Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_4/V9_408.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

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/QYM1I9y00UkZQvzk5f>;
          Thu,  4 May 89 05:16:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu,  4 May 89 05:16:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #408

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 408

Today's Topics:
             Re: Magellan update
              Re: Smart Pebbles
        Re: STS-30 Dial-A-Shuttle Press Releas
               Magellan update
Re: Myth: Only a Government can run a Space Program (Was Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!)
              Upcoming Launches
               effects of space
             Re: Private Space Companies
          Private spending for space science
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #404
              Re: Smart Pebbles
              Re: Smart Pebbles
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 May 89 19:27:59 GMT
From: jpl-devvax![e-mail]  (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: Magellan update

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:
:This is most of the text of a recorded announcement made available to JPL
:employees:
:
:
:This is the JPL broadcast news service prepared at 2pm PDT, Sunday April 30.
:
:Since Friday's launch attempt the Magellan spacecraft and the attached IUS
:booster have remained in the payload bay of Atlantis.
:
:The Magellan receiver lockup observed after the MYLAR [?] tracking station
                                                 ^^^^^
:[Launch has been rescheduled for Thursday since this recording.]
:
:Peter Scott ([e-mail])

That's MILA or MIL71, the Merritt Island Tracking Station which tracks
the launch vehicle and payload receiving the telemetry and
transmitting the uplink commands.  Except for the antenna, it is
pretty much like the GSTDN or DSN stations that do all of the orbital
( that TDRS does not) and deep space tracking.

Lee

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
saftey deserve neither liberty nor saftey." -- Benjamin Franklin 1759

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/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!leem                        |
|ARPA: jpl-devvax!leem!@cit-vax.ARPA -or- [e-mail]    |

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

Date: 2 May 89 04:38:36 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx![e-mail]  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Meritt) writes:

>>See the film footage of the test of the smart pebble?

>Yeah, it looked really neat.  Just one question: What's the difference
>between the smart pebble concept and placing smart interceptor
>missiles in orbit?

Not much, as far as I can discern. The "smart rocks" or "brilliant pebbles"
are basically just kinetic-energy-kill devices, which rely on their on-board
computers for guidance and target acquisition and discrimination. What I
think is the most foolish aspect is the idea that each "brilliant pebble"
will be on "automatic" when it is in orbit, deciding on its own what to attack
and what to leave alone. With tens of thousands in orbit, there seems to be
too much chance of error.

>Is this anything like the Thor idea (ala Footfall)?  (Use rockets for aiming,
>but rely on gravity for acceleration.)

I was under the impression that Thor was ment to attack ground based targets,
but the kinetic-kill idea was similar.



Neal

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

Date: 2 May 89 14:22:03 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: STS-30 Dial-A-Shuttle Press Releas

In article <246900023@cdp> [e-mail] writes:
>
>CONTACT:                                    For Immediate Release
>Leonard David
>David Brandt
>                        Dial-A-Shuttle Update:
>              STARS ON EARTH BRING YOU OUR STARS IN SPACE
>
[stuff deleted]

Remember, that if you live near any of the NASA installations, they'll
probably be broadcasting the shuttle communications on some of the
ham radio channels. You may want to invest in a cheap police scanner
and monitor this yourself, without the nitwit commentary from Hollywood
stars.

In the South Bay Area, the Ames Research Center Amateur Radio Club will
be transmitting the audio on a frequency of 145.58 mhz. We've had reports
of reception as far south as King city and up beyond Marin. The radio clubs
for JPL, Goddard and Johnson likewise perform a similar service. And I wouldn't
be surprised if clubs in non-NASA areas were doing the same thing by
picking up the audio from the NASA Select satellite channel.

I myself pipe the audio through my stereo for the "true space experience" :-)

mike

P.S. Anyone figure out why NASA was broadcasting video from the on
pad camera "134" on Telstar 301?

