Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_3/V10_389.TXT

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 32766
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/UZeX=sO00VcJ41=04X>;
          Tue,  9 Jan 90 13:52:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </usr/spool/ViceMsgQueue/QF.wZe3Ely00VcJ0GM09J>;
          Mon,  8 Jan 90 01:33:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon,  8 Jan 90 01:32:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #389

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 389

Today's Topics:
       Re: Scientific value of Apollo (was Re: Motives)
              Re: Japanese MIR?
            Re: Pegasus situation?
             space program goals
         NASA Headline News for 12/21/89 (Forwarded)
         Re: proposed "space-mail" incentive
         Re: proposed "space-mail" incentive
     Re: Chris Robertson's "Henry bio" (was Re: who's out there?)
           Geostationary Satellite Movement
           Re: Launching AUSSAT on Chinese rockets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Dec 89 16:26:43 GMT
From: groucho![e-mail]  (Steve Emmerson)
Subject: Re: Scientific value of Apollo (was Re: Motives)

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes [referring to John McKernan's
assertion that it is "empirically evident" that the unmanned program
is more cost-effective than the manned program]:

>My point is precisely that it's not.  Remember, I am talking about getting
>the *same* results -- volume and diversity of samples, surface experiments
>emplaced, cores drilled, precision landings at pre-chosen sites, etc. --
>not the far smaller and simpler missions undertaken by all unmanned landers
>to date.

I believe one should keep in mind that different tools often entail
different methodologies.  I believe it would be a mistake to attempt to
compare (assuming for the moment that one could ;-) manned and unmanned
exploration using as the judgement criteria the detailed and immediate
goals and results of the manned activities.  It would be better, in my
opinion, to refer to a higher level of endevour, such as the quantity
and quality of the increase in our knowledge, or the potential for
further advancement in this area.

Of course, this, in itself, is frought with the potential for subjective
disagreements -- as well as being currently impossible (at least for the
Apollo program).  Nevertheless, it is, IMHO, good to keep in mind.

--Steve Emmerson    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 15:16:13 PST
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Japanese MIR?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Daffinger) writes:
>
>o Date: 13 Dec 89 16:08:45 GMT
>o
>o     TOKYO -- A Japanese firm has bought Moscow's only surplus Mir space
>o station and an experimental science module for $10 million to help
>o promote Japan's space industry, the company's president said Wednesday.
>
>Say what?  I figure the price may be off by a few orders of magnitude,
>but what's this really supposed to mean?

Hold on -- isn't this the MIR that the Soviets took around air shows and
the like?  I thought it was an engineering mock-up, sort of like the
Enterprise shuttle.  Certainly not flightworthy.  In the AW&ST article about
this, it was rather clearer, and there was no mention of any Japanese intention
to put any of their purchase into space.  This suggests that $10M is a
fair price.  Anyone got different information?

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 22:27:38 PST
From: [e-mail]

I would like to change from the full-blown space digest to the 'magazine'
format if there is such a thing.  The volume of mail in Space Digest is
simply too much at present for me.

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

Date: 21 Dec 89 04:06:55 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Pegasus situation?

In todays (12/20) San Jose Mercury News, a brief story mentioned that DoD
is thinking about whether a third test flight will be necessary.  Either
way, we're talking about more delays.

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

Date: 21 Dec 89 16:12:32 GMT
From: groucho![e-mail]  (Steve Emmerson)
Subject: space program goals

[e-mail] (Kieran A. Carroll) analysed the goals of the
Apollo program into three categories:

    1) "Geopolitical muscle-flexing" (or national prestige);

    2) Infrastructure development for further exploration/exploitation;

    3) Pure, basic, scientific research.

An interesting analysis.  One with which I can agree (at least for now).

For the purpose of discussion (please note), I now hypothesize the
following:

    1) In retrospect, the national prestige goal was irrelevant.

    2) The infrastructure goal, though laudable, was too ambitious
       (i.e. costly).  For evidence, I note that the program was
       cancelled (we may debate the reasons, but had the program
       been cheap, I believe it would have survived).

    3) Only the scientific goal has the potential for long-term
       achievability and support.  It may also allow us to
       eventually achieve the infrastructure goal (at reasonable
       cost) and, consequently, the national prestige goal.

Comments and discussion are encouraged.

--Steve Emmerson    [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Dec 89 19:03:47 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 12/21/89 (Forwarded)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, December 21, 1989                    Audio:202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is NASA Headline News for Thursday, December 21.....



