Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_0/V12_052.TXT

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
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/0ab12AC00VcJAIoU5y>;
          Thu, 12 Jul 1990 01:54:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 1990 01:53:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #52

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 12 : Issue 52

Today's Topics:
               Astronomy & HST
                   Re: HST
              Re: Space Weaponry
           Technology Transfer Mailing List
              Re: HST and KH 9s
         Free Space Station - spacious but needs work
            Re: Investing in NASA
           Correction (was Re: NASA Budget)
                Re: Titan HLV
             Re: Bush Approves Cape York

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 16:44:35 GMT
From: unmvax!ariel.unm.edu!hydra.unm.edu![e-mail]  (Eric Jaderlund)
Subject: Astronomy & HST

To all those who are convinced that no useful science will come from the
HST I would like to present my favorite definition of Astronomy.

 Astronomy:  The art of creating meaningful results from marginal data.

Now don't get me wrong, HST's problems are unforgivable and the whole mess
needs to be seriously evaluated.  But now that our lot is cast astronomers
will once again squeeze the data for all it's worth and don't be surprized if
some very good science results.  From an observers point of view our data just
got a lot more marginal :-<  it's kinda like having a 3+ year haze over your
observatory.  You just do the best with what you got.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Jaderlund                            "If I got all the 2 cents from
Univ. of New Mexico                        everyone's 2 cents worth, I'd
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy             build my own space telescope."
[e-mail]                                                 -Me
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 18:59:25 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: HST


Marc Arlen writes:
>From: [e-mail]
>Date:     Tue, 10 Jul 90  10:46:55 EDT
>Subject:  Re:  SPACE Digest V12 #38

>> >And another thing, HST has not failed!!!!!!!!  I am tired of hearing
>> >this.  We have every reason to beleive in the end most if not all
>> >of the science will be done.
>And I am tired of the people who keep defending the HST, and protecting
>whoever is responsible for what happened (just what did happen? did any-
>thing actually happen?). The HST was supposed to provide VISUAL images
>of the universe of a kind, and at a resolution of detail, never before
>seen by man on Earth. NOBODY on the ground really gives a damn about
>all of the esoteric science that is going to get done (is it realy going
>to get done? can the instruments really make use of sloppy, fuzzy, shaky
>images?).

It is my understanding that the system as presently configured can provide
visual images better than most or all of those available from current
ground-based optical telescopes. It is obviously short of the design goal.
It does appear that a complete fix (compensating instrument optics) will
be possible.

>And now they're trying to sell the idea that the Hubble "might" get
>fixed in mid-1993, or if that "don't get it" then in 1996. Does anybody
>at the Hubble-bubble really expect the american "live-for-the-micro-
>second public to sit still and wait three or even six years for the fix
>to go up. It is to laugh.

If you have access to cable or satellite TV, you should watch NASA Select
or CSPAN - your information is at least several days out of date. The NASA
people in this week's Senate Space Subcommittee meeting said that they are
confident that instrument replacement can be accomplished by 1993 (assuming
the shuttle is still in use), and they are hopeful that the process can be
accelerated. One statement was that replacement within 1.5 years is at
least conceivable.
             John Roberts
             [e-mail]

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

Date:     Wed, 11 Jul 1990 10:30 EDT
From: SIMMONS DONALD F  <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Space Weaponry
To: <[e-mail]>


wshb![e-mail] ( WSHB employee) writes:

>   Why are lasers and similar weapons the preferred armament of
> most space vessels?  Why not solid-projectile-type weapons?  Is
> there some simple physics involved here?
>   A few years ago I watched a SF movie where a spaceship cruising
> at just under the speed of light fired nuclear missiles at it's
> enemy.....what would happen to the ship firing these solid missiles?

