Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_2/V9_279.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 16KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/0Y4dQ:y00UkZE4ZU47>;
          Mon,  6 Mar 89 09:34:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon,  6 Mar 89 09:34:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #279

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 279

Today's Topics:
        Re: Recovering sunken Mercury capsule
                External tanks
              Re: 1992 moon base
               Re: the un/manned debate
         Pittsburgh L5 operating CBB for NSS
    Re: LANDSAT TO BE SHUT OFF SOON--PLEASE WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN
                 Mailing List
              Harvard Dept. Space News.
  Re: Air Force C-5 to transport Hubble Space Telescope (Forwarded)
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #257
                Re: arguments
              Re: Photo identification?
                Re: arguments
         Re: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format
         Re: First concert from space--update
               Re: the un/manned debate
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 89 01:52:13 GMT
From: dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu![e-mail]  (Joe Walker and Hal Jr.)
Subject: Re: Recovering sunken Mercury capsule

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>This popped up in the February 1989 issue of *Sea Technology* (Volume
>30, No. 1, page 9), an ocean engineering trade magazine. Headline
>is "Texas Group Gets Go-Ahead to Salvage *Liberty Bell 7* Capsule."

  Gee..after all these years...I wonder how much of it is left?

Seldon

------------------------------

Date: Wed,  1 Mar 89 12:52:13 PDT
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: External tanks
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"[e-mail]"

I heard an article on NPR this morning on the way to work about the
External Tank Corporation.  Nothing that I hadn't heard before (use E.T.s
for telescopes by filling them with CO2 and looking for gamma rays, use
them for garbage cans for the Space Station, etc), but on this program
they interviewed some NASA official and asked him why they never put the
E.T.s into orbit after taking them 99% of the way there, when the cost
to put that amount of mass in orbit would be $300 million if done any other
way.  He mumbled that it had never been proven to be cost effective.  I wonder
what paragon of economic efficiency he was comparing it with.  The shuttle?

Peter Scott ([e-mail], speaking for myself only)

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 11:10:36 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Paul L Schauble)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

While it may be possible to build a robot hand with present or near future
technology, it won't be useful for space operations. The had will very
likely be the most complicated, delicate, and least reliable piece of
equipment on the space station. This will likely be true for a very long
time to come.

The most immediate application for such thing will be in hazardous areas
of earthbound industries. Where you can bring the hand back quickly for
human servicing.

  ++PLS

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1989 13:35-EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

> More generally, the most striking thing about most of the reports that
> attempt to set goals for future unmanned activity is the near-complete
> lack of any underlying long-term vision.  They have no goals, just some
> missions they want to fly.

I agree utterly with Henry. That's why I believe NASA should, if it is
not completely  disbanded, be limited by mandate to doing onthing but
preliminary technology development. They should be completely out of
the planetary science and research business.

I would like to see them with a mandate to test laser launchers, rail
guns, ram accelerators, sky hooks, tethers, ion engines, solar sails,
CELSS. The list could go on for pages. The technology they develop
should be available for the overly conservative
don't-try-anything-new-on-my-experiment planetary people to use if they
wish, and for private companies to develop as they wish, just as NACA
did in the 1930's.

If instead of doing technology research, NACA had been the central
agency controlling all aircraft development and use, we would still be
discussing the incredible technological feat of delivering 100 tons of
payload across the Atlantic using a $1000000000 fleet of scaled up
Wright Flyers and a series of tethered floating landing fields in the
Atlantic...

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1989 18:38-EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Pittsburgh L5 operating CBB for NSS

CBB with daily upates of material from NASA, NASA Select and other
sources is available at

    412-366-5208

Please call in and check out what happens when a professional writer
runs a CBB.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 20:14:47 GMT
From: dvnspc1![e-mail]  (Tom Albrecht)
Subject: Re: LANDSAT TO BE SHUT OFF SOON--PLEASE WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN


Could you post details about committees, committee members, etc. so that
we can write?  Where is the decision made, what government agencies?


--
Tom Albrecht

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 14:09:00 GMT
From: pur-phy!tippy![e-mail]
Subject: Mailing List


  You will find a list of all mailing lists along with their respective
contacts in NEWS.NEWUSERS along with a few other NEWS groups.

  Mailing to the moderator will do much more good than posting here.

         Rob Dale

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 19:32:42 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com![e-mail]  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: Harvard Dept. Space News.


    To Jonathan McDowell:  Please continue posting your Space News
    reports to the newsgroups.  I find them quite interesting and
    informative, and give coverage in several areas not currently done
    in sci.space.

        I tried to send you a mail message, but it bounced.

    Larry

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 16:27:27 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Air Force C-5 to transport Hubble Space Telescope (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>     NASA announced today that a modified Air Force C-5A Galaxy
>will be used to transport the Hubble Space Telescope from its
>assembly contractor in California to its launch site at the
>Kennedy Space Center, Fla...  The other option was to move the telescope
>by Military Sealift Command ship...

In case anyone is wondering why this decision is being made now, as
opposed to years ago (given that the HST launch is far behind its original
schedule), the modified C-5A wasn't available until very recently.  The
modifications are for carrying big USAF space hardware, presumably spy
satellites, but the HST will fit.

>     "We opted for the C-5 because it will require significantly
>less shipment time and provide us more flexibility in our
>shipment schedule,"...

It will also greatly improve security, not an entirely trivial issue.
The HST would be a terrorist's dream of a hostage.  Nobody was terribly
happy about sending an astronomically :-) expensive, irreplaceable payload
all that way (via the Panama Canal) by ship.
--
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 17:47:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #257


>> what about: there's  a guy i know who uses his cat to clean his instrument.
>> he removes the optical component package at the viewing end and slides the
>> animal through the tube to pick up the dust.
>
> If you look through the tube at the same time, would you get a CAT
> scan? :-)

No, you'd get your nose clawed up.  This is known to the cat as a "stalking
game" and to the person doing it as "one of the stupidest, most painful things
I've ever done".