          *** mike (cerbral GURU, insert M&Ms to restart) smithwick***
"Oh, I'm just a NOP in the instruction set of life, oh, ohhhh, hmmmmm"

[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

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

Date: Tue,  2 May 89 11:22:13 PST
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan update
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"[e-mail]"

Latest Magellan update recording, as of 4:30 pm PDT Monday May 1st:

[Repeat of new launch date/time and weather info]

The delay actually enhances the mission by making a propellant savings of at
least 5 kg of hydrazine possible [hydrazine is used for trajectory correction
maneuvers and attitude control].  There are a total of 133 kg hydrazine on
board Magellan.  The reason for the savings on propellant is that with the
later launch date the path to Venus is more direct, resulting in fewer TCMs.
For each 2kg of hydrazine saved, one complete Venus mapping cycle (which lasts
for 243 earth days) is possible; thus a savings of 5 kg could allow for 2 more
complete mapping cycles, or almost 2 more years (607.5 days) of mission
science.  Joe Cutting, mission design manager, stated that it is possible that
not all of this extra hydrazine will be used to extend space science; it could
be used for attitude control on the way.

[Explanation of how lack of propellant results in loss of radio contact]

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: 2 May 89 07:13:05 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo![e-mail]  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: Myth: Only a Government can run a Space Program (Was Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Baxter) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, jmckerna@polyslo (John McKernan) writes:
>>                               Why don't you
>>speculate on just how much of their $500 million profits they'll voluntarily
>>spend on planetary probes and manned space R&D and such.
>
>Perhaps you have not noticed, but many smaller companies are already
>spending money on their own launch systems.  The primary obstacle to
>further investment in space systems and services is the central planning
>of "The Space Program" at NASA.  The situation will only change when
>people stop perpetuating the myth that no one but NASA has enough money.

You failed to notice that the piece of my posting you quote above specifies
spending for planetary probes and manned space R&D. No private effort is
spending significant amounts of money in these areas, and no organization
with hundreds of millions of dollars let alone billions shows any prospect of
doing so in the short term future. Furthermore the companies you refer to
above are selling launch services using technology developed at government
expense. It is simply a fact that there is important research which will not
be done by private companies or individuals, and so must be done with
government money or something similar.

I agree that NASA is EXTREMELY wasteful, and that its GOVERNMENT money could
be much more efficiently spent (possibly by getting rid of most of NASA and
using simple nonmilitary style contracts with provisions that force the
return of money if the hardware doesn't deliver).

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

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

Date: 2 May 89 21:01:22 GMT
From: opus!dante![e-mail]  (David Birnbaum)
Subject: Upcoming Launches

Can anyone tell me how to find out a launch schedule for June at Kennedy
Space Center?  I'll be in Florida from June 1 to 4, and I'd like to see a
launch if at all possible.

Thanks.


David Birnbaum                       "It shouldn't suprise anyone when the
Small Systems, Computer Center        net messes up; the suprise is that
New Mexico State University           it works at all!
Find me at:  [e-mail]   [e-mail]  /dev/null

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

Date: 2 May 89 14:54:33 GMT
From: srcsip!m2![e-mail]  (Leila Johannesen)
Subject: effects of space



I'm interested in finding out about any recent American or Soviet
studies on deconditioning/psychomotor effects of space, particularly
as they might affect astronauts' operation of the spacecraft.
Can anyone refer me to a source, or does anyone know of any such
studies?

Thanks,
Leila Johannesen

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

Date: 2 May 89 15:54:03 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private Space Companies

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Larry Brader) writes:
>How much of Arianne is private?  Does Europe have  any totally private
>space outfits?

Very little; essentially none.  European spaceflight is even more tied up
with governments than it is hereabouts.  There has been discussion of some
private projects in Europe, but nothing's happened.
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 2 May 89 13:39:02 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Private spending for space science


>From: agate![e-mail]  (William Baxter)
>In article <[e-mail]>, jmckerna@polyslo (John McKernan) writes
>>                               Why don't you
>>speculate on just how much of their $500 million profits they'll voluntarily
>>spend on planetary probes and manned space R&D and such.

>Perhaps you have not noticed, but many smaller companies are already
>spending money on their own launch systems.  The primary obstacle to
>further investment in space systems and services is the central planning
>of "The Space Program" at NASA.  The situation will only change when
>people stop perpetuating the myth that no one but NASA has enough money.