     There is no physical problem with using solid projectiles as weapons
in space. In fact, a chunk of metal moving at near lightspeed should
produce a sizable crater if it hit a planet, let alone another ship. Try
that with a laser beam. Also, moving at near lightspeed, such a projectile
would be undectected by any conventional speed-of-light scanning system
until it was right on top of you, too late to do anything about it. The
only real problem would be putting enough energy into your coilgun or
whatever to fire a projectile at such speeds. You would need one hell of
a power source on your spacecraft. Better to make it some sort of ground
defence. (Yeah, put it on the moon and spray lightspeed-ball bearings in
the proper directions, that'll smash anything!)
     Lasers are used the most in TV and movies simply because they are more
dramatic, and 99% of the viewing public wouldn't understand why spaceships
are using something as primative as missiles. I have read several serious
SF novels where projectiles are the preferred choice of weapons (as opposed
to 'space-opera' novels).

Donald Simmons    27000@AECLCR

"With mystical divinity of unashamed felinity, round the cathedral cry 'Viva!',
life to the everlasting cat." - Cats

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 20:01:20 GMT
From: sei![e-mail]  (Bill Hefley)
Subject: Technology Transfer Mailing List

The Technology Applications group of the Software Engineering Institute is
pleased to announce the creation of a new electronic mailing list:
technology-transfer-list.  This mailing list, focused on technology transfer
and related topics, is intended to foster discussion among researchers and
practitioners from government and industry who are working on technology
transfer and innovation.

Relevant topics include:

-- organizational issues (structural and behavioral)

-- techno-economic issues

-- business and legal issues, such as patents, licensing, copyright, and
   commercialization

-- technology transfer policy

-- technology maturation to support technology transition

-- lessons learned

-- domestic and international technology transfer

-- transition of technology from R&D to practice

-- planning for technology transition

-- models of technology transfer

-- studies regarding any of these topics

To request to be added to or dropped from the list, please send mail to:

        [e-mail]

Please include the words "ADD" or "REMOVE" in your subject line.

The technology-transfer-list is currently not moderated, but may be
moderated or digested in the future if the volume of submissions warrants.
The electronic mail address for submissions is:

        [e-mail]

Other administrative matters or questions should also be addressed to:

        [e-mail]

The SEI is pleased to provide the facilities to make this mailing list
possible.  The technology-transfer-list is the result of two SEI activities:

-- transitioning technology to improve the general practice of software
   engineering

-- collaborating with the Computer Resource Management Technology program
   of the U.S. Air Force to transition technology into Air Force practice

The SEI is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by
the U.S. Department of Defense under contract to Carnegie Mellon University.

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 20:22:03 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: HST and KH 9s

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian or James) writes:
>
>    Someone [I cunningly can't recall *who*] mentioned that
>the Hubble bears some similarity to the KH 9 satellites.

A couple of folks, actually.

>How expensive would it be to adapt the KH 9 design for use as a
>orbiting telescope, to be used for astronomy rather than recon?

What a brilliant idea. I wonder why this wasn't tried before we built
Hubble. Hummmm. Might have been interesting. Probably would have been less
than $1.5 billion. I wonder if the Air Force has spares laying around for
recycling. I bet they *do*...time to put this in the "Brilliant Ideas
For NASA" list via RAND.

>Are the differences between the criteria for a recon satellite
>and an astronomical telescope so great that whoever it is that
>makes the KH satellites would not be a reasonable source for
>future orbiting telescopes?

Well, specs on Hubble were MUCH tighter than on the KH-9 series. And the
KH-9 series has been phased out by New, Improved Recon Sats.

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 21:11:05 GMT
From: sam.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]  (Vincent Cate)
Subject: Free Space Station - spacious but needs work

ET:   in orbit, unfurnished, needs a door, no utility
      hookups available, life support not included


Todays New York Times had an article about how the maintenance
for the space station was going to be much higher than even the
recent higher estimate.  There is so much work to do that the
current design is out of the question.  The maintenance problems
seem to be due to micrometeors, the extreme high/low temperatures,
and radiation in general.

If external tanks were used as shells for the space station modules
these problems would be solved.  The ET walls must be fairly
thick because the fuel is rather heavy at launch (3 inches thick?).
Thus the ET should do a good job of providing thermal insulation and
protecting against radiation or micrometeors!

It has two airtight compartments (hydrogen tank and oxygen tank)
that could be made into living quarters.  The overall
tank is about 30 feet in diameter and something like 150 feet long.
This is really huge for something in orbit (like 60 small rooms).