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 89 23:35:56 GMT
From: spl1!ddsw1!corpane![e-mail]  (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: arguments

In article <[e-mail]>, szabonj@minke (Nick Szabo) writes:
>
> >This is an arguement that will never be resolved. There are those like me
> >who support a Manned Program, and nothing you say will change our minds.
>
> This is really too bad.  I hope for the sake of space enthusiasts everywhere
> that people like you are a small, small minority.
Listen dip! if you want to include something I say in your message, then
by god, include it all! don't go paraphrasing and cutting out parts of
my sentences and paragraphs to further your viewpoint.
what I said was:

------
This is an arguement that will never be resolved. There are those like me
who support a Manned Program, and nothing you say will change our minds.
And those like yourself and Mr. Dietz, who oppose a Manned Program in the
present, and nothing I or anyone else will say will change your minds.

Not that I am saying that any of us (your group or mine) is closed minded.
I just feel that this is a subject that neither of us will budge on.
---
Now in the context of the other sentences, I hope that my meaning is
clearer. This arguement has been going on between you, Dietz and Mr.
Spencer for over a month. Have your convinced Spencer of your viewpoint?
Have I or Spencer convinced you of our viewpoints? [I am not implying that
Henry Spencer and I agree on all views but I support many of his]

******NO *********
And I was just saying that In *MY* opinion, nothing anyone says is going
to change *YOUR* mind. is it? You will always find some rationale to
refute anybody elses viewpoint and support your own. You have so far!

To me this is like argueing politics or religion. There will be no
solution.



--
PS: Net: I am sorry for this seemingly immature response, but it really
irks me when someone twists my words.

--
John Sparks      // Amiga  |  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks
               \X/  UUCP   |  >> call D.I.S.K. @ 502/968-5401 thru 5406 <<

I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 09:46:40 GMT
From: shelby!Portia!hanauma![e-mail]  (Joe Dellinger)
Subject: Re: Photo identification?

>Well, the first two fields are not too difficult - clearly the images
>were taken at 1645 and 1645 on 26 Feb 1979.  Hmm, problem, thats only a
>Jonathan McDowell

Interesting, can it be a coincidence that Feb 26, 1979 was the
date of the most recent total eclipse of the sun in the continental US?

(Speaking of which --- there's a partial eclipse on Mar 7 for Western N.A.)
\    /\    /\    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
 \  /  \  /  \  /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___
  \/    \/    \/Joe Dellinger [e-mail] decvax!hanauma!joe\/\.-._

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 20:11:08 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: arguments

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Sparks) writes:
>This is an arguement that will never be resolved. There are those like me
>who support a Manned Program, and nothing you say will change our minds.
>And those like yourself and Mr. Dietz, who oppose a Manned Program in the
>present, and nothing I or anyone else will say will change your minds.
>
>Not that I am saying that any of us (your group or mine) is closed minded.
>I just feel that this is a subject that neither of us will budge on.

> This arguement has been going on between you, Dietz and Mr.
>Spencer for over a month. Have your convinced Spencer of your viewpoint?

Actually, our positions are not all *that* far apart.  Mostly, the
difference is in how fast we expect launch costs to drop.  I expect
they will come down slowly.  Henry (and many others, I hazard) are
counting on private firms to do orders of magnitude better than NASA,
and to do it soon.  My mind would be changed if someone could
demonstrate that launch costs would be (picking numbers out the air)
$200/lb to LEO in fifteen years, from the current $4K/lb or so (would
anything change *your* mind?).  Past history is not reassuring.  I
don't see costs coming down if NASA continues to spend so little money
on developing new launcher technologies.  Ah well, maybe ALS or NASP
will save us (:->).

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 89 01:35:03 GMT
From: m2c!wpi![e-mail]  (George Regnery)
Subject: Re: NASA Prediction Bulletin Format


  For the orbital element program, does someone have a pascal or c program
that will seperate it the satellite info?  If not, I'll write one.  i just
don't want to spend alot of time writing one and see that someone else has
done the same?  Please mail me a public domain copy if you have one.  And if
not, I'll write one in Pascal and upload it here or mail it to those that want
it.  (I don't know C.....  YET!)


--
George M. Regnery       ! Worcester     ! Albedo 0.39    ! Going on means
[e-mail]  OR ! Polytechnic   !  --Vangelis    ! going far. Going
[e-mail]      ! Institute     ! (a good album) ! far means returning.
CompuServe: 73300,3655  ! (Worc, Mass.) ! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=!     --Tao Te Ching

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 89 13:18:59 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: First concert from space--update

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom Albrecht) writes:
}In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Shel Talmy) writes:
}> A company in Los Angeles called Orbit Productions has been formed to
}> stage the first ever concert from space.  A large portion of the proceeds
}> from this venture is to be donated to various charities.
}
}Hold on to your hats ... "Disaster Area" is on the way!

And if they get the orbit right, the audience will even be at the optimum 37-
mile distance....  (sorry, couldn't resist)

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: [phone] (school)
ARPA: [e-mail]  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
            Disclaimer? I claimed something?
    You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 89 18:22:42 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Hix) writes:
>Maybe we'll end up buying space services without having to bother with a
>shooting war.

Surprise surprise, people are already doing this.  Of course, since the
only major suppliers are the Soviets, you may have to fight a shooting war
with the US State Department to be allowed to buy...
--
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #279
*******************