The launch of a commercial Martin Marietta Titan 3 rocket
carrying two communications satellites was postponed again at
Cape Canaveral last night.  A steady rain and a less than
optimistic weather forecast brought about the fifth postponement
in 13 days.  Company officials have now set back launch of the
booster until December 27.   There was concern about predicted
colder-than-usual temperatures in the Cape area this weekend.
The Titan solid fuel boosters use o-ring seals that should not be
used in temperatures colder than 60 degrees.  In addition...the
delay will allow workers time off for the Christmas holiday.



At the Kennedy Space Center workers on Pad 39A continue to check
out a variety of concerns on the refurbished launch facility.  A
major piece of launch pad equipment...the orbiter midbody
umbilical unit has undergone a careful validation.   With the
Christmas holiday weekend nearing orbiter power down is scheduled
for late today.   Launch of the STS-32 mission is now planned for
no earlier than January 8 at 8:06 A.M., Eastern time.



The Galileo spacecraft has passed the mid-point of its flight to
Venus encounter...11.3 million miles from Earth.  Spacecraft
operation is satisfactory but controllers at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory are monitoring a DC voltage fluctuation reading.
They're convinced it does not pose any hazard to the vehicle
which is designed to function at any level of voltage imbalance.
Friday, the spacecraft will perform its second trajectory change
which will move the Venus-closest-approach-point to the desired
6200 miles above the planet's surface.  Closest approach will
occur February 9.



A space science experiment developed by a U.S. firm has been
launched aboard a Soviet Progress rocket.  The protein crystal
growth experiment...developed by Payload Systems, of Cambridge,
Mass.,...will be transfered to the Mir space station tomorrow.
The experiment requires a long period of time in microgravity
that's not possible aboard a space shuttle mission.  The progress
is carrying food, water, support equipment and new year's gifts
for the two cosmonauts aboard the station.

                 *         *         *          *


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA
Select TV.   All times are Eastern.


There will be no NASA Update on December 28. The next scheduled
event is NASA Update on January 4 at 11:30 A.M.


All events and times are subject to change without notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon,
Eastern time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

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

Date: 20 Dec 89 20:11:05 GMT
From: ucla-an!hermix![e-mail]  (Jay Skeer)
Subject: Re: proposed "space-mail" incentive

Some "space mail" proposals:

A) one way
  1) Burial.
As a currently offered service Burial, or ash disposal is lucrative.  What
about Burial in space?  At $2000/lb (Current rates?) disposal of ash (I guess
about 2.5 lbs worth) is rather expensive ($5000) but I bet there would be
buyers.  At $200/lb disposal of ash is more reasonable ($500), of a body it is
still extravagant ($40000).  At $20/lb disposal of ash is probably
competitive with current dumping at sea or in the air ($50); and disposal of a
body at $20/lb ($4000) would be more competitive with other funeral services.

  2) Hazardous waist disposal
There might be a possibility here.  Anyone know how much waist disposal costs?
But what about launch risks?  Cristics complain about carefully build low mass
radioactive substances.  Who would complain about tons of stuff, all of it
really nasty?

  3) Satellite delivery
Already a very busy field.

  4) Satellite or ICBM destruction
A field that may be operating, and may have some room for expansion.  Probably
is or will be tied up by the military.  And I wouldn't want to support it.

  5) Fantastic arial fireworks
People will pay for fire work displays.  What advantage could a show gain from
extreme height (and thus a very hard access control problem)?

  6) Art
There have been a couple of proposals for orbiting artworks.

  7+) Your suggestion here

B) Two way, hard landing
  1) Bombs
This is a (the) major field of space/nearly space rocket construction.

  2) Transportation of goods = "Space Mail"
How could it possibly compete with electronic (fax) and air mail?  Not much
else could withstand the hard landing.

  3+) Your suggestion here

C) Two way, soft landing
  1) Transportation of people
Already the hour of time spent in airport terminals is a significant part of
travel time, a rocket would make a trip half way around the world 1.5 -- 2
hours instead of 12-13.  At the above 2000-200-20 $/lb a ticket would be about
$50000, $5000, $500.  For $500 you might get some traffic.  For $5000 you
would have to offer many more conveniences to compete with charter and private
planes.  I can't imagine $50000, but you might see how.

  2) Transportation of goods
Boxes usually don't complain about 13 hour plane rides.  And what needs
delivery halfway across the planet with a tighter time frame?

