Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_3/V10_395.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 20KB

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/UZeXGOu00VcJ81Kk4r>;
          Tue,  9 Jan 90 13:59:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </usr/spool/ViceMsgQueue/QF.IZeHrvC00VcJ01IE8F>;
          Mon,  8 Jan 90 20:27:24 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon,  8 Jan 90 20:26:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #395

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 395

Today's Topics:
       Re: NASA Headline News for 01/02/90 (Forwarded)
          Magellan Special Report - 01/04/90
     March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles
       Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles
           Patentability as public/private division
       Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles
     Re: Chris Robertson's "Henry bio" (was Re: who's out there?)
       Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Jan 90 16:32:21 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 01/02/90 (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>>The tenth attempt to launch a commercial Titan 3 rocket from Cape
>>Canaveral was successful...
>Ah, nothing like those wonderful expendables, always on schedule and always
>ready when the launch window is narrow... :-)

I am not sure what any launch system can do about high altitude wind
conditions, which were responsible for seven or eight of those delays.
Perhaps another launch site with better high altitude conditions could
be chosen, but something else would just get in the way :-)

The ocean of air is a harsh mistress to live with.

At least Titan can't be delayed by a broken toilet!
--
If the human mind were simple enough to understand,  =))  Tom Neff
we'd be too simple to understand it. -- Pat Bahn     ((=  [e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Jan 90 19:17:57 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Special Report - 01/04/90


                      MAGELLAN SPECIAL REPORT
                          Jan. 4, 1990

     Magellan's command and data system (CDS) experts said today
an error the spacecraft detected in its privileged memory is
apparently an oxide problem, and not a single event upset caused
by solar radiation. There is no evidence that the spacecraft is
currently encountering high solar activity.

     Operations people said they switched back to the CDS
primary, or side-A computer, to verify and localize the error
with memory readouts. If the problem proves to be an error,
called a parity error, operations will either program around the
weak cell or switch back to the redundant memory.

     Standard cruise operations will be reinstated on CDS side-A
with the cruise-17 standard sequence scheduled to start on
January 15.

     In the meantime, spacecraft safing operations include:
     --daily momentum wheel desaturations
     --attitude control parameter updates for the read-only-
       memory safing mode every other day
     --star calibrations on each Friday.

     A mini-computer sequence will be generated to accomplish the
safing operations to minimize the non-standard commanding of the
spacecraft. All commands are tested in the verification
laboratory before being sent to the spacecraft.

     Yesterday, the station in Australia was unable to acquire the
spacecraft with any command uplinks for 51 minutes. Large doppler residuals
were observed in the tracking data just prior to the outage. The station
in Madrid, Spain, continues to attempt the uplink with various sweep
combinations.

     Operations has switched the command link from the low gain
to the medium gain antenna.

 Ron Baalke                       |    [e-mail]
 Jet Propulsion Lab  M/S 301-355  |    [e-mail]
 4800 Oak Grove Dr.               |
 Pasadena, CA 91109               |

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

Date: 4 Jan 90 20:43:14 GMT
From: tank!cps3xx![e-mail]  (Usenet file owner)
Subject: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles

The March 1990 ANALOG has an incredibly interesting article in it by
Robert M. Zubrin (with Martin Marietta Astronautics) describing an
apparently feasible approach to Mars and other missions.

I continue having assumed you've read the article. What, you mean you
dont always read March issues on January 4th? For those who don't yet
have access to the issue, in summary, Mr. Zubrin details a system that
uses simple gases heated with a nuclear core as a form of propulsion.
Since a vehicle could collect the gases itself from the martian
atmosphere, it can self-refuel and make an extensive exploration of
Mars and then fly home without incurring the enormous cost of launching
conventional fuels all the way to mars, around mars and back home.

Much of the information in this article seemed to be related to a 60's
research project, NERVA, into superheated gas propulsion.

My question is basically, what's the story? Is this story _right_? Can
we have some questions/comments from qualified experts on the subject?

My final impression with the article is that it's eminently workable,
and that none of the technology is "bleeding edge." I must admit I'm
sort of jaded lately (having pulled off some amazing stuff) and getting
to the point where _everything_ is just YASEP (Yet Another Stupid
Engineering Problem) but it really _doesn't_ seem to terribly difficult,
even extrapolating for zillions of nasty interdisciplinary hassles.

So perhaps this is a "what am I missing?" question. Otherwise, what the
heck? Lets explore this route. Current "staged" approaches for long
range missions (orbital platform, space station, possible lunar base,
Mars) seem more than unrealistic given the current U.S. financial
climate, since funding cuts for any step of the pipeline kills the
entire effort.

Can someone color this picture in please?