I don't think anyone here is seriously questioning the anticipated ability of
private companies to handle routine launches into earth orbit of paying
government payloads, communications/remote sensing satellites, commercial
microgravity research packages, and other "sure-fire" moneymakers. The problem
arises with projects that are almost certain to lose money (spinoffs aside)
in the short run (extraterrestrial human habitation), and in the long run
(Voyager, Galileo, HST, Magellan, and other "knowledge-oriented" programs).
It could be argued that nothing that doesn't promise a near-term profit
should be attempted, but I (and many others) happen to feel that there are
a considerable number of possible space-related projects which could have
a substantial benefit to humanity that one would not expect to be reflected
in a profit by the organization that undertakes them. Many of these projects
are affordable from the viewpoint of the government, but not from the view
of private industry, since they would reflect a net loss larger than an
individual corporation is normally willing to take.

Can you think of a plausible scenario by which private industry would
undertake to send sophisticated probes to Venus or Jupiter at its own
expense in the next 20 years? (I can, but there are some undesirable
side effects.)
                                 John Roberts
                                 [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 2 May 1989 17:35-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #404

> "Hi.  We're from the planet Kolob and we'd like you to ask yourself if
> you died right now, are you sure you would go to dimension 5?  If you're not
> sure, we have some free information pills we'd like to leave with you.
> We're sure you would find them very interesting and tasty."

If they WERE any good, I'm certain Nancy Reagan would mess her diapers
trying to get people to just say NO.... :-)

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

Date: 2 May 89 04:31:31 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx![e-mail]  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Meritt) writes:

>See the film footage of the test of the smart pebble?
>That looked _NEAT_!!!!!  That thing sitting there bursting its jets holding
>a hover was slick!!!

I agree....even though I think that most of the money spent on SDI will turn
out to be a waste in the end, this kind of piqued my interest. I wonder where
one can get a copy of the video tape of the test?

The thing becomes really cool when you remember that it was dynamically
balanced in real time...there seemed to be one main motor that held the
mass up, and several smaler motors that provided balance/vector-thrust.

Does anyone have any idea as to what kind of motors the thing uses? They must
be some kind of throttleable liquid fueled motor. I wonder how much fuel the
thing can carry and how long it can remain aloft in the air.....riding on
a larger version might be quite fun!

>Watch the nets around it...

Yes, I couldn't tell if the nets were being burned through or not.

>(hear the crowd in the background?)

I would be pretty damn happy too....this kind of success means that they will
undoubtedly get major funding, and more toys to play with.

Of course, I am not so sure of the wisdom of the program itself, unless there
are also major changes in the US nuclear policy as a whole to accompany the
deployment of SDI (and what about the foolishness of having tens or thousands
of these things in orbit, all acting on their own....does anyone see any RISKs
involved here.....?




Neal

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

Date: 2 May 89 08:23:08 GMT
From: blake![e-mail]  (sealion)
Subject: Re: Smart Pebbles

[[e-mail] ]

>> The film shows the first full-bore laboratory test of what is sometimes
>> referred to as a "smart bullet". The space based weapon is designed to
>> eliminate it's  target (ICBMs) through high speed collision during the
>> boost and mid-course phases of flight.

[[e-mail]]

> If this is to be a space based weapon why would there be ground based test
> of this nature.  I would think that the manuverability and acceleration
> requirements would be different in orbit than in a 1g atmospheric situation.
> We know that it can accelerate at at least 1g and is quite manuverable
> (based on the apparent stability during the hoverv) but what real data about
> its capabilities in orbit can be determined in this test.

Good question. I would assume there was an emphasis on the tracking abilities
of the vehical.

Interesting Note:

According to United Press Int., "SDI officials said the test cost $ 500,000,
about 1 percent of what it would have cost to test the device in space. The
reusable device itself cost $3 million."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't
 believe this to be a coincidence." || - Jeremy S. Anderson   12/15/88

#include <disclaimer.h>                       [e-mail]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #408
*******************