  3+) Your suggestion here

j'
--

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

Date: 22 Dec 89 22:08:32 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!caesar.cs.montana.edu!milton!maven![e-mail]  (Games Wizard)
Subject: Re: proposed "space-mail" incentive

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jay Skeer) writes:
>
..
>   2) Transportation of goods
> Boxes usually don't complain about 13 hour plane rides.  And what needs
> delivery halfway across the planet with a tighter time frame?
>

I for one can think of a lot of things that would benefit from much faster
transit times.
One example :

I used to work for a company called Showlites.  They do most of the VERY LARGE
rock-n-roll tours in the world.  Based out of L.A.  They use a lot of custom
electronics in their moving lights, dimming systems, chain hoist control
systems, etc...  Some systems are very good, and require few spares on the road,
others require a good set of spares.  We were doing the Billy Joel tour in
Russia, when a motor control system case got dropped and run over with a
fork-lift.  In this case, ( digital contol lines to the chain hoists that
lift the equipment ) ( many scenic moves during the show ) it was possible to
get the stuff into the air with a small jury rigged unit, but not to run the
show.  Luckily in russia, all load-ins are done the day before the show.
(In the rest of the country the same day is the rule. )

We had less than 20 hours to get them a replacement unit.  And if you think
that this is trivial, FED-EX does NOT go to moscow overnight, let alone
some city in russia that I cant even remember the name of.  Turns out that
we bought the controller a seat on an airplane to london, then paid somebody
there to carry it through customs to a seat on a plane to moscow, then paid
somebody there to carry it through customs to a seat on the plane for the final
destination.  They got the thing about 20 minutes before showtime.

2-3 hour travel time would have helped a lot.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trendy footer by:
            John Stevens-Schlick
            Internet?: [e-mail]
            7720 35'th Ave S.W. Seattle, Wa. 98126
            (206) 935 - 4384
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My boss dosn't know what I do.

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

Date: 27 Dec 89 03:18:45 GMT
From: crdgw1!sixhub![e-mail]  (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Subject: Re: Chris Robertson's "Henry bio" (was Re: who's out there?)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Ohmer) writes:
| From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Chris Robertson):
| <                                                   Efforts to talk
| < to the teachers there have unfortunately been unsuccessful, as the school
| < doesn't seem to exist any more.  (When I mentioned this to Henry, he
|   ^^^^^^^         ^^^^^

  Are you trying to prove that *Henry* doesn't exist? I can assure you
that he does, I met him at USENIX in Washington the year of the snow
storm, and had the chance to be ignored in person ;-)
--
    bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
[e-mail]        ...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen

"Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon

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

Date: 27 Dec 89 21:59:29 GMT
From: ccncsu!ncr-fc!ncr-fc.FtCollins.NCR.com![e-mail]  (Gene Fusco)
Subject: Geostationary Satellite Movement


        I would like to find out how much deviation one could measure
in the position of a geostationary satellite.  I am mostly interested
in the periodic perturbations due to the "lumpyness" of earth's gravity
and influence due to other planetary bodies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Fusco        | [phone] x404
NCR               | genef@santana!ncr-sd  (or something to that effect)
Fort Collins Co.  | ********* This line intentionally left blank **********

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

Date: 29 Dec 89 17:19:43 GMT
From: phoenix![e-mail]  (David Anthony Kramer)
Subject: Re: Launching AUSSAT on Chinese rockets

I have a newspaper clipping which might be interesting. It is taken from
'The Star' Newspaper based in Johannesburg, South Africa. The article is
titled 'SA enters the sattelite league.'

'A group of scientists based at the ultra-modern Technopark complex outside
Stellenbosch  has been quitely making plans to launch South Africa's first
experimental satellite by mid-1991.'

Some of the details given include:
- Mass 40 kg
- Diameter ~0.5m
- Orbit circular at an inclination greater than 24 degrees, at a height of
  over 400 km.

It seems that the sattelite will be used for communications. It is roughly
similar to amateur radio sattelites already in orbit. The communications
network is being set up with one 6m dish antenna in place and another
on its way 'shortly'.

The article is evasive about who will launch the sattelite, although one of
the systems engineers claims that it will probably be flown as a
secondary payload by an undisclosed agency. ( My guess is E.S.A. or
the Japanese, although the Israelis can't be ruled out). Significantly
he says "We're not in the big rocket league yet so we'll just have to
                                            ^^^
see whats available at the time".

This sattelite doesn't seem to be too significant in itself, but then
neither was sputnik. The sattelite was designed and is being built
completely in SA. "The venture is aimed at the advancement of this
country's space technology and the mobilization of various bodies in a
shared program".

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #389
*******************