Terry Conklin - a Systems Designer/Programmer (naturally), among other stuff
[e-mail]            -They like Data, sure, but what
uunet!frith!conklin             would they do if we went ahead
The Club  [phone]  3/12/2400     built him?

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

Date: 4 Jan 90 23:31:48 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1![e-mail]  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Terry Conklin) writes:
>The March 1990 ANALOG has an incredibly interesting article in it by
>Robert M. Zubrin (with Martin Marietta Astronautics) describing an
>apparently feasible approach to Mars and other missions.
 ...
>Much of the information in this article seemed to be related to a 60's
>research project, NERVA, into superheated gas propulsion.

>My question is basically, what's the story? Is this story _right_? Can
>we have some questions/comments from qualified experts on the subject?
 ...
>So perhaps this is a "what am I missing?" question.

I haven't read the article yet, but it looks fascinating.  Technically,
it's probably the best way to go by a long shot.

Unfortunately, technical issues are not the whole story, as Stan
Schmidt mentioned in his editorial in the same issue.  The dimbulbs
from the Christic Institute waxed apocalyptic over a mere RTG on
Galileo -- can you imagine the shrieking, hand-wringing hysteria if
you actually proposed flying a nuclear reactor?

There are a lot of reasons why there are no rational safety issues left
unresolved in a proposal like this, starting with the reactor isn't
started until it's well on its way to Mars.  This makes no difference.
Reason and sanity have absolutely nothing to do with it.  When "The
N-word" is used, mindless technophobic hysteria rules over all.

At least in the US.  Maybe some other country could do it.
--
Mike Van Pelt           I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the
Headland Technology     word 'fair' in connection with income tax policies.
(was: Video Seven)                   -- William F. Buckley
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 11:13:11 PST
From: mordor!lll-tis!ames!scubed!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: crash![e-mail]
Subject: Patentability as public/private division

        In civil space, as in many other technical areas that posess
        commercial potential, the correct division between public and
        private sector responsibilities is exactly the same as that
        defined in patent law between "unpatentable" research (science)
        and "patentable" development (technology).  Grassroots space
        activists, in advocating related reforms of our civil space
        policy, are now enjoying far greater political influence than
        we ever experienced as just another special interest asking
        Congress for more money.  Experiencing such influence is not
        only motivating and exciting, it is proving to be the cure
        for a malaise that has, for years, plagued our space movement.

        The public sector must fund unpatentable research, placing
        the knowlege and data thereby acquired in the public domain.
        Just as important, the government must NOT fund patentable
        development, as this infringes on potentially profitable
        commercial technologies which the private sector must be
        motivated to pursue on its own initiative and at its own risk.
        The government has no business holding patents, nor in using
        public funds to help private parties acquire patent positions.

        In short, research acquires knowlege about the nature of
        things and properly belongs to the public, while development
        utilizes knowlege about the nature of things in order to
        "reduce to practice" inventions or technologies which
        properly belong to those who invested in their creation.

        If the government has objectives that may require technology to
        be developed, policy makers should not attempt to second guess
        the commercial sector -- rather they should simply associate
        dollar values with those objectives and let the commercial sector,
        with market and engineering analysis, determine whether it makes
        sense to invest in technology development enabling them to
        fulfill some of the government's objectives and thereby be
        rewarded with the associated dollar value.  This is called
        "performance specification" as opposed to "design specification"
        which is what NASA currently uses.  If those objectives cannot
        be profitably met by the commercial sector, the government
        should increase the amount of money associated with the objectives
        and/or it should fund additional research in related areas so as
        to fill in critical public-domain knowlege gaps.  Note:  It is
        necessary to differentiate here between the means used to achieve
        objectives and the objectives themselves.  Infrastructures, for
        example, are not objectives, but systems used to achieve
        objectives.  A rational civil space program would simply state
        what those objectives are, make a funding committment to each,
        perhaps in the form of a trust fund separated from the yearly
        federal budget battles, and get out of the way.  Better still
        would be a space program devoted to accepting unsolicited research
        proposals from anyone at anytime -- openly peer-reviewed and
        funded via grants, with all data and research results made public.
        The researchers, thus funded, would be the customers in a multi-
        billion dollar "seed-market" for space product development and
        service operations creating a well-directed commercial space
        industry.

        For policy administration, the U.S. patent infrastructure,
        including the body of patent law, the U.S. Patent Office,
        commercial experience with invention and an entire legal
        industry specializing in patents, is an exceedingly valuable
        resource available "off the shelf".  Ignorance of this
        resource in our space policy is an artifact of the political
        malaise that has surrounded our civil space activities since
        NASA's inception.  The sole exception to this malaise is the
        communications satellite industry.

