucl.cs(UK) * che la diritta via era smarrita. william@cs.ucl.ac.uk(US) *********************************************** ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #368 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Sep 88 06:49:58 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Tue, 20 Sep 88 04:30:20 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 20 Sep 88 04:30:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 20 Sep 88 04:12:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 20 Sep 88 04:05:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Tue, 20 Sep 88 04:04:33 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04402; Tue, 20 Sep 88 01:06:51 PDT id AA04402; Tue, 20 Sep 88 01:06:51 PDT Date: Tue, 20 Sep 88 01:06:51 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809200806.AA04402@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #369 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 369 Today's Topics: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? Re: Berserker hypothesis Uses for man-in-space (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST) Re: Naming the new Shuttle more useless trivia Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation) Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation) Re: Why no aliens Re: Survey results, and 'Why aren't they here?" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Sep 88 14:36:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk!william@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? >habitable. I feel that we will have to eventually implement some type of >global scheme to clean up the earth and the longer we wait, the more >drastic it will be. But the longer we wait, the more technically feasible will be the solutions. We don't want to put up the space umbrellas before we sweep up the space-crap which would blow them to bits! Which is expanding the most, technological competance or environmental damage? Obviously they are not independent - our technology is causing most of this pollution. But if pollution can be kept to a minimum, then one day we should be able to deal with it without doing more harm than good. Hopefully before it is too late. Remember, before we go dumping ozone into the upper atmosphere, let's just make DAMN SURE that the Antarctic hole isn't a feature of winter-time polar weather. ... Bill ************************************************************************ Bill Witts, CS Dept. * Nel Mezzo del cammin di nostra vita UCL, London, Errrp * mi ritrovai per una selva oscura william@uk.ac.ucl.cs(UK) * che la diritta via era smarrita. william@cs.ucl.ac.uk(US) *********************************************** ------------------------------ Date: 3 Sep 88 16:09:21 GMT From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis In article <6534@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: >In article <2196@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>, chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu >(Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes: >> As a corollary to this, if humans acquired a religion and/or political >> ideology directing them to spread as much as possible and exterminate all >> life >> not required for their own support (and also exterminate all humans not >> conforming to this religion/ideology), they would count as berserkers, even >> though they are not machines. > >IF what? The ancient Hebrews, European CHristians, their New World >descendants (Esp. Brazil), farmers, whalers -- all sorts of human races >fit this definition perfectly. The US probably has a copyright >on it. No smileys. You're entirely right about this -- the reason I said "if" was an attempt to put across the point (what it takes to be a berserker) without adding in the additional load of asking readers to see at the same time that humans are already examples of living berserkers (which might cause people who disagree with this to miss the point). I should have pointed this out later in the message. In fact, it's enough to be cause for serious questioning of whether humans are too evil to deserve access to space -- I'm for going into space, but we had better get our ethical act cleaned up or the rest of the universe could be in real trouble. >Unfortunately, benign races don't bother going across the ocean, let >alone into space, Vulcans notwithstanding. How do you know? We haven't found any "benign races" to test your theory on. The victims of colonization have on the whole been just as malign as their conquerors (although not always in exactly the same way, but recognizably close -- that's human nature for you), but at the time they were conquered they lacked the means to do what was being done to them, at least to the same extent. Also, what would keep a benign species from going across an ocean or into space, except possibly for nasty species that might get in the way at too early a stage? -- Lucius Chiaraviglio chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu lucius@tardis.harvard.edu (in case the first one doesn't work) Seen on a terminal screen at Harvard: Vote Nixon in 1988 when you are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 88 01:43:12 GMT From: mailrus!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg@nrl-cmf.arpa (Gregory N. Hullender) Subject: Uses for man-in-space (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST) In article <14240@ames.arc.nasa.gov> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes: Let's see if we can make this a bit more constructive. Instead of arguing over whether the shuttle has been of any use whatsoever (obviously it has done more than simply provide space-junkets for people like Jake Garn -- I admit my earlier comment was hyperbole) I'd like to see a discussion of what areas man-in-space might be useful in. In cases where the shuttle is simply helping launch something else, I hope we all agree that it's worse than using expendables. Does everyone agree that it costs more? Construction is the obvious area where people are necessary, but the only construction job in space I've heard anything about is the space station, and that just postpones the question. Repair has also been mentioned, but how often does something go wrong that CAN be fixed? Is it really worth the trouble? (A more complex question than it seems; if we could depend on some repair service, could we design and launch superior systems?) Does this necessarily include anything that needs to be brought back from space? The Soviets brought moon samples back with unmanned vehicles, but I wonder how reliable (and expensive) it would be. -- Greg Hullender uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg 3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Sep 88 15:43:27 GMT From: att!whuts!homxb!homxc!maw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (M.WEINSTEIN) Subject: Re: Naming the new Shuttle > - PLEASE, the new shuttle orbiter *must* be named Phoenix! Why??? I believe that NASA's name selection criteria makes much better sense. Let's not get too cute here. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Michael A. Weinstein More *original* thought from----> | (att!homxc.att.com!maw) | AT&T-BL: Holmdel, NJ | (201)949-7856 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 88 03:39:14 GMT From: mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: more useless trivia [] Just dug up a couple on interesting notes here. First, a while back we were discussing the way the Skylab crews numbered their missions on the patches, Skylab I, II, II, and the "official" flight designators of SL 1 (for the unmanned portion of the OWS), SL 2,3,4 for the manned missions. I just got a videotape of the network coverage of the Conrad launch. Pete refers to his mission as "Skylab 2" and so do the newsdudes. Trivia note #2: During the CBS coverage of the Apollo 15 splashdown, uncle Walter reported about a nearby Soviet "fishing trawler". After the crew was safely on board the Carrier, the trawler supposedly signalled the Carrier something to the affect : "Could we assist you by boarding the capsule?". -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool Mom". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas] ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 15:06:49 GMT From: ulysses!gamma!pyuxp!mruxb!hall@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Michael R Hall) Subject: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation) In <3515@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jsalter@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU states >In fact, we may have a problem with the size of our gene pool. There is a >fine line about when a population's gene pool is large enough and diverse >enough to continue advancing genetically. With not enough babies being born, >we're treading that fine line now, but since we allow so much immigration >thats not a great problem, yet. Mexico on the other hand... >This is off the top of my head from books I've read. Please correct me if >some of it is wrong. If you stop and think for a moment, you will conclude that we are NOT advancing genetically; rather we are devolving (we are not men, we are DEVO). Seriously. Consider the factors that favor "selection" in the modern world. Poor people have more children than financially well-to-do people, by a long shot. A gross generalization is that poor people, on average, are not as intelligent as well-to-do people. The key word is "average"; some poor people are geniuses, some rich people are retarded, but often smart poor people can escape poverty, while stupid rich people lose their wealth to taxes/trickery/gambling/whatever. Evolution requires only a small amount of leverage to work its magic. Don't tell me that it takes millenia. With the proper environmental conditions, a few generations are all it takes for the effects to become visible.(They had ten kids who each had ten kids who each had ten kids...) Modern medicine and science also plays a role in the devolution of Man. My own fiance would not have survived without civilization, because she is practically blind without glasses or contacts. We are becoming more and more blind. My asthmatic friend would have died without modern medicine. We are becoming more and more sickly. Note that I am NOT suggesting that we necessarily do anything about this, so hold your flames. What does this have to do with space? Well, I would propose it as yet another solution to the Fermi paradox; no alien race has been able to maintain its genetic integrity long enough to dominate a large portion of the galaxy. An obvious possible flaw in this argument is that cloning or genetic engineering could slow/stop/reverse devolution, but perhaps this is very hard or impossible for other types of life. After all, we can't even really do it yet, and we may devolve completely (back to apes or on something new?) before we find a "cure". Michael Hall mruxb!hall@bellcore.com or bellcore!mruxb!hall or something like that ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 88 07:43:58 GMT From: agate!garnet!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation) In article <679@mruxb.UUCP>, hall@mruxb (Michael R Hall) writes: > Poor people have more children than financially >well-to-do people, by a long shot. A gross generalization is that poor >people, on average, are not as intelligent as well-to-do people. Yup. Gross is the word. It sounds like complete utter bullshit, having zero basis in anything other than random mental farting. > The key >word is "average"; No, the key word was "gross". > some poor people are geniuses, some rich people are >retarded, but often smart poor people can escape poverty, while stupid >rich people lose their wealth to taxes/trickery/gambling/whatever. Is this supposed to "cover your ass" intellectually here? It doesn't do a very good job. Do you have any solid facts to justify your "gross" assertions? ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 88 02:57:53 GMT From: tektronix!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Why no aliens In article <1988Aug30.160801.3074@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: dep@cat.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes: <>You may be half right, though -- it may be the case that any race "advanced" <>enough to make contact over interstellar distances always ends up destroying <>itself (either with nukes or something worse). Suppose, for example, that it <>is possible to build a weapon that would kill everyone on the planet... < RJOHNSON@CEBAFVAX.BITNET writes: > Since a few of you were kind enough to respond to my survey question >on Significant Accomplishments in Space, I thought it only fair to let you >know what my results and responses were. In essence, almost zero! [. . .] > > As a personal comment on my survey, I think it's pretty sad that of the >estimated 7000 readers of the digest, that only five took the time and >effort to respond. [. . .] Before you get all worked up, consider that maybe your survey didn't get very far on the net. Many times I have posted messages, only to find that they never got beyond the machine on which I posted the messages. A reposting might be in order, considering that most of us don't know how to respond to messages that we haven't received. I will briefly give my answer (only approximate -- I'm really not very good at answering surveys I haven't received) in advance. First of all, we had better get off this heap and into space, because if we don't, it is likely that one day we are going to find that we are off this heap but not in space. Alternatively, it could happen that the entire world all falls into a situation like that in George Orwell's _Nineteen Eighty-Four_, at which point it will be too late to move into space (because if anyone goes into space the government(s) will go with them). But whether natural or human threats are the worse, continuing to live only on Earth is just plain dangerous. Another thing to consider about moving into space is that further development of our civilization will become increasingly difficult until the trouble of getting into space is less than the trouble and hazards of trying to do everything on Earth. It could be argued with considerable sense that this is already starting to happen, but even if we are not at the point yet we should start going into space for the sake of planning ahead for when we do get to that point. Remember -- if you absolutely have to do something, and you haven't prepared for it, the consequences are likely to be more devastating than the loss of time and resources due to excessive and premature preparation. I do not think that space will be economically viable or contain great habitats for quite a long time, but eventually we are going to have to make it that way, and if we haven't been preparing for practical use of space beyond communications satellites beforehand, we aren't going to be able to do it when we need it. Finally, but most importantly, we need to go into space to gain knowledge and do our part in making as much of the universe as possible a better place -- these are what make life worthwhile. As a species, we haven't been very good at the latter, but we aren't going to be able to do it at all in areas where we can't reach. > ON OTHER SUBJECTS, I think there is one aspect of the SETI discussion on >'Why aren't they here?" that has been overlooked. Maybe they aren't here >because >they ended up taking the same path towards space that it looks like we will, >which is none. [. . .] But nothing forces all intelligent species to take the same path as us. Just because our species has a propensity to produce Proxmiroids doesn't mean that another species with a different evolutionary (not to mention cultural) history will. And even some subsets of humans seem to be overcoming this difficulty. But if you want to be in on it, you had better be ready to start learning Russian. . . . -- Lucius Chiaraviglio chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu lucius@tardis.harvard.edu (in case the first one doesn't work) "You never want to try anything. You're always afraid to take a risk. Why'd you ever join Starfleet. Why didn't you stay in Tennessee and raise pigs.?" "I'm 'fraida pigs." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #369 ******************* Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Sep 88 05:53:29 EDT Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Wed, 21 Sep 88 05:03:10 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 21 Sep 88 05:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 21 Sep 88 04:37:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 21 Sep 88 04:26:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 21 Sep 88 04:20:47 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05576; Wed, 21 Sep 88 01:07:28 PDT id AA05576; Wed, 21 Sep 88 01:07:28 PDT Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 01:07:28 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809210807.AA05576@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #370 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 370 Today's Topics: Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation) Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation) Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation) Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? Re: Overpopulation is not our problem Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation) Watching Shuttle Land at Edwards AFB Space Digest - Re:Berserkers Re: Berserker hypothesis Re: Why no aliens ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Sep 88 19:24:54 GMT From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (daniel mocsny) Subject: Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation) In article <679@mruxb.UUCP>, hall@mruxb.UUCP (Michael R Hall) writes: > If you stop and think for a moment, you will conclude that we are NOT > advancing genetically; rather we are devolving [ further citations about higher birthrates among poor, medically- assisted survival of individuals with heritable defects ] For some valuable historical perspective on this topic, step into any sizable library and look up ``eugenics'' in the card catalog. With luck, you will find a generous collection of titles from the period 1900-1920. You will be amazed at some of this stuff. Back then people were not afraid to come out and say what they were thinking. After WWII and the Nazi atrocities we swung to the other extreme, where the individual became entirely a product of his/her environment, and massive social spending (rather than selective breeding) became the acceptable curative. The intelligentsia in the eugenics movement around the turn of the century was alarmed at the high birthrates among the poor and uneducated (an odd attribute of industrial societies -- in ancient times the strongest and smartest men would multiply wives for themselves and sire numerous offspring). Well, here we are 80 years later. Is the average IQ higher or lower now than it was then? I have read that Japan enjoys an average IQ five points higher than ours. Average IQ may not be significant, however; the important indicator of success is probably the number of people _significantly_ above average, as these are the source of much creativity and inventiveness. I personally doubt that devolution can be a significant feature in the destruction of civilizations, since the timeframe for assuming control of biological development is so short. In another hundred years, surely our knowledge of genetics and our information- and nanotechnologies will be so powerful that we will no longer be at the mercy of random experiments in procreation. That just isn't long enough for us to breed ourselves into sickly idiots, even if we tried. Keep in mind that our population is enormously higher now than it was in the good ol' days, when men were men, etc. Even though I can get along OK now with myopia that would have killed me in a hunter-gatherer society, I'll bet the absolute number of prime physical specimens (if not the proportion) is as high as it ever was. People are fairly tough and resourceful, too. After all, most primitive societies have serious health problems, especially in the tropics. For an interesting alarmist look at devolution, read _The Marching Morons_. It's an SF short story that takes these fears to their logical extreme. I can't recall the author just now, but I hope his view of the future is wrong. Dan Mocsny ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 88 04:57:57 GMT From: thorin!ra!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation) In article <679@mruxb.UUCP> hall@mruxb.UUCP (Michael R Hall) writes: >If you stop and think for a moment, you will conclude that we are NOT >advancing genetically; rather we are devolving (we are not men, we are >DEVO). >... we may devolve completely (back to apes or >on something new?) before we find a "cure". 'Evolution' and 'advancing genetically' are by no means the same thing. Good eyesight etc. is no longer being selected for; that doesn't mean we're 'inferior' to our ancestors who may have had better eyesight, any more than whites are inferior to blacks because they don't have as high melanin content in their skin. Followups to sci.bio. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``My goal is simple. It is complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all.'' - Stephen Hawking ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 88 10:04:05 GMT From: agate!garnet!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Subject: Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation) In article <195@uceng.UC.EDU>, dmocsny@uceng (daniel mocsny) writes: > I have >read that Japan enjoys an average IQ five points higher than ours. You (and thousands of others on Usenet) have now read that the two averages would be made equal were you to emigrate to Japan. >For an interesting alarmist look at devolution, read _The Marching >Morons_. I can't recall the author just now, [...] Cyril Kornbluth ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 88 19:42:53 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!newcastle.ac.uk!kelpie!pgc@uunet.uu.net (P. G. Cutting) Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? In article <44600017@pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk> william@pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk writes: >Which is expanding the most, technological competance or environmental >damage? Obviously they are not independent - our technology is causing >most of this pollution. But if pollution can be kept to a minimum, >then one day we should be able to deal with it without doing more >harm than good. Hopefully before it is too late. > ... Bill So , 'is it too late?' we ask ourselves. There are a large number of extinct wildlife who ,if they could talk, might say yes. Also, will we ever know that its too late before it IS TOO LATE. Id rather start now. ARPA : Peter_Cutting%newcastle.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk JANET : Peter_Cutting@uk.ac.newcastle UUCP : PGC@cheviot.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 88 19:51:40 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!newcastle.ac.uk!kelpie!pgc@uunet.uu.net (P. G. Cutting) Subject: Re: Overpopulation is not our problem >You bet - the U.S. has a population distribution problem, not an >overpopulation problem. Ever driven from Iowa through South Dakota, >Montana, Idaho south through Nevada and or Utah into Arizona and much >of California? You could count the people on the fingers of one hand. What about all the resources that 200,000,000 people require. This years harvest failure should indicate that something is wrong. Why push things to the limit. If we lived 'within ourselves' it would not be necessary to squeeze the last drop out of a diminishing world. ARPA : Peter_Cutting%newcastle.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk JANET : Peter_Cutting@uk.ac.newcastle UUCP : PGC@cheviot.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 88 19:34:42 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!newcastle.ac.uk!kelpie!pgc@uunet.uu.net (P. G. Cutting) Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? In article <101270001@hpcvlx.HP.COM> bturner@hpcvlx.HP.COM (Bill Turner) writes: >> On the serious side though, I believe that it is incredibly sad that mankinds >> first attempts at terraforming will be on the Earth just to keep it >> habitable. I feel that we will have to eventually implement some type of >> global scheme to clean up the earth and the longer we wait, the more >> drastic it will be. > >If you wish to look at it this way, we HAVE been terraforming Earth for quite >a while now. Whether for good or not, you must admit that the environment has >been effected substantially by our activities. And what is terraforming, other >than changing the environment? > >--Bill Turner I think that there is a big difference between what humanity has done to the environment and terraforming. The first is typically, initially the unforeseen result of some other primary activity. Ignorance and/or sheer bloody mindedness are the usual culprits. The second ,assuming we achieve it , is the changing of the environment by desire , hopefully with full knowledge of all the consequences. ARPA : Peter_Cutting%newcastle.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk JANET : Peter_Cutting@uk.ac.newcastle UUCP : PGC@cheviot.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 88 17:04:35 GMT From: umigw!umbio!amossb@handies.ucar.edu (A. Mossberg) Subject: Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation) In <195@uceng.UC.EDU>, wrote: >The intelligentsia in the eugenics movement around the turn of the >century was alarmed at the high birthrates among the poor and >uneducated (an odd attribute of industrial societies -- in ancient >times the strongest and smartest men would multiply wives for >themselves and sire numerous offspring). Well, here we are 80 years >later. Is the average IQ higher or lower now than it was then? I have >read that Japan enjoys an average IQ five points higher than ours. >Average IQ may not be significant, however; the important indicator >of success is probably the number of people _significantly_ above >average, as these are the source of much creativity and inventiveness. Well, it is the number above average you'd be looking at. You'd look at the median score (where the majority of people fall). Assuming, of course, you believe in IQ scores, which are inaccurate measurements of intelligence, and are unfair to large segments of the population (poor, disadvantaged with regard to educational opportunities, those new or outside of the cultural environment in which the test is devised, etc) >For an interesting alarmist look at devolution, read _The Marching Morons_. >It's an SF short story that takes these fears to their logical extreme. >I can't recall the author just now, but I hope his view of the future >is wrong. I don't have it handy, (actually it's packed away), but I think it was a story by Harry Harrison. aem -- a.e.mossberg - aem@mthvax.miami.edu - aem@mthvax.span (3.91) Speak in French when you can't think of the English for a thing. - Lewis Carroll ------------------------------ Date: 6 Sep 88 00:01:08 GMT From: apple!dan@rutgers.edu (Dan Allen) Subject: Watching Shuttle Land at Edwards AFB Does anyone know the scoop on being able to go on base at Edwards AFB for the Shuttle landing in October or whenever it is going to land? I went to a landing in 1982 there but did not make any of the details. I have heard a rumor that the public is not allowed on base any more for landings. Any truth to this rumor? Dan Allen Apple Computer dan@apple.COM ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Sep 88 15:40:56 EDT From: saunders%QUCIS.BITNET@vma.cc.cmu.edu Subject: Space Digest - Re:Berserkers Concerning the 'Berserker' debate - there is a very good David Brin short story, entitled 'Lungfish' (in the _River of Time_ short story collection) that makes the point that 1)these probes are a form of life, and will evolve and 2)if this is going on for awhile, wierdness has occured - the probes could very well have extremely complex 'moitivations'. Brin lists many types of probes - Berserkers, Disamsemblers (take apart everthing for resources....), Seeders, Protectors, etc. The basic premise is that some species, somewhere, built probes to go kill the other probes (if only to keep from being bothered), and this introduced an element of competition into the whole thing, hence evolution. The explanation this produces for the Great Silence is that using radio is DANGEROUS; there is no way to tell if the Berserkers, Cleaners, or Protectors (or the Missionaries!!) will get there first - so, whoever gets there first, artifical radio sources have a short lifetime. If the average broadcast time of a race is ~250 years, it does bad things to the chances of us hearing anything. 50 years is a very short time; there could be a (or several) frenzied debate(s) on what to do about the race that sends such strange signals going on now. The relief agency ship (or the battle fleet, or the traders, or the two competing fleets from 1 or more races...) could be about to launch, at turnover, decelerating... There is an sf writer (Varley) who has a ficton which postulates that humanity was kicked off earth by a bunch of gas giant dwellers (who showed up to colonize Jupiter) for abusing the whales and dolphins. This sounds silly, but there have been cultures that took percautions when going out at night to ward off the demons - we can't tell, we can only speculate. Speculating is fun, but we are making a great deal of stew from a virtual oyster. As far as alien motivations go, we will have to wait and see. "Space is deep" is the sum total of our knowledge right now. It will take a long time to fix that, too - a century or so to get a good start. Graydon Saunders [saunders@qucis.bitnet] || My boss has his own opinions - this bunch are my own fault. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 88 10:12:13 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!etive!hwcs!adrian@uunet.uu.net (Adrian Hurt) Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis In article <2216@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>, chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes: > > >Unfortunately, benign races don't bother going across the ocean, let > >alone into space, Vulcans notwithstanding. > > How do you know? We haven't found any "benign races" to test your > theory on. The victims of colonization have on the whole been just as malign > as their conquerors How far do whales travel? O.K., that's under, not across the ocean :-) What about Arctic Terns, which migrate from the Arctic to the Antarctic? And other birds perform lesser feats of endurance during their migrations. I wouldn't class any of these as malign. -- "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 88 10:01:39 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!etive!hwcs!adrian@uunet.uu.net (Adrian Hurt) Subject: Re: Why no aliens In article <191@uceng.UC.EDU>, dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: > If you want my advice on how to attack Mars (or even if you don't want > my advice) we could probably find a fairly hefty Mars-grazing > asteroid. Instead of nuking the Martian surface, we send those nukes > to the asteroid and give it the ever-so-slight shove necessary to > send it careening into the Martian surface on the next lap. This will probably show what I know about the mechanics of space flight (zilch) but anyway... Take some sort of propulsion and control/guidance system. And enough fuel to drive it for, say, a month continuously. Put this lot onto a small asteroid, and move them to a suitable distance. Now switch it on, and let it accelerate continuously towards the target planet. Now, for example, let's say we have 10 m s-2 acceleration, plus corrections for guidance control. One month = 31 days = 31*24*60*60 = 2678400 seconds. Final velocity = 26784000 m s-1. Which is just under 1 percent of lightspeed. Could this be done? What would happen to the target planet when something hit it that hard? -- "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #370 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Sep 88 23:44:12 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Wed, 21 Sep 88 22:58:16 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 21 Sep 88 22:58:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 21 Sep 88 22:39:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 21 Sep 88 22:23:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 21 Sep 88 22:21:07 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06868; Wed, 21 Sep 88 19:07:50 PDT id AA06868; Wed, 21 Sep 88 19:07:50 PDT Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 19:07:50 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809220207.AA06868@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #371 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 371 Today's Topics: Cosmos 1900? Cosmos 1900 Re: Cosmos 1900? Re: Cosmos 1900 Shuttle names--old and new Space probe speed Re: SPACE Digest V8 #350 Re: SPACE Digest V8 #351 Re: Why no aliens RE: Space Exploitation/Exploration ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Sep 88 14:56:22 GMT From: mcvax!enea!kth!draken!chalmers!tekn01.chalmers.se!f86_lerner@uunet.uu.net (Mikael Lerner) Subject: Cosmos 1900? Sometimes there have been 'horror'-stories in the Swedish news- papers about the Soviet Cosmos 1900-satellite, with which the Russians have lost radio contact, which means that they can't separate the nuclear reactor that powered the satellite. It has been said that it would reenter in August or in September, but I haven't heard anything about it for several weeks. Anyone on the net who has actual information? Mikael Lerner And another question ... how to get on the mailing list for Space Digest? ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 88 05:50:43 GMT From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard the Nerd) Subject: Cosmos 1900 Our group of satellite observers (based in Toronto) has been attempting to track Cosmos 1900. It is indeed decaying fast now and should decay on the order of days from now. I'll give more information as it becomes available; in the meanwhile, here is a recent element set: Norad # 18665 Epoch 88257.87186801 n dot over 2 .00244519 n dot^2 over 6 .35493E-04 B star .83369E-04 Bultin # 471 inclination 64.9552 RA of A node 262.4211 eccentricity .0015167 arg. of peri 282.9835 mean anom 76.9422 mean motion 16.250448637 rev # 4449 Rich "Cruising under your radar Watching from the satellites Take a page from the red book And keep them in your sights" ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 88 21:52:03 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Cosmos 1900? In article <170@tekn01.chalmers.se> f86_lerner@tekn01.chalmers.se (Mikael Lerner) writes: > Sometimes there have been 'horror'-stories in the Swedish news- > papers about the Soviet Cosmos 1900-satellite, with which the > Russians have lost radio contact, which means that they can't > separate the nuclear reactor that powered the satellite. It has > been said that it would reenter in August or in September... Reentry is now predicted for late September. Emergency organizations are being alerted to the potential problems. (For example, I recently saw a news story -- in Flight International, I think -- discussing the alert that has gone out to British police.) -- NASA is into artificial | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology stupidity. - Jerry Pournelle | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 88 01:49:21 GMT From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard the Nerd) Subject: Re: Cosmos 1900 Cosmos 1900 reentry is now predicted for October 7th 1988. Rich ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Sep 88 08:38:54 PDT From: hairston%23666%utadnx%utspan.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov Subject: Shuttle names--old and new X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"space@angband.s1.gov" A while back there was a discussion about where NASA got the names for the Shuttle orbiters. Here's the straight dope direct from NASA itself. As you know, the next orbiter is going to be named by a contest in the nation's schools. My wife teaches second grade and just received the entry packet for her class from NASA. The following is taken from that packet: "Each team must propose one name for Space Shuttle Orbital Vehicle (OV) 105. The name must be the name of a sea vessel used in research and exploration. "NASA's first orbiters were named after such sea vessels. The sea-going 'Columbia' entered and explored the mouth of the Columbia River in 1792. 'HMS Challenger' made the first prolonged oceanic exploration cruise; the data gathered about the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans on that voyage became the basis for the study of oceanography. Various ships have borne the name 'Discovery': one of Henry Hudson's in his search for a northwest passage in 1610 and 1611, a second in Captain Cook's voyages of the 1770's, and Commander Robert Scott's steam bark which made the first scientific survey of Antarctica. The ketch 'Atlantis' logged half a million miles between 1930 and 1966 as the first American-operated vessel designed specifically for ocean research. "The space missions carried out by the 'Columbia', 'Challenger', 'Discovery', and 'Atlantis' also have contributed significantly to world research and exploration, making them worthy of sharing the names of their historic predecessors. "The name for OV 105 should be a name suitable for an American spacecraft and should capture the spirit of America's mission in space. In honor of the 51-L crew, the name 'Challenger' has been retired and cannot be used for OV 105." Hmmmm......they didn't mention the "Enterprise". Now I have a question. Back in college in the mid-70's I either read or had someone at JSC tell me that the shuttle names did double duty: they had to represent both a historic research ship AND the name of a famous spacecraft from science fiction. Anyone out there know anything about this? I can get three of them ("Enterprise" from "Star Trek"; "Columbia" was the name of Jules Verne's spaceship in "From the Earth to the Moon", which was why it was also chosen for the command module of Apollo 11; and "Discovery" which was the Jupiter-bound spacecraft in "2001"). Supposedly either "Challenger" or "Atlantis" was the name of Tom Swift's rocket, but I've never been able to track that down for sure. Any sci-fi fans out there have any suggestions or leads? Also, anyone who wants to get contest information, it's open to any school, public or private, grades K through 12th. For an entry packet write to: NASA Orbiter-Naming Program Council of Chief State School Officers 400 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 379 Washington, DC 20001 Deadline for entries is December 31, 1988. Marc Hairston--Center for Space Sciences--Univ of Texas at Dallas SPAN address UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTD750::HAIRSTON "Any opinions expressed above are my own, as are any typos." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Sep 88 09:38:25 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: Space probe speed X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu" > apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu (Peter Nelson) writes: > At 1,000,000 miles an hour (i.e., pretty damn fast by today's standards) > it would take about 2900 years for a probe to get to Alpha Centauri. > The electronics and other systems are not likely to last anywhere near > that long. With a lot of rendundancy and careful design and choice of > material we *might* be able to make a probe last a hundred years. So > to get to Alpha Centauri in that time would require going at 4% of the > speed of light (not counting acceleration/deceleration time). The British Interplanetary Society published a report of a highly-detailed study called _Project Daedalus_ several years ago, still excellent reading. They concluded that an unmanned, undecelerated flyby of Barnard's Star (12 l.y.) would be technologically and economically feasible in short order given reasonable extrapolations. The mission time was 50 years, with a peak velocity of 12% of the speed of light. I'd recommend reading this report. Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1988 11:17-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #350 As just about anybody would guess, I side with Dillon Pyron over Peter Nelson. Mr Nelson may be right about the dreamers who only watch star trek re-runs. But those aren't the only people out there. As far as I'm concerned there is only one real space program around. That is the one being run by people like Gary Hudsen, Deke Slayton, Max Faget, George Koopman... Because if they succeed, people like me get to go. The only thing I get out of the government space program is the honor of paying taxes. And if these people succeed, it won't be all that long before the treaties simply get relegated to the dustbin where they belong. Space is very very expensive. IF you do it the NASA/AEROSPACE way. It just might be affordable if realistic hard headed businessmen (WITH a dream, not a B-school toilet tissue) do it. Most effort by statist space programs is aimed at creating facilities which will keep people totally dependent. All their pictures, all their efforts are aimed at generating this as the 'weltenschaung' of spcae exploration. I suggest that it is a falsehood that is becoming truth only because no one is putting resources into alternatives. Yet. Let us place ourselves 150 years in the future on the lunar surface. Our trusty prospector is peddling across the lunar maria in his four wheeled prospectors bike.(1) He is wearing a skin tight suit (2) and is protected from the sun by a parasol. Food and Oxygen is purchased from small farm(2.5) homesteads sheltered in craters and powered by small cold fusion generators (3). The cheap CFG will be the equivalent of the modern plow in sofar as opening the lunar land to farming. All electronics is self repairing to a great extent. If not nanotechnology, then something at least as good as far as reliability. All electronics are grown on the homestead by 'blueprints' ordered and delivered electronically out of the 2150 online Sears Catalog. Some very scarce materials are purchased, some of which may be imports. The monetary standard may well be defined in terms of scarce volatiles. Water will be totally recycled. Solid wastes will be used as fertilizer and will be of value. They will probably not have the same standards and taboos about human waste that are prevelant in US urban nonculture. NOTHING will be thrown away. Neighbors will help each other out, as they always do on the frontier. Violence will actually be at a minimum, as it was in truth on the REAL american frontier, and most dispute resolution and land titling will be handled by private agencies.(4) Independent settlers are isolated and quite capable of defending themselves. The dug in nature of their shelters makes them difficult to find by sensors and makes them as impervious to a near miss by a nuke as to a solar flare. With the energy at their disposal with the CFG's and the robotic help, they are quite capable of defending their land. Even a major military ground force would break it's back after taking on a few thousand of them, one at a time. I certainly don't expect that I have accurately describe the technology of 2150. Although the details of HOW things might be done may be totally wrong, I'm sure that if people try to find the solutions, there WILL be ways of doing all the things I have described. Anyone who wants to discuss this topic and prove that prospectors and independent farmers can't exist on the moon and tries to prove it by describing 1980 technology limitations will be ignored. If you can't see the effects of 100 years more of a ride on the technological exponential, you aren't worth my wasting time talking to. (If you have trouble, please try placing yourself in the year 1888 or 1838 and describing how the number of passengers per year in flight is a substantial fraction of the total population of the Earth in 1988. Using your 1888 or 1838 reference, describe the technology, economy and infrastructure that will support this. 1: Scientific American, Dec 1983, "Human Powered Vehicles" 2: Discussion on this net 2.5: I don't have the reference handy, but plants can grow in lunar soil, given water and some added microfauna. They do need protection from direct illumination, according to a comment from a biologist heard during the 2nd Lunar Base Symposium, so the shelters will need to hardened just like the people's shelter. Keep in mind that many plains farmers lived in dugout sod houses at least initially. So a bunch of neighbors get together and plow dirt over your new domes. A doming-bee? 3: I think this is Paul's area? 4: Journal of Libertarian Studies, "An Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The NOT So Wild, Wild West" ------------------------------ Date: Tue Sep 6 12:44:53 1988 From: "Philip C. Plait" Reply-To: pcp2g@bessel.acc.virginia.edu Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #351 This may seem a bit naive, but.... Does anyone out there have an idea of when the Discovery is going to launch? I **know** NASA hasn't set a firm date, but I don't even have an idea better than late September. I have a friend down in Florida who has a NASA downlink, but of course they're not talking. The reason I need to know is that I'd like to fly down there and get a look first hand at one of these things lifting off... and the airline wants my me to make reservations a few days in advance. HELPPPPPP!!! Excuse me. If anyone knows, please bitnet me soon. Thanx! {Phil Plait/pcp2g@bessel.virginia.acc.edu/UVa Dept of astronomy} ------------------------------ Date: 6 Sep 88 14:16:50 GMT From: att!alberta!auvax!ralphh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Ralph Hand) Subject: Re: Why no aliens In article <44600016@pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk>, william@pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk writes: > > Very questionable with respect to the aliens, though. We would have to > catch one to find out what can kill it - ... > > ... Bill Why bother trying to kill it. We just land, one of our diseases goes rampant through their population presto we have control of our first new world. (Sort of like the Spanish in South America, or any of the hundreds of other civilzations wiped out in that period). Then if that didn't work we could study them!!! Ralph Any and all opinions are my own. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Sep 88 15:46:19 CDT From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (It's not how fast the car can go, it's how fast you can go) Subject: RE: Space Exploitation/Exploration > Sure if you don't mind living in lo-grav, crowded quarters and never > going to the beach. I don't know what you mean by 'room' but unless > you like living in a pressure suit you're going to be living 'indoors' > all the time. Sounds cramped to me. Besides you miss the entire point > of what the Palestinians, white South Africans, et al, want. Mayhaps that is crowded, but a stucture similar to O'Neil's work is sound and do-able with some macrotechnology. Besides, very few beaches of late are worth (or safe) going to. Maybe I don't really know what the various displaced peoples the world want. Since I'm 1/8 American Indian, please tell me! > Currently the world's population is growing at about 75 million > people a year. Even if we could slow our population growth to 50 > million a year, we'd have to ship a million people a week into space > just to break even. It's not like shipping colonists to the New World. > The shelter, food, and life-support systems for them would have to be > waiting when they arrived. And what are you doing about this. The whole operation would perforce be a bootstrap, similar in many ways to Jamestown (start small and fast). > One of the (many) reasons why our space program is going nowhere fast > is that we have too many romantic dreamers who spend their time reading > Omni and watching reruns of Star Trek and too few pragmatists. Do you > have any idea what it costs to even put a *handful* of people into > space for a few days and keep them there safely? Do you have any concept > of what would be required to create even a *small* self-sustaining colony > of even a few hundred people? Lots and lots of money and an enormous > technological, industrial and academic base. Do you really think they're > going to waste those resources and training putting 'misfits' up there? > > --Peter Nelson Yes, I know what it costs. I also know how much a HARM missle costs, and I'd rather spend the money putting people into space. In both your commentaries, I have not seen one response which actually addresses any of the issues presented. The reason we are stuck is because nay-sayers like you are afraid we can't do it, so let's not. My plans involve pushing my employer into space in one form or fashion, as a first step. Do you have any idea what it will cost not to put nations in space? Dillon Pyron My lips speak what my heart knows to be true. The thoughts and feelings are mine alone. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #371 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Sep 88 06:17:12 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 22 Sep 88 05:18:08 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 22 Sep 88 05:18:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 22 Sep 88 04:14:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 22 Sep 88 04:06:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Thu, 22 Sep 88 04:04:57 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07094; Thu, 22 Sep 88 01:07:16 PDT id AA07094; Thu, 22 Sep 88 01:07:16 PDT Date: Thu, 22 Sep 88 01:07:16 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809220807.AA07094@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #372 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 372 Today's Topics: Wealth of mature spacefaring societies Grim outlook for shuttle launches, manned flight Re: Why no aliens Re: RE space expoitation/exploration Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation) Chix in Space Re: Wealth of mature spacefaring societies "It's because of all those satellites..." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Sep 88 21:37:27 GMT From: oliveb!amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov (MacLeod) Subject: Wealth of mature spacefaring societies In article <1988Aug19.212807.24175@utzoo.uucp: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: :In article <20315@cornell.UUCP: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul F. Dietz) writes: ::A spacefaring society, even one restricted to a single stellar system, ::could have many trillions of members (but technology may make the concept ::of an individual obsolete), and each member could have a productivity orders ::of magnitude greater than 20th century Americans. I would be very careful ::when proclaiming limits on what technological advances such a society might ::accomplish given millions of years. :I second this comment. Consider: There are people alive today who remember :a time when radio did not exist, man could not fly, and the total electrical :generating capacity of the world was measured in megawatts. Today... We :get live TV from Halley's Comet. There is never a time, day or night, when :FEWER than a hundred thousand people are airborne. And one gigawatt is a :single power plant, and not a really big one at that. :Our own world, and our own society, has changed beyond recognition in a :single human lifetime. Never mind the millions of years; extrapolating our :capabilities a measly *thousand* years is quite impossible. Let me add my endorsement. Two thousand years ago (and much more recently in some cultures) the Roman soldier's daily pay brought him the price of a quart or two of wheat. Today I make enough daily to buy a small home computer. This is what wealth is all about. In less than 100 years we have gone from no automobiles to a point where virtually anybody can own one. The infrastructural support for spacecraft will be steeper, but not more than an order of magnitude, and there are no mysteries to be solved. In one of my stories there is a race that has had a basically libertarian spacefaring civilization for about 800 years. They are organized into clans, large extended families, and are so rich that clans typically own hundreds of planets. The technological base is such that an average- sized spaceship - with hyperdrive capability - costs the equivalent of about 15 minutes of labor. It's important to realize, my friends, that there is *no limit* on how good things can get! The range of wealth to poverty between the most wealthy and the !Kung bushmen is neglible compared to the wealth just over the horizon. If we can get there. Lift up thy head, Earthman. Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod) ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 88 20:59:22 GMT From: oliveb!amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov (MacLeod) Subject: Grim outlook for shuttle launches, manned flight In article <688@nancy.UUCP> krj@frith.UUCP (Ken Josenhans) writes: :In article <1988Aug29.172104.10823@utzoo.uucp: henry@utzoo.uucp :(Henry Spencer) writes: ::Then we'll have to ground the shuttle permanently. There is no way to ::fly it without risking loss of another orbiter. The NRC report on ::shuttle frequency put it even more strongly: if the shuttle continues ::flying, another orbiter *WILL* be lost eventually. :Unfortunately, in the wake of the Challenger explosion, no one has done :the necessary *political* work to get the message out to the US public :and Congress that spaceflight entails risks, and there are reasons for :taking these risks. Instead, we've been fed a steady diet of "Safety :first!" messages, and the public has been led to believe that there :will be no more shuttle accidents. What I fear this means is the next :shuttle accident will be the *last* US manned spaceflight, at least for :several decades. There are limits to everything, and my opinion, much as I dislike it, is that the political attitudes, values, and attention span of the US public simply will not support the sort of manned space program we need to be a presence in space. I remember how galvanized the country was in the early sixties; now US space exploits are trated as if they were one more Olympic event, one in which the USSR is getting all the gold medals. There's an old phrase, "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations", which is a commentary about how a family can fail to pass on the qualities that enabled generations one and two to wear suits and ties. I think something like this is true of cultures as well. A mature culture like the USA becomes jaded and cynical, incapable of strong feelings about anything, and certainly incapable of the exertions its forefathers made. This is why I am continually ranting about anarchism and libertarianism and the need for frontiers. It's almost a circular notion, but I believe that the *unprecedented* lack of an Earth-based frontier society has left the more or less statistically constant percentage of dreamers, Lazarus Long - types, anarchists, adventurers, and so on to ferment and seethe in their parent cultures, causing friction and division. Worse, when such people are dispersed in a democracy like the USA, they will be checked by the inertia of the masses. To be really effective, there must be a (basically) lawless frontier society to repair to. The poster above fears that the next shuttle disaster will halt the US manned space program for many years. I think that it will probably end it permanently, unless you count guest rides on Soviet craft. Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod) ------------------------------ Date: 6 Sep 88 19:15:32 GMT From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) Subject: Re: Why no aliens In article <714@auvax.UUCP> ralphh@auvax.UUCP (Ralph Hand) writes: [About how to kill an alien] >Why bother trying to kill it. We just land, one of our diseases goes >rampant through their population presto we have control of our first >new world. [. . .] It is just as likely, on the average, that one of their diseases could go rampant among our population. Of course, what is a disease is even more likely to be different for two species of different origin than for two groups of humans: something that is completely harmless to us/them could find them/us to be an excellent growth medium, and also be wierd enough for their/our immune systems to have a hard time with. This is, of course, assuming that organisms of one origin are able to grow upon material composing/synthesized by organisms of the other origin, which might not be possible if the biochemistries were too divergent, although keep in mind that mutants on either side capable of living in environments provided by the other side could be selected for by continued exposure even for fairly divergent environments. (The list of things that terrestrial microrganisms can metabolize is quite long, and even things as specialized as mammalian cells are capable of a few things as profound as oxidation or other metabolism of aromatic compounds and conversion of D-valine to L-some-other-amino-acid -- have to be able to in order to live in a world containing plants and bacteria and industries which make such nasty chemicals.) -- Lucius Chiaraviglio chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu lucius@tardis.harvard.edu (in case the first one doesn't work) Better active today than radioactive tomorrow. . . . . .but better radioactive today than inactive tomorrow. :-) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Sep 88 01:33:38 GMT From: oliveb!amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov (MacLeod) Subject: Re: RE space expoitation/exploration In article <3e08340e.ae47@apollo.COM> nelson_p@apollo.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > One of the (many) reasons why our space program is going nowhere fast > is that we have too many romantic dreamers who spend their time reading > Omni and watching reruns of Star Trek and too few pragmatists. Do you > have any idea what it costs to even put a *handful* of people into > space for a few days and keep them there safely? Do you have any concept > of what would be required to create even a *small* self-sustaining colony > of even a few hundred people? Lots and lots of money and an enormous > technological, industrial and academic base. Do you really think they're > going to waste those resources and training putting 'misfits' up there? Dead wrong, of course. The program needs people who will not be deterred by >anything<; there will always be "good" "reasons" to flop back into the tide pool rather than breath that nasty oxygen. The problem, to paraphrase Ayn Rand, is not those who dream, but those who can >only< dream. In talk.politics.misc Mr. Nelson recently recommended that the US surrender to the USSR if the latter >threatened< to start an atomic war. This illustrates exactly what I am talking about when I ramble on about freedom versus security and about the character of pioneers versus couch potatoes. Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod) ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 00:19:27 GMT From: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? >From article <3257@lanl.gov>, by jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles): > [...] > latitudes, decreasing the albedo of the planet as a whole. ^^^^^^^^^^ I meant 'increasing' of course. J. Giles ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 00:14:30 GMT From: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? >From article <6535@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, by knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen): > In article <10183@reed.UUCP>, douglas@reed.UUCP (P Douglas Reeder) writes: > This reminded me to post my own theory on Nuclear Winter. > After a year or so of freezing weather caused by > all the particulates, the particles would settle out of the > atmosphere. Then the excess of CO2 from all the burning cities, > exacerbated by the lack of growing plants during the cold and > cloudy "winter," would take over, and we'd go from the deep freeze > into the oven. This overheating would continue until Earth > recovered her pre-war balance, if ever. Not only that, part of the particulate matter (soot) would settle out on the permanent snow fields near the poles. The resulting reduction in albedo of the snow would cause increased warming. The offset to these effects would be the fact that during the nuclear winter interval, the permanent snow fields would have expanded to lower latitudes, decreasing the albedo of the planet as a whole. Actually, no long term post nuclear winter scenario is more likely than any other. No one knows what would happen. J. Giles ------------------------------ Date: 6 Sep 88 15:29:40 GMT From: steinmetz!nuke!oconnor@itsgw.rpi.edu (Dennis M. O'Connor) Subject: Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation) An article by hall@mruxb.UUCP (Michael R Hall) says: ] In <3515@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jsalter@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU states ] >In fact, we may have a problem with the size of our gene pool. There is a ] >fine line about when a population's gene pool is large enough and diverse ] >enough to continue advancing genetically. 250,000,000 is a plenty large gene pool. 100,000,000 is as well. Even 1,000,000 is. You don't have to worry until you get down to a few thousand or tens of thousands of individuals. Cheetahs apparently were at some recent time down to a few hundred closely- related individuals. ] If you stop and think for a moment, you will conclude that we are NOT ] advancing genetically; rather we are devolving ... [... rest of article deleted, since it is founded in a totally ( by definition ) fallacious assumption ...] ] Michael Hall Here's a news flash for armchair biologists : nothing EVER "devolves". Period. There is no such thing as "devolution". It's impossible. A population tries to adapt to it's environment : that's evolution. Sometimes the adaptation doesn't go the way YOU think it should. Maybe in the current environmnt, being poor is a survival advantage. Maybe, as was Hamlet's case, being too smart is a handicap. If the "marching morons" will indeed take over the world, then they are obviously more "fit" ( better adapted ), are they not ? People who use the BS term "devolve" are usually committing the phalacy of judging adaptations. There's only one measure of an adaptations success : survival. And if the human race dies out, so what ? So did the dinosaurs. The universe doesn't revolve around us humans, you know. Besides, the human race won't die out till after I and everyone I know are dead ( by definition ), so it hardly matters to me, does it ? :-) But keep it out of sci.space, eh ? -- Dennis O'Connor oconnor%sungod@steinmetz.UUCP ARPA: OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa "Never confuse USENET with something that matters, like PIZZA." ------------------------------ Date: 6 Sep 88 10:39:32 GMT From: mcvax!enea!erix!howard@uunet.uu.net (Howard Gayle) Subject: Chix in Space >From the 10 June 1988 issue of Science, p. 1411: Has the franchising of space begun? When the space shuttle Discovery lifts off next January, it will carry aboard 32 fertilized chicken eggs in a special incubator as part of an experiment to see if embryos can develop normally in space. The experiment is funded by a $50,000 grant from Kentucky Fried Chicken---the fast-food corporation's first research effort. The project---part of NASA's Shuttle Student Involvement Program---is the brainchild of 22-year-old John Vellinger, a junior mechanical engineering major at Purdue University. Vellinger developed the experiment as a junior in high school, and NASA first scheduled it for the ill-fated flight of Challenger in January 1986 The eggs will rest in a heated and humidity-controlled cradling carrier inside a locker aboard the space shuttle. The cradle is designed to reduce the effects of g forces and vibration during lift-off. After return, the egg[s] will be compared with a control batch on Earth at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Vellinger will mother hen the Earth-bound eggs by turning them five times a day, simulating the movement of a chicken incubating her eggs. Some of the eggs from both batches will be hatched and the offspring observed through their life cycle. On Earth, gravity pulls the heavier yolk to the bottom of the egg. Vellinger thinks that under weightlessness the yolk will hang suspended in the middle of the egg, resulting in more efficient embryonic development and a better chicken. And, presumably, in better fried chicken and chicken nuggets. It may also offer clues as to how human embryos may one day develop in space. Colonel Sanders would be proud. Howard Gayle TN/ETX/TX/UMG Ericsson Telecom AB S-126 25 Stockholm Sweden howard@ericsson.se {mcvax, uunet}!enea!ericsson.se!howard Phone: +46 8 719 5565 FAX : +46 8 719 9598 Telex: 14910 ERIC S ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 02:20:48 GMT From: thorin!tlab1!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Wealth of mature spacefaring societies In article <3735@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: >It's important to realize, my friends, that there is >*no limit* on how good things can get! The range of wealth to poverty >between the most wealthy and the !Kung bushmen is neglible compared to the >wealth just over the horizon. The speed of light places a limit on how much mass and energy are available to us. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if, as automation & AI develop, human labor becomes worth practically nothing. There could be exceptions - truly great thinkers, artists, etc. - but the average person might well have no skills worth *anything*. Immense surpluses such as may be produced in future societies might exacerbate the range of wealth to poverty to a far greater degree than Donald Trump vs. a Kung! bushman. People may argue that just the solar system provides enough for everyone to be wealthy. Maybe so, but I suspect that as in most other cases, human population will rapidly grow to the point that most people are just barely surviving, rather than keeping it down to a level where everyone has more than enough. I don't think that fertility rates in the developed world are a very good predictor as yet. Maybe with a few centuries more data. Don't take this as my being a neo-Luddite. I'm eagerly looking forward to the future. It's just that I expect it to be every bit as screwed up as things have been for the last few millenia, as well as to be many of the wonderful things the optimists expect. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``After all, the best part of a holiday is perhaps not so much to be resting yourself as to see all the other fellows busy working.'' - Kenneth Grahame, _The Wind in the Willows_ ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 06:51:29 GMT From: mangler@csvax.caltech.edu (Don Speck) Subject: "It's because of all those satellites..." This last weekend my Mom mentioned to me that the weather where she lives is unusual this summer (it is here too), and she posited that global weather is messed up "because of all those satellites". Although I hastened to explain that it's caused by pollution, I wonder how prevalent this misperception is among U.S. voters? Do you suppose that one could get that idea by seeing the conspicuous smoke and fire of solid rockets? Don Speck speck@vlsi.caltech.edu {amdahl,ames}!cit-vax!speck ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #372 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Sep 88 08:34:42 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Fri, 23 Sep 88 06:57:49 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Fri, 23 Sep 88 06:57:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 23 Sep 88 06:47:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 23 Sep 88 06:38:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Fri, 23 Sep 88 06:36:47 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08370; Fri, 23 Sep 88 01:07:54 PDT id AA08370; Fri, 23 Sep 88 01:07:54 PDT Date: Fri, 23 Sep 88 01:07:54 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809230807.AA08370@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #373 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 373 Today's Topics: Re: "It's because of all those satellites..." Re: access to space; how to deny Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? Re: Another Titan failure? Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation) Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) Re: space exploration/exploitation Re: Shuttle names--old and new STS-26 and Manifest Releases Posted RE space exploitation/exploration ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Sep 88 15:19:23 GMT From: agate!soup.ssl.berkeley.edu!gckaplan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (George Kaplan) Subject: Re: "It's because of all those satellites..." In article <7844@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> mangler@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Don Speck) writes: >This last weekend my Mom mentioned to me that the weather where >she lives is unusual this summer (it is here too), and she posited >that global weather is messed up "because of all those satellites". > >Although I hastened to explain that it's caused by pollution, >I wonder how prevalent this misperception is among U.S. voters? > >Do you suppose that one could get that idea by seeing the conspicuous >smoke and fire of solid rockets? > >Don Speck speck@vlsi.caltech.edu {amdahl,ames}!cit-vax!speck How about the satellite weather images that can be seen every day on television news? I think there has always been some confusion between predicting the weather and causing it. Certainly that's a common theme in casual conversation. Some local TV weather forecasters even use this theme themselves, taking "credit" for good weather and apologizing for storms. It's a simple extension of the cause-and-effect of weather reporting to blame the "satellites" for the odd global weather those satellites report. - George C. Kaplan gkaplan@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu ..!ucbvax!sag4.ssl!gkaplan ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 18:21:22 GMT From: jpl-devvax!lwall@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Larry Wall) Subject: Re: access to space; how to deny In article <8809070005.AA02422@angband.s1.gov> BEB@UNO.BITNET (Bruce Bettis) writes: : att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!water!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu : (Henry Spencer) writes: : > ...but there's nothing : >impossible about shooting down a launcher with more mundane weapons. : : Like, say, a sneaky Marielito (to keep the threat Cuban :-) with a slingshot : and a bag of rocks? (How mundane can you get?) No doubt a few well-placed : shots would at the least scrub a mission. Particularly this "first" Shuttle : launch... How deep a hole would you have to drill in the side of an SRB to create a situation virtually indistinguishable from what happened to Challenger? How long would it take? Do those who assemble SRBs have security clearances? How well guarded are those SRBs? Would a drill hole be detected? What about the SRB nozzles? Would a hole in one of those lose the mission? How much disparity in thrust can the stack put up with? Can the hold-down bolts keep the thing from taking off if one SRB fires and the other doesn't? Are there any wires to clip that would have this effect, and go undetected? What would be the effect of a well-timed model airplane with a zip gun putting a tracer bullet into the ET as it was lifting off? Just bein' unusually paranoid, as usual. Larry Wall lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 18:24:37 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? In article <44600019@pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk>, william@pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk writes: > > >I don't recall hearing of any similar effects after World War II, > >during which all major cities of Germany and Japan were converted > >into soot and CO2. > > The major difference between a nuclear blast or eruption and a > conventional bomb attack is that the latter is a slow gradual effect > using low power weapons. Nothing is thrown very far. Any dust that > is formed is not kicked into the upper atmosphere with the old bombs. It's not the size of the bomb that's the important factor, but the size of the resulting fire: the firestorms of Dresden and Tokyo were quite comparable to the expected results from nuking any major city in the present. A typical attack began with some high-explosive loads to scatter debris, break gas and water mains, and hinder fire fighting later, followed by incendiary loads to start fires over a large area. During the Tokyo attacks, there was substantial turbulence (and fairly large objects) reported at and above 35,000 feet. The bombers attacking the city came in at low level (around 8,000 feet), but there were aircraft following the raid for photography and post-raid evaluation that came over at much higher altitudes. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 17:38:54 GMT From: vsi1!daver!mfgfoc!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Thompson) Subject: Re: Another Titan failure? >From article <607@cmx.npac.syr.edu>, by anand@cmx.npac.syr.edu (Rangachari Anand): > > I just heard on radio news (mutual) that the Vortex spy satellite launched > from Vandenberg on a Titan 4 has failed to reach the correct orbit. > Apparently the third stage failed. Does anyone have more details? > > I am sure the Military must be getting pretty desperate by now. I remember > that a Titan carrying a KH11 exploded right after Challenger. I also > remember a TV news broadcast where they mentioned that only one KH11 is > left in orbit. > > R. Anand > Internet: anand@amax.npac.syr.edu > Bitnet: ranand@sunrise When I heard that the satellite failed to reach orbit I thought that it was another NASA/Air Force Blunder, but then I got to thinking, what better way to throw the Ruskies off than by anouncing that the top secret spy satellite failed to reach proper orbit. After all, an announcement of another failed booster would be believable enough. I would be willing to bet that the Ruskies are watching (tracking) the satellite very carefully no matter which orbit it goes into. Perhaps if the satellite had really failed, it would not be announced to the public so that the Soviets would think that we had a satellite up their. Perhaps I have read to many spy novels and who really know what our government is up to. Could the Titan that exploded after Challenger have been a smokescreen too. Naa, to far fetched.. Mike Thompson P.S. My opinions are in no way a reflection of the opinions of my employer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael P. Thompson FOCUS Semiconductor Systems, Inc. net: (sun!daver!mfgfoc!engfoc!mike) 570 Maude Court att: (408) 738-0600 ext 370 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 6 Sep 88 18:01:03 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!etive!hwcs!zen!frank@uunet.uu.net (Frank Wales) Subject: Re: Devolution (Was discussion on overpopulation) In article <454@umbio.MIAMI.EDU> aem@Mthvax.Miami.Edu (a.e.mossberg) writes: >In <195@uceng.UC.EDU>, wrote: >>For an interesting alarmist look at devolution, read _The Marching Morons_. >>I can't recall the author just now, > >I don't have it handy, but I think it was a story by Harry Harrison. "The Marching Morons" was actually written by C.M. Kornbluth; the last time I saw it published was in an early 'Omni' issue, maybe V1N2. Memorable Frank. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 88 17:58:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk!william@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? >I don't recall hearing of any similar effects after World War II, >during which all major cities of Germany and Japan were converted >into soot and CO2. Were they though? Many cities had their centres turned to rubble, but I think the amount of burning was fairly limited - perhaps not generating as much burnt product as a few ordinary power stations. (I don't know this though - anybody know?) The major difference between a nuclear blast or eruption and a conventional bomb attack is that the latter is a slow gradual effect using low power weapons. Nothing is thrown very far. Any dust that is formed is not kicked into the upper atmosphere with the old bombs. ... Bill ************************************************************************ Bill Witts, CS Dept. * Nel Mezzo del cammin di nostra vita UCL, London, Errrp * mi ritrovai per una selva oscura william@uk.ac.ucl.cs(UK) * che la diritta via era smarrita. william@cs.ucl.ac.uk(US) *********************************************** ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 21:05:42 GMT From: elbereth.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) > 1) We could send Pu garbage *out* of our solar system. > 2) We could use the Space Shuttle to get spacecrafts payloaded with Pu to > orbit and then out of our solar system. This as a terrible idea! Equivalent to throwing your household garbage into the street or dumping toxic waste into the oceans. Does absolutely nobody on this newsgroup have any sense of proportion at all? Lets consider near interstellar space, say within 4 LY, having a volume of 2e50 cubic meters. If we had an all-nuclear economy we would produce 1e6 m^3 of HL waste every century. Now the volume of the oceans is something on the order of 1e17 m^3. Thus to equal the injection of a century of nuclear waste into near interstellar space we are talking about dumping 0.5e-27 cubic meters of waste into the oceans, which is to say half a cubic nanometer, or the size of single molecule of sugar. --JoSH ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 02:29:29 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!Schizoid@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: space exploration/exploitation >I heard that John Denver will be paying $10M to the Russians to go into >space...can anyone confirm this? [paraphrased] TIME Magazine reported this story in one of their last three issues. The major obstacle Denver is said to face is learning Russian; he will also have to pass a NASA [sic] physical and go through the USSR training program. {Fred_Apple_Bonhotal, schizoid}@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 18:07:30 GMT From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Knudsen) Subject: Re: Shuttle names--old and new Hmmm, can anyone else verify the statement that Shuttle names must also be of SF space ships? If so, how about "Cygnus" from _The Black Hole_ movie. "Cygnus" means "swan." The shuttle sure is an ugly duckling when it takes off -- such an ungainly contraption, even as it dances into the sky (thanks for that phrase!). But it's graceful as a swan after it shucks those boosters and tank. Now if someone can find an exploratory sea-ship Cygnus... BTW, did the spaceships have names in _Destination Moon_ (a Libertarian's favorite) or _Conquest of Space_? Anyone for Pinta, Nina, or Santa Maria? Let's generate lists of both types of vessels and see what the intersection looks like. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 23:28:41 GMT From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: STS-26 and Manifest Releases Posted I have posted the STS-26 press release (in 4 parts) to sci.space.shuttle. Tomorrow I will post the NASA Manifest (in 4 parts as well) to sci.space.shuttle. -Peter Yee yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov ames!yee ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 18:24:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu (Peter Nelson) Subject: RE space exploitation/exploration MacLeod posts: >> One of the (many) reasons why our space program is going nowhere fast >> is that we have too many romantic dreamers who spend their time reading >> Omni and watching reruns of Star Trek and too few pragmatists. Do you > [ ... ] >> technological, industrial and academic base. Do you really think they're >> going to waste those resources and training putting 'misfits' up there? >Dead wrong, of course. The program needs people who will not be deterred >by >anything<; there will always be "good" "reasons" to flop back into >the tide pool rather than breath that nasty oxygen. I'm sure they'll have no trouble finding skilled, brave people who are not misfits. Are you saying that our astronauts were misfits and dreamers? Look at the original posting. >The problem, to paraphrase Ayn Rand, is not those who dream, but those >who can >only< dream. No kidding. >In talk.politics.misc Mr. Nelson recently recommended that the US surrender >to the USSR if the latter >threatened< to start an atomic war. This >illustrates exactly what I am talking about when I ramble on about freedom >versus security and about the character of pioneers versus couch potatoes. I'm not sure why this is relevant but I appreciate the compliment of being called a pioneer. There are very few people who would be willing to say what I said. It takes a real romantic, a dreamer, an iconoclast to not go along with the other lemmings on this one. I assume that's what Mr. MacLeod means by pioneer. Considering that, at least in my part of the country, a nuclear war means certain death, I prefer the *freedom* of being alive. Death is the ultimate oppression. --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #373 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Sep 88 08:39:39 EDT Received: by PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU (5.54/3.15) id ; Sat, 24 Sep 88 07:42:34 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat, 24 Sep 88 07:42:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 24 Sep 88 06:43:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 24 Sep 88 06:32:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 24 Sep 88 04:08:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 24 Sep 88 04:06:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ANDREW.CMU.EDU (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sat, 24 Sep 88 04:05:57 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09591; Sat, 24 Sep 88 01:08:14 PDT id AA09591; Sat, 24 Sep 88 01:08:14 PDT Date: Sat, 24 Sep 88 01:08:14 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809240808.AA09591@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #374 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 374 Today's Topics: wealth of mature spacefaring societies space exploration/exploitation Re: Space Disposal of Nuclear Wastes Re: wealth of mature spacefaring societies Please keep postings relevant to space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Sep 88 18:02:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu (Peter Nelson) Subject: wealth of mature spacefaring societies 'Da Plane, da plane, boss...' 'It's a spaceship, Tatoo, but yes, you're right. Today's guest here on Fantasy Newsgroup is Mr. Macleod who posts... >Let me add my endorsement. Two thousand years ago (and much more recently >in some cultures) the Roman soldier's daily pay brought him the price of >a quart or two of wheat. Today I make enough daily to buy a small home >computer. This is what wealth is all about. In less than 100 years >we have gone from no automobiles to a point where virtually anybody can >own one. First of all, you don't know that Roman soldier : rich American is a reasonable comparison. Neither is particularly representative of the species at his time in history. To make another silly comparison-- Today only the rich can own a horse, a hundred years ago horse ownership was common. Anyway most people CANNOT own a car. Your ethnocentrism is showing. More to the point, extrapolations can be tricky. It's true that the average American is richer than he was a hundred years ago but he is *poorer* than he was in the 60's. Nowadays, two incomes are required to maintain a standard of living that one could maintain at that time. Which way is the curve heading these days? If you had extrapolated from the time when dinosaurs first appeared on earth to when Brontosaurus existed you might have concluded that there would be lots of huge, powerful dinosaurs around today. Another BIG difference is that our material standard of living is not mainainable in its current form. We cannot continue to consume non-renewable resources or generate pollution and other waste at the current rate. Automobiles are MAJOR pollution sources both in their use and their manufacture/maintenance/infrastructure requirements. Also, remeber that the Roman soldier's generous payscale was a function of non-maintainable factors, too. (i.e., the Roman Empire) Of course, this may ALSO be a silly extrapolation. Another factor is that the 'wealth' or standard of living of most Americans is illusory. I doubt you could afford to buy a home computer on a day's pay if that computer and all it's parts were made by people enjoying an American wage scale. A lot of our standard of living is based on other countries having much lower wages, fewer pollution standards, etc. Roman senators were wealthy in the same way. >In one of my stories there is a race that has had a basically Are you a writer? Where? >libertarian spacefaring civilization for about 800 years. They are organized >into clans, large extended families, and are so rich that clans typically >own hundreds of planets. The technological base is such that an average- >sized spaceship - with hyperdrive capability - costs the equivalent of about >15 minutes of labor. Ah yes, FTL travel. Where would science fiction be without it? If we're willing to postulate FTL travel why not alternative universes or time travel as a future solution to our problems? > It's important to realize, my friends, that there is *no limit* on > how good things can get! ...Or how bad they can get. Sure, maybe the world of the future will be bright and clean with robots doing all the manufacturing and everyday is Saturday and the malls are open and our pockets are stuffed with money. Or maybe it will be a cyberpunk's worst nightmare with rain 'sour and acid, nearly the color of piss' (William Gibson), respirators required for a simple walk down the street, and remote pain inducers implanted at birth by a high-tech tyranny to keep 20 billion people passive. These are matters of religion (faith) and science fiction, not sci.space. While we fritter our time away in fantasy, other countries have real space programs with realistic goals and programs to accomplish them. If anyone on this group ever does get into space it will probably be at the whim of the Russians or Japanese. --Peter Nelson ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 19:40:00 GMT From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu (Peter Nelson) Subject: space exploration/exploitation Dillon Pyron posts: > Yes, I know what it costs. Great, perhaps you could tell the rest of us. I have no idea what it would cost to put up a permanent, self-sufficient colony in space (except that it would be plenty) - AND NOBODY ELSE DOES EITHER. The engineering and design hasn't been done. Nobody has made a business plan. > I also know how much a HARM missle costs, and I'd rather spend > the money putting people into space. So would I. On the other hand, the Russians seem to be able to do both. > In both your commentaries, I have not seen one response which > actually addresses any of the issues presented. What issues?? The only issue here is that this net has a lot of would-be space cadets who bought tickets on the PanAm moon shot a few years back and expect to cash them in. This started when somebody informed us that he had 'plans' to go into space and I asked what these 'plans' consisted of. 'Answer came there none.' > The reason we are stuck is because nay-sayers like you are > afraid we can't do it, so let's not. God, I had no idea I had such powers of persuasion. In that case, send me all your money. Don't blame others for your inaction. Have you actually *tried* to get something going? Has anyone made a good business plan? Get to work on it! ...Oh, I see. You would except for the government. That D.O.T. thing is just a sham to fool innocents like Conatec, MacDonnel Douglas, etc. OK, then how much have you personally done to push more lenient legislation through Congress? How many petitions have you picked up, how much PAC money have you raised? These fearless space pioneers are afraid of nothing: they laugh at radiation, money is no object, the vaccum of space holds no terror for them, the distance, the time, the loneliness- big deal......the paperwork...AAIIIEEEE!! > My plans involve pushing my employer into space in one form > or fashion, as a first step. Haven't we all wanted to do this at one time or another? Which version of the word 'plans' is this? > Do you have any idea what it will cost not to put nations > in space? No. Do you? I hope we get a space program going here, either via NASA or private enterprise. All I'm criticizing are the junior space cadets who won't have anything to do with any effort not directed at setting up a Libertarian space colony or who waste time in such dreams while other nations work on real space programs. You can tell where these people are coming from as Dale.Amon gets to the good stuff... < Independent settlers are isolated and quite capable of defending , mvs@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG (Michael V. Stein) writes: Writing about burying nuclear wastes in hard rock formations rather than sending it into space: > > You are damn right it will cost less. It will also be several billion times > safer. > Do you have a reference for those figures? The "Space Disposal of Nuclear Wastes" studies done by Battelle in the early 1980s found the cost to be twice as high for space disposal vs underground burial, with a marginal improvement in expected deaths due to radiation exposure (on the order of 1 death rather than 2 deaths) over the life of the storage (>1 million years). The space disposal alternative was made safe by encasing the waste in an armored sphere (9 inches of stainless steel) covered with Shuttle type tiles, so even in a worst case launch vehicle accident, the waste is contained. The Boeing subcontract study manager, Rich Reinart, claimed he would be happy to have a 'waste ball' buried in his driveway to keep the snow off (they give off about 2 kW in heat). -- Dani Eder / Boeing / Space Station Program / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder (205)464-4150(w) (205)461-7801(h) 1075 Dockside Drive #905 Huntsville, AL 35824 34 40 N latitude 86 40 W longitude +100m altitude, Earth ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 88 04:18:46 GMT From: aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: Re: wealth of mature spacefaring societies >Let me add my endorsement. Two thousand years ago (and much more recently >in some cultures) the Roman soldier's daily pay brought him the price of >a quart or two of wheat. ... First of all, you don't know that Roman soldier : rich American is a reasonable comparison. Neither is particularly representative of the species at his time in history. Roman soldier : *average* American is a reasonable comparison, i.e. middle level member of the dominant imperial power of the age. Today only the rich can own a horse, a hundred years ago horse ownership was common. A distortion, since it is easier to own a horse now (in terms of % of average income); most people merely don't because they don't need to. A horse was a major investment in the days of yore; stealing one was a capital crime. Anyway most people CANNOT own a car. Your ethnocentrism is showing. This is because their political leaders find it expedient to keep them in poverty, and has nothing to do with the argument, which is about possible curves of technological development. It was always a given that political idiocy could prevent a species from developing star travel. More to the point, extrapolations can be tricky. It's true that the average American is richer than he was a hundred years ago but he is *poorer* than he was in the 60's. Same comment. Another BIG difference is that our material standard of living is not mainainable in its current form. We cannot continue to consume non-renewable resources or generate pollution and other waste at the current rate. Automobiles are MAJOR pollution sources both in their use and their manufacture/maintenance/infrastructure requirements. Also, remeber that the Roman soldier's generous payscale was a function of non-maintainable factors, too. (i.e., the Roman Empire) Of course, this may ALSO be a silly extrapolation. It certainly is. After all, we are on the very brink of running out of whale oil (a *renewable* resource) and the streets of New York are knee deep in horseshit. If we do run out of resources, it will simply be because the technophobes have managed to prevent the natural cycle of substitution by advancing technologies. Another factor is that the 'wealth' or standard of living of most Americans is illusory. I doubt you could afford to buy a home computer on a day's pay if that computer and all it's parts were made by people enjoying an American wage scale. ... Wrong. When you subtract the 43% the government steals from the American, the Japanese makes more. And his products work reliably. However, this is only another example of the political idiocy we saw before. America may well be headed for a big decline. Right now the exponential growth curve of technology is just about balanced by the exponential decline of sociosclerosis. Technophobia is only one symptom of this. Mr. Nelson's horror of pollution has nothing to do with the potentiality of technological advance. If we have hospital wastes on our beaches, remember that both the hospitals and the beaches are the luxuries of the middle class. The advancing technology argument for star travel does not require that we must necessarily overcome our collective stupidity and avail ourselves of the nearly limitless opportunities and riches just before our noses. It only requires that it not be necessary that we fail. Then, somewhere in a big big universe, some race of more worthy creatures will succeed, and ride the power curve to the stars. If that leaves some backward-looking technophobes sitting in their own excrement because it's natural that way, then maybe there is some justice after all. > It's important to realize, my friends, that there is *no limit* on > how good things can get! ...Or how bad they can get. Sure, maybe the world of the future will be bright and clean with robots doing all the manufacturing and everyday is Saturday and the malls are open and our pockets are stuffed with money. Or maybe it will be a cyberpunk's worst nightmare with rain 'sour and acid, nearly the color of piss' (William Gibson), respirators required for a simple walk down the street, and remote pain inducers implanted at birth by a high-tech tyranny to keep 20 billion people passive. "States have needed people as workers because human labor has been the necessary foundation of power. What is more, genocide has been expensive and troublesome to organize and execute. Yet, in this century totalitarian states have slaughtered their citizens by the millions. Advanced technology will make workers unnecessary and genocide easy. History suggests that totalitarian states may then eliminate people wholesale. There is some consolation in this. It seems likely that a state willing and able to enslave us biologically would instead simply kill us." (Eric Drexler) Gibson is a romantic. These are matters of religion (faith) and science fiction, not sci.space. While we fritter our time away in fantasy, other countries have real space programs with realistic goals and programs to accomplish them. If anyone on this group ever does get into space it will probably be at the whim of the Russians or Japanese. Don't be so sure. World politics can change completely and rapidly; space travel if not done by a bureaucracy is reasonably cheap with current technology, easily within the capability of most sovereign nations and any Fortune 500 company; you may live longer than you think. --JoSH ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Sep 88 10:13:01 PDT From: Eugene Miya Subject: Please keep postings relevant to space Come on guys! Let's move nuclear waste discussions to sci.physics, exploitation and economic discussions to the politics newsgroups, and keep the cross posting to a minimum. I am beginning to think we should break this newsgroup into other separate groups (except for those who reads this as a digest on the Internet side). I would almost lay a $10 bet that the net could not keep silent for 1 week (almost). --eugene miya Thu Sep 8 10:12:26 PDT 1988 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #374 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Sep 88 05:48:41 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Sun, 25 Sep 88 05:02:58 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Sun, 25 Sep 88 05:02:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 25 Sep 88 04:47:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 25 Sep 88 04:38:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sun, 25 Sep 88 04:36:29 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10262; Sun, 25 Sep 88 01:08:18 PDT id AA10262; Sun, 25 Sep 88 01:08:18 PDT Date: Sun, 25 Sep 88 01:08:18 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809250808.AA10262@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #375 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 375 Today's Topics: NASA and McDonnell Douglas sign commercial launch agreement (Forwarded) NASA/AIAA to conduct space technology conference (Forwarded) Re: "It's because of all those satellites..." National student finalists present space station proposals to NASA (Forwarded) Re: "What's New" 09/02/88 Reminders for Old Farts Re: Berserker hypothesis Re: wealth of mature spacefaring societies ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Sep 88 16:56:07 GMT From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA and McDonnell Douglas sign commercial launch agreement (Forwarded) Jim Ball Headquarters, Washington, D.C. September 7, 1988 RELEASE: 88-124 NASA AND McDONNELL DOUGLAS SIGN COMMERCIAL LAUNCH AGREEMENT NASA and the McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company, St. Louis, announced today the signing of an agreement providing for the firm's use of facilities at the Kennedy Space Center, Fla., and technical support from the Goddard Spaceflight Center, Greenbelt, Md., in support of commercial launches. Advancing the government's objectives to encourage and assist the growth of a robust U.S. commercial launch industry, the umbrella agreement enables McDonnell Douglas to gain access to NASA-managed launch support facilities when the firm begins conducting commercial launches of the Delta rocket. The Delta program was initiated by NASA in 1959 and the first launch took place in 1960. Since then, the Delta rocket, manufactured by McDonnell Douglas under contract to NASA, has been a reliable workhorse of the space program. McDonnell Douglas expects to begin commercial launches of the Delta in 1989. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 88 00:04:34 GMT From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA/AIAA to conduct space technology conference (Forwarded) Mary Sandy Headquarters, Washington, D.C. September 8, 1988 EDITORS NOTE: NASA/AIAA TO CONDUCT SPACE TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE NASA's space technology program will be the focus of a joint American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics/NASA conference, September 12-13 at the Capital Hilton, Washington, D.C. The conference, "Technology for Future NASA Missions," will examine key space program activities in the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST), including the Space Research and Technology Base program, the Civil Space Technology Initiative and Project Pathfinder. First-day proceedings will be devoted to overviews of these programs and discussions by a panel of potential users of new space technology. The second day will involve more detailed reviews of the technical efforts and discussions of how universities and industry can become more involved in these programs. Speakers include Dr. William F. Ballhaus, Jr., acting associate administrator for OAST and president, AIAA; Norman R. Augustine, chairman and chief executive officer, Martin Marietta Corp.; and Paul J. Coleman, Jr., president, University Space Research Association. Nearly all NASA centers will have participants in the program. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 88 19:12:24 GMT From: rochester!rocksanne!entire!elt@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Edward L. Taychert) Subject: Re: "It's because of all those satellites..." I remember back in the Apollo days that it always seem to rain when NASA was going to launch. Everyone in Tidewater Va came to know that moonshots caused rain! -- ____________________________________________________________________________ Ed Taychert Phone: USA (716) 381-7500 Entire Inc. UUCP: rochester!rocksanne!entire!elt 445 E. Commercial Street East Rochester, N.Y. 14445 _____________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 88 00:06:47 GMT From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: National student finalists present space station proposals to NASA (Forwarded) Terri Sindelar Headquarters, Washington, D.C. September 2, 1988 Shelagh Lane National Science Teachers Assoc., Wash., D.C. RELEASE: 88-122 NATIONAL STUDENT FINALISTS PRESENT SPACE STATION PROPOSALS TO NASA Seven high school students will present proposals for space station experiments as national finalists of the 8th Annual Space Science Student Involvement Program (SSIP). The program, cosponsored by NASA and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), gives high school students the opportunity to propose experiments which theoretically could be conducted in space. The students will be competing for scholarships and other awards. In addition to these seven students, three national student winners in separate competitions including the student newspaper competition and the national aerospace internship competition, will he honored during the NASA/NSTA National Space Science Symposium, Washington, D.C., Sept. 17-21. The key events follow. On Monday, Sept. 19, the seven student finalists will present their experiment proposals to a panel of scientists and educators at the Capitol Holiday Inn, Columbia South Room, 550 C. St., S.W. Also attending will be 10 students from each Washington-area magnet school. The students and teacher/advisors will attend a Monday evening reception at the National Air and Space Museum. Guest speakers will include Capt. John A. McBride, NASA astronaut and assistant administrator for congressional relations; Kenneth S. Pedersen, NASA deputy associate administrator for external relations; Bill G. Alridge, executive director of NSTA; Dr. Helenmarie Hofman, director of SSIP at NSTA; and Dr. Martin O. Harwit, director of the National Air and Space Museum. Members of Congress are invited. On Tuesday, Sept. 20, the students will tour the Capitol and meet their congressmen. The students will attend the awards ceremony Tuesday evening where NSTA will announce the top national scholarship recipients. Featured speakers will be Dr. Lemoine Motz, president of NSTA; Dr. Robert W. Brown, director of educational affairs at NASA; and Dr. Joseph P. Allen, a former astronaut. Selected from over 900 proposals, the following are the proposals of the seven national student finalists, one student newspaper competition winner and two national aerospace internship competition winners: SPACE STATION PROPOSAL FINALISTS: Kevin M. Chalmers, Mechanicsville, Va. Topic: "The Effect of Microgravity on Vital Lung Capacity of Human Respiratory System." John C. Marschhausen, Glastonbury, Conn. Topic: "Detrimental Loss of Calcium Due to Microgravity." Elexis Benzco, Uniontown, Ohio. Topic: "With the Use of Natural Bioluminescent Chemicals, Calcium and ATP Levels Can Be Related to Muscle Atrophy in a Microgravity Environment." P. Martin Johnson, Baton Rouge, La. Topic: "Frogs in Space: The Growing and Muscular Training of Rana Pipens in a Weightless Environment." Alison M. Cheney, Overland Park, Kan. Topic: "Application of Electrical Stimulation of Skeletal Muscle to the Problem of Disuse Atrophy in a Microgravity Environment." Kartik A. Parekh, Los Angeles, Calif. Topic: "Effect of Space Environment on the Proliferation of Resting, Activated and Malignant T-(213) Lymphocytes. Michael P. McCart, Anchorage, Alaska. Topic: "Increased Growth Rate of Penicillin Notatum in Microgravity." NATIONAL STUDENT NEWSPAPER AWARD WINNER: DeAnne M. Nevins, Lambert, Mont. Article: "Hey Student! It's Your Chance To Get SPACY!" NATIONAL AEROSPACE INTERNSHIP AWARD WINNERS: Eliah D. Novin, Sherman Oaks, Calif. Topic: "Control Surface Testing on a Forward Sweep Prototype Aircraft." Kenneth L. Riley, Akron, Ohio. Topic: "Measurement of Tensile Strength on Pure Water." The SSIP competition objective is to stimulate interest in science and technology by directly involving students in a space research program. When space flight resumes with Space Shuttle mission 26, two student experiments will fly aboard Discovery. To date, 15 student experiments have flown aboard the Shuttle. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 88 00:40:37 GMT From: gryphon!swalton@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Steven Walton) Subject: Re: "What's New" 09/02/88 In the referenced article, the question is raised, "Why does it matter that the Hubble Space Telescope is delayed? Won't the universe wait a bit?" Well, yes, but consider: (1) It is certain that parts of HST have a finite life, and are aging while it sits on the ground; time on earth subtracts from useful life in orbit. (2) The closer launch gets to the next solar maximum in 1991, the higher the likelihood that HST will have a very premature re-entry unless a second shuttle flight is used to boost it up. (3) It has been six years since the last launch of a US astronomy spacecraft--hardly a record which inspires bright young people to get involved with space or astronomy. The HST delay is a symptom, really. I think the US, via its elected representatives in Washington, DC, has decided to cede leadership in space to Japan and Western Europe and the USSR. I predict a major drain of American space scientists to these other places within 5 years; yes, even to the USSR if perestroika and glasnost hold up. -- Stephen Walton, hanging out until my USENET feed at work is back up. swalton@solar.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Sep 88 04:00:11 PDT From: Eugene Miya Subject: Reminders for Old Farts Hints for old users (subtle reminders) You'll know these. Minimize cross references, [Do you REALLY NEED to?] Edit "Subject:" lines especially if you are taking a tangent. Send mail instead, avoid posting follow ups. [100 mail messages mean more than 1 follow-up.] Read all available articles before posting a follow-up. [Check all references.] Cut down attributed articles. Summarize! Put a return address in the body (signature) of your message (mail or article), state institution, etc. don't assume mail works. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Sep 88 07:31:11 EDT From: Chuck Musciano Subject: Re: Berserker hypothesis After reading about Berserkers for many digests now, I can't believe that someone hasn't come up with the best hypothesis: we are the Berserkers, early in our life cycle, just getting ready to go out and start destroying things. Why, we haven't even reached another planet yet, and people are already giving thought to dropping nuclear devices to form landing pads. Seems like our Berserker intuition is coming along nicely. Chuck Musciano Advanced Technology Department Harris Corporation (407) 727-6131 ARPA: chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 88 15:28:05 GMT From: eachus@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA (Robert Eachus) Subject: Re: wealth of mature spacefaring societies In article <3e5436c7.ae47@apollo.COM> nelson_p@apollo.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > First of all, you don't know that Roman soldier : rich American is a > reasonable comparison. Neither is particularly representative of the > species at his time in history. To make another silly comparison-- > Today only the rich can own a horse, a hundred years ago horse ownership > was common. Silly is right. A hundred years ago, even in America, you had to be rich to own a horse for personal transportation, and many farmers, even in America, did not own plow horses. If you live in a city with paved streets, a bicycle is a much more useful form of transport, then and now. Care to check bicycle ownership figures? Also, at least in the town where I live, horse ownership is still common. Of couse, Hollis, N.H. is not a poor town, but I would say that the town riding rink gets more use that the town tennis courts. > Anyway most people CANNOT own a car. Your ethnocentrism is showing. Hmmm. Since a large percentage of the population (especially in the third world) is underage you may be right. However, if you meant to say that a majority families in the world cannot afford to buy a car today, you would be wrong. > More to the point, extrapolations can be tricky. It's true that the > average American is richer than he was a hundred years ago but he is > *poorer* than he was in the 60's. Nowadays, two incomes are required > to maintain a standard of living that one could maintain at that time. > Which way is the curve heading these days? The "average" American is richer today than he was in the sixties. In the forties, fifties and early sixties the growth in the American standard of living was very rapid, then came LBJ's "guns and butter" economics, and the oil shocks of the early seventies resulting in a decade of slow growth. In the late seventies the standard of living of the "average" American actually did decrease. You may remember that Reagan made this a campaign issue. However, the last six years have been a period of sustained economic growth similar to the fifties, and our hypothetical "average American" is somewhat better off than he was in 1976, and much better off than he was in 1966. There are several disturbing demographic trends, and the Democrats are trying to make political hay with them, but these do not affect the overall upward trend. The poor were hurt much worse during the Carter years and by the 1982 recession. This made the gap between rich and poor greater, and it is not closing. (Neither is it widening, the rising tide really is raising all boats equally. Its the falling tides which hurt the poor.) The other disturbing fact is that for the last twenty years, the middle middle class has been shrinking. Most of this shrinking has been due to people moving up from to the upper middle class (good), but it also means that the mobility of the lower middle class has been decreasing (bad). This is primarily a problem with the educational system, but it needs to be fixed. > If you had extrapolated from the time when dinosaurs first appeared on > earth to when Brontosaurus existed you might have concluded that there > would be lots of huge, powerful dinosaurs around today. Not if your extrapolation correctly included the effects of meteor strikes. It doen't take much effort to figure out that if humans don't learn to manage their environment (which includes large rocks in solar orbit), they won't be around for long. > Another BIG difference is that our material standard of living is > not mainainable in its current form. We cannot continue to consume > non-renewable resources or generate pollution and other waste at > the current rate. Automobiles are MAJOR pollution sources both > in their use and their manufacture/maintenance/infrastructure > requirements. Also, remeber that the Roman soldier's generous > payscale was a function of non-maintainable factors, too. (i.e., > the Roman Empire) Of course, this may ALSO be a silly extrapolation. It is a wrong extrapolation. One thing that economists keep track of is the amount of energy required to produce a constant dollar amount of goods. This figure has been decreasing for the last fifteen years (and for the last fifty). > Another factor is that the 'wealth' or standard of living of most > Americans is illusory. I doubt you could afford to buy a home > computer on a day's pay if that computer and all it's parts were > made by people enjoying an American wage scale. A lot of our > standard of living is based on other countries having much lower > wages, fewer pollution standards, etc. Roman senators were wealthy > in the same way. This cant has got to go. There are many computers out there built in America with American parts which are competitive in the home computer market. The main competition is not from the third world, but from countries with equal or higher living standards. In 1960, the United States had the highest living standard in the world, by 1980 we were, I think, fourteenth. Since then we've pulled ahead of several European countries, but South Korea and Taiwan are gaining on us. > ...Or how bad they can get. Sure, maybe the world of the future > will be bright and clean with robots doing all the manufacturing and > everyday is Saturday and the malls are open and our pockets are > stuffed with money. Or maybe it will be a cyberpunk's worst > nightmare with rain 'sour and acid, nearly the color of piss' > (William Gibson), respirators required for a simple walk down the > street, and remote pain inducers implanted at birth by a high-tech > tyranny to keep 20 billion people passive. First, the problems of the future will be ones which we don't know about yet. Mankind has a very good record for finding solutions to known problems. However, often these solutions often cause new problems. For example, most of the problems of the health industry today are due to finding new and better ways to cure patients or to keep them alive, not by medical failures. Second, the long term trend has been to keep improving the overall quality of life. The "good old days" only look good because you were younger then. The 1988 "standard" of living includes home computers, VCR's, pocket calculators, cordless telephones, and a whole host of medications which simply were not available at any price in 1963. (Well, not quite. I did have a computer in the basement then, but that's another story.) > These are matters of religion (faith) and science fiction, not sci.space. > While we fritter our time away in fantasy, other countries have real > space programs with realistic goals and programs to accomplish them. If > anyone on this group ever does get into space it will probably be at the > whim of the Russians or Japanese. Or of D. D. Harriman. Seriously, even if relatively cheap spaceflight is possible, creating the infrastructure will take lots of money. A number of companies in the U. S. are working on building the necessary industrial base, but once that is available, building the first Lunar Hilton is still going to require megabucks. Most people have heard the adage that "when it's steamboat time, people will build steamboats", but many don't realize that there are a lot of ideas out there whose time has yet to arrive. The lunar population may be zero on January 1, 2001, but to predict the lunar population as less than 10 million on January 1, 2100 would be lunacy. Governments can help "steamboat time" to arrive sooner, they did with steamboats in the eighteenth century, railroads in the nineteenth century, and air travel in the 1930's. I only hope when we look back fifty years from now we conclude that government space programs helped the commercial space industry (and space colonization) to get off the ground earlier than they would have otherwise. > --Peter Nelson Robert I. Eachus with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER; use STANDARD_DISCLAIMER; function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #375 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Sep 88 05:40:06 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Mon, 26 Sep 88 04:31:37 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 26 Sep 88 04:31:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 26 Sep 88 04:16:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 26 Sep 88 04:07:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 26 Sep 88 04:06:48 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10960; Mon, 26 Sep 88 01:08:36 PDT id AA10960; Mon, 26 Sep 88 01:08:36 PDT Date: Mon, 26 Sep 88 01:08:36 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809260808.AA10960@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #376 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 376 Today's Topics: Re: Transmutation of Metals Re: Phoenix Re: Time Travel Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) Re: Why no aliens Re: SDI Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST) Re: Shuttle names--old and new Re: SETI Re: SDI Re: "It's because of all those satellites..." Self-replicating/mutating robots ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Resent-Message-Id: <0X9xYry00Vse07D4FD@andrew.cmu.edu> Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Sep 88 09:14:31 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: Ted Anderson Resent-To: Space Return-Path: Date: 8 Sep 1988 18:40-CDT Sender: SAC.DYESGPF@e.isi.edu Subject: Re: Transmutation of Metals From: SAC.DYESGPF@e.isi.edu To: ota@angband.s1.gov > I once read that the Atomic Energy Commission built a huge > machine to make Pu out of U by bombarding it with protons, > using simple electrostatic acceleration. I no doubt have > the above all wrong, but the thing was run for several years. I am not sure if this is what you are referring to, but Pu 238 was first created by bombarding U 238 with deuteron in a 60 inch cyclotron at Berkeley in 1940. The research team involved was Glenn T. Seaborg, Edwin M. Mcmillan, Joseph W. Kennedy, and Arthur C. Wahl. The isotope Pu 239 (which is in greater demand) is made with U 238 (plentiful and very stable - nonfissile) and U 235 (much less abundant and fissile) in a breeder reactor. Although energy is required to run a cyclotron, the breeder reactor generates a great deal of heat which can be used to generate power. Of course, Pu 238 produces a fair amount of heat because of the high rate of alpha decay (half life of 86 years). Put a chunk of this inside a thermocouple pile and you have a device which can be used for powering electronics in remote areas such as deep space. Al Holecek ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 19:03:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk!william@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Phoenix >Hudson has this to say about reusable vehicles: > .... >"It is no argument to say that launch vehicles are more complex >devices than, for example, an F-15 or 767. Clearly they are not. > ..." Is this true? It doesn't appear clear to me, I'm afraid! There was a major discussion a little while back that seemed to conclude that rocket nozzle technology is a trial-and-error black art. How much of the rest of the job is so unpredictable? And what parts of aircraft are similarly designed purely on an "it worked last time" basis? ... Bill ************************************************************************ Bill Witts, CS Dept. * Nel Mezzo del cammin di nostra vita UCL, London, Errrp * mi ritrovai per una selva oscura william@cs.ucl.ac.uk * che la diritta via era smarrita. ************************************************************************ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1988 11:58-EDT From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Time Travel I believe Dave Flory is incorrect. One must examine the path of a vehicle on a Space-Time diagram. As you approach the speed of light, your path in space time becomes more and more a 'time-like' path instead of a 'space-like' path. The often mentioned time travel in the vicinity of a massive rotating cylinder is caused by the effect of space-like paths being pulled around the cylinder until they become time-like paths. Thus following one of the causes travel in time. Presumably, if one went faster than light in normal space by tunneling through the forbidden value of c, then one would be traveling very time-like paths. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 21:14:08 GMT From: linus!philabs!micomvax!ncc!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium) In article <2830@pt.cs.cmu.edu> jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) writes: >Someone will curse the fools who sprayed plutonium on her land. Only if some bright government forces the Lunar Plutonium Disposal Company to sell the contaminated land. (This is what happened at Love Canal.) Remember, I assumed reasonable accuracy in aiming. Nobody in his right mind will try to homestead a waste dump. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 21:42:02 GMT From: linus!philabs!micomvax!ncc!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Why no aliens In article <1950@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk> adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) writes: >Take some sort of propulsion and control/guidance system. And enough fuel to >drive it for, say, a month continuously... >Could this be done? Compute how much fuel it would take to accelerate an asteroid at one gee for a month. Not practical at present. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 21:18:49 GMT From: linus!philabs!micomvax!ncc!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SDI In article <1774@hoqax.UUCP> lmg@hoqax.UUCP (45323-LARRY GEARY) writes: >You don't need an SDI to control access to orbit. The Iranians could deny >the U.S. access to space by placing one of their speedboats with sailors >with shoulder launched missiles off Cocoa Beach. In fact, anyone else with >the desire to do this could probably pull it off, even an individual. Isn't >the Ariane launch site near the ocean? How about Vandenberg AF base? Only >the Soviets have a reasonably secure, inland launch site. All the Western launch sites are coastal sites, for range-safety reasons. The Soviets didn't have the choice. However, any Iranian speedboats showing up off Cocoa Beach would be in deep trouble very quickly. Start with AC-130 gunships (which are present at the Cape and Vandenberg for all launches) and work up from there. The issue of launch-site security is not being ignored just because some of the surroundings happen to be water. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 21:27:36 GMT From: linus!philabs!micomvax!ncc!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST) In article <6185@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >>... The NRC report on >>shuttle frequency put it even more strongly: if the shuttle continues >>flying, another orbiter *WILL* be lost eventually. > >Yes, but the NRC doesn't really have any better basis for making a >statement like that, than NASA does for implying we won't lose one. Sorry, wrong. NRC justified its predictions in detail. Remember Murphy: betting that things will fail is a whole lot safer than betting that everything will work perfectly. Check out the safety record of segmented solid boosters. Then look at the crash rate for advanced military aircraft. Remember that losing an orbiter does not require another Challenger disaster; possibly the most likely way to lose an orbiter is a landing accident, which might well leave crew and payload intact but damage the orbiter badly enough to make it unflyable. This happens all the time to aircraft. There have been one or two narrow escapes in the shuttle program already, in fact, due to the orbiter's somewhat marginal landing gear. >Sure, if we used the fleet for 30+ years and expanded it to 10 >orbiters, losses would be inevitable. They would also be easier to >take. What we cannot afford to do is ace one of the remaining three >right now... Then, as I said, we must send them to the Smithsonian at once. No matter how careful you are, you cannot fly them without taking risks. If we keep on flying them, even just our present little fleet, losses are inevitable. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 21:46:26 GMT From: linus!philabs!micomvax!ncc!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Shuttle names--old and new In article <880906083854.146@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV> hairston%23666%utadnx%utspan.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV writes: > ..."Columbia" was the name of Jules >Verne's spaceship in "From the Earth to the Moon", which was why it was >also chosen for the command module of Apollo 11... No. Verne's projectile was unnamed, as I recall, and the cannon was the Columbiad (note final D). The near-miss on Verne was noted for Apollo 11, but it was a secondary issue. >... Supposedly either "Challenger" >or "Atlantis" was the name of Tom Swift's rocket, but I've never been >able to track that down for sure... The original Tom Swift I don't know about, but then I'm not sure he had a rocket ship. Tom Swift Jr's 1950s rocket ship was the Star Spear, if I'm not mistaken (it's been a long time since I read TSJ#3...). -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 22:01:33 GMT From: linus!philabs!micomvax!ncc!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SETI In article <1034@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: >Henry, any guesses as to how big a probe we could send to say, Alpha Centauri, >if we didn't care about the cost (in the same sense that the Soviets don't >care about their defense spending). By we, I mean the goverments of Earth. > >Say an Oriion powered probe using the existsing nuclear arsenals? If we were to tackle this seriously, what we probably want to do is to dust off the proposal that Robert Forward et al ("et al" being a number of people from places like JPL and Los Alamos, as I recall) made to SDIO: get antimatter propulsion going. First phase does the detail engineering of handling and such. Second phase builds a specialized accelerator that makes enough antimatter in a year to test-fire an engine. Third phase builds a complex about the size of the Hanford works that makes enough antimatter to give us the solar system. I think it was five years per phase, with no breakthroughs needed. Probably faster if you hurry. Another Hanford-sized works should suffice, I'd guess, to get a few tons up to a few percent of the speed of light every year or two. Incidentally, SDIO thought the idea would probably work but decided that it was a bit too long-term to suit them. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 88 21:39:55 GMT From: linus!philabs!micomvax!ncc!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SDI In article <7757@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> lim@cit-vax.UUCP (Kian-Tat Lim) writes: >Something that has been bugging me throughout this "denying access to space >via Stinger" discussion. How much is the warhead of a shoulder-fired weapon >going to disturb an SSME/Ariane/whatever, considering that the hottest target >is the exhaust plume? With all that energy spewing out, it would seem to me >that the extra "bump" from a 50-pound explosive (to be generous) would be >negligible. Don't overlook the possibility of trouble caused by disturbances in the exhaust plume; 50 pounds of explosive is one nasty big explosion. The shoulder-launched weapons don't pack that much explosive, but it's still nothing you want to be standing near when it goes off. Then too, newer warheads are not pure blast weapons, since that is a fairly inefficient way to do things. They are fragmentation designs that will throw solid lumps at high velocities quite a distance. Do not assume that heat-seeking weapons will home on the exhaust plume. The brightest targets are the nozzles, actually. The plume is hotter but doesn't radiate nearly as efficiently. (At least, this is the case for aircraft; I think it will read over to rockets.) The older infrared missiles homed on the jet exhaust nozzles. The newer ones are sensitive enough to home on a jet plume, since the nozzles can't be seen from the front, but I think they'll still go for the nozzles if/when they come in sight. Finally, nowadays it's common for the missile to have a bias built into it so that it tries to hit slightly *ahead* of the big bright spot. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 88 05:36:29 GMT From: att!ihnp4!poseidon!psrc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Subject: Re: "It's because of all those satellites..." < "*NO* toon can resist the old shave-and-a-haircut bit!" > In article <7844@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, mangler@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Don Speck) writes: > This last weekend my Mom mentioned to me that the weather where > she lives is unusual this summer (it is here too), and she posited > that global weather is messed up "because of all those satellites". >Don Speck speck@vlsi.caltech.edu {amdahl,ames}!cit-vax!speck I remember a bus driver telling me, in all seriousness, that the weather had gone to pot because of "all the junk they left up there on the Moon". Paul S. R. Chisholm, psrc@poseidon.att.com (formerly psc@lznv.att.com) AT&T Bell Laboratories, att!poseidon!psrc, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Sep 88 17:49:08 EDT From: John Roberts Subject: Self-replicating/mutating robots >From: oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson@ames.arc.nasa.gov (phil nelson) >Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything? > I think that the problem of creating these "self-replicating robots" may >be more difficult than we imagine, perhaps too difficult even for our >hypothetical "advanced" xenophobes. See Henry Spencer's comments on the difficulty of predicting future advances in technology. Much of the difficulty of making self-replicating robots lies in the definition of "self-replicating". A moving, working robot that can generate a working copy of itself from raw materials would be very difficult to create. A robot that can assemble a large factory which produces robots and factory parts would probably be much simpler. James Hogan describes such a system in "The Code of the Life-maker". In the story, a large spaceship would scout out an uninhabited world, then a team of robots would set up factories which would produce more robots, more factories, spaceships, and manufactured goods to return to the parent civilization. This may be a more likely scenario than the Berserkers. We may eventually get around to exploring planets of other star systems, only to find them covered with robots and "keep out" signs. > Among other lifelike qualities this race of robots might require is the >ability to adapt to new conditions. Assuming for a moment that these robots >can be (and are) created, isn't it likely that they would either evolve into >something more benevolent or (perhaps more likely) devolve into something >much less terrible? It depends mostly on how they were designed, which in turn depends on the motives, skills, and experience of the designers. In the Berserker stories and the Star Trek episode with the giant ice cream cone, the robots had been designed to attack a specific enemy, but had then generalized the instructions to cover all life/planets. In Hogan's novel, the factory instructions were scrambled by a burst of radiation, causing the system to mutate. Any reasonable effort to put error detection/correction capability into the design should make such events *extremely* unlikely. In any event, I think the sensible thing to do is to listen for a while before trying to transmit anything. John Roberts roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #376 ******************* Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Sep 88 23:25:12 EDT Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Mon, 26 Sep 88 22:47:21 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Mon, 26 Sep 88 22:47:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 26 Sep 88 22:24:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 26 Sep 88 22:10:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 26 Sep 88 22:06:39 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11914; Mon, 26 Sep 88 19:08:15 PDT id AA11914; Mon, 26 Sep 88 19:08:15 PDT Date: Mon, 26 Sep 88 19:08:15 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809270208.AA11914@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #377 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 377 Today's Topics: Followup on skintight suits SETI and sea mammals Mutated Berserkers Re: "What's New" 09/02/88 Re: Why no aliens Re: Shuttle names--old and new Re: Chix in Space Alien civilizations, improved grey goo, and biotech civilizations... Why nanotechnology is unlikely to be fruitful. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 88 17:52:49 EDT From: John Roberts Subject: Followup on skintight suits >> * Dale Amon speculates that the inhabitants of a space station might want >> to wear skintight suits all the time as a safety precaution. However, >> when the suit is worn with ambient atmospheric pressure, the ambient >> pressure and the elastic pressure of the suit are *added*. Assuming >> something can be done to alleviate breathing difficulties, the problem >> remains that the the pressure exerted on the extremities is comparable >> to the systolic blood pressure. Since this is the technique used in a >> blood pressure test to cut off the flow of blood to a limb entirely, >> I consider it very likely that the suit worn indoors would significantly >> interfere with the normal functioning of the circulatory system. This >> might or might not be a problem for a person "suiting up" to go outside, >> but I doubt that it would be a good idea for these suits to be worn all >> the time indoors. (What is the "tightness" of the Soviet indoor suits?) >Wait a minute, if the effect is additive the wearer is subjected to >two atmospheres. Isn't this the same horrible pressure that a >earthbound diver would experience under 33 feet of water? >Doesn't sound too deadly to me.. if it is not concentrated over >one spot (like a blood pressure cuff does). > Mike Linnig, > Texas Instruments No, the analogy is not valid. For a better analogy, dive to 33 feet and try to inhale through a garden hose run to the surface. Even better, place a gasket around your neck, so your body is at two atmospheres pressure, while your head is at only one atmosphere. A scuba diver underwater is breathing air at about the same pressure as the surrounding water, and the pressures inside and outside his body are matched. The situation you describe would be utterly deadly. At a rough estimate, the uncompensated pressure on the human trunk would be over 10000 pounds, making breathing impossible. However, if you would reread the posting, it was stated that the pressure on the trunk would be about 1/5 atmosphere, with somewhat lower pressure on the arms and legs. This reduces the problem somewhat. Nevertheless, one posting on the list has stated that breathing with even a one psi differential is not really practical. I presume the breathing problem has been solved, otherwise the suits would not have been usable. My question pertained to the arms and legs, which in an earthlike atmosphere would be subjected to 860-880mm absolute pressure, with only 760mm compensated by internal pressure. The overall effect would be a strong tendency for the blood to stay out of those parts of the body subject to external pressure, and collect in the parts not subject to external pressure (i.e. the head). Because of the lag in the mailing list, I will submit two plausible guesses as to why the test subjects did not suffer from this effect: 1) Having put on the suits, they quickly got into the vacuum chamber, or they quickly put on helmets and breathed air/O2 at 170mm above ambient. 2) The fabric of the suits would not contract beyond a certain point, so the pressure with an external atmosphere was not as great as would be thought. After entering the vacuum chamber, the arms and legs would naturally swell as they filled with blood from the higher-pressure area of the trunk, until the suit had been stretched enough to exert the desired pressure. Further testing and development of the suit seems like a good idea. I just thought the first 100-200 messages on the subject were somewhat redundant and failed to cover several potentially important points. I repeat the following relevant question: It has been stated on the net that the Cosmonauts wear elastic clothing, possibly to control the distribution of fluids in the body and for other reasons. Does anyone have an estimate of the degree of tightness of such clothing, expressed in the equivalent of atmospheric pressure? John Roberts roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Sep 88 18:38:23 EDT From: John Roberts Subject: SETI and sea mammals >From: mcvax!ukc!reading!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiit-sh@uunet.uu.net (Steve Hosgood) >Wouldn't it be sensible to spend some effort looking nearer to home? The seas >contain several species of (presumed) intelligent life, yet I don't know of >any sucess at communicating with them short of training dolphins to poke >messages into computers on giant keyboards! This can hardly be regarded as >communicating with the creatures can it? >I would suggest that we have little chance at dealing with ETs until we can >talk to the other intelligent life on *this* planet. Comments, anyone? Some marine mammals have large brains, communicate at a high data rate, and have been trained to perform simple tasks. There is considerable speculation that they may be very intelligent. However: - A large brain does not necessarily imply great intelligence. Marine mammals are also sometimes observed doing stupid things. - Though the transmission rate may be high, I am not aware of any study showing a high rate of transfer of *useful information*. (1000 evenly- spaced clicks does not count as 1000 bits of information.) I have heard that many species use the same small set of patterns over and over, while other species use patterns that change over the course of time. Some species may be intelligent while others are not, with size not necessarily an identifying factor. - Intelligence does not imply the sort of intelligence useful for interaction with humans. In general, humans are able to visualize and reason abstractly, skilled in communication and eager to communicate, naturally curious, willing to work hard for abstract rewards, able to think logically (when absolutely necessary :-), technologically oriented, etc. Marine mammals fall short in at least some of these categories. The SETI people are looking for aliens who are sufficiently like us for useful interaction. It is not clear that this will ever be the case with the marine mammals. If there are dolphin-like animals on other worlds, there may be no reason for humans to be interested in them as intelligences. [Does anyone have any information on studies attempting to analyze the information content of sounds made by sea mammals?] John Roberts roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Sep 88 19:30:31 EDT From: John Roberts Subject: Mutated Berserkers >From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu > ...the Berserkers themselves will the be a technological >civilization inhabiting the galaxy, and their actions should be visible in >the sky. > Now maybe the Berserkers were originally programmed to be very quiet >between executions, and carefully designed to prevent mutations in their >goals. But they would be present in such large numbers across the galaxy >that sooner or later a near fatal run-in with a comet, or radiation from a >stellar flare would modify the program in one in such a way as to remove its >inhibitions against change. That event would seed a Darwinian evolution >of self-reproducing Berserker-derived machines that would acquire the >survival-oriented goals of normal life. You can't fool Mother Nature >forever. But the universe is not thought to be infinitely large nor infinitely old (at least by current theory). If you have a universe of only 100 billion galaxies of 100 billion stars each, with the universe less than 25 billion years old, and the system has been carefully designed so that the chances that a random change will result in a viable mutation are less than one in 10**1000, then it is still highly unlikely that the event will have taken place. Catching a Berserker and reprogramming it would change the odds, but that does not count as a random change. This is practical from a software point of view. Proper hardware design might be more difficult. For further discussion on intelligent machines and highly unlikely events, including machines (and dragons) that spontaneously come into existence through the workings of random chance, read "The Cyberiad" by Stanislaw Lem. John Roberts roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 88 12:56:38 GMT From: bill@astro.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys) Subject: Re: "What's New" 09/02/88 In article <6357@gryphon.CTS.COM> swalton@gryphon.CTS.COM (Steven Walton) writes: ~ ~In the referenced article, the question is raised, "Why does it matter ~that the Hubble Space Telescope is delayed? Won't the universe wait ~a bit?" ~ ~Well, yes, but consider: ~(2) The closer launch gets to the next solar maximum in 1991, the ~ higher the likelihood that HST will have a very premature re-entry ~ unless a second shuttle flight is used to boost it up. Well, not quite. The earlier it is launched, the more likely that a reboost would be required. HST's orbit would begin to decay immediately upon launch, and the later it is launched, the higher it will be at solar maximum, hence the lower the drag. (I have been present at presentations where this problem was discussed by the HST project). >From the point of view of reboost, therefore, the new schedule is more favorable. Bill Jefferys -- Glend. I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hot. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? -- Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53 ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 88 20:20:06 GMT From: aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: Re: Why no aliens In article <1950@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk> adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) writes: >Take some sort of propulsion and control/guidance system. And enough fuel to >drive it for, say, a month continuously... >Could this be done? Compute how much fuel it would take to accelerate an asteroid at one gee for a month. Not practical at present. -- ... Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology Hmmm. For a small asteroid a (really raw) envelope-back calculation says you'd need about half a million metric tons of antimatter (if you're using equal M-AM reaction, less AM if more matter for reaction mass). At a million dollars a microgram, this comes to $500,000,000,000,000,000, a small fraction of what we spend on welfare :^) ... --JoSH ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 88 07:34:20 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!Daniel_C_Anderson@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Shuttle names--old and new 9/6/88 08:38 hairston%23666%utadnx%utspan.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV: >"Each team must propose one name for Space Shuttle Orbital Vehicle (OV) >105. The name must be the name of a sea vessel used in research and >exploration. > [...] >"The name for OV 105 should be a name suitable for an American spacecraft >and should capture the spirit of America's mission in space. I don't suppose they'd consider "The Golden Hind" . . . ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 88 10:30:00 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk!william@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Chix in Space > It may also offer clues as to how human embryos may one day >develop in space. Forgive me if I am wrong, (it's a while since I studied the theory!!), but are there portions of the human reproductive system that require some sense of orientation prior to fertilisation? Something to do with sperm navigation. (Say, the nano-technologists could really have a field-day on this one - sperm-launched beacons and egg-detectors!) > Colonel Sanders would be proud. I can just imagine the phone call that arranged the $50000 funding - " ... listen, I have this theory ....". I can't help feeling that Kentucky F.C. could have spent that sort of money in a more profitable way, like trying to clean up some of their smaller restaurants. Last time I had some KFC, I had to throw it up cos of someone I found sharing my meal. Bad memories. ... Bill ************************************************************************ Bill Witts, CS Dept. * Nel Mezzo del cammin di nostra vita UCL, London, Errrp * mi ritrovai per una selva oscura william@cs.ucl.ac.uk * che la diritta via era smarrita. ************************************************************************ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Sep 88 16:36:02 CDT From: "John Kelsey" Subject: Alien civilizations, improved grey goo, and biotech civilizations... About the self-replicating robots someone mentioned before: Suppose the robot finds a civilized planet...now, there are 3 options as to what happens... 1.) The robot is more than a match for the civilization, it trashes the planet. 2.) The robot is evenly matched with the planet--it is defeated, but the planet is left with only a few survivors. 3.) The civilized planet is of a superior technology than the robots' makers-- the planet's defences sweep the robot under the rug. Now, if #2 happens, the first major engineering feat done by the survivors is going to be a planetary defence system that includes x-ray laser projectors the size of the moon, and antiparticle accelerators. After rebuilding, the civilization may well send out probes of its own, looking either to kill all remaining robots, to destroy the creators of the robots, or both. After #3, there's a good chance the planet will go after the makers of the robot, if possible. Because of this, I think it'd be seen as a bad idea to launch the robots, even if you DO hate aliens. Also, who's to say there haven't been a number of waves of these robots and robot-chasers already. God knows, there's been enough time. Also, I came up with a variation on the idea of "Grey Goo" (Nanomachines whose sole purpose is to use available energy and matter to self-replicate.) What if, once the goo reaches the center of the planet/asteroid/whatever it's on, it stores up energy for a couple weeks, then liberates it all in an explo- sion, blasting globs of grey goo EVERYWHERE. Nifty, huh? Finally, has anybody really thought of the likelihood of a technical civilization forming? Not only are there the numerous disasters that can end a society's advancement (Nuclear, biochemical, or even prolonged conven- tional war, biotech accident, a fall into tyranny, a plague of some sort (Read _Galapagos_ by Kurt Vonnegutt), a fall into unreason and superstition, etc.), but why must a technological society form interested in radio waves or space travel? I can imagine, for example, a society whose biotechnology is VERY advanced, but whose space technology is uninteresting. They might grow their own homes, and their clothes, and there might be very simple and effective birth control, etc., and they would never FEEL population pressure... What do you all think? -- John Kelsey (C445585@UMCVMB.BITNET) ------------------------------ Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim Date: Fri, 9 Sep 88 13:11:11 PDT From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery) To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space Subject: Why nanotechnology is unlikely to be fruitful. The phase space of possible formations exponentiates with the number of components. For the sake of this discussion, lets say these components are individual atoms of all the reasonably stable elements of the periodic table. Nanomachines have astronomically fewer components than do their macroscopic counterparts. This is true even when one takes into account the much greater efficiency with which nanomachines use their components. (I'm including all "statistical" machines including VLSI circuits and mechanisms fabricated using related technology and restricting the definition of nanomachines to those mechanisms that use the actual chemical bonds individually.) The likely fruitfulness of a phase space is related to its richness and the degree to which it has been previously explored. In the nono-regime, the phase space is exponentially smaller and it has been very efficiently explored by evolutionary processes (generations on the order of fractions of seconds to days). In the macro-regime the phase space is exponentially larger and it has been very inefficiently explored by evolutionary processes (generations on the order of years to centuries with far fewer "organisms" from which to draw mutations). Note that I do NOT restrict evolutionary process to biological evolution. I include also cultural and technological evolution. Basically, I'm saying that the number of undiscovered viable novel forms in the macro-regime is astronomically greater than the number of undiscovered viable novel forms in the nano-regime because the macro-regime is both astronomically larger in size and has been explored to a far lesser extent than the nano-regime. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #377 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Sep 88 06:52:16 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Tue, 27 Sep 88 05:43:00 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 27 Sep 88 05:42:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 27 Sep 88 05:21:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 27 Sep 88 05:08:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Tue, 27 Sep 88 05:07:18 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12152; Tue, 27 Sep 88 01:09:03 PDT id AA12152; Tue, 27 Sep 88 01:09:03 PDT Date: Tue, 27 Sep 88 01:09:03 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809270809.AA12152@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #378 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 378 Today's Topics: Navigating Hazardous Payloads (was: The sun as a trashcan) plutonium Re: SPACE Digest V8 #357 Re: SETI and sea mammals Re: Wealth of mature spacefaring societies Re: space news from Aug 15 AW&ST shooting down a shuttle Re: Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute. Re: access to space; how to deny Re: wealth of mature spacefaring societies Re: wealth of mature spacefaring societies Re: China launches first weather satellite; ESA launches US satellites. Re: China launches first weather satellite; ESA launches US satellites. Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Navigating Hazardous Payloads (was: The sun as a trashcan) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 88 11:46:11 -0400 From: "F.Baube" Henry Spencer: > The problem with any such scheme, though, is that suddenly our > trashcans can't be just inert lumps of metal. Now they need > precision navigation equipment, plus power, plus communications, > plus a propulsion system for course corrections. New failure > modes also appear: what happens if you lose guidance on a > trashcan before Jupiter flyby? Isn't this the basis for objections to the plutonium power sources ? Isn't one of them to be used on a mission that uses the Earth for a slingshot effect ? Okay, the canister can withstand a launch disaster (so they say), but would it survive re-entry ? #include ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Sep 88 18:23:54 EDT From: Kenneth Ng Subject: plutonium To: Kenneth Ng , Space Digest >Date: Mon, 29 Aug 88 15:47:22 EDT >From: =3545*** >Subject: Plutonium > >Well, it looks like I have to flame my own flame. I made several errors >in my last mailing. >4) There are two problems I overlooked--one is that what happens if > the rocket carrying the Pu blows up twenty miles up? Scratch one eco- > sphere, that's what. A payload like that is too risky to launch. The > other problem was pointed out to me by a friend: To create an absorption > line, the absorber must be in the upper atmosphere of the sun, where the > solar gas is tenuous enough to see through. A payload would tend to sink > out of sight. Perhaps blowing up the payload might keep it in the upper > atmosphere temporarily , but convection would eventually suck it down. > And there still is the problem that you need a shitload of Plutonium > to be visible even from the Earth, let alone from another star. > > So, I have fanned my own flame. Next time I'll open my brain before I Its been several years, but I recall reading an article that claimed that the various atomic atmospheric tests have blown several tons of plutonium into the atmosphere already. I forgot the source but I recall the author was Ralph Lapp. Also plutonium has been known to occur in nature, read "A Natural Fission Reactor" by George A Cowan, Scientific American July 1976, page 36ff. -- Kenneth Ng: ken@orion.bitnet, ken@orion.cccc.njit.edu, ken@eies.cccc.njit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Sep 88 08:19:36 EDT From: rachiele@NADC.ARPA (J. Rachiele) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #357 >>... >>Seriously, the idea doesn't seem that stupid. >The idea is SILLY! since: >(1) it would cost WAY! too much >(2) nobody in their right mind would allow hazardous! launches of > very hazardous waste. Doesn't anyone out there remember the > Challenger? It is much less costly and much less dangerous to > bury the stuff in the arctic. In what, the ice? You are right, of course, it would be too costly. The real answer is to move all heavy industry into space, before we all drown in our own poisons. >...Dr. Richard Link >Space Sciences Laboratory >University of California, Berkeley >link@ssl.berkeley.edu Jim Rachiele rachiele@nadc.arpa ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 88 18:18:03 GMT From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu (Jim Meritt) Subject: Re: SETI and sea mammals In article <8809092238.AA19957@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.GOV (John Roberts) writes: } - A large brain does not necessarily imply great intelligence. Marine mammals } are also sometimes observed doing stupid things. Have you been watching the news recently? Non-marine mammals (primates) are also sometimes observed doing stupid things.... Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt) ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 88 20:49:19 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Wealth of mature spacefaring societies In article <4067@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@tlab1.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes: > People may argue that just the solar system provides enough for >everyone to be wealthy. Maybe so, but I suspect that as in most other >cases, human population will rapidly grow to the point that most >people are just barely surviving, rather than keeping it down to a >level where everyone has more than enough. I don't think that >fertility rates in the developed world are a very good predictor as >yet. Maybe with a few centuries more data. Admittedly we could do with a few centuries more to extrapolate from, but the reasons behind the decline in the developed-world birthrate are not at all mysterious, so we're not restricted to trying to analyze it as a "black box". Children are much more expensive than they used to be (due to compulsory-education laws that keep them dependent longer) and much less economically useful than they used to be (due to child labor laws and the decline of cottage industry). So, given the availability of effective birth control, there is great incentive to have fewer kids. There are other factors that influence the matter as well, but economics is very hard to argue with in the long run. One would expect a minor reversal of this trend if settlement of space follows the model of the settlement of North America -- homesteading by individuals rather than by large groups (it ought to be possible in at least the more favorable places) -- but that should be quite temporary. -- NASA is into artificial | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology stupidity. - Jerry Pournelle | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 88 16:47:57 GMT From: fluke!mce@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Brian McElhinney) Subject: Re: space news from Aug 15 AW&ST henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > No attempt would be made to recover Shuttle-C's SSMEs; they would be > SSMEs that are near the end of their rated lives as shuttle engines. > NASA is no longer hoping for more than about 10 flights per SSME, and > this will create a substantial pool of "retired" engines by the early > 1990s. So SSMEs do not last forever. :-) Some questions: 1) How much does a single SSME cost? They can't be cheap! 2) What was the intended number of flights per SSME? 3) Does NASA's latest budget include the costs of a new SSME every ten flights? Brian McElhinney mce@tc.fluke.com ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 88 17:56:28 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: shooting down a shuttle In article <1988Sep7.213955.6185@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >The brightest targets are the nozzles, actually. The plume is hotter >but doesn't radiate nearly as efficiently. (At least, this is the case >for aircraft; I think it will read over to rockets.) ... Paul Dietz has reminded me that the shuttle SRB plumes are optically rather different from jet (or most liquid-rocket) plumes, partly because there are a lot of aluminum oxide particles in there. So it is not clear what a heat-seeker fired at a shuttle would home on. It might depend on details of the seeker system. -- NASA is into artificial | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology stupidity. - Jerry Pournelle | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 88 19:27:35 GMT From: jpl-devvax!beowulf!david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Smyth) Subject: Re: Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute. klaes@mtwain.dec.com writes: > > The Soviet news agency TASS today announced that communications > with the Mars probe PHOBOS 1 have been lost due to human error. > The wrong code was sent up to PHOBOS 1, and it appears there is no > possibility of getting signals back from the probe. This is sadly > reminiscent of the code error sent to the VIKING 1 lander in 1982 > which accidentally shut it down permanently. One big difference: we already had all the data anybody was really interested in from VIKING 1, and so the staff was down to very low levels, no new tools to assist checking uplinked programs, no huge budget for detailed simulation, etc. Note that is why we want to send a rover next time: when we see everything we can see from one place, move on to another... ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 88 22:10:52 GMT From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (daniel mocsny) Subject: Re: access to space; how to deny In article <1988Sep9.205521.16885@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <2803@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes: > >What would be the effect of a well-timed model airplane with a zip gun putting > >a tracer bullet into the ET as it was lifting off? > > It would have to be a pretty stealthy design to get that close without being > spotted. That aside, it might get messy; the ET walls are thin. I read an interesting article about the Israeli military and their RPV's. Little more than model airplanes with TV cameras and telemetry gear, they can loiter for hours a mile above combat zones and send live TV coverage to commanders in the rear. The RPV's weigh about 100 pounds, have quiet engines and very low radar signature. From the ground they are nearly invisible, unless you know exactly where to look. Apparently field commanders in the invasion of Lebanon were able to observe their artillery hits on TV and advise their batteries where to aim. Opposing troops had no idea they were in plain sight. They were expecting big, noisy reconnaissance jets that their SAMs can get a lock on. A small balsa wood model plane could easily escape detection, especially if nobody was expecting it and a few birds were flying around as decoys. Somebody might hear the engine when it came down, but it could always glide in. A bigger problem would be to get the operator close enough to see what was happening. However, the Israelis have shown the way around this. This is getting scary. Does NASA fly AWACS planes with look-down radar around launch sites, and monitor RF telemetry bands? Dan Mocsny Internet: dmocsny@uc.uceng.edu ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 88 19:50:11 GMT From: jpl-devvax!beowulf!david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Smyth) Subject: Re: wealth of mature spacefaring societies In article <39612@linus.UUCP> eachus@mitre-bedford.arpa (Robert I. Eachus) writes: >In article <3e5436c7.ae47@apollo.COM> nelson_p@apollo.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > The "average" American is richer today than he was in the >sixties. In the forties, fifties and early sixties the growth in the >American standard of living was very rapid, then came LBJ's "guns and >butter" economics, and the oil shocks of the early seventies resulting >in a decade of slow growth. In the late seventies the standard of >living of the "average" American actually did decrease. You may >remember that Reagan made this a campaign issue. > > However, the last six years have been a period of sustained >economic growth similar to the fifties, and our hypothetical "average >American" is somewhat better off than he was in 1976, and much better >off than he was in 1966. Oh no. Yet another american who believes what he reads rather than what he sees. Reminds me of the general populous in "1984". My dad was an engineer, just like me. I am higher up in the percentile ranks of wage earners than he was at my age. When he was 32 years old, working as an engineer, making relatively less money than I am, he owned two custom 3000+ square foot houses in ritzy areas of So.Cal., 7 boats, 4 airplanes, we as a family of 7 took many, many vacations each year all over the USA, Mexico, Canada, and even the occasional trip to Europe. No, nothing was inheireted. I don't own all that stuff, and simply do not have the option to buy it. Houses used to cost about 1-2x your yearly income. Now they cost about 4x, and with the higher interest, the total cost is much, much higer. Same with cars, planes, boats, furnishings, ... Sorry, but the actual standard of living in the USA has plumetted over the last 20 years. I don't care what government provided data you can spout which suggests otherwise. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 88 15:31:39 GMT From: amdahl!bungia!datapg!viper!dave@ames.arc.nasa.gov (David Messer) Subject: Re: wealth of mature spacefaring societies Obviously, you are in the wrong field. If you were a builder of homes, cars, planes, boats or furnishings, you'd be rich. :-) -- If you can't convince | David Messer - (dave@Lynx.MN.Org) them, confuse them. | Lynx Data Systems -- Harry S Truman | | amdahl --!bungia!viper!dave | hpda / Copyright 1988 David Messer -- All Rights Reserved This work may be freely copied. Any restrictions on redistribution of this work are prohibited. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 88 23:15:20 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: China launches first weather satellite; ESA launches US satellites. >From article <8809121606.AA27030@decwrl.dec.com>, by klaes@mtwain.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283): > "China launches weather satellite" > Beijing - China yesterday [September 7] launched its first > experimental weather satellite, THE WIND AND CLOUD NO. 1, the official > Xinhua news agency said. The satellite was launched by a LONG MARCH > 4 rocket from a space [center] in Taiyuan, north-central China, Note that this is the first sun-synchronous launch by China (900 km, 99.1 deg), the first flight of the Chang Zheng (Long March) 4 booster, and the first flight from the Taiyuan Space Center (the other sites in China are Jiuquan for polar orbit recon flights and Xichang for geostationary missions). I believe the satellite is the one referred to earlier by the Chinese as Fengyun I (anyone know enough Chinese to confirm this means Wind and Cloud?) The US satellites on Ariane were Gstar 3 and SBS 5. SBS 4,5, and 6 are owned by IBM; SBS 1 and 2 were sold to Comsat Corp, I believe; anyone who can tell me who owns SBS 3 right now gets the sci.space pundit's medal, first class. - Jonathan McDowell. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 88 17:17:56 GMT From: joe@athena.mit.edu (Joseph C Wang) Subject: Re: China launches first weather satellite; ESA launches US satellites. In article <1083@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu> mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: >I believe the satellite is the one referred to earlier by the Chinese as >Fengyun I (anyone know enough Chinese to confirm this means Wind and Cloud?) Yes, it does. -------------------------------- Joseph Wang (joe@athena.mit.edu) 450 Memorial Drive C-111 Cambridge, MA 02139 ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 88 13:01:46 GMT From: mailrus!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg@NRL-CMF.ARPA (Gregory N. Hullender) Subject: Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST) In article <1988Sep7.212736.6080@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: [responding to a poster's concern about shuttle safety] >Then, as I said, we must send them to the Smithsonian at once. No matter >how careful you are, you cannot fly them without taking risks. If we keep >on flying them, even just our present little fleet, losses are inevitable. There is no question that there are risks. Nasa certainly doesn't claim that there are none. The concern is over what risk is acceptable. A great number of serious shuttle defects were addressed over the last two and a half years. Also, the policy of launch! launch! launch! (damn the torpedoes! never mind that O-ring!) has finally been laid to rest -- unfortunately together with the Challanger and the remains of its crew. -- Greg Hullender uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg 3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #378 ******************* Received: from PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Sep 88 23:58:05 EDT Received: by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Tue, 27 Sep 88 22:45:24 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 27 Sep 88 22:45:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 27 Sep 88 22:20:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 27 Sep 88 22:06:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Tue, 27 Sep 88 22:05:27 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13016; Tue, 27 Sep 88 19:07:54 PDT id AA13016; Tue, 27 Sep 88 19:07:54 PDT Date: Tue, 27 Sep 88 19:07:54 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809280207.AA13016@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #379 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 379 Today's Topics: Re: Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute. Re: Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute. Re: Watching Shuttle Land at Edwards AFB Israeli spysat Israel joins the space club space news from Aug 29 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Sep 88 03:22:48 GMT From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (William B. Thacker) Subject: Re: Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute. Sender: cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Keywords: mtwain.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) writes: > > The Soviet news agency TASS today announced that communications > with the Mars probe PHOBOS 1 have been lost due to human error. > The wrong code was sent up to PHOBOS 1, and it appears there is no > possibility of getting signals back from the probe. This is sadly > reminiscent of the code error sent to the VIKING 1 lander in 1982 > which accidentally shut it down permanently. > Why is this "feature" present in unmanned probes ? I guess I can understand why you might want to shut the thing down permanently, if for no other reason than you're tired of listening, or you don't want someone to eavesdrop or take control of the bird. But why wouldn't the thing 1) have a fail-safe (Are You Sure ? (y/n)) or 2) stay "live" on batteries for a few hours in case it was a mistake ? ------------------------------ valuable coupon ------------------------------- Bill Thacker cbosgd!cbema!wbt "C" combines the power of assembly language with the flexibility of assembly language. Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke ! ------------------------------- clip and save -------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 88 07:09:19 GMT From: mcvax!enea!tut!santra!kolvi!kwi@uunet.uu.net (Kaj Wiik) Subject: Re: Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute. Original_From: VTTINS::LEPPELMR Phobos I news G.W. Leppelmeier 12.9.88 At the last session of the meeting of the International Science Committee of the Spectrum-X-Gamma project, Friday, 9.9.88, Prof. R. Sagdeev gave a presentation of "all we know at present about what has happened to Phobos I". These are my notes from that presentation. A few weeks ago it was decided to move the control of Phobos I from the Crimean Space Center to a Center near Moscow. Among other things, this involved using a new computer with a different keyboard. Traps were installed in the new operating system to catch characteristic operator errors, including one wherein an operator now had to insert a particular character at the end of a command. If he failed to do so, a reminder would come on the screen asking him if he had forgotten to do so, and the computer would not continue unless the character were included, OR the operator specifically overode the computer. On 29.8.88 a very long message was being prepared for transmission to Phobos I. At one point, near the end of the message, the operator failed to add the character, the computer stopped, but failed to display the question on the screen. The operator thought it was a computer error and overode the stop. The absence of the particular character changed the bit pattern of the following instruction, into a bit pattern, not on the list of accepted commands, but which did call an area of the onboard ROM which had a list of possible commands, used in development and left there for possible future use. Unfortunately, the particular pattern created in this error translated into turning off the attitude control thrusters. Two days later the Control Center sent a message to Phobos I and received no answer. It is now believed that as the spacecraft slowly changed orientation it lost power, because the solar panels no longer faced the sun, and everything turned off. The serious concern is that many items [from private conversations I gather both in spacecraft support and instruments] need electrical power to avoid becoming too cold, and will be permanently damaged if they get too cold. Sagdeev listed the following points as links in the chain: - error on operator's part - computer failure - operator decision to circumvent computer - absence of cross checks - actual command sent able to enter ROM - The OB computer must be programmed to prevent suicide. [I beleive RS said the OBCPU was 8-bit. You can't do much checking with such a small cpu on such a large spacecraft.] This is the first failure of a Soviet deep space spacecraft since 1972. Added 14.9: This is what I wrote when I returned from Moscow. Looking at my notes, I realise that the move of control center may have taken place on 29.8 and the transmission error later. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 09:27:49 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: Re: Watching Shuttle Land at Edwards AFB X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu" >apple!dan@rutgers.edu (Dan Allen) writes: >Does anyone know the scoop on being able to go on base at Edwards AFB >for the Shuttle landing in October or whenever it is going to land? I >went to a landing in 1982 there but did not make any of the details. I >have heard a rumor that the public is not allowed on base any more for >landings. Any truth to this rumor? If this message makes it to you before the shuttle lands, you could try calling the Edwards Public Information Office at (805) 277-3510. Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 88 13:17:48 GMT From: mcvax!enea!erix!howard@uunet.uu.net (Howard Gayle) Subject: Israeli spysat >From articles in the 19 and 20 September 1988 issues of Dagens Nyheter... Israel has launched an experimental satellite that is a step toward an advanced spysat to be launched within 2 years. The decision to build a spysat was made several years ago, when the Israeli government realized that the US was not going to share imagery. The launcher is to be a Jericho II medium-range missile. The main motivation is that Irak and Syria have acquired medium-range missiles. The Israelis want advanced warning if these missiles are deployed, to give time for air strikes. Howard Gayle TN/ETX/TX/UMG Ericsson Telecom AB S-126 25 Stockholm Sweden howard@ericsson.se {mcvax, uunet}!enea!ericsson.se!howard Phone: +46 8 719 5565 FAX : +46 8 719 9598 Telex: 14910 ERIC S ------------------------------ Date: 19 Sep 88 16:04:47 GMT From: palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu (David Palmer) Subject: Israel joins the space club Israel launched a satellite today on their own booster, according to a report on NPR. In the LA Times (in an article written pre-launch), the Israeli government was quoted as saying, in response to reports that it was a spysat, that "We never said it was a spy satellite, what makes you think it's a spy satellite?" (quoted very roughly from memory). But at least we have a good chance of beating Andora back into space. David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer "Flowers -- Just say NO!!" - Mighty Mouse ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 88 03:19:39 GMT From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@bellcore.com (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Aug 29 AW&ST Arianespace completes technical negotiations with major contractors for a block order of 50 Ariane 4s, being done in hopes of driving costs down. Mitsubishi Electric to supply Japan's ETS-6 experimental satellite with a xenon-ion thruster, to replace conventional hydrazine station-keeping thrusters and increase the satellite's life. NASA braces itself to point the finger at Sept 29 for STS-26 launch. Revised shuttle manifest expected to show two fewer missions in 1989. Interest in small, lightweight satellites, and vehicles to launch them, grows. Potential uses are mostly classified, but major ones include scouting for Soviet mobile missiles, and tactical intelligence. John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists, after studying US spysat work, believes that DARPA's Lightsat project is primarily meant to provide a cheap replacement for the KH-12 for tactical intelligence. He says that US satellite-intelligence users split into three camps -- tactical commanders in the field, strategic planners, and arms-control verifiers -- with three different sets of requirements -- tactical real-time imaging of central Europe, quick imaging of the Soviet Union to find mobile strategic missiles, and ultra-high-resolution imaging of the Soviet Union in peacetime for missile counting -- and the three groups are going three separate ways in replacing the KH-12. The KH-12 was meant to serve all three groups, but this would create irreconcilable differences in priorities in a time of crisis. The final nail in the KH-12's coffin was the shuttle problems. So the CIA and friends are pushing for a big new satellite for arms control, the USAF wants a different big-satellite system for targeting Soviet mobile missiles for the B-2, and the tactical users are pushing Lightsat. In addition to DARPA's Lightsat, which is currently fighting to keep its budget, both the USN and the USAF recently started small-satellite projects. DARPA has awarded a contract to Defense Systems Inc to build a small constellation of experimental comsats; one or more of them will go up on the first Pegasus launch. DARPA has paid OSC+Hercules $6.3M for the first Pegasus launch, and has an option on another at the same price. These are firm fixed prices; "we're buying the services, not developing the vehicle", they say. DARPA *is* funding development of a small conventional launcher, with a major contract award due in Sept. DARPA says that it is not going to be a bulk customer for small launches on either launcher, since its job is to demonstrate technology for use by other military agencies. Discovery is pretty much ready to go. The shaft-travel problem in one of the pumps is now known to have been a false alarm (measurement error). The fix for the nitrogen-tetroxide leak is in place and is being pressure tested (succesfully, so far). The trace hydrogen leak in the orbiter/ET umbilical cavity is still a bit of a mystery, but it may have been there from the beginning -- this is the first time the cavity has been instrumented during an engine firing. The leading theory is that the seals in an auxiliary hydrogen line leak momentarily when they are suddenly chilled by the start of hydrogen flow. Amsat, the US amateur-radio satellite group, will deploy a US-built small satellite from Mir late next year. The satellite's job will be medical communications in remote areas; the ground side of it is a joint project of Soviet scientists and a Harvard group. The satellite will weigh less than 10 kg, and will go up on a Soyuz or Progress launch for deployment during an EVA. This is basically a demonstration mission; if more are built, they will go up in more orthodox ways on expendable boosters. The Soviets have agreed to do the deployment at no charge; approval for the project has come from very high levels. The satellite will need US export clearance, but it is hoped that this will not be a major problem. The US government is lukewarm about the whole thing because the Harvard group is on the wrong side of the political fence. NASA picks TRW to build AXAF (the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility, the Hubble telescope's X-ray counterpart). NASA is trying to learn from its mistakes on Hubble, which had no single prime contractor (leading to coordination problems) and some extremely tight technical requirements, the result being a huge budget overrun. The AXAF approach is to build the high-risk parts first, before getting the bulk of the program rolling. AXAF is meant for shuttle launch. Charles Pellerin (NASA astrophysics boss) says he prefers the shuttle over expendables: he has no tight launch windows, he wants the most reliable launcher possible, and he values on-orbit servicing. Morton Thiokol settles out of court with Jane Smith, widow of Challenger's pilot. Reagan signs appropriations bill giving NASA $10.7G for FY89, $800M less than requested. The space station is well funded, but much of its funding is on hold until the next president okays it. Two Navy navsats launched from Vandenberg by Scout Aug 24. Big story on the Phobos missions and their landers: a fixed-base lander on each Phobos, and the "hopper" on Phobos 2. [Just as well it's on P2, since P1 is out of touch and believed defunct due to a command error that switched off its attitude-control system.] The lander missions are rather high-risk, because Phobos is rather irregular and its surface is not well known. For example, if the fixed lander is partly in shadow this will cut its life short, since it has little power to spare and there wasn't time to develop software for "smart" power management. Soviets study use of a satellite to deploy balloons into the middle of typhoons and hurricanes. [In itself unimportant, but it points out once again that the Soviets have what we lack: routine access to space. They can use space-based systems whenever it's convenient, not just when it's absolutely necessary.] Soviets studying Western suggestion to use Energia to put a multipurpose satellite network into Mars orbit for navigation and communications relay for landers, rovers, etc. Unfavorable comparisons made between Soviet willingness to listen to such notions and NASA's we-know-what's-best attitude. The Soviets had proposed a choice between heavyweight landers etc using Energia and medium-weight ones using Proton. The Westerners suggested staying with medium landers but using Energia's heavylift capability for a satellite network. The network's support services could make it possible for Japan or ESA (or even -- horrors! -- the US) to mount effective Mars missions using their smaller launchers. -- NASA is into artificial | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology stupidity. - Jerry Pournelle | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #379 ******************* Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Sep 88 06:38:07 EDT Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Wed, 28 Sep 88 04:50:09 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 28 Sep 88 04:50:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 28 Sep 88 04:22:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 28 Sep 88 04:08:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 28 Sep 88 04:06:56 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13189; Wed, 28 Sep 88 01:08:35 PDT id AA13189; Wed, 28 Sep 88 01:08:35 PDT Date: Wed, 28 Sep 88 01:08:35 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8809280808.AA13189@angband.s1.gov> To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #380 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 380 Today's Topics: NASA Prediction Bulletins ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Sep 88 22:51:09 GMT From: tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil (Thomas S. Kelso) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial RCP/M, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times weekly. As a service to the amateur satellite community, the most current of these elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space. This week's elements are provided below. The Celestial RCP/M may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. - Current NASA Prediction Bulletins #379 - LAGEOS 1 08820U 88257.39742307 0.00000003 10000-2 0 5602 2 08820 109.8219 135.3202 0044484 14.9438 345.2713 6.38663870 32950 GOES 2 1 10061U 88254.54271214 -.00000008 0 1440 2 10061 6.4610 71.5705 0010614 152.4402 207.8714 1.00268181 2572 GPS-0001 1 10684U 88257.23559917 0.00000013 0 9509 2 10684 63.4921 109.4605 0100873 196.9068 162.8222 2.00564015 62979 GPS-0002 1 10893U 88253.19996951 -.00000029 0 9154 2 10893 64.5701 350.3393 0142967 30.4869 330.3624 2.00563619 75714 SeaSat 1 1 10967U 88256.98262614 0.00000389 18328-3 0 186 2 10967 108.0093 77.1339 0002373 261.7901 98.2959 14.33869243534341 GPS-0003 1 11054U 88252.52153717 -.00000029 0 9414 2 11054 64.1386 346.9149 0051726 120.2168 240.3316 2.00570175 72711 GPS-0004 1 11141U 88253.12271087 0.00000013 0 333 2 11141 63.4608 109.4415 0055000 325.6680 34.0776 2.00559521 71421 NOAA 6 1 11416U 88253.42523444 0.00000383 17908-3 0 7547 2 11416 98.4975 252.9735 0011530 207.0321 153.0259 14.25195038477905 Solar Max 1 11703U 88254.76848220 0.00013349 41610-3 0 6852 2 11703 28.5015 55.5230 0002757 153.1808 206.8934 15.31654847476724 GPS-0006 1 11783U 88253.08188441 -.00000029 0 8012 2 11783 63.9530 346.5349 0131986 65.7523 295.6526 2.00559714 61362 GOES 4 1 11964U 88253.36408955 -.00000240 10000-3 0 112 2 11964 4.7788 76.3926 0002260 116.5290 243.8365 1.00268789 45050 GOES 5 1 12472U 88250.45841753 -.00000247 10000-3 0 6260 2 12472 1.8191 84.6376 0000434 60.1839 301.5924 1.00261849 25765 UOSAT 1 1 12888U 88255.05425879 0.00013940 41364-3 0 2917 2 12888 97.6104 290.6043 0003619 97.4550 262.6951 15.34926629385902 RS-08 1 12998U 88252.39988972 0.00000012 10000-3 0 5384 2 12998 82.9562 29.4713 0018731 235.1604 124.7686 12.02964747295428 RS-05 1 12999U 88249.35875503 0.00000012 10000-3 0 5247 2 12999 82.9709 25.8971 0011539 179.2179 180.9046 12.05071616295579 RS-07 1 13001U 88253.73486041 0.00000013 10000-3 0 4064 2 13001 82.9599 13.9642 0023199 78.9660 281.4005 12.08707237296996 Meteor 2-08 1 13113U 88245.60005115 0.00000076 63463-4 0 5998 2 13113 82.5386 288.0994 0015973 147.1294 213.0868 13.83869004325321 Salyut 7 1 13138U 88256.72733364 0.00007951 25246-3 0 2301 2 13138 51.6107 226.6756 0001914 99.4279 260.7955 15.33567894365512 Meteor 2-09 1 13718U 88253.84976961 0.00000179 91527-4 0 7066 2 13718 81.2449 195.7247 0057717 76.0236 284.7351 14.12995589295960 GOES 6 1 14050U 88251.41110068 0.00000119 0 8218 2 14050 0.5670 85.4282 0002029 118.9359 155.2077 1.00261883 3771 OSCAR 10 1 14129U 88248.53312992 0.00000044 10000-3 0 3536 2 14129 27.1605 306.2255 6029797 333.9978 5.4273 2.05877131 11338 GPS-0008 1 14189U 88248.19010706 0.00000013 0 5478 2 14189 63.0793 108.3240 0128407 212.8759 146.3973 2.00554857 37703 Meteor 2-10 1 14452U 88254.35334652 0.00000232 97898-4 0 6510 2 14452 81.1630 213.8814 0095127 181.7836 178.3014 14.21837163252775 LandSat 5 1 14780U 88257.58439071 0.00000350 82637-4 0 5248 2 14780 98.2119 318.5285 0003803 42.2336 317.9166 14.57119953241283 UOSAT 2 1 14781U 88254.64582844 0.00000701 14755-3 0 3445 2 14781 98.0464 315.2101 0014152 116.7745 243.4903 14.62411511241672 LDEF 1 14898U 88254.50685944 0.00010414 27684-3 0 6208 2 14898 28.5061 322.0671 0001296 336.7659 23.2849 15.36476290248221 GPS-0009 1 15039U 88253.23007992 0.00000012 0 5757 2 15039 62.8155 107.5278 0014656 304.4462 55.5175 2.00565782 31087 Meteor 2-11 1 15099U 88245.40619560 0.00000029 20526-4 0 8978 2 15099 82.5275 235.9998 0013074 335.5419 24.5119 13.83540845210180 GPS-0010 1 15271U 88246.64385993 -.00000029 10000-2 0 5250 2 15271 63.4457 346.7318 0094746 314.8452 44.4108 2.00557989 28068 Cosmos 1602 1 15331U 88251.96382635 0.00001333 19867-3 0 9116 2 15331 82.5354 238.5677 0023459 284.2032 75.6559 14.73978710212621 NOAA 9 1 15427U 88252.35653146 0.00000197 12906-3 0 2751 2 15427 99.1086 228.3446 0016294 26.6411 333.5601 14.11633635192685 Meteor 2-12 1 15516U 88253.74526112 0.00000135 11174-3 0 213 2 15516 82.5376 167.7938 0015293 177.9925 182.1274 13.83976913182266 Cosmos 1686 1 16095U 88256.85764643 0.00004943 16132-3 0 214 2 16095 51.6105 226.0381 0002627 149.5685 210.5939 15.33572149167203 GPS-0011 1 16129U 88247.80237217 0.00000013 0 2689 2 16129 63.6099 108.0987 0113943 149.6294 211.1149 2.00568300 21290 Meteor 3-01 1 16191U 88253.92561963 0.00000044 10000-3 0 7758 2 16191 82.5440 73.9142 0019245 280.7606 79.1367 13.16933799138634 Meteor 2-13 1 16408U 88255.00224349 0.00000054 43520-4 0 4273 2 16408 82.5316 81.6879 0016869 9.2928 350.8543 13.84061480136930 PRC 18 1 16526U 88235.79404625 -.00000289 0 3085 2 16526 0.0232 262.9523 0001192 300.5890 156.4502 1.00263964 9379 Mir 1 16609U 88256.73881113 0.00042705 30461-3 0 4004 2 16609 51.6191 337.9677 0019629 44.3719 315.9206 15.73095882147617 SPOT 1 1 16613U 88258.02123120 -.00003226 -15084-2 0 1715 2 16613 98.7331 330.5805 0000921 138.9043 221.2366 14.20046353 45508 Meteor 2-14 1 16735U 88254.05451867 0.00000071 58550-4 0 2532 2 16735 82.5370 109.1290 0015369 80.4814 279.8082 13.83795857115717 Cosmos 1766 1 16881U 88257.51353863 0.00001239 18545-3 0 3587 2 16881 82.5215 293.3717 0022087 280.1019 79.7799 14.73836565114520 EGP 1 16908U 88250.77151163 -.00000039 -51405-5 0 1027 2 16908 50.0107 89.3454 0010905 344.1991 15.8502 12.44372177 94123 FO-12 1 16909U 88249.63229916 -.00000025 10000-3 0 1111 2 16909 50.0165 93.0176 0010729 340.2300 19.8116 12.44395793 93972 NOAA 10 1 16969U 88250.89003277 0.00000228 11885-3 0 1584 2 16969 98.6745 280.3913 0014066 356.5166 3.5911 14.22621822102391 Meteor 2-15 1 17290U 88253.72720186 0.00000082 68766-4 0 1873 2 17290 82.4699 18.7081 0012515 333.7789 26.2731 13.83602595 84834 GOES 7 1 17561U 88255.23210992 -.00000223 10000-3 0 1483 2 17561 0.0589 301.0856 0008280 238.6618 180.2581 1.00270730 2792 Kvant 1 17845U 88256.73876639 0.00046358 32981-3 0 5350 2 17845 51.6182 337.9579 0020452 40.7829 319.2438 15.73095178 83889 Cosmos 1834 1 17847U 88257.87598223 0.00336453 40291-4 14104-2 0 7658 2 17847 65.0332 313.7460 0101638 290.9482 67.7479 15.77574325 81471 RS-10/11 1 18129U 88255.87393877 0.00000109 10889-3 0 5041 2 18129 82.9219 83.7308 0013074 101.7828 258.4854 13.71904147 61230 Cosmos 1870 1 18225U 88257.82753031 0.00222614 25771-4 24779-3 0 6427 2 18225 71.9066 77.6579 0003755 182.4329 177.5492 16.09353876 66970 Meteor 2-16 1 18312U 88255.01842775 -.00000206 -19290-3 0 1408 2 18312 82.5502 80.7164 0010804 258.6749 101.3228 13.83356691 53919 Meteor 2-17 1 18820U 88254.12260445 0.00000125 10287-3 0 540 2 18820 82.5467 143.1091 0017074 339.7969 20.2515 13.84040022 30942 AO-13 1 19216U 88243.21393379 -.00000107 10000-3 0 185 2 19216 57.5718 241.3717 6562933 189.7644 145.2660 2.09702313 1622 1988 060A 1 19320U 88237.27233602 0.00023333 28175-3 0 202 2 19320 65.8349 313.9214 0035101 314.5673 44.5213 15.59956336 6360 1988 062A 1 19324U 88232.06942062 0.00000012 59698-5 0 165 2 19324 82.9506 279.0665 0033389 196.9270 163.0774 13.74906671 4282 1988 062B 1 19325U 88235.89428706 0.00000006 0 388 2 19325 82.9482 276.1859 0030244 173.2275 186.9296 13.76100183 4817 1988 063A 1 19330U 88237.81451544 -.00000228 10000-3 0 117 2 19330 0.1524 249.6747 0005190 150.5761 319.9145 1.00269604 166 1988 063B 1 19331U 88249.99595107 0.00000102 10000-3 0 91 2 19331 0.0969 227.7701 0038739 343.7231 146.3235 1.00172693 229 1988 063C 1 19332U 88233.35171945 0.00000110 10000-3 0 151 2 19332 7.3620 88.9581 7279433 202.0001 98.8893 2.25711161 659 Meteor 3-2 1 19336U 88253.70821362 0.00000391 10000-2 0 263 2 19336 82.5442 14.0479 0016534 158.6340 201.5405 13.16840565 5999 1988 064B 1 19337U 88232.42914487 0.00000068 15895-3 0 169 2 19337 82.5451 29.1003 0014623 217.4628 142.5440 13.17016256 3185 1988 065A 1 19338U 88237.75217522 0.00004978 20581-3 0 338 2 19338 65.8417 12.0359 0031720 330.9483 28.9914 15.24638558 4161 1988 065B 1 19339U 88234.51131458 0.00005387 21033-3 0 229 2 19339 65.8436 22.0368 0036745 345.2928 14.7139 15.26293504 3665 1988 066A 1 19344U 88244.86016608 -.00000082 10000-3 0 212 2 19344 1.4535 276.4654 0002512 315.9599 43.4861 1.00272948 308 1988 066D 1 19347U 88235.92952046 -.00000125 10000-3 0 103 2 19347 1.4795 275.0481 0025959 316.0749 43.7936 0.98656931 64 1988 067B 1 19369U 88232.25151577 0.37525208 43611-4 19200-3 0 508 2 19369 63.0017 318.3312 0007155 229.3769 130.6759 16.55237317 2232 1988 069A 1 19377U 88256.63577900 0.00000499 -79437-3 0 304 2 19377 62.9229 99.5600 7383006 288.5706 9.2974 2.00620347 624 1988 069B 1 19378U 88257.97735730 0.01191531 39632-4 96710-3 0 613 2 19378 62.8310 341.8037 0108241 121.1473 239.9331 16.02211571 5114 1988 069C 1 19379U 88257.95869901 0.01180804 38821-4 92937-3 0 640 2 19379 62.8326 342.2211 0131312 116.8272 244.5054 15.98341000 5102 1988 069D 1 19380U 88254.71537643 0.00000256 10000-3 0 70 2 19380 62.8301 100.0379 7456841 288.5385 8.9141 1.95687075 581 1988 070A 1 19384U 88257.87966467 0.00781594 35244-4 29483-3 0 668 2 19384 64.7582 90.4959 0105912 107.3526 253.9957 16.11375427 4569 1988 070B 1 19385U 88234.48412421 0.15755018 37646-4 46522-3 0 172 2 19385 64.7694 177.2040 0037929 70.6694 289.9520 16.40145636 806 1988 071A 1 19397U 88255.57019345 -.00000107 10000-3 0 220 2 19397 1.3999 276.9814 0008030 282.4937 76.3911 1.00280224 258 1988 071B 1 19398U 88234.14037509 0.25339526 61865-4 15063-3 0 123 2 19398 51.6124 261.8610 0003894 251.4721 108.7625 16.54040265 384 1988 071C 1 19399U 88232.43249464 0.42660829 60459-4 16546-2 0 57 2 19399 51.6047 271.5281 0005915 139.2186 221.0726 16.43704915 103 1988 071D 1 19400U 88236.58517795 -.00000294 10000-3 0 190 2 19400 1.4976 278.1588 0021074 18.5646 341.1098 1.00558104 556 1988 073A 1 19414U 88258.07525423 0.00010424 71601-4 0 493 2 19414 82.3235 142.5556 0011401 266.6694 93.3578 15.74424875 3452 1988 074A 1 19419U 88251.25917033 -.00000025 -50139-4 0 90 2 19419 89.9666 140.3805 0098432 132.1445 228.8652 13.40251470 1749 1988 074B 1 19420U 88251.25671129 0.00000180 30890-3 0 41 2 19420 89.9663 140.3803 0096400 131.8123 229.1842 13.40508306 1735 1988 074C 1 19421U 88251.18610464 0.00000066 10779-3 0 91 2 19421 89.9665 140.3814 0097200 132.6397 228.3530 13.40085721 1726 1988 075A 1 19443U 88257.94577378 0.00038470 27439-3 0 227 2 19443 51.6227 331.7810 0019159 44.5785 315.6179 15.73159242 2493 1988 076A 1 19445U 88254.57452534 -.00000432 98636-2 0 124 2 19445 62.9450 140.4733 7366743 318.2078 4.7493 2.00705895 236 1988 076B 1 19446U 88257.98959609 0.00736926 11388-4 10634-2 0 343 2 19446 62.8456 88.4499 0192821 122.0761 240.1157 15.78591299 2267 1988 076C 1 19447U 88257.91181626 0.03452435 39793-4 97814-3 0 331 2 19447 62.8467 88.0166 0141165 122.7541 238.9529 16.06949043 2270 1988 076D 1 19448U 88255.89441192 0.00000264 -68260-3 0 80 2 19448 62.8839 140.2997 7336977 318.1921 4.8355 2.04079950 262 1988 079A 1 19462U 88257.84504422 0.00152626 32413-5 10785-3 0 200 2 19462 72.8745 83.8945 0027491 27.7566 335.0847 16.15131354 1214 1988 079B 1 19463U 88257.95867088 0.04223746 12522-4 85311-3 0 248 2 19463 72.8656 83.5717 0057724 65.3835 295.8948 16.26134610 1236 Fengyun 1 19467U 88255.68905902 0.00002808 19192-2 0 132 2 19467 99.1292 223.9970 0016174 30.3729 329.8347 14.00334620 689 1988 080B 1 19468U 88253.54463928 -.00000018 0 62 2 19468 99.1108 221.8563 0010268 331.8206 28.2070 14.00764680 381 1988 081A 1 19483U 88257.23222390 -.00000045 10000-3 0 48 2 19483 1.5194 150.5146 2988116 176.6129 185.6868 1.46472511 32 1988 081B 1 19484U 88257.41773261 0.00000003 10000-3 0 40 2 19484 0.1028 298.0339 0059282 40.4535 19.9662 1.01170553 28 1988 081C 1 19485U 88255.02019853 0.00010831 58935-2 0 44 2 19485 6.8066 146.6199 7334331 179.4068 183.5948 2.19857764 63 1988 083A 1 19486U 88257.94573655 0.00066611 46914-3 0 124 2 19486 51.6182 331.7782 0020413 49.5003 310.5050 15.73177731 630 1988 082A 1 19488U 88257.79895397 0.00048851 80058-4 0 167 2 19488 82.3287 170.1706 0011538 291.3532 68.5822 16.02893066 706 1988 083B 1 19491U 88256.24247701 0.54632256 62038-4 24681-3 0 115 2 19491 51.6141 339.9869 0003922 359.1783 1.2940 16.55959320 374 -- Dr TS Kelso Asst Professor of Space Operations tkelso@icc.afit.af.mil Air Force Institute of Technology ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #380 ******************* Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Sep 88 15:53:39 EDT Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 29 Sep 88 09:50:54 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 29 Sep 88 09:50:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 29 Sep 88 09:34:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 29 Sep 88 09:20:10 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Date: Thu, Sep 29 88 09:13:26 EDT Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #381 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 381 Today's Topics: Former astronaut Schmitt in Chicago area space news from Aug 22 AW&ST China launches first weather satellite; ESA launches US satellites. NASA Release marking 30th Anniversary Update on Radio Programs (Forwarded) Space station history article available Grad programs in avionics? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 88 20:45 CDT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Former astronaut Schmitt in Chicago area Original_To: SPACE I just received the following announcement: ==================================================================== The Harper College Department of Physical Sciences cordially invites you to attend a dinner to honor Dr. Harrison H. Schmitt at Sage's in the Radisson Hotel 74 West Algonquin Road Arlington Heights, Illinois on Thursday, October 6, 1988 at 6:30 P.M. Donation $50.00 per person In recognition of Dr. Schmitt's achievements in space exploration and the geological sciences, a dinner has been planned in celebration of the naming of the Meteorite Research Group at William Rainey Harper College in his honor: the Harrison H. Schmitt Meteorite Research Group. The proceeds of this dinner will assist in construction of an observatory at the Harper College campus. For more information, please contact Paul Sipiera at 397-3000, extension 2726 or 2375. Make checks payable to "Astronaut Dinner, Harper College." Tickets will be held at the door. ======================================================================== Harrison "Jack" Schmitt is, of course, the only scientist ever to walk on the Moon. He landed on the Apollo 17 mission (the last lunar visit) in 1972. Later he went on to serve as a Senator from New Mexico. He's still active in space-policy circles. The story is that Harper College, already a center for meteorite research, wants to build an observatory and space center. This dinner will kick off their fundraising campaign. It's a good cause; I'll be there. If you're in the Chicago area, and you've got the afternoon of October 6 free, Dr. Schmitt will also be speaking at 1 PM in room J-143 at Harper College in Palatine. It's a free question-and-answer session about America's future in space. ______meson Bill Higgins _-~ ____________-~______neutrino Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory - - ~-_ / \ ~----- proton Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET | | \ / SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS - - ~ ------------------------------ Date: 19 Sep 88 03:36:49 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Aug 22 AW&ST [Aviation Week & Space Technology subscription address is PO Box 1505, Neptune NJ 07754 USA. Rates depend on whether you are an "unqualified" or "qualified" subscriber, which basically means whether you look at the ads for cruise missiles out of curiosity, or out of genuine commercial or military interest. Best write for a "qualification card" and try to get the cheap rate. US rate is $58 qualified, higher for unqualified. It's weekly, it's thicker than Time or Newsweek, and most of it has nothing to do with space, so consider whether the price is worth it to you.] Australia completes develoment and test of its Endeavor UV astronomy package, which fits in two Getaway Special cans; it is now awaiting a shuttle launch slot. First Delta 2 launch slips to early next year due to a variety of minor technical problems. [Another possible issue is that it's rumored that the USAF people at the Cape are not too happy about the northeast launch heading needed to reach the high-inclination Navstar orbit -- it crosses populated areas (Europe) too soon for the range-safety folks' liking.] John Denver, the singer, who has been interested in a shuttle ride for a long time, has asked the Soviets about buying a Soyuz trip to Mir. They quoted him a price of $10M, and said that he had to get permission from the US government. The State Dept. has officially said that it has "no position" on the matter: "We very carefully did not endorse his going, but at the same time we can't prevent US citizens from going to exotic places." [It is reported that the Soviets have raised the price to $12M. Maybe they've listened to some of his music. :-)] Big story on early work on the international "Mission To Earth" project, now a major focus of the 1992 International Space Year. Initial efforts will focus on the greenhouse effect, deforestation, and standardizing data formats so that countries can use each other's data. There is broad political support for it, and various major environmental problems of late have strengthened the case. USAF selects Boeing, General Dynamics, and the Martin Marietta / McDonnell Douglas team as the finalists in the Advanced Launch System effort. All three will do detailed design work in the next two years. There is no longer a requirement for a near-term interim ALS; the late 1990s is now the target date. Boeing's earlier concept -- they will not say whether this is their current best idea -- looked somewhat like a shuttle minus the SRBs, with the winged part being a flyback booster and the "external tank" part being the core that would go on to orbit. General Dynamics is looking at a concept with two side-by-side stages, both firing at liftoff but only one (with fewer engines) going all the way to orbit with a payload on top; the "first" stage engines would be recovered and reused a few times before final use on a "second" stage. MM/MD has three ideas, all using a common core stage: #1 uses solid strap-ons in various numbers, #2 uses liquid strap-ons with the same engine type as the core, #3 uses either one or two flyback boosters. Arianespace signs six very small satellites for piggyback launch on the Ariane 4 that carries Spot 2 up, using a new small-payload platform to fit in the lower part of the payload fairing. Max total mass is 200 kg, max individual mass is 40 kg. The six are amateur-radio satellites, two from U of Surrey and four from Amsat. Target launch date is June 1989, but it could be as early as January if Spot Image invokes a clause in its contract that could be used to give Spot 2 special priority. Rocketdyne engineers are assessing a possible problem with excessive shaft travel in a LOX pump on one of Discovery's main engines. It is within spec but surprisingly large for the brief FRF test. [I believe this is now thought to have been measurement error.] With the exception of the possible small hydrogen leak, suspected to be due to microscopic changes in the shapes of seals at cryogenic temperatures, no other significant problems surfaced after the FRF. Space is, surprisingly, becoming a bit of a political issue in the US election, perhaps because the resumption of shuttle flights will occur not long before the election, and there is heavy space involvement in several key election states. Dukakis and Bentsen visit NASA centers. Dukakis comes out more strongly in favor of "a permanently manned space station" than before. Republican Party platform calls for a manned Mars mission and resumption of lunar exploration (eventually). NASA's inspector general begins investigation into last year's award of $360k to establish an industry association for commercial space firms. This is a large lump by normal NASA educational/nonprofit grant standards, and ex-NASA people are involved. A lot of questions are being asked. Final pre-launch SRB test was run Aug 18, successful at first glance. West German commercial crystal-growth experiment, flown as a secondary payload on a Chinese satellite, is recovered and returned to Germany. Initial results look good. Several articles on recent SDI technology work. NASA studying yet another possible shuttle hazard: noctilucent clouds, high-altitude ice-crystal clouds which are not uncommon at high latitudes in summer. The problem is what happens if a reentering shuttle goes through one: they occur at altitudes where the shuttle is still at near-orbital velocities. Simulations suggest that the shuttle might "skip" on the cloud layer, producing large navigational errors and attitude changes, and it is possible that the crystals might erode the shuttle tiles. Three studies are underway: one aimed at understanding the clouds better (not a lot is known about them, and one major unknown is whether the ice crystals are big enough to get through the shuttle's shock wave without vaporizing), one studying the effects of substantial tile erosion during reentry, and one looking at the operational impact of using only low-latitude reentry tracks. The latter would be a nuisance because for high-inclination missions, reentry windows for low-latitude tracks generally occur in the middle of the crews' sleep period. Another issue is that nobody is *certain* that noctilucent clouds don't occur at low latitudes or in winter. That aside, the clouds are not an issue for STS-26, which will be in a low-inclination orbit. It looks like automated production technology will be a major issue in the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor competition, if NASA's proposed specs for quality and reliability are to be met while staying within cost and performance targets. [This sounds ominously like NASA is pushing a bit too hard.] The definitive ASRM RFP, expected mid-July, has not come out as of mid-August; Congressional funding battles are believed to be the reason. Morton Thiokol has officially withdrawn from ASRM, but NASA still classes them as a potential bidder. There is speculation that MT may try to use lobbying and its Congressional allies to kill ASRM, by proposing a less ambitious souped-up version of the current SRB at lower cost. ASRM will be [sigh] a segmented design, due to the development risks involved in casting million-pound quantities of propellant in one go. [Yet another case of NASA telling the contractors how to do their jobs, instead of setting performance specs and watching how well the jobs are done. And a silly one, too: one-piece big motors have been built and fired successfully. (Under NASA contract, yet.)] The casing will be lighter and the propellant more powerful than the current SRB, with a "saddle" in the thrust profile to eliminate the need to throttle back the main engines during the period of maximum aerodynamic pressure. (NASA engineers would like to see the main engines messed with as little as possible early in flight, when safe aborts in the event of major engine trouble are tricky.) Better production controls will reduce variation in performance between boosters. The proposed government-owned site, at Yellow Creek, Miss., has caused some concern because it is in a remote area that will be unattractive to workers; at least one of the bidders is proposing an alternate site as a hedge against practical or political problems with Yellow Creek. (In particular, Congress is lukewarm about the idea of making the plant government-owned.) Israel Aircraft Industries reserves 1993 Ariane launch slot for the first of two Amos domestic comsats to be built in Israel. The go-ahead for Amos is awaiting a decision from the Israeli government: funding and management are commercial but the Communications Ministry is a crucial customer. -- NASA is into artificial | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology stupidity. - Jerry Pournelle | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 88 16:06:11 GMT From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) Subject: China launches first weather satellite; ESA launches US satellites. The following is from the Thursday, September 8, 1988 edition of THE BOSTON GLOBE: "China launches weather satellite" Beijing - China yesterday [September 7] launched its first experimental weather satellite, THE WIND AND CLOUD NO. 1, the official Xinhua news agency said. The satellite was launched by a LONG MARCH 4 rocket from a space [center] in Taiyuan, north-central China, Xinhua said. It will transmit information on clouds, Earth's surface, marine water color, vegetation growth, ocean surface temperatures, and ice and snow to satellite ground stations worldwide, the news agency said (AP). The following is from the Friday, September 9, 1988 edition of THE BOSTON GLOBE: "Europeans launch two US satellites" Kourou, French Guiana - An ARIANE rocket blasted into space yesterday [September 8], lifting into orbit two American satellites destined to upgrade telephone and television service in the United States. Liftoff took place without a hitch from the European Space Agency's [ESA] launch site on the edge of the Guianian jungle, on the northeastern coast of South America. The satellites belong to GTE-Spacenet and Satellite Transponder Leasing Corporation, a division of IBM (AP). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Sep 88 09:17:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Anderson Subject: NASA Release marking 30th Anniversary Peter Yee at NASA Ames has posted a NASA Release marking the October 1st anniversary of NASA. This is release 88-129 by Mary Sandy. It reviews NASA's history and current goals. It runs about 650 lines so instead of including it in the digest I'll make it available to anyone who requests it. Send a note to me or space-request@andrew.cmu.edu and I'll forward you a copy. Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 88 21:22:04 GMT From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Update on Radio Programs (Forwarded) 1.) THIS IS AN UPDATE. The October radio programs, the "Space Story & Frontiers" will be aired on NASA Select, Mon. Sep. 26th at 1:30 p.m. Eastern. There may be more changes. This month's shows feature: AN ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL Four Weekly Programs, 4 min., 30 sec. each and Frontiers: four 90 second verisions of the Space Story. #1292 Flying High for Thirty Years (Feat. Duncan McIver, Hdqts.) USE: 09/26/88 THRU 10/02/88 #1293 An Inside Look on 30 Years of Manned Space Flight (Feat. Alan Aldrich, Hdqts.) USE: 10/03/88 THRU 10/09/88 #1294 30 Years of Space Science and Applications (Feat. Samuel Keller, Hdqts.) USE: 10/10/88 THRU 10/16/88 #1295 Planning the Next 30 Years (Feat. Alan Ladwig, Hdqts.) USE: 10/17/88 THRU 10/23/88 2.) Broadcast News Service This service provides the news media with astronaut actualities up to 10 days prior to a shuttle mission, and is available Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 12:00 pm. The correct phone number for the Broadcast News Service is (XXX) YYY-ZZZZ. The press kit for STS-26 has the incorrect number on page 3. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Sep 88 08:45:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Anderson X-Andrew-Message-Size: 454+0 Subject: Space station history article available Cc: RASKIN@max.acs.washington.edu, Space-Request I have received a message from RASKIN@MAX.ACS.WASHINGTON.EDU which includes the text of an article published in Technology Review on the History of the Space Station. The article was written by Phillip D. Hattis and appeared in the July 1988 issue, pp. 28-40. The text runs about 36Kbytes so I won't include it in the digest but anyone who wants a copy should drop me (or space-request@andrew.cmu.edu) a line and I'll forward it to them. Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 88 19:16:25 GMT From: nunki.usc.edu!castor.usc.edu!smagnani@oberon.usc.edu (Steven Magnani) Subject: Grad programs in avionics? Hello! I have a friend who will soon be completing her BS in electrical engineering. She is interested in doing graduate work in electronic systems for space vehicles; I believe this is called avionics. However, the programs she's looked at so far seem to be for M.E.'s or Aero/Astro people -- they require lots of study of aerodynamics, fluid dynamics, and the like. Are there any schools that have graduate programs in avionics for electrical engineers? i.e. the control theory and issues involved, without getting too deeply into Aero/Astro or ME considerations? Is it reasonable to expect that there is such a program? Or are space systems so complicated that one must be well versed in the physical design of space vehicles before one can work on the electrical design? Thanks in advance! Steve [Note: followups go to sci.electronics -- change this if appropriate!] Steven J. Magnani "I claim this network for MARS! Earthling, return my space modulator!" With a domain server: smagnani@castor.USC.EDU ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #381 ******************* Received: from PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Sep 88 14:52:53 EDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 29 Sep 88 11:25:24 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 29 Sep 88 11:25:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 29 Sep 88 11:18:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 29 Sep 88 11:09:22 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Date: Thu, Sep 29 88 11:05:18 EDT Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #382 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 382 Today's Topics: A new approach to space Digesting Re: Cosmos 1900? Re: Cosmos 1900? Re: Cosmos 1900? Re: Cosmos 1900? Re: Cosmos 1900? US Elint--useless orbit. Info? Dinosaur extinction compared to others (was: are we terraforming?) Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? Orbit tracking software? The Cretaceous extinction event ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 88 10:27:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Anderson X-Andrew-Message-Size: 3382+0 Content-Type: X-BE2; 12 If-Type-Unsupported: alter Subject: A new approach to space Digesting This note is primarily of interest to readers of the Space Digest. For those who don't know, that is a periodic compilation of messages sent to a list of recipients throughout the internet. All the messages in the Digest also appear on the Usenet bulletin board sci.space, but it is designed so that people without access to Usenet can receive those messages by direct mail. The Space Digest has gotten out of hand. The message queue has reached three-quarters of a megabyte even though digests have been going out ten times a week. Between 6AM and 4PM yesterday 57 Kilobytes of new mail arrived: two or three digests worth. Many people are surely getting tired of scanning all this traffic to find messages of interest. For the last few months I've been managing the mailing list, bicoastally: part of the process happens on a computer in California and part uses the facilities where I am physically located in Pennsylvania. This changed last night so everything is now running on the Andrew system here at CMU. But the inevitable interruptions caused by this transition are only going to make the backlog worse. Starting very soon, I'm going to divide the digest into two parts. One of these parts is going to be completely upward compatible with the current digest. It will be mailed out often enough to keep the backlog at about a week and hopefully will be a bit more timely as a consequence. The second part, which I'm going to tentatively call a magazine, is intended to be more moderated. It will be more like a newspaper than a letters to the editor column. There will be much less of the followup and discussion that characterize the Digest. At the moment this is all vaporware, but I have a plan. The plan calls for a collection of topical editors to gather material from their own sources or by selecting messages from the unedited network traffic. They will submit their material to one of two addresses depending on whether it is "new" or culled from the network. The magazine will be assembled from these submissions and mailed out to a list of subscribers. In addition, the "new" material will be forwarded to the digests so that the magazine will contain a proper subset of the material in the digest. I imagine the editors' domains to be divided by subject matter so that they can work more or less independently without worrying about duplication. I expect editors to be people with access to information about a topic or special interest or expertise in a topic. There are people who already submit material to the digest who fit this description, but there are hopefully others as well. Several topics that come to mind are SETI, NASA, the Soviet program, commercial activities, the Station and Shuttle, Mars, the Moon, and certainly others. The list of working topics will depend on the editors themselves. I am looking volunteers to be editors. If you are interested in this experimental effort send me a note giving me some idea of your interests, any special expertise you have, what kind of network access you have, and anything else you think might be relevant. In addition if you'd like your subscription to be moved from the digest to the magazine or just want to be added to the magazine let me know. Keep in mind, however, that until I get some editors the magazine will be very thin. Ad astra per aspera, Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Sep 88 11:22:34 PST From: Peter Scott Subject: Re: Cosmos 1900? X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"space@andrew.cmu.edu" >mcvax!enea!kth!draken!chalmers!tekn01.chalmers.se!f86_lerner@uunet.uu.net > (Mikael Lerner) writes: > Sometimes there have been 'horror'-stories in the Swedish news- > papers about the Soviet Cosmos 1900-satellite, with which the > Russians have lost radio contact, which means that they can't > separate the nuclear reactor that powered the satellite. Not manually, but there is an automatic system designed to separate the nuclear reactor when it detects a temperature rise (caused by atmospheric heating), which is still intact. They expect that this will be triggered around 120km and separation will take place at 100km. Separation increases the chance of the reactor burning up, although I for one can't see the benefit of having radioactive dust scattered through the stratosphere or maybe even troposphere compared with having it all land within a relatively small area. Peter Scott (pjs%grouch@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 88 15:43:36 GMT From: att!cbnews!wbt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (William B. Thacker) Subject: Re: Cosmos 1900? In article <880922112234.0000011B091@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: >Separation increases the chance of the reactor burning up, although I >for one can't see the benefit of having radioactive dust scattered >through the stratosphere or maybe even troposphere compared with having it >all land within a relatively small area. I would suppose that, if the reactor burns up, the radioactive dust is scattered so widely as to be indistinguishable from background. If, however, it lands in a small area, it could pose a health hazard (suppose, for example, it lands in a town reservoir). Plus, landing in one chunk, it could hit someone in the head, which could also present a bit of a health hazard... 8-) ------------------------------ valuable coupon ------------------------------- Bill Thacker cbosgd!cbema!wbt "C" combines the power of assembly language with the flexibility of assembly language. Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke ! ------------------------------- clip and save -------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 88 17:03:28 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Cosmos 1900? In article <880922112234.0000011B091@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: >I for one can't see the benefit of having radioactive dust scattered >through the stratosphere or maybe even troposphere compared with having it >all land within a relatively small area. We've coped with radioactive dust in the stratosphere in the past, since the US and the USSR put up quite a lot of it in the 50s, and the Chinese and the French are still doing so on a smaller scale. There isn't enough in one of those little satellite reactors to be a dire problem that way. Having it come down in one small area is great if the area happens to be in the Sahara, but not so great if it's in Manhattan. -- NASA is into artificial | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology stupidity. - Jerry Pournelle | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Mon, 26 Sep 88 14:31:34 EDT Date: 26 Sep 88 16:01:46 GMT From: beta!mwj@lanl.gov (William Johnson) Subject: Re: Cosmos 1900? In article <880922112234.0000011B091@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV>, PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: [Re: the "feature" of Cosmos 1900 that (they hope ...) will cause its core to re-enter separately and burn up in the upper atmosphere] > Separation increases the chance of the reactor burning up, although I > for one can't see the benefit of having radioactive dust scattered > through the stratosphere or maybe even troposphere compared with having it > all land within a relatively small area. The advantage is this: much (in the first few hours after re-entry, an extremely large fraction) of the radioactivity associated with the core consists of fission products. These characteristically have short half lives, of the order of hours or days, although there are a few that do last longer. If the core burns up in the upper atmosphere, the short-lived isotopes decay away before they make it to the ground (it takes quite a while for stuff to cross the tropopause) and therefore pose no hazard at all. If a chunk of core made it to the surface in one piece, there would be some potential for exposing the public to radiation from the short-lived isotopes in the chunk before they decayed. Your concern would be well founded if the core didn't disperse until it had penetrated the tropopause (i.e., made it to the troposphere), because stuff in the troposphere gets washed out much more quickly than stuff in the upper layers of the atmosphere. However, if the core is going to burn up at all, it is most likely to do so farther up. Incidentally, this seems like a good time to plug for creation of a group like sci.meteorology or sci.weather. I can speak with considerable expertise on the physics issues (like what isotopes a reactor core contains), but it might be interesting for someone more knowledgeable on meteorology to provide figures on washout times of material entrained in the stratosphere and/or troposphere. Anybody that's listening got those? "One thing they don't tell you about doing | Bill Johnson experimental physics is that sometimes you | Los Alamos Nat'l Laboratory must work under adverse conditions ... like | Los Alamos, NM, USA, Earth a state of sheer terror." (W. K. Hartmann) | (mwj@lanl.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 88 22:29:29 GMT From: beta!mwj@lanl.gov (William Johnson) Subject: Re: Cosmos 1900? In article <21730@beta.lanl.gov>, I (Bill Johnson @ somewhere) wrote: [Re: the "feature" of Cosmos 1900 that (they hope ...) will cause its core to re-enter separately and burn up in the upper atmosphere, and someone's question of why one would want this to happen] > > The advantage is this: much (in the first few hours after re-entry, an ^^^^^^^^ (Excuse me; I should have said "reactor shutdown".) > extremely large fraction) of the radioactivity associated with the core > consists of fission products. These characteristically have short half > lives, of the order of hours or days, although there are a few that do > last longer. If the core burns up in the upper atmosphere, the > short-lived isotopes decay away before they make it to the ground (it > takes quite a while for stuff to cross the tropopause) and therefore > pose no hazard at all. [...] Paul Dietz correctly pointed out via e-mail [did you get my reply, Paul?] that the advantage here would be largest only if the reactor was operating all the way up until re-entry. However, even if it was shut down some days or weeks ago, the same principles apply; things can stay entrained in the upper atmosphere for months if not years, and one year of entrainment is worth a factor of FIFTY in radioactivity reaching the surface. Inquiring minds might look at a paper in the journal _Health Physics_ (Tracy et al., H. Phys. v. 47, p.225, 1984) that talks comprehensibly about the health impact from Cosmos 954, another Russian reactor satellite that came down ten years ago. -- "One thing they don't tell you about doing | Bill Johnson experimental physics is that sometimes you | Los Alamos Nat'l Laboratory must work under adverse conditions ... like | Los Alamos, NM, USA, Earth a state of sheer terror." (W. K. Hartmann) | (mwj@lanl.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 6 Sep 88 19:55:42 GMT From: pikes!udenva!isis!scicom!wats@boulder.colorado.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: US Elint--useless orbit. Info? On 1988 Sep 2 in the EDT am, an early warning elint was launched from the Cape on a Titan 34D toward a geosynchronous orbit. The final burn to circularize at 22,300 miles failed. The resulting orbit of approx 100 by 22,300 miles renders the mission useless. If I had the time of launch and the current inclination I could come up with approximate elemeents and times and angles for observation. Any info? ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 88 22:15:49 GMT From: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) Subject: Dinosaur extinction compared to others (was: are we terraforming?) >From article <4468@brspyr1.BRS.Com>, by miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout): > [...] > Why did so many non-dinosaur reptiles survive? Snakes, turtles, lizards, > crocodilians, and such appear to have suffered no such losses at the time. > And it doesn't have anything to do with size, either. Although most of the > "big" dinosaurs get all the attention, most dinosaurs actually were not all > that large--many were no larger than modern-day lizards, and their average size > seems to be little different from today's crocodilians. Yet not one single > dinosaur, regardless of size, survived whatever it was. It's difficult to > come up with a plausible scenario in which all dinosaurs die and most lizards > live, even though biologically they are extremely similar. A baffling > mystery, to say the least. Too much attention is paid to dinosurs. The iridium even marks a significant mass extinction event. Over half the families of marine mollusks, flowering plants, echinoderms, etc. were killed off (for half the _families_ to disappear, more than 90% of the species must be killed off). The question is not: why did the dinosaurs die off? The question is: how did all these others survive. Actually, they probably didn't. Mammals are probably all derived from only one or two dinosaur contemporaries. The same goes for birds. Each family of living reptiles and amphibians probably owes its existance to only one or two survivor species. In fact, the asteroid theory is quite adequate to explain all the extinctions - the robustness of life is necessary to explain the survivors. J. Giles ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 88 22:09:26 GMT From: brspyr1!miket@itsgw.rpi.edu (Mike Trout) Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? > > >(Jim Giles) writes: > > Well, it does appear that a single asteroid hitting Australia wiped > > out the dinosaurs. It's my understanding that this theory is highly questionable at best. While there is substantial circumstantial evidence to support it (layers of iridium, apperance of chronological time-scale catastrophe, mathematical climatological models, etc.), there is one major problem... Why did so many non-dinosaur reptiles survive? Snakes, turtles, lizards, crocodilians, and such appear to have suffered no such losses at the time. And it doesn't have anything to do with size, either. Although most of the "big" dinosaurs get all the attention, most dinosaurs actually were not all that large--many were no larger than modern-day lizards, and their average size seems to be little different from today's crocodilians. Yet not one single dinosaur, regardless of size, survived whatever it was. It's difficult to come up with a plausible scenario in which all dinosaurs die and most lizards live, even though biologically they are extremely similar. A baffling mystery, to say the least. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 88 18:04:41 GMT From: att!mtuxo!mtuxj!tek1@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Thomas E. Kenny) Subject: Orbit tracking software? What software is used for tracking the man-made satilites? Does the software run on MSDOS or UNIX? Does anybody have source? Are graphics displays of the orbit included? Any information would be appreciated, thanks in advance! ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 88 06:42:50 GMT From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu (Richard Harter) Subject: The Cretaceous extinction event In article <4468@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes: >> > >(Jim Giles) writes: >> > Well, it does appear that a single asteroid hitting Australia wiped >> > out the dinosaurs. Location not known, several candidates. >It's my understanding that this theory is highly questionable at best. While >there is substantial circumstantial evidence to support it (layers of iridium, >apperance of chronological time-scale catastrophe, mathematical climatological >models, etc.), there is one major problem... Debatable, and hotly debated, but not highly questionable. The competing theories are (a) multiple cometary strikes over an extended period of time (Oort cloud perturbation), (b) extended vulcanism, and (c) ecological collapse due to changes in geography. Theory (a) is an alternate catastrophe theory, theory (c) postulates a much longer time frame for the extinction, and (b) is somewhat of a hybrid as far as time is concerned. >Why did so many non-dinosaur reptiles survive? Snakes, turtles, lizards, >crocodilians, and such appear to have suffered no such losses at the time. >And it doesn't have anything to do with size, either. Although most of the >"big" dinosaurs get all the attention, most dinosaurs actually were not all >that large-many were no larger than modern-day lizards, and their average size >seems to be little different from today's crocodilians. Yet not one single >dinosaur, regardless of size, survived whatever it was. It's difficult to >come up with a plausible scenario in which all dinosaurs die and most lizards >live, even though biologically they are extremely similar. A baffling >mystery, to say the least. Not all that difficult. One note -- the minimum size for dinosaurs (adult) was about the size of a large chicken. It is a matter of debate whether dinosaurs were "warm blooded" in the sense of having a fully regulated body temperature; however this is no real doubt that they had much higher metabolisms (and corresponding continuing high food requirements) than reptiles. As such they were much more sensitive than reptiles to a catastrophic ecological collapse with a wide destruction of the food chain. The Cretaceous extinction was very broad -- it hit all the large animals (including the large reptiles), large numbers of sea life forms, and a fair bit of the plant kingdom. -- In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #382 ******************* Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Sep 88 18:35:37 EDT Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Thu, 29 Sep 88 17:10:32 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 29 Sep 88 17:10:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 29 Sep 88 16:54:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 29 Sep 88 16:40:48 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu Date: Thu, Sep 29 88 16:38:12 EDT Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #383 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 383 Today's Topics: Re: Why no aliens Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? New Rockets? No Hurry, OTA Says Re: Watching Shuttle Land at Edwards AFB Re: SDI Re: access to space; how to deny Re: Shuttle names--old and new Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST) Re: Phoenix ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Sep 88 04:38:49 GMT From: ndsuvax!nekinsel@uunet.uu.net (Peter Kinsella) Subject: Re: Why no aliens In article <714@auvax.UUCP>, ralphh@auvax.UUCP (Ralph Hand) writes: > Why bother trying to kill it. We just land, one of our diseases goes > rampant through their population presto we have control of our first > new world. (Sort of like the Spanish in South America, or any of the > hundreds of other civilzations wiped out in that period). In order for one of our diseases to harm an alien, our bioligical structures would have to be very very similiar. For example, humans are hardly, if at all, affected by a disease that affects fish. This is true for a multitude of diseases that exist in our own world. The odds of one of our diseases harming an alien race must be extremly high. Pete Kinsella ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 88 00:22:32 GMT From: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? >From article <5447@sdcrdcf.sm.unisys.com.UUCP>, by markb@sm.unisys.com.UUCP (Mark Biggar): > In article <4468@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes: >>> > >(Jim Giles) writes: >>> > Well, it does appear that a single asteroid hitting Australia wiped >>> > out the dinosaurs. Besides, I didn't write that! In fact, I've now forgotten who did. J. Giles Los Alamos ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 88 07:10:40 GMT From: mcvax!enea!erix!howard@uunet.uu.net (Howard Gayle) Subject: New Rockets? No Hurry, OTA Says >From Science, 5 August 1988, pp 647-8: Unless the United States wants to send people to Mars or deploy a space defense system, it can get by with incremental improvements in space transportation, according to a rocket buyer's guide. A note of sobriety has crept into discussions of the US space program, and it has come from a surprising source---Capitol Hill. On paper, at least, Congress seems to recognize that the new austerity in government means there is no room for false starts. Decisions made in the next 2 years will set a course for space policy for the rest of the century. The latest sign of realism can be found in a report from the Office of Technology Assesment (OTA), billed as a "buyer's guide" to launchers, released on 27 July ("Launch Options for the Future: A Buyer's Guide"). It was commissioned by the House subcommittee on space applications, chaired by Rep. Bill Nelson (D-FL)... [P]lans to deploy a space-based strategic defense or to send humans to Mars, would sharply increase transportation needs. These are over and above the 19 shuttle flights required for assembly of the space station, due to be in orbit by 1997. Thus, estimates of demand range from a low-growth requirement of 600,000 pounds launched to low earth orbit each year to 4 million pounds per year... Three things became clear immediately, says study director Richard DalBello. First, the current fleet cannot begin to cope with the demands of a trip to Mars or a major military deployment. Perhaps with a rapid investment in new transportation systems, the US could mount a Mars mission or SDI---but not both. Second, if there is no rapid increase in the pace of launching (that is, no SDI or Mars trip), the economic issues are of minor importance. An entirely new rocket fleet would not be much cheaper than what exists now. This is because the development costs are about equal to the savings that would be gained in transportation... Third, if it seems important to break with the past and increase the launch rate, it will be necessary to invest in new technology. OTA did not single any out as especially promising. The most striking conclusion, therefore, is a conundrum. There will be no economic payoff from new delivery systems such as the Air Force's "Advanced Launch System" unless the government at the same time decides to put the system to full use. And putting it to full use means buying a big package to be delivered, such as a Mars trip or SDI. Even under the most favorable circumstances, the savings of a new system may be illusory, for the money "saved" in making each flight cheaper will be "lost" on buying an increased number of flights. It will also be lost on buying the payload... Another conclusion...is that the present fleet is fairly well suited for the agenda that NASA has laid out for itself. Even without major improvements existing rockets should be able to lift 860,000 pounds into orbit per year, compared to 400,000 pounds on average between 1980 and 1985..."[B]y improving existing vehicles and ground facilities and buying more launch vehicles, the US could easily increase its launch capabilities to 1.4 million pounds...per year." This "enhanced" low-growth approach would more than double the 1985 capacity, and produce enough to "support a space program with slow growth for many years." It could be done by slightly increasing the capacity of some ELVs, improving the shuttle's booster rockets, testing and possibly developing liquid boosters, using a lighter shuttle fuel tank, making ground operations more efficient, building another Titan launch pad, and using more automated production and processing facilities. The entire "life cycle" cost of this approach would be $110 to $120 billion between now and 2010. For about the same price, but with greater risk, according to OTA, Congress could invest in one of several "transition vehicles." Included in this category are an unpiloted cargo version of the shuttle called shuttle-C, a greatly improved Titan rocket, or an entirely new system based on an interim version of the Air Forces Advanced Launch System. If Congress decides to go ahead with construction of the space station next year, it might be worth buying shuttle-C just for that purpose. Its capacity is twice that of the shuttle, and it could reduce station assembly flights by 7, cutting costs by $1.7 billion. According to NASA, that savings would more than pay for shuttle-C. But, OTA notes, NASA may well have underestimated... An incisive report by the Congressional Budget Office in May points out that transportation and other "infrastructure" costs already swallow the lion's share of the civilian space budget ("The NASA Program in the 1990s and Beyond"). Playing out NASA's existing programs will require large expenditures through the end of the century. According to this estimate, NASA's total budget must grow from $9 billion in 1988 to $16.4 billion in 2000 (constant dollars) just to cover the committments already made. NASA had a terrible struggle climbing the first step in this long staircase this year, moving its budget up from $9 billion to $10 billion. It seems unlikely therefore that there will be room for any radical new departure in space transportation, unless something already on the books is dropped. ---Eliot Marshall [Flames to Richard DalBello at OTA.] Howard Gayle TN/ETX/TX/UMG Ericsson Telecom AB S-126 25 Stockholm Sweden howard@ericsson.se {mcvax, uunet}!enea!ericsson.se!howard Phone: +46 8 719 5565 FAX : +46 8 719 9598 Telex: 14910 ERIC S ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 88 18:05:19 GMT From: aero!venera.isi.edu!cew@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Craig E. Ward) Subject: Re: Watching Shuttle Land at Edwards AFB In article <16644@apple.Apple.COM> dan@apple.com.UUCP (Dan Allen) writes: >Does anyone know the scoop on being able to go on base at Edwards AFB >for the Shuttle landing in October or whenever it is going to land? I >went to a landing in 1982 there but did not make any of the details. I >have heard a rumor that the public is not allowed on base any more for >landings. Any truth to this rumor? > >Dan Allen >Apple Computer >dan@apple.COM The California chapters of the National Space Society (NSS), cooperating through the California Space Development Council (CSDC) are planing to attend the landing at Edwards. In Northern California contact Tim Kyger of the San Francisco Chapter evenings at (415)221-2684 (This number is published in the Spacefaring Gazette without an area code; I am assuming it is 415.) For Central and Southern California contact me by email. I am with OASIS, the Los Angeles and Orange Counties chapter of NSS. (We have a coordinator for this but I don't want to publish his number without asking him first. Kyger's number was published already so I assume it's okay to distribute it here.) Craig -- ==================================================================== ARPA: cew@venera.isi.edu PHONE: (213)822-1511 ext. 111 USPS: USC Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1100 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Slogan: "nemo me impune lacessit" ==================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 88 05:52:41 GMT From: amdahl!ems!viper!dave@ames.arc.nasa.gov (David Messer) Subject: Re: SDI In article <1988Sep7.213955.6185@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <7757@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> lim@cit-vax.UUCP (Kian-Tat Lim) writes: >>Something that has been bugging me throughout this "denying access to space >>via Stinger" discussion. How much is the warhead of a shoulder-fired weapon >>going to disturb an SSME/Ariane/whatever, considering that the hottest target >>is the exhaust plume? With all that energy spewing out, it would seem to me >>that the extra "bump" from a 50-pound explosive (to be generous) would be >>negligible. > >shoulder-launched weapons don't pack that much explosive, but it's still >nothing you want to be standing near when it goes off. The Stinger has about a 7 lb warhead. The main reason that shoulder launced weapons aren't a real worry is that they have only about a three-mile range (and probably a maximum altitude of 5000 ft or so, although I don't have the figures handy). To hit the shuttle, you would have to be quite close -- in the area that is checked repeatedly for intruders. A much more likely scenario is someone machine-gunning the thing a couple of days before launch. -- If you can't convince | David Messer - (dave@Lynx.MN.Org) them, confuse them. | Lynx Data Systems -- Harry S Truman | | amdahl --!bungia!viper!dave | hpda / Copyright 1988 David Messer -- All Rights Reserved This work may be freely copied. Any restrictions on redistribution of this work are prohibited. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 88 20:55:21 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: access to space; how to deny In article <2803@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes: >How much disparity in thrust can the stack put up with? I think it's something like 2-3%. There has to be some compensation for it because the solids are not throttlable and there is no way to guarantee that their thrusts will be precisely equal. (Some precautions are taken to minimize imbalances, such as using segments from the same batch to build both SRBs for each mission.) In particular, some imbalance at burnout is to be expected. >Can the hold-down bolts keep the thing from taking off if one SRB fires and >the other doesn't? The hold-downs are blown simultaneously with SRB ignition, so this isn't possible. >What would be the effect of a well-timed model airplane with a zip gun putting >a tracer bullet into the ET as it was lifting off? It would have to be a pretty stealthy design to get that close without being spotted. That aside, it might get messy; the ET walls are thin. -- NASA is into artificial | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology stupidity. - Jerry Pournelle | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 88 02:57:21 GMT From: jato!jbrown@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Jordan Brown) Subject: Re: Shuttle names--old and new In article <> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <> hairston%23666%utadnx%utspan.span@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV writes: >>... Supposedly either "Challenger" or "Atlantis" was the name of >>Tom Swift's rocket, but I've never been able to track that down for sure... > > Tom Swift Jr's 1950s rocket ship was the Star Spear... You are correct. The Star Spear was his rocket. The moon ship (from Tom Swift in the Race to the Moon - #12) was named Challenger, and had a repelatron drive. It was in general a much better ship. Important stuff, eh? Must be some reason I collect it... ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 88 15:04:14 GMT From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Unmanned w/old SRBs (was Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST) In article <1988Sep7.212736.6080@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > ... possibly the most likely way to lose an orbiter is a landing >accident, which might well leave crew and payload intact but damage the >orbiter badly enough to make it unflyable. Thank you for pointing this out, I really wasn't taking nonfatal "totallings" into account but it's nice to think about ANY kind of shuttle accident (if we are indeed fated to have them) where the crew is OK. >Then, as I said, we must send them to the Smithsonian at once. No matter >how careful you are, you cannot fly them without taking risks. If we keep >on flying them, even just our present little fleet, losses are inevitable. The point you are missing is that your proposed "remedy" is equal in severity to the worst consequences of leaving things unremedied. In other words, if an accident is SOMEDAY inevitable and if such an accident would put the remaining orbiters in the Smithsonian for you anyway, then why jump the gun and do the future accident's work for it immediately, without getting some orbital missions in there first. Just doesn't make sense. (Flight 25's disaster was horrendous, but even it could not erase the manifest for the previous 24 flights!) You are proposing a dichotomy: go back to the old pre-1986 practices or shut everything down immediately. I am saying there is a middle ground: proceed, but more conservatively. Strapping those old SRBs onto our tiny remaining fleet, even unmanned, is just asking for trouble. (Tough to remember but that's what got this conversation started. :-) ) We both agree trouble is inevitable eventually, but I insist we can and should increase the odds in our favor whenever we have a chance. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding) ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 88 23:27:38 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Phoenix In article <44600020@pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk> william@pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk writes: >>"It is no argument to say that launch vehicles are more complex >>devices than, for example, an F-15 or 767. Clearly they are not. > >Is this true? It doesn't appear clear to me, I'm afraid! ... > [comments about the empirical nature of engine design] Hudson is talking about sheer mechanical complexity, not difficulty of design. Look at one of the see-through drawings of an aircraft that journals like Flight International routinely publish; the complexity is mind-boggling, especially for high-performance military aircraft. Just the number of *moving* parts is enormous. -- NASA is into artificial | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology stupidity. - Jerry Pournelle | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #383 ******************* Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Sep 88 19:16:21 EDT Received: by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id ; Fri, 30 Sep 88 16:30:02 EDT Received: via switchmail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu; Fri, 30 Sep 88 16:29:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 30 Sep 88 15:56:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 30 Sep 88 15:35:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Received: from middletown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 30 Sep 88 15:32:57 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu From: space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu Date: Fri, Sep 30 88 15:21:49 EDT Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #384 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 384 Today's Topics: Re: Chix in Space Dinosaur killer impact sites? Re: Possible Disaster Scenarios Re: Chix in Space Re: Possible Disaster Scenarios Re: Possible Disaster Scenarios Re: NASA and McDonnell Douglas sign commercial launch agreement (Forwarded) Re: Alien civilizations, improved grey goo, and biotech civilizations... Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? Re: SETI and sea mammals ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Sep 88 23:41:04 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Chix in Space In article <44600021@pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk> william@pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk writes: >Forgive me if I am wrong, (it's a while since I studied the theory!!), >but are there portions of the human reproductive system that require >some sense of orientation prior to fertilisation? Something to do with >sperm navigation.... I would think that it has been empirically verified :-) that human fertilization can take place in both vertical and horizontal orientations. More generally, if you contemplate the square-cube law it becomes clear that the smaller things get, the less significant gravity is. Elephants cannot jump or run (although they can *walk* faster than you can run). Humans can. Cats have been known to fall a hundred feet or more unharmed. Mice, especially baby mice, quite happily walk on a ceiling if there's something like a screen that they can get their toes and claws into. (I've seen them do it.) Small insects barely care which way is up. I'd be very surprised if sperm could even *sense* gravity -- on their scale, it is insignificant compared to intermolecular forces. Now, embryo development, that's a different issue. What free-fall babies would look like is most unclear. -- NASA is into artificial | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology stupidity. - Jerry Pournelle | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 88 08:25:06 GMT From: agate!gsmith%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) Subject: Dinosaur killer impact sites? In article <3391@lanl.gov>, jlg@lanl (Jim Giles) writes: >From article <446@optilink.UUCP>, by cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer): >>> Well, it does appear that a single asteroid hitting Australia wiped >>> out the dinosaurs. >Australia is one of the best preserved old continental land masses in >the world. An impact of the size suggested by Louis Alvarez et. al. >only 65 million years ago would have left a noticable mark. I read recently in the San Jose Mercury News that a large crater in Iowa indicated an asteroidal body hit Iowa about 65 million years ago. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Garnet Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "Some people, like Chuq and Matt Wiener, naturally arouse suspicion by behaving in an obnoxious fashion." -- Timothy Maroney, aka Mr. Mellow ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 88 23:55:09 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Possible Disaster Scenarios In article <73@cybaswan.UUCP> iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes: >2) What happens if one of the SRBs doesn't light up? I assume the launch > sequencer doesn't blow the bolts, kills the liquid fuelled engines > and attempts to hold the stack on the ground until the one SRB goes > out? ... No, the bolts blow at the same instant as SRB ignition -- there is no delay to see if the SRBs have ignited properly. (I made this mistake once.) Seriously asymmetric SRB performance, with the worst case being ignition failure in one of them, is an unsurvivable accident. >3) What happens if the liquid fuelled engines flame out just after lift-off? > This is probably the least dangerous problem, the 2 SRBs I believe > provide about 5.8 Million Pounds force between them, and the 3 liquids > supply "only" about another million between them. The shuttle may not > get into orbit, but at least it should have a chance of attaining > about 15-20 miles altitude, which ought to be fairly safe... I don't remember for sure, but I think the end result of a failure like this is more-or-less normal flight up to SRB jettison, followed by immediate ET jettison, followed by either an emergency landing or ditching in the ocean. This assumes that there are no major control problems at SRB burnout, given that the liquid engines can't be used to compensate for asymmetric burnout. >[Soviets] I wonder why they jettison the docking >module before tring to fire the retro rockets to commence re-entry? Surely >there would be time enough afterwards? ... Probably they don't want the docking module wandering around uncontrolled nearby during reentry. Also, the less mass is on board at retrofire time, the smaller and lighter the retros can be. -- NASA is into artificial | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology stupidity. - Jerry Pournelle | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 88 05:44:02 GMT From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) Subject: Re: Chix in Space [About a tongue-in-cheek suggestion for a shuttle experiment funded by Kentucky Fried Chicken, to study chicken development in space -- actually not a bad idea, but I doubt Kentucky Fried Chicken would fund it.] In article <44600021@pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk> william@pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk writes: [Last part of the suggestion is >>] >> It may also offer clues as to how human embryos may one day >>develop in space. > >Forgive me if I am wrong, (it's a while since I studied the theory!!), >but are there portions of the human reproductive system that require >some sense of orientation prior to fertilisation? Something to do with >sperm navigation. [. . .] I very much doubt it. Remember that mammalian females change position many times between copulation and fertilization, which would really mess up gravity-dependant sperm. Also, mammalian eggs do not have the gravity- sensitive cytoplasmic determinants that amphibian eggs have (or, initially, any cytoplasmic determinants at all, it seems -- the cells formed by the first 3 divisions seem to be for all practical purposes entirely identical, and can be rearranged freely without messing up the subsequent embryo). Note that if mammalian eggs and embryonic development were gravity-dependant, it would be very hard to get them to develop properly, again due to the changing position of mammalian females (yes, vivapary does have its disadvantages). However, bird eggs (as well as reptile eggs) are even larger and yolkier than amphibian eggs, and while it is predicted that the absence of gravity will not disturb amphibian eggs (or reptile or bird eggs) -- that is, it takes gravity in the wrong direction and at the right time to mess up development -- the required data is not yet available. Experiments to test the development of amphibian and fish (similar kind of eggs and development) embryos in space are being designed in the Department of Biology at Indiana University. It is my understanding that rats were taken up on one of the Skylab flights (unless I am getting mixed up and it is the Russians that did this) and allowed to mate and produce offspring. The offspring developed completely normally, and did not even suffer the bone calcium loss that their parents were experiencing. Unfortunately, I don't have the reference for this. Anyone else know of this? -- Lucius Chiaraviglio chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu lucius@tardis.harvard.edu (in case the first one doesn't work) "NO DYING ALLOWED." -- The Maytag coin-operated washing machine instruction poster. "This would be nice!" -- graffitti seen on the Maytag coin-operated washing machine instruction poster in the Daniels laundry room in Currier House at Harvard University. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 88 14:59:40 GMT From: paul.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) Subject: Re: Possible Disaster Scenarios Henry Spencer := >, Steve Hosgood := >> > >[Soviets] I wonder why they jettison the docking > >module before tring to fire the retro rockets to commence re-entry? Surely > >there would be time enough afterwards? ... > Probably they don't want the docking module wandering around uncontrolled > nearby during reentry. Also, the less mass is on board at retrofire time, > the smaller and lighter the retros can be. A third good reason is that if they've started re-entry and something goes wrong with jettisoning the docking module, they'd have very little time to fix the problem. Even if everything went right, they'd still cost themselves time when they had very little to spare. Jettisoning the docking module simplifies things all around. I'd hope they don't throw it so far away that they can't get back to it if something goes wrong with re-entry... - Steve (masticol@paul.rutgers.edu) ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 88 21:12:24 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Possible Disaster Scenarios >From article <73@cybaswan.UUCP>, by iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood): > BTW, I was glad to see the Soviets managed to sort out their problem in > returning those Cosmonauts from Mir. I wonder why they jettison the docking > module before tring to fire the retro rockets to commence re-entry? Surely > there would be time enough afterwards? (Followups on this last point to > sci.space please). Yes, they used to do this (Soyuz-1 to Soyuz-40), jettisoning it at the same time as the equipment-aggregate module (the thing with the engine in) a few minutes after retrofire, but starting with the Soyuz T series in 1980 they have jettisoned the orbital module prior to reentry. Why? Well, every kilogram of mass in the orbital module that you accelerate to reentry speed is one kilo less in the descent module that you bring home. There's no point in using your deorbit burn to bring down any more junk than you need... this is just the old staging principle used at launch time. But I wonder if theyre beginning to regret that saved mass; it would be nice to have extra resources if you get stuck like that. - Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 88 21:18:49 GMT From: vsi1!daver!mfgfoc!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Thompson) Subject: Re: NASA and McDonnell Douglas sign commercial launch agreement (Forwarded) >From article <14551@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, by yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee): > Jim Ball > Headquarters, Washington, D.C. September 7, 1988 > RELEASE: 88-124 > NASA AND McDONNELL DOUGLAS SIGN COMMERCIAL LAUNCH AGREEMENT > > NASA and the McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company, St. > Louis, announced today the signing of an agreement providing for > the firm's use of facilities at the Kennedy Space Center, Fla., > and technical support from the Goddard Spaceflight Center, > Greenbelt, Md., in support of commercial launches. > All right, lets here it for free enterprise in space. I am beginning to think that the only way to preserve (or restore) the U.S. at the forefront of space technology is to make sure that our industry can make a profit in space. This agreement is something that is 20 years late in coming. I wish the best of luck to McDonnell Douglas and their pioneering efforts in the commercializing of the high frontier. Hopefully the government will now encourage other companies which are high on talent and vision, but low on cash, to provide competition for McDonnell Douglas. I hope that the state of our (the country as a whole) space program is somewhat analagous to where commercial aviation was in the 1920's and 30's where the military benifits of aviation were apparent and the government encouraged private enterprise into development of aviation through air mail. Now if Boeing and Rockwell can get on the ball slowly evolve from defense oriented industry to a space oriented industry. Mike Thompson Disclaimer: These are just my thoughts and in no way reflect the opinion of my company whatever it may be. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael P. Thompson FOCUS Semiconductor Systems, Inc. net: (sun!daver!mfgfoc!engfoc!mike) 570 Maude Court att: (408) 738-0600 ext 370 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 88 01:12:15 GMT From: Portia!doom@labrea.stanford.edu (Joseph Brenner) Subject: Re: Alien civilizations, improved grey goo, and biotech civilizations... C445585@UMCVMB.BITNET ("John Kelsey") writes with essentially three topics: I A planet surviving a beserker attack would begin destroying beserkers. II Beserkers may take the form of "Grey Goo" III Technical civilizations may be unlikey, may destroy themselves, may be uninterested in radio, may be uninterested in expansion etc. Part I seems like a good point to keep in mind, part II is a reasonable observation, but part III falls into what seems to be a perpetual trap for people new to the Fermi Paradox. An explanation for the *complete absence* of observed extra-terrestrial, industrial species has to cover an enourmous number of stars, and must be true for *almost every* potential species. Notions like "Maybe they tend to destroy themselves somehow" just cuts the numbers by another factor of 100 or 1000 or so, and still doesn't reduce the expected result to zero. (I'll try and get references for this reasoning, if you insist. I picked up most of this from a David Brin editorial in Analog, several years ago. Brin comes across as an intelligent guy when he's not writing fiction.) Part I does make a good point: there are presumably competing effects that could be suppressing the beserkers. The trouble is that the reason we started talking about beserkers in the first place is as an explanation for the absence of observed aleins. If there are no beserkers we ought to be seeing non-beserkers. The explanation that Gregory Benford goes for in his novels (ACROSS THE SEA OF SUNS etc.) is that the beserker's *have* wiped out almost everyone, but that long ago the watchdogs in our system were destroyed and have not yet been replaced. This works as a hypothetical explanation of the Fermi paradox, because it postulates a *local* occurence, making *us* a special case, rather than trying to postulate some weird effect that causes *all* intelligent races to self-destruct. (Benford comes across as an intelligent guy even when he is writing fiction.) (BTW, There's an extension to John Kessel's reasoning that I might propose: A planet that's been attacked by beserkers might come to the conclusion that the best defense against future attacks is to release their own version of beserkers...) -- Joe B. (J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Materials Science Dept/Stanford, CA 94306) ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 88 20:53:05 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!markb@husc6.harvard.edu (Mark Biggar) Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming??? In article <4468@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes: >> > >(Jim Giles) writes: >> > Well, it does appear that a single asteroid hitting Australia wiped >> > out the dinosaurs.