While currently the external tank does not go into orbit it would
actually take less fuel if they did put the external tank in orbit.
They currently get to orbital speed and then do an extra maneuver to
send the ET back down.  The tank weighs about 60,000 lbs.
At a price of $5,000/lb to bring things into orbit it would cost
about $300,000,000 to put that much mass into orbit.  We can get
one for free every time the space shuttle launches!  If the tank
is wanted in orbit then the space shuttle becomes much more attractive
as a launch vehicle (twice the billable payload per launch)!

The idea of using the external tank as a space station platform
has been around for a long time (I first heard it at a talk at NASA
Ames about 9 years ago).  Does anyone know why this idea (which seems
so fantastic) has not been incorporated into the station design?


  -- Vince

PS  Maybe if lots of us call NASA and tell them about this idea
    (like many votes) they will really think about it.
    NASA outreach: packets 1-800-677-7796, other 1-800-843-9620

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

Date: 12 Jul 90 01:07:31 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!wyse!vsi1!hsv3![e-mail]  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Investing in NASA

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Anderman) writes:
>>If investing NASA is not a good idea, where should we invest?

>Orbital Sciences and Hercules would be a good place... :-)

Yep... I put some of my IRA money into OSC stock at 20 1/4.
Unfortunately, they must have heard that I'd bought some,
because it instantly plummeted to (as of today) 15 3/4.  :-(
--
...Defending the truth...is not something one   |  Mike Van Pelt
does out of a sense of duty or to allay guilt   |  Headland Technology/Video 7
complexes, but it is a reward in itself.        |  ..ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
                  --  Dr. Petr Beckmann

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 16:04:40 GMT
From: ox.com!itivax!vax3.iti.org![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Correction (was Re: NASA Budget)

The information I have been posting on the Heavy Lift Titan is incorrect.
The numbers are basically correct but the proposal is from McDonell Douglas
for a Heavy Lift Delta and not from Martin Marrietta. I am told that Martin's
Heavy Lift Titan proposal is similar but may still be classified.

Also, the pricing and payloads are somewhat different. The details are:

Launch        Price (in millions)    Payload (in tons)
  1.          $500                     40
  2.          $250                     70
  3-17        $150                     70

This makes it look even better. The unmanned version carries almost three
times as much as the Shuttle for half the price. A manned version should
be able to carry more than the Shuttle for half the price.

   Allen
|                          |      In War: Resolution                      |
| Allen W. Sherzer         |      In Defeat: Defiance                     |
|   [e-mail]            |      In Victory: Magnanimity                 |
|                          |      In Peace: Good Will                     |

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 19:03:41 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (SERRE GLENN)
Subject: Re: Titan HLV

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel McGurl) writes:
>
>Just how optimistic is it?  I seem to recall that Pegasus went from development
>...
>At any rate, 3 years may be optimistic, but maybe not as much as you may
>think.  Pegasus has a design fairly different from any commercial rocket

Recall that Martin is one of those big, calcified Aerospace Corporations.
Also note that the facility mods for LC-40 and the new TIV SRM assembly
building are PLANNED to take more than three years.

I certainly agree that it wouldn't be unreasonable if OSC or some
small company were the contractor.

--Glenn Serre
[e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Jul 90 18:10:59 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: Bush Approves Cape York

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lawrie Brown) writes:

>>    And there is always unease thinking about the sparse population
>>of northern Australia and the explosive population of Indonesia not far off
>>the northern coast....

>        Standard military paranoia - noone else bothers much with that. If
>you've ever really SEEN northern australia you'd know why. It makes
                    ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
>your Death Valley look like a positive paradise!
      ^^^^^ ^^^^^^

Having lived near one or the other for most of my life and visiting
both I would disagree with the above statement.  Given a choice I'd
choose Northern Australia over Death Valley.  As far as population
bases go though there is no part of the U.S. (except for perhaps a few
military ranges here in the west) that approaches Northern Australia's
sparseness.  A pretty good place for a launch site from a range safety
consideration, IMHO.

Another opinion...

--
Albion H. Bowers  [e-mail]  ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!bowers

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #52
*******************