        The communications satellite industry illustrates the value of
        this sort of policy.  In the early days of our space program,
        NASA was legislatively barred from only one activity with
        commercial potential:  communications satellites.  Since that
        time, the United States has led the world in exactly one
        commercial space business:  communications satellites.  Privately
        financed technology development, primarily on the part of Hughes
        Corporation, ensured continued United States preeminence in
        satellite communications even as we lost our leadership in many
        high tech commercial areas heavily subsidized by government
        "initiatives" of one kind or another.

        Grassroots space activists now have power on an unprecedented
        scale.  In calling for restructuring of our civil space program
        around concepts such as patentability, rather than helping NASA
        and its contractors fight for more and more of a smaller and
        smaller federal budget, our elected officials are giving us
        attention and respect reserved for those rare citizens who,
        rather than being "just another special interest group", are
        working to solve critical national problems.  Grassroots
        activists who have worked with elected representatives for the
        introduction and passage of HR2674:  The Space Transportation
        Services Purchase Act, can attest to the power of this kind of
        approach.

        Don't take my word for it.  Participate directly in the long
        over-due grassroots movement to reform our civil space program.
        Experiencing the power of your citizenship will speak louder
        than any words.

---
Typical RESEARCH grant:
$
Typical DEVELOPMENT contract:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

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

Date: 5 Jan 90 15:56:24 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!db.toronto.edu![e-mail]  (John Hogg)
Subject: Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mikel Stromberg) writes:
>It's against international law (and U.N. treaties) to launch a nuclear reactor
>into orbit.  Though the Soviets have done this in the past, it has been
>"under the table", and they have vehemetly denied the action.  In the sixties,
>the U.S. signed a U.N. treaty (I think it was simply called "The Space Treaty"
>but I don't have the details right at hand) which outlawed "weapons of mass
>destruction" as orbital weapons of war.  The Soviet-Third World coalition
>in the U.N. has made it abundantly clear that they consider any working
>nuclear reactor in orbit to be a "weapon of mass destruction".

The Soviets have *not* made it clear that they consider reactors to be
weapons of mass destruction.  No treaty in existence bans space-based
reactors, and the Soviets are the only ones operating them at present.
(The US has an old, dead reactor in orbit which is showing worrisome
signs of falling to pieces.)  They do *not* deny this.

Given past experience, it would be reasonable to ban reactors which
have been operated from LEO, or at least require sufficient redundancy
in safety systems to prevent them from dropping in unwanted places.
Many astronomers would like *all* orbital reactors outlawed, as they
can mess up certain observations.  But they're entirely legal.

--
John Hogg            [e-mail]
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

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

Date: 5 Jan 90 22:19:49 GMT
From: shelby!neon![e-mail]  (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Chris Robertson's "Henry bio" (was Re: who's out there?)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin William Ryan) writes:
>>... and had the chance to be ignored in person.
>
>   Hmm.  Does _everyone_ have this experience with Henry?

No.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!neon.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    [e-mail]
BELLNET: [phone]

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

Date: 5 Jan 90 20:06:22 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1![e-mail]  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Terry Conklin) writes:
>It seems unfortunate that just the mere threat of heat is citied by
>professionals as valid cause to flush our potentially _best_ option.
>Ok, not cited as a "reason" but more as "the reason," as if it were fate.

It's not just the "mere threat of (political) heat", it's the grim
certainty that the costs will be multiplied many times over by the long
years of delaying-tactic lawsuits filed by the Rifkins, Christics, and
Nadirs.  Lawyers cost lots of money, delays cost even more --
especially if a last-minute injunction causes you to lose your launch
window, which very nearly happened to Galileo.  That's the tactic that
these groups have used for years to shut down the nuclear option for
generating electrical power, for sterilizing medical supplies, and for
preserving food.

>Certainly, press abuses (case in point the extensive coverage given to
>the incredibly minor group of people protesting Galileo's powercell) in
>the name of "news" haved given considerable power to reactionary
>minorities. But this secondary problem should stay just that,
>secondary.

Press abuses are minor compared to the abuse of the legal system,
though it doesn't help that few reporters have even the science
knowledge of the average rutabaga, and much of the public is worse
off.

>It would seem more like a social-engineering problem than anything else.

Quite true.  Besides the obvious need for better science education, we
have to come up with some kind of solution to the flaws in our legal
system that make sabotage-by-lawyer so easy.  Personally, I think that
if the rifkins file the same lawsuit that was thrown out of court
before, they should be found in contempt of court and tossed in the
slammer, and the lawyers involved permanently disbarred.  (That's a
major part of their tactics; just keep filing the same bloody lawsuit,
over and over and over again.)
--
Mike Van Pelt   Headland Technology/Video 7 ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
There are  no perfect  power sources.   There is no  such thing as
100% perfect safety.  There is no such thing as zero environmental
impact  short  of the entire human race committing  mass  suicide.

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #395
*******************